Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid
Support for the “Do No Harm” Rule
- Many welcome tying federal aid to economic outcomes, especially to:
- Kill off predatory for‑profit “degree mills” and weak programs that externalize costs while capturing tuition.
- Force universities to care about efficiency, cost, and student outcomes after decades of tuition inflation and administrative bloat.
- Align loans with ability to repay so students aren’t lured into life‑ruining debt for credentials that don’t improve earnings.
- Some see it as belatedly extending “gainful employment” standards long applied to clock‑hour/vocational schools to traditional colleges.
- Others argue it is reasonable to differentiate between:
- Job‑training programs (where ROI should be explicit), and
- Purely enrichment‑oriented programs that shouldn’t be federally subsidized via loans.
Concerns and Critiques
- Strong pushback that this reduces education to income metrics and threatens humanities, arts, and “non‑practical” fields.
- Worries it will:
- Reduce social mobility by incentivizing colleges to exclude weaker or poorer students to protect metrics.
- Shrink access, especially where teaching salaries or public‑interest careers are low despite high social value.
- Be gamed via selective statistics or constantly renamed programs.
- Several frame it as part of a broader “war on education” or political attack on universities and liberal arts, potentially enabling content‑based defunding.
Student Loans and Bankruptcy
- Large subthread debates why student debt is mostly non‑dischargeable:
- Pro‑restriction view: allowing easy bankruptcy would force interest rates up, restrict access, and collapse the current loan system.
- Pro‑discharge view: other unsecured debts are dischargeable; bankruptcy already has serious consequences; moral‑hazard fears are exaggerated; non‑dischargeability is seen as regulatory capture benefiting lenders.
- Ideas floated: time‑limited non‑dischargeability (e.g., 7–10 years), income‑contingent repayment, or full parity with other debts.
Who Should Fund What
- One camp: taxpayers shouldn’t underwrite low‑ROI degrees; learning for its own sake can be self‑funded, via cheaper options, or charity.
- Another camp: education (including humanities) is a public good underpinning democracy and quality of life; public funding should reflect that, possibly via free or heavily subsidized higher ed.
- Some propose:
- Making institutions co‑sign loans or share default risk.
- Separating trade‑school–style job training from broad academic education, with different funding and expectations.
Implementation and Measurement Issues
- Multiple posters question:
- Comparing graduates to “average high‑school‑only workers” without fully controlling for selection effects, location, family background, or nepotism.
- Using early‑career earnings vs lifetime outcomes.
- Handling PhD pipelines, non‑working graduates (e.g., caregivers), or grads working outside their field.
- Data privacy and practical tracking of who “skipped college” but does similar work.
Broader Systemic Problems and Alternatives
- Widely cited root causes: credentialism, federal loan subsidies driving up prices, non‑profit “grift” via inflated salaries and facilities, and weak K‑12 preparation.
- Suggested alternatives or complements:
- Make student loans dischargeable; cap or peg interest to inflation.
- Free or low‑cost public universities; more investment in community colleges and dorms.
- Better transparency: mandatory reporting of degree‑level earnings and debt.
- Encouraging gap years, work, or public service before college to reduce aimless enrollment.