Latest news with #studentDebt
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Graduate School—Who Should Foot The Bill?
Graduate students hold nearly half of all federal student loan debt—but receive the least attention in education policy. It's time for a shared solution. getty Higher education is dominating the headlines, whether federal funding cuts, DEI policies, research restrictions, or student debt. However, there is little focus on one student population being hit the hardest—graduate students. Students earning master's and doctoral degrees are essential to the academic ecosystem—they lead research, teach undergraduates, and advance innovation. Yet, graduate students are seeing their work and positions being stripped away. With fewer opportunities and the current administration along with Congress seeking to shift the burden of financing higher education away from the government and towards the private sector, individual colleges or the individual, concern is growing about the future of essential professions that require advanced degrees—doctors, scientists, lawyers, professors, and business leaders. Graduate students make up 16% of all borrowers, but they account for 47% of all loans provided by the federal government. This is roughly $39 billion in one year. So, who should be footing the bill for these advanced degrees: the government and taxpayers, corporations, or the individual? The answer depends on your rationale for education. If you believe education exists to enrich society and strengthen Democracy, graduate degrees clearly play a role. Those with advanced degrees are more likely to vote, volunteer, and be more civically involved. In fact, 64% of House members, 79% of Senators, and 20% of their staff hold graduate degrees. In 2023, 21% of all Federal workers held advanced degrees. As of this year at the state level, approximately 85% of those with the highest positions (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State) held advanced degrees. In sum, those with this graduate-level education attainment are highly represented in the most influential offices of our Democracy and are among the most civically engaged citizens. Under this rationale, the government and taxpayers should share in the cost of graduate education. If you view education attainment primarily as a means for personal mobility, then graduate school plays a significant part in that outcome. The median salary for those with Master's, a Professional (Law, Medicine, etc.) or Doctoral (PhD) degrees in 2024 was approximately between $95,600-$123,000 a year compared to only $80,236 for bachelor's degree holders. While this varies by field, experience, and location, the premium for a graduate degree tends to be higher. Under this rationale, the benefit is primarily for the individual, and they should share in the cost of education. The third rationale is a bit more complex. As employers demand higher credentials, graduate education becomes less a personal choice and more a professional requirement. 16% of jobs will require a graduate degree by 2031 compared to 8% in 1983. If employers adhere to this educational ideology and desire workers to have graduate credentials instead of developing those skills internally, then, under this rationale, corporate America should share the cost of education. The truth is that we as a society expect education to do it all—advance individuals, strengthen Democracy, and power the economy. Yet we often forget the cost of preparing future generations. If we collectively want to share education's rewards, then we must also share the costs.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Thousands of retirees may soon see Social Security checks docked by 15% as Trump admin resumes collections
For millions of older Americans relying on an embattled Social Security system to cover their bills, another financial gut punch may be on the way — and it's coming from their own student debt. Under a Trump administration move to resume collections on federal student loans, borrowers in default could soon see their Social Security benefits docked by as much as 15%, higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz told CNBC. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) That means retirees already living on fixed incomes could lose a big chunk of their monthly checks with little warning. And for the hundreds of thousands of borrowers 62 and older who have defaulted student loans — it could be an unhappy surprise in the mail. The government has long had the power to claw back a portion of Social Security benefits to repay defaulted federal student loans. But those collections were paused during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pause was extended under the Biden administration, but President Trump has restarted the clock. The Department of Education recently announced the administration will resume involuntary collections as early as June, meaning borrowers in default could once again be subject to wage garnishments, tax refund seizures and offsets to Social Security checks. And there's a big population at risk. Recent federal data shows that nearly 3 million people over the age of 62 hold federal student loans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says more than 450,000 borrowers in that age group have defaulted on their federal student loans while receiving Social Security benefits. Many of these borrowers are parents who co-signed loans or took out Parent PLUS loans for their children and fell behind after job losses, medical expenses or other financial shocks, according to the National Consumer Law Center. 'Borrowers who receive these notices should not panic,' Nancy Nierman, assistant director of the Education Debt Consumer Assistance Program, told CNBC. 'They should reach out for help as soon as possible.' Read more: This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs If you're in default, the federal government can withhold up to 15% of your monthly Social Security benefit without your permission. The offset kicks in automatically, unless you act to stop it. If you get such a notice, it's important to know your entire benefit won't be wiped out. Federal law protects the first $750 per month of Social Security income from garnishment. But for seniors already scraping by, even a small deduction can have a devastating impact. The worst thing you can do is ignore the problem. If you're in default or nearing default, there are steps you can take now to reduce the risk of garnishment. First, you may be able to request a hearing or file a request to stop or reduce the offset. If you're facing medical issues, supporting dependents or already living below the poverty line, you can submit documentation proving financial hardship to the Treasury Department or its debt collection agency. Second, consider reentering good standing through loan rehabilitation or consolidation. These programs allow borrowers to make a series of small payments to bring their loans out of default. Once you're out, you're no longer at risk for Social Security offsets, but you have to act quickly. Loan rehabilitation typically requires nine monthly payments, and the process can take several months. If you're still working and planning to retire soon, Trump's repayment effort should be a wake-up call. Retiring while in student loan default is now risker than ever. For some, it may make sense to delay retirement until the loan is resolved, especially if garnishment would push you below your living threshold. You might also need to rethink your savings strategy. If your retirement income plan was built around a full Social Security check, it's time to reassess. You may need to increase 401(k) or IRA contributions, trim expenses or explore additional income sources to make up the shortfall if garnishment kicks in. And for those still in the workforce with aging loans, now is the time to check your status. Are your loans in good standing? Are you on an income-driven repayment plan? The answers to those questions could make or break your retirement security. Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CBC
20-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Student advocates outraged as MUN uses money set for tuition reduction elsewhere
Memorial University says it will continue increasing the cost of tuition despite budget cuts being put on hold — which two student advocates say shows a continued lack of financial responsibility. Rana Abuidris, the executive director of campaigns for MUN's student union, says the decision comes as students face heavy financial anxiety. "Students are skipping meals. I know students are currently working three jobs to be able to afford the tuition costs right now," Abuidris told CBC Radio's On the Go. In a post on Memorial's Gazette on Tuesday, president Jennifer Lokash outlined parts of the 2025-26 budget approved by the board of regents. Part of the budget includes a one-time pause in a tuition reduction grant given to the school by the provincial government totalling $13.68-million. The province has cut the fund yearly since 2022, when it was giving $68.4 million to the school to keep a tuition freeze in place. A cut of about $14-million per year led to the end of the tuition freeze. Costs skyrocketed from $2,550 to $6,000 per year for Canadians and reached $20,000 for international students, along with an annual four per cent increase until 2026. Lokash wrote that the $13.68-million aimed at tuition reduction was instead directed to "drive Memorial University's transformation to a more learner-centric, sustainable and efficient institution." The school will use $3.9-million to contract teachers, while using the rest to enhance efforts on student recruitment and retention, business transformation efforts and critical technological improvements among other items, Lokash wrote. Nicolas Keough, chair of the Canadian Federation of Students in Newfoundland and Labrador, said he had hoped the money would be used for its intended purpose. "The grant that is made to offset tuition, the money should be going toward that," he said. "This is not 'The money had to come from somewhere.' … That's what the operating grant is for." Tuition should be as low as possible: Education Minister Both Keough and Abuidris believe there was some support among the board of regents to move the freeze forward, but not enough. It's the latest example of financial mismanagement from the university, Abuidris added, highlighted by a scathing report from the auditor general in January that showed years of infrastructure neglect and overspending. "This was an opportunity for MUN to rebuild a relationship with the provincial government and rebuild their trust. And again, Memorial again have shown that they cannot be trusted with, like, money. Student's money. They're clearly not putting students as their main priority," Abuidris said. Asked about the decision on Tuesday afternoon, Education Minister Bernard Davis said MUN is an autonomous organization that can do what it wants with the money it receives from government. The province supports the school, Newfoundland and Labrador's only university, through more than $400 million, and accounts for about 70 per cent of the school's total operating grant. However, Davis added he knows the financial struggles students are facing and tuition costs are challenging. "I always would like to see as low a tuition as you possibly can for our students," Davis said. "The decision about tuition sits with the university and the administration of the university. We give them a very high level of support. We've looked at some of the cost pressures ... and we gave them more money. But as I've said many, many times, it is up to the university to determine where and how they spend that money."
Daily Mail
12-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
The jobs that pay $100k without a college degree... including one in serious demand
As college gets more expensive and white-collar jobs become harder to land, more young Americans are skipping the six-figure student debt — and earning just as much without a degree. Ironically, the shift is being driven by too many people going to college. That flood of degrees has created a growing imbalance: too many graduates, and not enough workers trained for essential skilled careers that don't require a four-year degree. As a result, companies are boosting salaries for roles that require hands-on training instead of academic credentials. These include traditional trades like plumbing and electrical work, as well as specialized professions like lift mechanics and commercial pilots. One example is commercial pilots. There's a nationwide shortage of them, and the demand for pilots keeps growing — for things like charter flights, firefighting, and rescue missions. That's why the average salary is $113,000, and some earn up to $239,000. Another example is air traffic controllers. It's a stressful and important job that takes special training. Since few people are qualified, the average salary is $179,000. Even in tech, a degree isn't always required. Web developers and digital designers are in demand across industries. If you can code or design, you can earn a strong salary — without spending four years in college. The median pay for these roles is just under $100,000 but top pay can far exceed that at around $176,000, according to the careers site. As these jobs don't require formal education achievements the best way to land the best-paying gigs is to have a strong portfolio of past work and good references. Becoming a special effects animator can also pay six figures and does not require a college degree. Although many animators and digital artists do choose to complete a short specialized diploma in the field, it is not a strict criteria. Some of the best-paying animator jobs can earn workers around $170,000, according to Trade Schools. Other six-figure jobs include roles that many high schoolers may not have even considered. Elevator and escalator installers earn just over $100,000 on average, Fortune reported. This niche job is the highest-paid trade job in the country, according to 2023 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the conditions of such a trade can be tough with long hours often at great heights and in confined spaces. There are also relatively few roles, with around 2,100 job openings each year, according to the Bureau. Mike Rowe, the CEO of MikeRoweWorks Foundation, has dedicated his organization to changing the perception of skilled labor jobs and help encourage young people to take up a trade. Rowe's Foundation offers scholarships to help train people in skilled jobs that are facing employment shortages. 'We're redefining a good education and a good job, because we don't think a four-year degree is the best path for the most people,' Rowe wrote on his website. 'Blue-collar jobs are a straight path to a six-figure job,' Rowe told Fortune magazine. Meanwhile, a CEO recently revealed the one crucial question he asks every candidate during job interviews. Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), asks applicants how soon they could start their new role. If they say they can start in less than two weeks 'they don't get the job, because they'll treat us the way they treat that former employer,' the 68-year-old explained.
Forbes
07-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Examining The Potential Impacts Of Proposed Higher Education Funding Reforms
Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept for the cost of a college and ... More university education getty The Republican Education Committee has recently unveiled its proposals for student aid reform in 2025, outlining several significant changes to federal student loan programs, Pell Grants, and institutional accountability measures. These proposals aim to address rising student debt, improve educational outcomes, and reduce federal spending on higher education. This analysis examines each major proposal, presenting arguments from supporters and critics, along with evidence from research and experience to evaluate potential outcomes. The committee proposes eliminating the Graduate PLUS loan program, which currently allows graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance minus other financial aid received. Proponents, including fiscal conservatives and some higher education reformers, argue that unlimited federal lending for graduate education has enabled program cost inflation and encouraged students to pursue degrees with questionable return on investment. Graduate PLUS loans have created a perverse incentive for universities to raise tuition with little incentive to cut costs and expenses. A significant portion of the student debt crisis stems from graduate education. According to the Brookings Institution, graduate students represent just 19% of federal student loan borrowers but account for approximately 40% of outstanding federal student loan debt. Many graduate programs, particularly online offerings, have leveraged federal loans to charge premium prices for degrees that may not deliver commensurate value in the job market. As documented in Forbes, some master's degrees have become modern "ripoffs," with students accumulating six-figure debt for credentials offering minimal salary premium. Supporters believe capping graduate lending could force institutions to reduce tuition costs to match what students can reasonably afford to borrow through other means. Critics, including many university administrators, student advocacy groups, and professional associations in fields like education and healthcare, contend that eliminating Graduate PLUS loans could have severe unintended consequences. This proposal would reduce access to graduate education for low- and middle-income students. particularly at historically underserved populations and those pursuing careers in public service. Critics highlight several potential negative outcomes. For one, students may be forced into the private loan market, which typically offers less favorable terms, higher interest rates, and fewer protections than federal loans. As Adam S. Minsky reported in Forbes, 'Eliminating the Graduate PLUS program would mean that borrowers who cannot cover the cost of their graduate school education may need to rely on which are generally riskier, tend to have higher interest rates, and are ineligible for federal student loan forgiveness and relief programs.' The change could also exacerbate shortages in critical fields like teaching, nursing, social work, and public health—professions that require graduate degrees but offer modest starting salaries. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing estimates the U.S. will need over 200,000 new registered nurses annually through 2030 to address existing shortages. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges, and institutions serving predominantly low-income students could face existential threats if their graduate programs become unaffordable to their traditional student populations. Balanced Assessment The elimination of Graduate PLUS loans represents a significant market correction that could help address runaway tuition inflation in graduate education, particularly for online programs and degrees with questionable labor market value. However, implementation without complementary policies could restrict educational access for underrepresented groups and exacerbate shortages in critical public service professions. A more balanced approach might include program-specific loan limits based on expected post-graduation earnings, preserving higher caps for fields with demonstrated social value but lower compensation. Additionally, expanding income-driven repayment options specifically for public service careers could mitigate negative impacts while still introducing market discipline to graduate education pricing. Reduction of Repayment Plans to Two Options The Proposal The proposal would streamline the current array of income-driven repayment plans (IDR) to just two options: a standard 10-year repayment plan and a single income-driven option requiring payments of 15% of discretionary income for 20 years (25 years for graduate debt)and a new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) which would base monthly payments on a borrower's total adjusted gross income, with payments ranging from 1 to 10 percent of income. The plan also includes a minimum monthly payment of $10 and may offer balance assistance by waiving unpaid interest and providing a matching payment-to-principal. Supporter Arguments Advocates, including fiscal conservatives and some education policy experts, argue that the current system's complexity creates confusion and inefficiency. Supporting evidence includes a 2022 Government Accountability Office report finding that approximately 7.8 million federal student loan borrowers were eligible for loan forgiveness through income-driven repayment but weren't enrolled due to complexity and communication failures. Supporters also argue that the current SAVE plan is fiscally unsustainable. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that the SAVE plan could cost taxpayers over $475 billion over the next decade, substantially higher than previous projections. Preston Cooper, writing for Forbes is highly supportive of the elimination of negative amortization. 'The new repayment plan is earthshaking. For borrowers who make on-time payments, RAP ends the phenomenon of rising balances because payments are insufficient to cover interest. Such negative amortization has been the Achilles heel of current income-driven repayment plans, wherein three-quarters of borrowers see their balances rise over time, according to the Congressional Budget Office…Borrowers who see their balances consistently drop, month after month, will be more willing to remain engaged with their loans.' Critic Arguments Critics, including student advocacy organizations, progressive policy groups, and some labor unions, contend that eliminating more generous repayment options like SAVE would increase financial hardship for borrowers. It provides crucial relief for lower-income borrowers and those working in public service, and its elimination has increased borrowers payments by hundreds of dollars. The Institute for College Access and Success estimates that a single parent earning $45,000 with $30,000 in undergraduate debt would see their monthly payments increase from approximately $0 under SAVE to around $250 under the proposed plan. Balanced Assessment Simplification of repayment options offers clear administrative benefits and could improve borrower understanding of their obligations. However, the specific parameters of the proposed income-driven option would substantially increase payment amounts for low- and middle-income borrowers compared to the most generous current options. A compromise approach might maintain simplification while adjusting the income-driven repayment formula to provide more relief for borrowers at lower income levels. Progressive payment percentages (increasing with income) could balance fiscal sustainability with borrower protection. Pell Grant Funding with Credit Requirements The Proposal The proposal would increase Pell Grant funding but establish minimum credit hour requirements for eligibility, potentially requiring students to enroll in more courses each term to receive the full grant amount. Supporter Arguments Proponents, including some education policy researchers and institutional leaders, argue that credit hour requirements would incentivize timely degree completion and improve graduation rates. Research shows that students taking 15 or more credits per semester are more likely to graduate and typically have better academic outcomes than those taking lighter course loads. Additionally, faster completion reduces the total cost of education by limiting the number of terms students must pay for housing, transportation, and other non-tuition expenses. Critic Arguments Critics, including community college administrators and advocates for non-traditional students, warn that rigid credit requirements could harm working adults, student parents, and those facing significant economic many low-income students, taking 15 credits per term is simply not feasible." According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, nearly 5 million college students are raising children, and these student parents are disproportionately women and people of color. These students often cannot take full course loads due to caregiving responsibilities and work obligations. Balanced Assessment While encouraging faster degree completion through credit incentives has merit, rigid requirements could create barriers for non-traditional students who comprise a growing share of the undergraduate population. A modified approach might include sliding-scale benefits that provide some support for part-time students while still incentivizing higher credit loads when possible. Complementary policies such as expanded childcare support, flexible course scheduling, and targeted academic support services would be necessary to ensure that credit requirements do not disproportionately harm the students most dependent on Pell funding. Institutional Risk-Sharing Proposal The Proposal Under this proposal, colleges and universities would be required to repay a portion of defaulted student loans, essentially sharing financial responsibility for student loan outcomes with the federal government and borrowers. Supporter Arguments Advocates, including education reform organizations and some fiscal conservatives, argue that risk-sharing would align institutional incentives with student success and loan repayment outcomes. Evidence from sectors with similar accountability measures suggests that risk-sharing can drive institutional improvement. For instance, after gainful employment regulations were implemented for for-profit colleges, many institutions preemptively closed underperforming programs and reduced tuition in others to improve outcomes. A Brookings Institution analysis found that institutional risk-sharing could potentially reduce default rates by 2-3 percentage points by incentivizing colleges to improve student support services, career preparation, and financial counseling. Critic Arguments Critics, including many higher education associations and advocates for minority-serving institutions, warn that risk-sharing could disproportionately harm colleges serving higher-risk student populations. Critics point to evidence that default rates correlate strongly with student demographics rather than institutional quality. According to the Center for American Progress, Black bachelor's degree recipients default at five times the rate of white bachelor's degree recipients, even when attending the same institutions. Small, under-resourced institutions serving first-generation, low-income, and minority students would face the greatest financial burden under risk-sharing, potentially forcing closures or causing these schools to restrict access to higher-risk students. Balanced Assessment Institutional accountability for student outcomes represents a promising approach to improving higher education value, but implementation must be carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences. An effective risk-sharing program would need to: Adjust expectations based on student demographics and institutional mission Phase in gradually to allow institutions time to adapt Provide technical assistance and support for improvement Include complementary investment in under-resourced institutions serving high-need populations Without these safeguards, risk-sharing could accelerate the closure of struggling but socially valuable institutions like Northland College in Wisconsin, which recently announced its closure despite its distinctive environmental mission and regional importance. Elimination of the 90/10 Rule and Borrower Defense Provisions The Proposal The proposal would eliminate the 90/10 rule (requiring for-profit colleges to obtain at least 10% of revenue from non-federal sources) and scale back borrower defense to repayment provisions that allow students to seek loan forgiveness if their institutions engaged in misconduct. Supporter Arguments Proponents, primarily for-profit college advocates and some conservative policy organizations, argue that these regulations unfairly target proprietary institutions and limit educational innovation. Supporters contend that for-profit institutions often serve students overlooked by traditional higher education, including working adults, veterans, and minority students. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for-profit colleges enroll higher percentages of low-income, minority, and first-generation students than many non-profit institutions. Regarding borrower defense, supporters argue that the current rules are overly broad and expose taxpayers to excessive liability for claims that may be difficult to verify or adjudicate consistently. Critic Arguments Critics, including consumer protection groups, veteran organizations, and state attorneys general, strongly oppose these changes, arguing they would remove crucial guardrails against predatory practices. The 90/10 rule and borrower defense provisions represent the bare minimum of consumer protection in a sector with a well-documented history of abuses Evidence of misconduct in the for-profit sector is substantial. A 2020 Veterans Education Success report found that 86 for-profit colleges received over $1.15 billion in GI Bill funds while simultaneously being under investigation by state or federal agencies for deceptive practices or other violations. The Department of Education has approved billions in borrower defense claims for students from institutions like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Technical Institute, and DeVry University after finding evidence of widespread misrepresentation. Balanced Assessment The elimination of the 90/10 rule and weakening of borrower defense provisions would remove important consumer protections with little countervailing benefit. While some for-profit institutions provide valuable educational services, the sector's documented history of abuses suggests that stronger rather than weaker regulation may be appropriate. A more balanced approach might involve refining these regulations to reduce unintended consequences while maintaining core protections. For instance, the 90/10 rule could be applied more broadly across all institutional types, while borrower defense processes could be streamlined while preserving meaningful relief pathways for defrauded students. Best and Worst Case Scenarios Best Case Scenario In the most optimistic projection, these reforms could: Introduce needed market discipline to graduate education, forcing institutions to reduce costs and focus on programs with demonstrable value Simplify loan repayment, making it easier for borrowers to understand their options Accelerate degree completion through credit incentives Improve institutional accountability by aligning financial incentives with student outcomes Reduce federal spending on higher education without significantly compromising access This scenario would require institutions to adapt quickly by streamlining operations, reducing administrative costs, improving student support services, and focusing resources on high-value programs. The higher education landscape would likely see consolidation, with stronger institutions absorbing students from weaker ones that cannot adapt. Worst Case Scenario In a more pessimistic projection, these reforms could: Precipitate a wave of college closures, particularly among institutions serving underrepresented populations Create severe shortages in critical fields like nursing, teaching, and social work Force students into predatory private lending markets Reduce educational access for working adults, student parents, and low-income students Allow a resurgence of predatory practices in the for-profit education sector Exacerbate existing inequities in higher education access and outcomes This scenario would result if the speed and magnitude of changes overwhelm institutions' capacity to adapt, particularly those with limited financial reserves and endowments. Conclusion The Republican Education Committee's proposals for student aid reform in 2025 represent a significant shift in federal higher education policy. While some elements—particularly those addressing graduate education costs and institutional accountability—have merit, the package as currently constituted lacks sufficient safeguards and transitional provisions to protect vulnerable students and institutions. A more balanced approach would maintain focus on affordability, efficiency, and outcome accountability while incorporating: Program-specific loan limits for graduate education rather than elimination of Graduate PLUS loans Progressive income-driven repayment formulas that protect low-income borrowers Flexible Pell Grant requirements that accommodate non-traditional students Risk-sharing provisions adjusted for student demographics and institutional resources Maintained consumer protections against predatory practices As these proposals move through the legislative process, refinements addressing these concerns would create a stronger, more equitable system of higher education financing that serves students, institutions, and taxpayers alike.
