logo
Higher ed reform shouldn't punish low-income students

Higher ed reform shouldn't punish low-income students

The Hill10-06-2025
Congress is understandably concerned about the return on federal investment in higher education and the $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt.
But in its rush to fix a system that too often fails low-income students, the Trump administration's 'one big, beautiful bill' would further reduce opportunity and access for those very students and jeopardize the work of colleges and universities doing the most to serve them.
If passed, the bill would enact sweeping changes to federal financial aid and accountability rules. Some of its goals are worthy. Colleges should be transparent about student outcomes. They should be accountable for quality. And no student should graduate, or drop out, with insurmountable debt.
But reducing access to loans for the students who face the steepest barriers to opportunity is not the way to achieve those goals.
One provision of the proposed bill would eliminate subsidized federal loans, which currently prevent interest from accruing while undergraduates are still in school. For students from low-income backgrounds who already borrow more than their wealthier peers, this would significantly increase the cost of a college degree.
Another proposal would cap the amount of aid a student could receive at a national median cost by program, without regard for the individual student's or family's specific economic need.
The legislation would also eliminate PLUS Loans and raise the minimum course load required to receive full Pell Grant aid, even though many working students enroll part-time by necessity, not choice.
Reducing Pell Grant access is counterproductive to lowering student debt. Pell Grant recipients already account for seven of every 10 federal student loan borrowers, and, on average, incur $4,500 more in debt than other non-Pell graduates
Capping graduate student borrowing, especially in health and public service fields, would undercut workforce development just as we face national shortages of nurses, teachers and social workers.
And the bill's 'risk-sharing' proposal, which would penalize colleges when student loans are forgiven, even through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, would shift resources away from need-based aid and student support and discourage institutions from enrolling those most in need.
That includes institutions like the University of Mount Saint Vincent, which I lead. Ours is a small, private, nonprofit university in the Bronx founded in 1847 to educate young women at a time when few others would. Today, we serve students of every background, and more than half are the first in their family to attend college.
More than half of our undergraduates receive Pell Grants. Ninety percent of our graduate students are preparing for public service careers in education, nursing or healthcare. And like many mission-driven colleges, we make enormous investments in financial aid and academic support, precisely because we know what it takes for low-income and first-generation students to thrive.
This bill threatens our ability to invest in students and potential. It would impose a six-figure penalty, rising annually, because we enroll the very students we were founded to serve. That's not accountability. That's a deterrent.
And we are not unique. Hundreds of small, private colleges across the country, many of them religiously affiliated, offer intimate learning environments, close faculty support and flexible programs that enable students to work while pursuing their degrees. These institutions are among the most accessible and most responsive options for students who are otherwise being left behind in higher education.
The better path forward is one that strengthens accountability for all institutions without dismantling the tools that low-income students need to access and afford college in the first place. That means preserving need-based aid, not narrowing it. And it means supporting colleges that produce teachers, nurses and public servants, not penalizing them.
At a time when the U.S. risks falling behind in educational attainment and workforce readiness, we should be doubling down on institutions that help students rise. The question isn't whether reform is needed, but whether we're reforming the right things.
Susan R. Burns, Ph.D., is president of the University of Mount Saint Vincent in the Bronx.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Stepped Up His Attacks on the Fed
Trump Stepped Up His Attacks on the Fed

New York Times

timea few seconds ago

  • New York Times

Trump Stepped Up His Attacks on the Fed

President Trump said today that Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor who has repeatedly voted not to cut interest rates despite his public pressure, should 'resign, now!!!' It was the president's latest push to remake the central bank. Trump cited allegations that Cook had engaged in mortgage fraud by claiming two primary residences in her mortgage applications. That information came from Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who said that his office had investigated Cook and referred the matter to the Justice Department, encouraging a criminal investigation. Pulte, who leveled similar allegations against Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, is the same official who drafted a letter for the president to fire the Fed chair, Jerome Powell. Both Pulte and Trump have repeatedly criticized the Fed for holding interest rates steady. Just last night, Trump called Powell 'a disaster' for not cutting rates. Officials at the central bank have described the decision as an attempt to prevent inflation from spinning out of control. Trump's attacks against the Fed fit a broader pattern wherein the administration uses the instruments of government to target perceived political rivals: At least two large law firms have committed themselves to doing free legal work for the Trump administration in order to avoid punitive executive orders. The president has personally stipulated that universities pay hefty penalties in order to regain their federal funding. The N.S.A.'s chief data scientist, who analyzed Russian election meddling in 2016, was stripped of his security clearance despite an effort by the agency's leader to block the move. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

More than half of U.S. thinks racism is widespread, according to Gallup
More than half of U.S. thinks racism is widespread, according to Gallup

UPI

timea few seconds ago

  • UPI

More than half of U.S. thinks racism is widespread, according to Gallup

A protestor stands in the street in front of Akron City Justice Center in Akron, Ohio, in July 2022 after Akron police fatally shot Jayland Walker, 25, after a short chase amid public unrest with law enforcement. Washington-based Gallup polling results suggest 64% of Americans believe racism is widespread in the United States. File Photo by Aaron Josefczyk/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- New data released Wednesday by Gallup suggests more than half the country believes that racism against Black people is not only alive and well but widespread in the United States. Gallup's newly-released results of 64% nearly tied with its last reading in its 2021 periodic measurements as its highest recorded by the Washington-based firm since 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected to the White House as the nation's first Black president. It's suggesting that 83% of Black adults and 61% of White adults say that racism is widespread. The question was first posed by Gallup experts in 2008, in which results said at the time that only 56% of U.S. adults thought racism was a widespread issues. It saw a reported dip to 51% by the following year. By 2015, its 60% reading came at a time of several high-profile killings of Black civilians at the hands of law enforcement officers and has since remained in that range. According to Gallup, police interactions stood out as the "top" area of unfair treatment toward Black people, with a perceptions of bias in healthcare, shopping, restaurants and workplaces at or near record high returns. Gallup said that non-Hispanic Black adults continue to be "most likely" to say such racism is prevalent in the country, with 83% expressing that view. Results found that smaller majorities of Hispanic respondents at 64% and 61% of non-Hispanic White adults agreed. The findings come from Gallup's survey from June 2-26 and included an oversample to allow for better estimates. "Conversely, Americans' (29%) belief that racism against White people is widespread is the lowest of five readings since 2008," according to Gallup. It added that 68% in its poll say U.S. adults think civil rights "have improved" in their lifetime. "The overall sample was weighted so all racial/ethnic groups are represented in their proper proportions of the U.S. population," according to Gallup officials. But the survey noted how in six of its interactions that dealing with police was seen largely as racially "inequitable." Gallup's results suggests a trend of at least 57% of Americans who believe Black people are treated less fairly than White people in various situations, particularly during traffic incidents that in recent years have been known to turn deadly in multiple states.

Analysis: Republicans subtly plead with Trump: Please don't cave to Putin
Analysis: Republicans subtly plead with Trump: Please don't cave to Putin

CNN

timea few seconds ago

  • CNN

Analysis: Republicans subtly plead with Trump: Please don't cave to Putin

Republican lawmakers have been overwhelmingly complimentary of President Donald Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin and attempting to put the Russian leader in a room with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But as the administration teases at least the theoretical possibility of a peace deal – however unlikely that might actually be – something else has crept into many of these GOP comments: A not-so-subtle fear that Putin might get too much. Numerous Republicans and Trump media allies have in recent days layered their almost perfunctory praise of Trump with notes of caution about what happens next. They've often gently nudged him to be more skeptical of and hard-edged toward Putin than he's been in public. And they've expressly worried that the process could result in a 'win' for Putin – a fear polls show many Americans share. It looks a lot like they're concerned the president who has long treated the Russian leader with kid gloves might give away the store in order to end the war. Perhaps nobody has been as explicit about that as Sen. Thom Tillis. Appearing Wednesday on 'CBS Mornings,' the North Carolina Republican said it was clear Putin is stringing Trump along and warned against 'even a modicum of a win' for the Russian president. 'Putin's provocation is the fear that a former Soviet satellite could become a thriving Western democracy. That will be the beginning of the end of his failed Communist totalitarian experience,' said Tillis, who is not running for reelection next year. 'And giving him even a modicum of a win gives life to his belief that this world should be under totalitarian rule.' Others have been more subtle but also raised big red flags about what Trump might try to give way. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has repeatedly cautioned that any 'land swaps' should only recognize parts of Ukraine as being under Russian control – not actually hand them over to be part of Russia. 'Be very careful about rewarding Putin by giving him title to Ukrainian land through force of arms,' Graham told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, ahead of Trump's meeting with Zelensky and European leaders. He and others have cautioned that doing so could embolden China to try and take Taiwan by force. 'As to land swaps, remember: China is watching,' Graham told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Monday. 'Don't do anything in Ukraine that would entice China to take Taiwan.' Hannity agreed that he 'would rather not reward aggression on the part of Putin.' Fellow Fox News host Mark Levin devoted a lengthy portion of his show the day after the Trump-Putin meeting to describing Russia's territorial ambitions and the failures of past efforts like the Budapest Memorandum to rein them in. He added in a social media post Tuesday after the latest Russian offensive in Ukraine: 'Genocidal maniac Putin cannot control himself.' Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker soon seized on Levin's post to essentially plead with Trump – all while, of course, praising him. 'President @realDonaldTrump, your advocate, Mark Levin, warns that Vladimir Putin is a 'genocidal maniac.' These are wise words from a good friend. Putin lies and kills,' the Mississippi Republican wrote, adding: 'Your leadership will be key to keep Ukraine, U.S., and Europe together against Putin's delays and deceptions.' Sen. Ted Cruz appeared on Fox News on Monday night and predicted Trump will land a peace deal – with a major caveat. 'What I have encouraged President Trump to do is to resolve it in a way that is a clear and discernible loss for Russia and Putin,' the Texas Republican said. 'Russia is not our friend, Putin is not our friend.' Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina has repeatedly praised Trump as seeing through Putin's lies. 'The war criminal, Putin, is misleading the world,' he said on CNN's 'The Lead' on Tuesday. 'But we've got a president who understands. … Gee whiz, what a president we have with Donald Trump.' Wilson added: 'But I agree with what Donald Trump has previously said: He has lovely talks with Putin in the morning and then there are murderous attacks by war criminal Putin in the afternoon.' The idea that Trump sees through Putin's tactics is certainly debatable. It was as if Wilson was painting a picture of the Trump he'd like to see. And perhaps the most critical House Republican has been Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who's not seeking reelection. He said Tuesday that he supported peace negotiations. But then he suggested Trump's odd recent comments about Ukraine being able to make peace were not fortuitous. 'But saying Ukraine can have peace tomorrow if they want is a statement asking them to capitulate to Russia's invasion,' Bacon said. 'We should negotiate with moral clarity knowing Russia started this war with its ruthless invasion. We shouldn't reward barbarity.' These Republicans aren't the only ones who seem to fear Putin getting too much. Polls have suggested many Americans agree. A recent Fox News poll showed Americans said 58%-35% that Putin had the 'upper hand' on Trump ahead of their summit. Large numbers of Americans have long said Trump is too favorable to Putin. And a Gallup poll showed 7 in 10 Americans were at least 'somewhat' worried a peace deal would be too favorable to Russia. But it's telling that Republicans feel compelled to publicly express these concerns. Negotiating an actual peace deal means getting down to the nitty-gritty of what's an acceptable concession. And that's apparently a pretty scary prospect for the many Russia hawks who have quietly stood by for years as Trump and his party drifted away from Ukraine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store