Latest news with #PLUSLoans
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Higher ed reform shouldn't punish low-income students
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. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Higher ed reform shouldn't punish low-income students
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.
