What New Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense Rules May Look Like

President Trump is fond of negotiating, as can be evidenced through his long business career and many promises to renegotiate a whole host of international agreements. Federal higher education policy is also fond of negotiation, thanks to a process called negotiated rulemaking that brings a range of stakeholders together for an arduous series of negotiations regarding key changes to federal policies. Notably, if stakeholders do not come to an agreement, the Department of Education can write its own rules—something that the Obama administration did on multiple occasions. (For more on the nitty-gritty of negotiated rulemaking, I highly recommend Rebecca Natow’s new book on the topic.)

In a long-expected announcement, the Department of Education announced Wednesday morning that it would be renegotiating two key higher education regulations (gainful employment and borrower defense to repayment) that were initially negotiated during the Obama administration, with the first meetings beginning next month. To get an idea of how expected these announcements were, here are the stock prices for Adtalem (DeVry) and Capella right after the announcement (which began to break around 11:30 AM ET). Note the fairly small movement in share prices, suggesting that changes were baked into stock prices pretty well.

It is extremely likely that the negotiated rulemaking committees won’t be able to come to an agreement (again), so the new rules will reflect the Trump administration’s higher education priorities. Here is my take on what the two rules might look like.

Gainful Employment

The Obama administration first announced its intention to tie federal financial aid eligibility for select vocational programs (disproportionately at for-profit colleges) in 2009 and entered negotiated rulemaking in 2009-10. The first rules, released in 2011, were struck down in 2012 due a lack of a “reasoned basis” for the criteria used. The second attempt entered negotiated rulemaking in 2013, survived legal challenges in 2015, and began to take effect with the first data release in early 2017. Nearly all of the programs that failed in the first year were at for-profit colleges, but this also led to Harvard shutting down a failing graduate theater program. No colleges have lost aid eligibility yet, as two failing years are required before a college is at risk of losing funds.

The Trump administration is likely to take one of three paths in changing gainful employment regulations:

Path 1: Expand the rules to cover everyone. One of the common critiques against the current regulations is that they only cover nondegree programs at nonprofit colleges in addition to nearly all programs at for-profit colleges. For example, doctoral programs in education at Capella University are covered by gainful employment, while my program at Seton Hall University is not. Requiring all programs to be covered by gainful employment would both preserve the goals of the original regulations while silencing some of the concerns. But this would face intense pressure from colleges that are not currently covered (particularly private nonprofits).

Path 2: Restrict the rules to cover only the most at-risk programs. It is possible that gainful employment metrics could be used along other risk factors (such as heightened cash monitoring status or high student loan default rates) to determine federal loan eligibility. If written a certain way, this would free nearly all programs from the rules without completely unwinding the regulations.

Path 3: Make the rates for informational purposes instead of accountability purposes. This is the most likely outcome in my view. The Trump administration can provide useful consumer information without tying federal funds (a difficult thing to actually do, anyway). In this case, I could see all programs being included since the data will be somewhat lower-stakes.

Borrower Defense to Repayment

Unlike gainful employment, borrower defense to repayment regulations were set to affect for-profit and nonprofit colleges relatively equally. Here is what I wrote back in October about the regulations when they were announced.

These wide-ranging regulations, which will take effect on July 1, 2017 (a summary is available here) allow individuals with student loans to get relief if there is a breach of contract or court decision affecting that college or if there is “a substantial misrepresentation by the school about the nature of the educational program, the nature of financial changes, or the employability of graduates.” The language regarding “substantial misrepresentation” could have the largest impact for both for-profit and nonprofit colleges, as students will have six years to bring lawsuits if loans are made after July 1, 2017.

These regulations have been halted and will not take effect until a new round of negotiated rulemaking takes place. They were generally unpopular among colleges, as evidenced by a strong lobbying effort from historically black colleges that were worried about the vague definition of “misrepresentation.” The outcome of this negotiated rulemaking session is likely to be a significant rollback of the scope to cover only the most egregious examples of fraud.

Although these two sets of negotiated rulemaking sessions are likely to mainly be for show due to the Department of Education’s final ability to write rules when the committee deadlocks, they will provide insight into how various portions of the higher education community view the federal role in accountability under the Trump administration. The Department of Education doesn’t livestream these meetings (a real shame), but I’ll be following along on Twitter with great interest. Pass the popcorn, please?

Highlights from the Gainful Employment Data Release

In one of the Obama administration’s final education policy actions, the U.S. Department of Education released a long-awaited dataset of earnings and debt burdens under the gainful employment accountability regulations. These regulations, which survived several legal challenges from the for-profit college sector, require programs that are defined to be vocationally-oriented in nature (the majority of programs at for-profit colleges and a small subset of nondegree programs at public and private nonprofit colleges) to meet one of two debt-to-earnings metrics in order to continue receiving federal financial aid.

Option 1 (annual earnings): The average student loan payment of graduates in a program must be less than 8% of either mean or median earnings in order to pass. Payments between 8% and 12% of income puts programs “in the zone,” while payments above 12% of income result in a failure.

Option 2 (discretionary income): The average student loan payment of graduates in a program must be less than 20% of discretionary income (earnings above 150% of the federal poverty line) in order to pass. Payments between 20% and 30% of discretionary income puts programs “in the zone,” while payments above 30% of discretionary income result in a failure.

Any colleges that fail both metrics twice in a three-year period (using both mean and median earnings) or colleges in the oversight zone for four consecutive years are currently at risk of losing access to federal financial aid. However, both the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans have expressed interest in scrapping this accountability metric, meaning that colleges may not actually face sanctions in the future.

This data release covered 8,637 programs at 2,616 colleges, with about two-thirds of these programs being at for-profit institutions. Overall, 803 programs (9.3%) failed and 1,239 programs (14.4%) were in the oversight zone, with the remaining 76% of programs passing. As shown below, there were large differences in the pass rates by type of institution (note: the incorrect headers on the original post have been fixed). No public colleges failed (likely due to lower tuition levels because of state and local subsidies), and failure rates in the private nonprofit sector were also fairly low. Yet Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Southern California all had one program fail—leaving these prestigious institutions with some egg on their face. (UPDATE: Harvard suspended admissions for their graduate program in theater that failed gainful employment within one week of the data release.)

Distribution of gainful employment scores by sector and level.
Percentage of programs
Sector Fail Zone Pass N
Public, <2 year 0.0 0.7 99.3 293
Public, 2-3 year 0.0 0.3 99.7 1,898
Public, 4+ year 0.0 0.3 99.7 302
Private nonprofit, <2 year 0.0 10.3 89.7 78
Private nonprofit, 2-3 year 3.5 22.0 74.6 173
Private nonprofit, 4+ year 4.7 9.0 86.3 212
For-profit, <2 year 4.4 19.7 76.0 1,460
For-profit, 2-3 year 11.5 20.1 68.4 2,042
For-profit, 4+  year 22.5 21.4 56.1 2,174
Total 9.3 14.4 76.4 8,637
Source: U.S. Department of Education.
Notes:
(1) Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
(2) The “total” row excludes five foreign colleges.

 

For-profit colleges that only offer shorter programs (primarily certificates) did pretty well in the gainful employment metrics, with only 4% failing and 20% in the oversight zone. The worst outcomes were by far among four-year for-profit colleges, with 23% failing and 21% in the oversight zone. These poorer outcomes are not being driven by the large for-profit chains. DeVry, Kaplan, Strayer, and Phoenix combined to have just 16 programs fail, while four colleges (Vaterott, Sanford-Brown, the Art Institute of Phoenix, and Virginia College) all had at least 19 programs fail.

I then examined how the different sectors of colleges performed on the debt-to-earnings ratios for both annual income and discretionary income, with the distributions of ratios shown on the charts below. (Red vertical lines represent the cutoffs for being in the oversight zone (left) and failing (right).) These graphs confirm that public colleges have the lowest debt-to-earnings ratios, followed by private nonprofit colleges and for-profit colleges.

gainful_annual_jan17

gainful_disc_jan17

There are three important drawbacks of this data release that are worth emphasizing. First, 133 programs, all at for-profit colleges, are still in the process of appealing their classification (67 that failed and 66 that are in the oversight zone). Second, this only includes a small subset of programs at public and private nonprofit colleges even as similar programs are covered at for-profit colleges. For example, for-profit law schools are included in the gainful employment regulations (and the outcomes aren’t always great). But law programs at nonprofit law schools aren’t covered by the regulations, even though the goal at the end of the program is similar and many colleges expect their law schools to generate excess revenue for their university. Third, by only covering people who completed a program, colleges with low completion rates may look good even if the quality of education induces students to leave the program in disgust.

Regardless of whether federal financial aid dollars are tied to graduates’ debt-to-earnings ratios, it is important to make more program-level outcome data available to students, their families, and the general public. There have been discussions about including program-level data in the College Scorecard, but that is far from a certainty at this point. At the very least, the incoming Trump administration should propose making comparable earnings and debt available for vocationally-focused degree programs at public and private nonprofit colleges.

Five Higher Education Suggestions for President-Elect Trump

It’s pretty safe to say that Donald Trump wasn’t the candidate of choice for much of American higher education. Hillary Clinton received nearly 100 times as much in donations from academics as Trump, and the list of academics supporting Trump doesn’t have a lot of well-known names. But the typical American saw the election in a far different way than your average New York Times reader (as evidenced by the big divide in support by educational attainment), and Trump is now the president-elect after a stunning victory.

Here are my recommendations for Trump in the realm of higher education policy as he prepares to move from Trump Tower to the White House in just over two months.

(1) The Department of Education won’t go away, but certain functions could be reassigned. Although the Republicans kept control of the House and Senate, the margins are razor-thin—perhaps a four-vote margin in the Senate and a tenuous grip on the House thanks to divides between establishment and activist Republicans. This makes getting rid of the Department of Education extremely unlikely. Some functions, such as handling student loans, could go to the Department of the Treasury. Others could possibly go to states in the form of block grants. Yet there will still be a need for some administration in Washington to handle basic functions.

(2) Reach out to career staff members at the Department of Education. Trump ran on the concept of “draining the swamp,” but replacing longtime Washington staffers all at once comes at a risk. Career staff members who have served in multiple administrations have knowledge about how programs work that is difficult to replace, so it is essential to keep some of those staff members to help ensure a smooth transition across administrations. Will longtime staffers want to work for Trump? It’s anyone’s guess, but Trump’s transition team should make a good-faith effort to reach out.

(3) Make Higher Education Act reauthorization a priority. With unified (but tenuous) Republican control, Higher Education Act reauthorization suddenly looks more plausible than it did last week. A Trump administration should focus on the HEA in an effort to govern through the legislative branch rather than using executive orders and administrative rules—policies that conservatives have despised. 2017 reauthorization is probably unlikely given the administration’s other priorities, but 2018 or 2019 could work.

(4) Make more higher education data available to the public. The Obama administration made some good strides in the area of consumer information, culminating in the College Scorecard. Yet they also didn’t make data on a range of outcomes (such as PLUS loan default rates or program-level data) available to either the public or researchers. I signed onto a letter along with over 100 researchers last month calling for the Department of Education to release additional data on the federal student loan portfolio, and the Trump administration should release the data. Even if Trump wants to back down in terms of high-stakes accountability, consumer information is important.

(5) Visit a number of colleges across the higher education spectrum. Like most presidents, Trump is a product of high-prestige colleges (attending Fordham and Penn). I’d love to see him experience the great diversity of American higher education, including rural community colleges, HBCUs, technical institutes, and the workhorse regional public university sector. I hope that some colleges extend invitations to Trump—and that he accepts them.

Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations: The Obama Administration’s Greatest Higher Education Legacy?

President Obama famously said in 2014 that “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Although he has used his pen to sign some substantial changes in federal higher education policy (such as ending the bank-based student loan program in favor of federal Direct Loans), his pen has been used more frequently to authorize the Department of Education to start implementing new regulations without going through Congress. The regulatory process has been used to expand income-driven repayment programs, implement gainful employment rules for students in select vocationally-oriented programs, and tie federal TEACH grants to some measure of teachers’ effectiveness. These efforts have been generally opposed by congressional Republicans, which have held a majority in at least one chamber of Congress since 2011.

But from the perspective of colleges, the newest set of regulations may end up being the most influential. The Department of Education recently unveiled the final regulations known as “borrower defense to repayment” in a response to concerns about colleges defrauding students or suddenly closing their doors. These wide-ranging regulations, which will take effect on July 1, 2017 (a summary is available here) allow individuals with student loans to get relief if there is a breach of contract or court decision affecting that college or if there is “a substantial misrepresentation by the school about the nature of the educational program, the nature of financial changes, or the employability of graduates.”

The language regarding “substantial misrepresentation” could have the largest impact for both for-profit and nonprofit colleges, as students will have six years to bring lawsuits if loans are made after July 1, 2017. Notably, this language treats intentional misrepresentation and honest errors in the same way, and also does not define what “substantial” is. For example, if a student enrolls in a program with a posted job placement rate of 98% and later finds out that college administrators e-mailed each other about how to hide a 48% placement rate, most courts would probably consider this to be substantial misrepresentation. But what if a well-meaning person accidentally transposed an 89% placement rate to get 98%? These errors do happen in data submitted to the federal government, and currently there is no penalty for this type of mistake.

As some have warned, the ambiguity of the language will likely open up the door for more lawsuits against colleges with a wide range of misrepresentations—particularly as the regulations allow for class-action lawsuits that colleges could previously restrict. Courts across the country vary considerably in their friendliness toward plaintiffs relative to defendants, meaning that colleges located in more plaintiff-friendly states such as California and Illinois may be more at risk of lawsuits than colleges in defendant-friendly states such as Delaware and Iowa. But even if a college can prevail in a lawsuit, it still has to pay its legal fees and also may be subject to bad publicity.

Although these new regulations are a clear and needed victory for students who attended undeniably fraudulent colleges, the ripple effects regarding the definition of “substantial” misrepresentation could affect a broad group of well-intending nonprofit colleges that either made honest mistakes or happened across a sympathetic judge or jury. Eventually, a series of court cases—perhaps in conjunction with additional federal guidance—should help settle the legal landscape, but in the meantime colleges will be watching these regulations with a great deal of anxiety.

Clinton and Trump Proposals on Student Debt Explained

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The high price of attending college has been among the key issues concerning voters in the 2016 presidential election. Both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump have called the nearly US$1.3 trillion in student debt a “crisis.” During the third presidential debate on Oct. 19, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton raised the issue all over again when she said,

“I want to make college debt-free. For families making less than $125,000, you will not get a tuition bill from a public college or a university if the plan that I worked on with Bernie Sanders is enacted.”

Republican nominee Donald Trump has also expressed concerns about college affordability. In a recent campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio, Trump provided a broad framework of his plan for higher education should he be elected president.

In a six-minute segment devoted solely to higher education, Trump proceeded to call student debt a “crisis” – matching Clinton’s language. He also called for colleges to curb rising administrative costs, spend their endowments on making college more affordable and protect students’ academic freedom.

The highlight of Trump’s speech was his proposal to create an income-based repayment system for federal student loans. Under his proposal, students would pay back 12.5 percent of their income for 15 years after leaving college. This is more generous than the typical income-based plan available today (which requires paying 10 percent of income for 20 to 25 years). The remaining balance of the loan is forgiven after that period, although this amount is subject to income taxes.

As a researcher of higher education finance, I question whether these proposals on student debt will benefit a significant number of the over 10 million college-going voters struggling to repay loans.

How student loan interest rates work

Typically, students pay interest rates set by Congress and the president on their federal student loans.

Over the last decade, interest rates for undergraduate students have fluctuated between 3.4 percent and 6.8 percent. Rates for federal PLUS loans have ranged from 6.3 percent to 8.5 percent. Federal PLUS loans require a credit check and are often cosigned by a parent or spouse. Federal student loans do not have those requirements.

While students pay this high a rate of interest, rates on 15-year mortgages are currently below three percent.

It is also important to note the role of private loan companies that have recently entered this market. In the last several years, private companies such as CommonBond, Earnest and SoFi as well as traditional banks have offered to refinance select students’ loans at interest rates that range from two percent to eight percent based on a student’s earnings and their credit history.

However, unlike federal loans (which are available to nearly everyone attending colleges participating in the federal financial aid programs), private companies limit refinancing to students who have already graduated from college, have a job and earn a high income relative to the monthly loan payments.

Analysts have estimated that $150 billion of the federal government’s $1.25 trillion student loan portfolio – or more than 10 percent of all loan dollars – is likely eligible for refinancing through the private market.

Many Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have pushed for years, for all students to receive lower interest rates on their federal loans. In the past Republican nominee Donald Trump too has questioned why the federal government profits on student loans – although whether the government actually profits is less clear.

Issues with refinancing of loans

The truth is that students with the most debt are typically college graduates and are the least likely to struggle to repay their loans. In addition, they can often refinance through the private market at rates comparable to what the federal government would offer.

Struggling borrowers, on the other hand, already have a range of income-driven repayment options through the federal government that can help them manage their loans. Some of their loans could also be forgiven after 10 to 25 years of payments.

Furthermore, the majority of the growth in federal student loans is now in income-driven plans, making refinancing far less beneficial than it would have been 10 years ago. Under income-driven plans, monthly payments are not tied to interest rates.

So, on the face of it, as Clinton has proposed, allowing students to refinance federal loans would appear to be beneficial. But, in reality, because of the growth of private refinancing for higher-income students and the availability of income-driven plans for lower-income students, relatively few students would likely benefit.

Focus needed on most in need students

In my view, Clinton’s idea of allowing students to refinance their loans at lower rates through the federal government is unlikely to benefit that many students. However, streamlining income-based repayment programs (supported by both candidates) has the potential to help struggling students get help in managing their loans.

Nearly 60 percent of students who were enrolled in income-driven repayment plans fail to file the annual paperwork. That paperwork is necessary if students are to stay in those programs. And failure to do so results in many students facing higher monthly payments.

At this stage, we know many details of Clinton’s college plan. Her debt-free public college proposal (if enacted) would benefit families in financial need, but her loan refinancing proposal would primarily benefit more affluent individuals with higher levels of student debt.

In order to access Trump’s plan we need more details. For example, the current income-based repayment system exempts income below 150 percent of the poverty line (about $18,000 for a single borrower) and allows students working in public service fields to get complete forgiveness after ten years of payments. The extent to which Trump’s plan helps struggling borrowers depends on these important details.

The Conversation

Do Presidential Debates Increase Student Applications?

Tonight is the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election season, and this clash between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump could top 100 million viewers. (I won’t be one of them, as I’m teaching tonight.) The host site, Hofstra University, is actually the second choice—as Wright State University pulled out over the high price tag this summer. Hofstra is paying about $5 million to host the debate, with the costs generally covered through three donors.

Hosting a presidential debate is undoubtedly a great public relations opportunity for a university, similar to making a big run in the NCAA basketball tournament or making a big football bowl game. Some research has shown that big-time athletics success is associated with increased student applications in the following year, so the media circus following a presidential debate (Hofstra is trending on Twitter as I write this post) could have similar results.

Hofstra also hosted a presidential debate in 2012, so I looked at what happened to the number of applications they received before and after the debate compared to their defined group of peer institutions. The data are below:

Name 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Pct increase, 2012-13 to 2013-14
Adelphi University 8278 9184 8654 -5.8%
American University 18706 17039 17545 3.0%
Boston University 38275 41802 44006 5.3%
Drexel University 48450 40586 43945 8.3%
Fordham University 31792 34070 36189 6.2%
George Washington University 21433 21591 21756 0.8%
Hofstra University 18909 21376 22733 6.3%
Ithaca College 13436 13813 15658 13.4%
LIU Post 7369 7209 6001 -16.8%
Marist College 11399 11466 10351 -9.7%
New York University 41243 42807 45779 6.9%
Northeastern University 43255 44208 47364 7.1%
Pace University-New York 10623 11778 12885 9.4%
Quinnipiac University 18651 18825 20699 10.0%
Seton Hall University 6436 10180 10735 5.5%
St John’s University-New York 54871 52972 51634 -2.5%
Syracuse University 25884 25790 28269 9.6%

 

Hofstra did see a 6.3% increase in applications between 2012-13 and 2013-14, compared to a 4.6% increase across its peer institutions. But other peers, such as Ithaca, Quinnipiac, Syracuse, and Pace saw even larger increases. So it appears that the debate brought plenty of pride to Hofstra, but there was not an unusual jump in applications after the debate aired.

Clinton’s New College Compact Plan Explained

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Ahead of the Democratic National Convention – on July 5 – Hillary Clinton announced a set of new proposals on higher education. Key measures included eliminating college tuition for families with annual incomes under US$125,000 and a three-month moratorium on federal student loan payments.

Clinton’s original plan had called for the federal government and states to fund public colleges so students wouldn’t have to borrow to cover tuition if they worked at least 10 hours per week.

The revised higher education plan represents a clear leftward shift and is likely an effort to solidify her support among still-skeptical young supporters of Bernie Sanders.

As a researcher of higher education finance, my question is whether these proposals, estimated to cost $450 billion over the next 10 years, will benefit enough of the over 10 million college-going voters struggling to repay loans.

How student loan interest rates work

Typically, students pay interest rates set by Congress and the president on their federal student loans.

Over the last decade, interest rates for undergraduate students have fluctuated between 3.4 percent and 6.8 percent. Rates for federal PLUS loans have ranged from 6.3 percent to 8.5 percent. Federal PLUS loans require a credit check and are often cosigned by a parent or spouse. Federal student loans do not have those requirements.

While students pay this high a rate of interest, rates on 15-year mortgages are currently below three percent.

Several private companies have entered the student loan market.
Application form image via www.shutterstock.com

It is also important to note the role of private loan companies that have recently entered this market. In the last several years, private companies such as CommonBond, Earnest and SoFi as well as traditional banks have offered to refinance select students’ loans at interest rates that range from two percent to eight percent based on a student’s earnings and their credit history.

However, unlike federal loans (which are available to nearly everyone attending colleges participating in the federal financial aid programs), private companies limit refinancing to students who have already graduated from college, have a job and earn a high income relative to the monthly loan payments.

Analysts have estimated that $150 billion of the federal government’s $1.25 trillion student loan portfolio – or more than 10 percent of all loan dollars – is likely eligible for refinancing through the private market – much of it likely for graduate school.

Many Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have pushed for all students to receive lower interest rates on their federal loans for years. Republican nominee Donald Trump too has questioned why the federal government profits on student loans – although whether the government actually profits is less clear.

Issues with refinancing of loans

Interest rates on student loans were far higher five to 10 years ago (ranging from 6.8 percent to 8.5 percent based on the type of loan). Allowing students to refinance at current rates ranging from 3.76 percent to 6.31 percent would mean that some students could possibly lower their monthly payments.

But the question is, how many students will benefit from the refinance?

Struggling borrowers are likely the ones with least debt.
Robert Galbraith/Reuters

Students with the most debt are typically college graduates and are the least likely to struggle to repay their loans. In addition, they can often refinance through the private market at rates comparable to what the federal government would offer.

Struggling borrowers, on the other hand, already have a range of income-driven repayment options through the federal government that can help them manage their loans. Some of their loans could also be forgiven after 10 to 25 years of payments.

Furthermore, the majority of the growth in federal student loans is now in income-driven plans, making refinancing far less beneficial than it would have been 10 years ago. Under income-driven plans, monthly payments are not tied to interest rates.

So, on the face of it, allowing students to refinance federal loans would appear to be beneficial. But, in reality, because of the growth of private refinancing for higher-income students and the availability of income-driven plans for lower-income students, relatively few students would likely benefit.

Why implementing a moratorium will be hard

On the proposed three-month moratorium, Clinton has said she could proceed on it via executive action as soon as she takes office – potentially making it the most important part of her plan.

During these three months, the Department of Education and companies servicing student loans would reach out to borrowers to help them enroll in income-driven plans that would reduce monthly payments.

So, would a moratorium on student loan payments help struggling borrowers?

The challenge is that reaching out to each and every one of the estimated 41.7 million students with federal student loans in a three-month period would be a Herculean task given the Department of Education’s available resources.

Currently, about one-fifth of the federal government’s student loan portfolio, or $260 billion is in deferment or forbearance, meaning that students are deferring payments until later.

To put this another way, about 3.5 million loans are at least 30 days behind on payments, and eight million loans are in default. This could mean that those students haven’t made a payment in at least a year.

Just trying to contact 3.5 million students in a three-month window would be a difficult proposition, let alone contacting the millions of additional students who are putting off payments until later.

Currently eight million loans are in default.
Andrew Burton/Reuters

There are also other issues that Department of Education staffers and loan servicers must deal with that may be more important than an overall repayment moratorium.

Nearly 60 percent of students who were enrolled in income-driven repayment plans fail to file the annual paperwork. That paperwork is necessary if students are to stay in those programs. And failure to do so results in many students facing higher monthly payments.

Focus needed on most in need students

In my view, Clinton’s proposals of allowing students to refinance their loans at lower rates through the federal government and a three-month moratorium on payments are unlikely to benefit that many students.

Hopefully, the Clinton campaign will focus later versions of the proposal on borrowers most in need of assistance. If not, this could present an opportunity for the Trump campaign to release a coherent higher education agenda.

The Conversation

Proposed Student Finance Regulations May Hamper Small Institutions

This post originally appeared on the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center Chalkboard blog.

In June, the U.S. Department of Education released a 530-page set of proposed regulations on the topic of ‘defense to repayment.’ Although this sounds like an obscure topic (and reading the document is no picnic!), these proposed rules, if adopted, could allow students to be able to have their student loan debt forgiven if colleges misrepresented themselves to students. The Department of Education is currently working through this process for former Corinthian Colleges students, and tens of thousands more students could be eligible under the proposed rules.

Although forgiving student loans has the potential to benefit many financially struggling students, this will likely come at a significant cost to taxpayers. The official cost estimate of the proposed rules is between $199 million and $4.23 billion, which reflects both the number of colleges expected to be subject to the regulations and the large amount of uncertainty in the final number of students affected. To guard taxpayer dollars, the Department of Education is also proposing increasing the number of reasons for which colleges will have to post letters of credit—bonds that the federal government can keep if a college closes in order to compensate former students.

Currently, colleges have to post a letter of credit if they have a low financial responsibility score or if there are serious governance or fraud concerns. But these proposed rules would extend posting letters of credit to private nonprofit and for-profit colleges that have “significant fluctuations” in their Pell Grant and student loan awards, with the definition of “significant” left to the Department of Education to determine. However, on page 358 of the proposed rules, the Department of Education noted that 991 of 3,590 private nonprofit and for-profit colleges had a change in student loan volume of 25% or more between the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic year. I use this 25% change as a guide in this analysis, as well as looking at the changes in dollar values.

I used data from the Office of Federal Student Aid’s Title IV volume reports to look at the number of colleges with large changes in their Pell Grant and student loan awards between 2013-14 and 2014-15, with my sample consisting of 3,575 colleges that received Pell Grant and/or student loan dollars in both years.1 Of these colleges, 1,088 (30%) had at least a 25% change in Pell Grant or student loan dollars during this period. Much of this rate is driven by for-profit colleges, of which 43% saw large changes; just 15% of nonprofit colleges had similar changes.

The tendency of for-profit colleges to have larger percentage changes in both Pell Grant and student loan awards can be seen in the below two charts, with the two red vertical lines representing changes of -25% and 25% between 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is also worth noting that the typical for-profit college saw a sizable decline in both types of aid, while the typical nonprofit college had little to no change in aid. This can be attributed to the rapid decline in enrollment at for-profit colleges over the past several years.

defrepay_fig1

defrepay_fig2

The drawback of using a metric based on the percent change in aid awarded is that very small institutions can have large percentage changes with relatively small dollar changes. The next two charts show that the vast majority of colleges with changes above 25% had relatively small amounts of federal aid in 2013-14. The median college with a change that could subject them to a letter of credit had about $250,000 in Pell Grant revenue or $550,000 in student loan revenue, which explains all of the dots right along the axis in the charts.

defrepay_fig3defrepay_fig4

There were a small number of colleges with both sizable amounts of federal student aid in 2013-14 and large changes between 2013-14 and 2014-15. Ten colleges had more than $10 million in Pell Grants and a 25% change the following year, of which only two (nonprofit Southern New Hampshire University and for-profit United Education Institute) had gains. The eight colleges with large losses in Pell awards were all for-profits, and seven are now closed or under new ownership. The only one that is still open is Fortis College, which saw a 39% drop in Pell awards in just one year.

Colleges with large changes in Pell Grant awards, 2013-14 to 2014-15
Name For-profit? 2013-14 Pell ($mil) 2014-15 change (pct) Now closed?
Southern New Hampshire U. No 31.5 +77.2 No
United Education Institute (UEI) Yes 10.6 50.4 No
Florida Career College Yes 22.7 -25.3 Yes
Sanford-Brown College Yes 13.1 -33.0 Yes
Heald College Yes 66.9 -34.1 Yes
Fortis College Yes 12.6 -38.9 No
Everest University Yes 169.0 -39.8 New owner
Wyotech Yes 10.3 -41.1 New owner
Drake College of Business Yes 12.3 -41.2 Yes
Anthem College Yes 11.8 -91.6 Yes

 

Six colleges with more than $100 million in student loans in 2013-14 had changes of more than 25% in 2014-15, with just one college (for-profit Ultimate Medical Academy) seeing an increase of at least 25%. Of the five colleges with large declines, for-profits Everest University (now under new ownership) and Heald College (now closed) show up again, while nonprofits Loma Linda University, Webster University, and Southern New Hampshire University had large declines. SNHU is particularly interesting, as it saw a 77.2% increase in Pell dollars at the same time it saw a 43% drop in student loan dollars.

Colleges with large changes in student loans, 2013-14 to 2014-15
Name For-profit? 2013-14 loans ($mil) 2014-15 change (pct) Now closed?
Ultimate Medical Academy Yes 100.9 28.7 No
Webster University No 159.4 -36.0 No
Loma Linda University No 143.6 -36.0 No
Southern New Hampshire University No 346.1 -42.7 No
Everest University Yes 317.1 -50.1 New owner
Heald College Yes 150.5 -59.4 Yes

 

If the Department of Education sticks to the percentage change metric for examining which colleges should post letters of credit, the smallest colleges will be disproportionately affected. Meanwhile, the University of Phoenix, which received over $2.6 billion in Pell and loan revenue with declines of between 15% and 20% in both categories, would not face additional scrutiny even though more students would be affected by any changes. And by extension, more taxpayers would be liable in the case of a bailout of these students. As being unable to obtain a letter of credit may cause some colleges to close, the federal government should potentially consider a sliding scale based on a combination of initial enrollment or federal financial aid volume for considering percentage changes in aid received.

1 I was unable to perfectly match the number of colleges the Department of Education had in its analysis using publicly available data from the Office of Federal Student Aid. This likely leads me to slightly understate the number of colleges that could be affected, as the colleges not in my dataset are probably quite small or had stopped participating in federal financial aid programs during the period of analysis.

Why I Support the File Once FAFSA Act

This year will mark the biggest change to the federal financial aid process in quite a few years, with students being able to file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) for the 2017-18 academic year on October 1, 2016 instead of January 1, 2017 using 2015 tax data. This change, known as prior prior year (PPY) or early FAFSA, has the potential to give more students information about their federal financial aid eligibility around when they are applying to colleges. My research on the topic (thanks to the generous support and assistance of my friends at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators) found that most students will see similar Pell Grant awards under PPY than under the current system, which helped alleviate concerns about what PPY would mean for both the federal budget and financial aid offices. However, I remain concerned that colleges will not notify students of institutional aid earlier than under current rules due to concerns about their financial aid budgets.

While prior prior year is a step in the right direction for students and their families, there really isn’t a good reason why many students have to fill out the FAFSA every year. While the U.S. Department of Education claims that it takes the average student 21 minutes to file the FAFSA, this number is undoubtedly higher for students with more complex family situations or students whose parents struggle to navigate the form due to limited English proficiency or the FAFSA’s complicated instructions. As a result, an estimated 10% of Pell-eligible students who remained enrolled in college fail to refile the FAFSA.

In 2013, I wrote a piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education with Sara Goldrick-Rab (now at Temple University) titled “Change FAFSA Now.” In that piece, we argued for one-time FAFSA filing to reduce the burden on both students and the U.S. Department of Education. Today, I am happy to see a piece of legislation called the File Once FAFSA Act of 2016, introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), that would allow dependent Pell Grant-eligible students to file the FAFSA just once as long as they remain dependents. (Students with large changes in family income could get their expected family contribution (EFC) changed by talking with their financial aid office.)

While I am pleased to support the legislation, I would like to see two additional groups of students become eligible for a one-time FAFSA. The first group is those students who file the FAFSA just to receive a federal unsubsidized loan. All students attending participating colleges can receive these loans regardless of financial need, so making students repeatedly file the FAFSA just to get these loans makes little sense. This would be particularly beneficial for graduate students, who can no longer receive any federal subsidized loans.

The second group of students who should become eligible is independent students with dependents of their own. In the 2011-12 academic year, 61% of students in this category had an EFC of zero—reflecting a large amount of financial need. This compares to just 24% of dependent students having a zero EFC. Moreover, in a 2015 article, I showed that over 98% of independent students without dependents who had a zero EFC one year and refiled the FAFSA two years later received a Pell Grant that year. Therefore, extending the one-time FAFSA to this category of students make sense.

The idea of a one-time FAFSA should garner bipartisan support, as evidenced by a similar idea being a part of former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s higher education proposal. I welcome and support Rep. Scott’s proposal as a first step to helping more students whose family circumstances don’t change much while they are in college spend time doing something more productive than completing the FAFSA.

The Tradeoffs of Making Private Student Loan Debt Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

There is an old adage dating back to the 1700s that the two most certain things in life are death and taxes. But for families with certain types of student loans, having to make payments on their loans is another certainty. Students used to be able to discharge educational loans in bankruptcy, but that ability was first restricted in 1976 before being fully eliminated for federal loans by 1998 and private student loans in 2005. The growth of income-driven repayment programs for federal loans reduces the need to discharge these loans in bankruptcy, as payments would instead be zero if a student signs up for this plan and earns below the poverty line.1 But private loans, which are about $10 billion per year, generally do not offer income-based repayment options.

Neal Hutchens of the University of Mississippi and Richard Fossey of the University of Louisiana have an interesting new piece up at The Conversation that argues that private student loan debt should once again be dischargeable in bankruptcy. They contend that more students should be able to meet the “undue hardship” test for paying off private loans, which includes both having low income and making a good-faith effort to repay loans. Senate Democrats, such as Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have pushed for making private loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, and the Obama Administration has expressed interest in the idea.

But making private student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy would likely come with two main drawbacks for borrowers. The first one is that private lenders would significantly increase their standard for creditworthiness, thus rejecting students who need money for college but do not (and their co-signer does not) have outstanding credit. The second one is that interest rates would rise to take into account the increased risk that borrowers do not repay their loans. Currently, the terms on private loans are generally comparable to PLUS loans. If a student gets denied a PLUS loan (or a college doesn’t package a PLUS loan into a student’s financial aid package), the terms on private loans may become so bad that students and parents don’t wish to consider this option—even with the protection that discharging a loan in bankruptcy would offer.

The traditional market for private student loans is at a crossroads right now, with the terms on many types of federal student loans getting much better in recent years while the growing student loan refinancing market and the potential for income share agreements have the potential to threaten traditional lenders’ business models. But in the meantime, advocates for allowing students to discharge private loans in bankruptcy need to carefully consider the tradeoff between protecting some of the most vulnerable students who fall upon hard times and potentially restricting access to needed credit for other students to attend college. Which of these two factors is more important? It’s hard to tell at this time, but both need to be carefully considered by policymakers.

———————————————————————————————————-

1 Parent PLUS loans qualify for a far less generous income-driven repayment plan than all other federal loans, but payments would still be zero if the parent earned below the federal poverty line