[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE COST OF COLLEGE:
STUDENT CENTERED REFORMS
TO BRING HIGHER EDUCATION
WITHIN REACH
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 13, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-663 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
Susan A. Davis, California Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tim Walberg, Michigan
Northern Mariana Islands Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Francis Rooney, Florida
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Jim Banks, Indiana
Joseph D. Morelle, New York Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania James Comer, Kentucky
Josh Harder, California Ben Cline, Virginia
Lucy McBath, Georgia Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Kim Schrier, Washington Van Taylor, Texas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Steve Watkins, Kansas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Ron Wright, Texas
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Andy Levin, Michigan* William R. Timmons, IV, South
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Carolina
David J. Trone, Maryland Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 13, 2019................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
and Labor.................................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Akers, Dr. Elizabeth, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Manhattan
Institute.................................................. 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Kvaal, Mr. James, President, The Institute for College Access
and Success................................................ 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Parker, Ms. Jenae, Board Member, Student, Franklin University 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Morrison-Shetlar, Dr. Alison, Interim Chancellor, Western
Carolina University........................................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Webber, Dr. Douglas, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director
of Graduate Studies, Economics Department, Temple
University................................................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Additional Submissions:
Mrs. Foxx:
Article: The Benefits of Starting College Early in High
School................................................. 105
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio:
Question for the record.................................. 109
Letter dated March 25, 2019 from the Council of Graduate
Schools................................................ 110
Levin, Hon. Andy, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan:
Letter dated March 8, 2019 from the Preserve the Public
Service Loan Forgiveness............................... 114
Letter dated March 13, 2019 from the American Federation
of Teachers (AFT)...................................... 119
Shalala, Hon. Donna E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida:
Letter dated March 13, 2019 from CLASP................... 121
Schrier, Hon. Kim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington:
Letter dated March 12, 2019 from the National Education
Association (NEA)...................................... 125
Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Letter dated March 11, 2019 from the California Community
Colleges............................................... 127
Taylor, Hon. Van, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas:
Link..................................................... 129
Questions submitted for the record by:
Morelle, Hon. Joseph D., a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York............................. 131
Omar, Hon. Ilhan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota..................................... 131
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Representative in
Congress from the Northern Mariana Islands............. 131
Stevens, Hon. Haley M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan.................................. 131
Mr. Taylor
Responses to questions submitted for the record:
Mr. Kvaai................................................ 136
Dr. Morrison-Shetlar..................................... 142
Dr. Webber............................................... 143
THE COST OF COLLEGE: STUDENT CENTERED
REFORMS TO BRING HIGHER EDUCATION
WITHIN REACH
----------
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Robert C.
``Bobby'' Scott (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Davis, Courtney, Fudge,
Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, Norcross,
Jayapal, Morelle, Wild, Harder, McBath, Schrier, Underwood,
Hayes, Shalala, Levin, Omar, Trone, Stevens, Lee, Trahan,
Castro, Foxx, Roe, Walberg, Guthrie, Grothman, Stefanik, Allen,
Smucker, Banks, Walker, Comer, Cline, Fulcher, Taylor, Watkins,
Wright, Meuser, Timmons, and Johnson.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Nekea Brown,
Deputy Clerk; Ilana Brunner, General Counsel Health and Labor;
Jacque Chevalier Mosely, Director of Education Policy; Sheila
Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Elizabeth Hollis,
Director of Finance and Personnel; Ariel Jona, Staff Assistant;
Stephanie Lalle, Deputy Communications Director; Andre Lindsay,
Staff Assistant; Max Moore, Office Aide; Merrick Nelson,
Digital Manager; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Katherine
Valle, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Banyon Vassar, Deputy
Director of Information Technology; Claire Viall, Professional
Staff; Joshua Weisz, Communications Director; Cyrus Artz,
Minority Parliamentarian, Marty Boughton, Minority Press
Secretary; Courtney Butcher, Minority Coalitions and Members
Services Coordinator; Bridget Handy, Minority Legislative
Assistant; Blake Johnson, Minority Staff Assistant; Amy Raaf
Jones, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources
Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Kelley
McNabb, Minority Communications Director; Brandon Renz,
Minority Staff Director; Alex Ricci, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Chief Counsel and
Deputy Director of Education Policy; and Meredith Schellin,
Minority Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Advisor.
Chairman SCOTT. The Committee on Education and Labor will
come to order. I want to welcome everyone, and note for the
record that a quorum is present. The committee is meeting
together in a legislative hearing to hear testimony on the cost
of college, student-centered reforms to bring higher education
within reach. Pursuant to committee rule 7C, opening statements
are limited to the chair and ranking member. This allows us to
hear from witnesses sooner and provides all members with
adequate time to ask questions. I now recognize myself for the
purposes of making an opening statement.
This morning marks the first of five bipartisan hearings
which will inform our work on comprehensive reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act. I want to thank the ranking member
and her staff for working cooperatively with us to arrange all
five of the hearings. I also want to thank our witnesses for
being with us today to answer questions and provide their
valuable expertise.
Our timing could not be better. Yesterday's news was a
powerful reminder that elements of our higher education system
are in desperate need of repair. The alleged use of bribery and
fraud to game the college admissions system illustrates a
reality that our higher education--reality in our higher
education system, that is students from wealthy families and
students from--poor families are not treated fairly. It is
important to note that all of the indicted people in this
scheme are entitled to a presumption of innocence, but at least
one has pleaded guilty. So, we know that the scheme was going
on. The reality of this is maddening and inflammatory. It is
illegal and systemic--is the illegal and systemic inequality of
its college admissions. It, ultimately, deprived countless
students of their chance to reach their full potential.
Our education must be an engine of economic mobility for
all students, not an instrument for preserving the elite status
of wealthy families. In rewriting the Higher Education Act, we
have an opportunity to address many factors that prevent
students, particularly students of color and low-income
families, from attending institutions of higher education, and
those same factors often perpetuate racial and income
inequality.
This committee has a difficult challenge. The competing
proposals released in the last Congress, the Republican PROSPER
Act and the Democratic Aim Higher Act, illustrated the vast
differences in our approach to higher education. This hearing
will begin the process of finding areas of common ground. The
goal of our work in this committee on the higher education is
not just to write a new higher education bill, but it is to
pass a comprehensive higher education bill. Accordingly, we
propose to work together in a bipartisan way that produces a
bill that can pass the House, pass the Senate, and be signed by
the President. Students, families, taxpayers, and institutions
of higher education deserve a good faith effort on our behalf
to address the urgent challenges facing the higher education
system.
Today, we are discussing one of the biggest challenges, the
rising cost of college. The cost of attending public colleges
has risen dramatically in recent years. While--from 1990 to
2015, the median household income increased by 12 percent, but
the net cost of attending college increased by 81 percent.
When President Johnson signed the Higher Education Act, he
said, that a high school student anywhere in this great land of
ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the
50 States and not be turned away because the family is poor.
That could have been the case in the 1960's and 1970's, but it
is not the case today. In 1980, the maximum Pell Grant covered
76 percent of the cost of attending a 4-year public college.
Today, the maximum Pell Grant covers only 29 percent of that
cost.
There are many factors that have led to the rising costs of
college, but none more significant than the decline of State
investment in higher education.--You have a chart on higher
education? This shows the change in investment from States. Red
is how much less they are paying, and the blue is how much more
they are paying. We can see that a decade ago, States paid, on
average, about two-thirds of the cost of higher education.
Today, States pay, on average, less than one-third of the cost.
Going from two-thirds to one-third doubles the cost of
education to the students, and it is only going to get worse.
Adjusted for inflation, 45 States spent less per student in
2018 than they did 10 years before, in 2008.
As tuition continues to outpace both wages and Pell Grants,
it should not be a surprise that students and their families
are asking themselves if college is even worth the cost. The
evidence and research demonstrate that given well-supported and
responsive--responsible institutions of higher education, the
answer is, overwhelmingly, yes. Yes, it is worth the cost. A
college degree remains a good investment for students and
families, as well as local communities and the national
economy. Individuals with a bachelor's degree, typically, earn
about a million dollars more than a high school graduate, over
their lifetime. Individuals with an associate's degree earn
about $400,000 more than a high school graduate over their
lives.
Two out of three jobs within the modern economy are filled
by individuals who have more than a high school education, and
we see in this chart those that--after the recession, you see,
those with a college degree recovered. Those with just a high
school diploma, on the bottom, did not do well. Those in the
middle got kind of in between, but, you can see, those with
college educations did much better during the recovery.
A college-educated work force is also good for local
economies. Evidence shows that for every dollar a State invests
in higher education, it receives about $4.50 in return in
higher tax revenue and lower spending on public assistance.
Colleges also contribute to the cultural and financial
strength of communities that are across the country. We know
that universities represent the largest employers in 10
different States around the country, and in rural areas they
are, invariably, the largest employer in the county.
We also know that economic competitiveness is, to a large
extent, based on the availability of well-trained, well-
educated work force. Even though college enrollment and
completion is a matter of economic competitiveness, only 48
percent of Americans 25 to 34 have obtained some sort of
postsecondary credential. In Canada and Japan, it is 60 percent
have obtained some kind of postsecondary education; in Korea,
70 percent.
If we do not address the rising costs, we will not only
lose our economic competitiveness, but a growing number of
students and families will lose out on the benefits of a
college degree. This is particularly true for low-income
students and students of color, who already face significant
barriers to attending college. Today, we will consider a broad
range of solutions to make college more accessible and
affordable to individuals from all backgrounds, including
halting increases in college costs by encouraging more State
and local investment in public institutions; restoring the
purchasing power of Pell; and expanding eligibility, including
short-term, high-quality programs that provide both valuable
technical skills and a path to 2-and 4-year college degrees, so
that students will be able to afford college; and making
college--student loans cheaper and easier to pay off, while
providing additional support for low-income students, such as
Federal Work-Study, which empowers students to earn while they
are in college.
The evidence of the benefits of college degrees are all
around us. In the recently completed 115th Congress, we found
that all 100 United States senators had college degrees, and
more than 90--about 94 percent of the members of the House held
at least a bachelor's degree. We, of all people, should not be
discouraging students from seeking the kind of education that
got us here today.
If we only tinker around the edges and do not make
comprehensive steps to addressing access and affordability, we
will fail to serve the students, parents, and communities we
were elected to serve. In sum, we will fail the Nation, and
that simply should not be an option. So, I look forward to our
discussion, and now recognize the ranking member, Dr. Foxx.
[The statement by Chairman Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor
This morning marks the first of five bipartisan hearings, which
will inform our work on comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act. I want to thank our witnesses for being here with us
today to answer questions and provide their valuable expertise.
Our timing could not be better. Yesterday's news was a powerful
reminder that elements of our higher education system are in desperate
need of repair. The alleged use of bribery and fraud to game the
college admissions system illustrates a reality in our higher education
system: Students from wealthy families and students from poor families
are not treated fairly. It is important to note that all of the
indicted people in this scheme are entitled to a presumption of
innocence, but at least one has pleaded guilty, so we know the scheme
was going on. The reality of this is maddening and inflammatory. It is
the illegal and systemic inequality in college admissions and success
that ultimately deprives countless students of the chance to reach
their potential.
Our education must be an engine of economic mobility for all
students, not an instrument for preserving the elite status of wealthy
families. In re-writing the Higher Education Act, we have an
opportunity to address many factors that prevent students--particularly
students of color and low-income families--from attending institutions
of higher education and those same factors have too often perpetuated
racial and income inequality.
This Committee has a difficult challenge. The competing proposals
released in the last Congress--the Republican PROSPER Act and the
Democratic Aim Higher Act--illustrated the vast differences in our
approach to higher education. This hearing will begin the process of
finding areas of common ground. The goal of our work in this Committee
in higher education is not just to write a new higher education bill,
it is to pass a comprehensive higher education bill. Accordingly, we
propose to work together in a bipartisan way that produces a bill that
can pass the House, pass the Senate, and be signed by the President.
Students, families, taxpayers, and institutions of higher education
deserve a good-faith effort to address the urgent challenges facing the
higher education system.
Today, we are discussing one of the biggest challenges: The rising
cost of college. The cost of attending public colleges has risen
dramatically in recent years. From 1990 to 2015, the median household
income increased by 12 percent, but the net cost of attending college
increased by 81 percent.
When President Johnson signed the Higher Education Act, he said,
``that a high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can
apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 States and not
be turned away because [their] family is poor.'' That could've been the
case in the 1960's and 70's, but it is not the case today. In 1980, the
maximum Pell Grant covered 76 percent of the cost of attendance at
public 4-year colleges. Today, the maximum Pell Grant, which is the
cornerstone of Federal student aid for nearly 7.5 million low-income
students each year, covers just over 29 percent.
There are many factors that have led to the rising cost of college,
but none are more significant that the decline of State investment in
higher education. A decade ago, States paid about two-thirds of the
cost of higher education.
Today, States pay, on average, less than one-third of the cost.
Going from 2/3 to 1/3 doubles the cost of college to students and it's
only going to get worse--45 States spent less per student in the 2018
school year than in 2008.
As tuition continues to outpace both wages and Pell Grants, it
should not be a surprise that students and families are asking
themselves if college is still worth the cost. The evidence and
research demonstrate that, given well-supported and responsible
institutions of higher education, the answer is an overwhelming yes. A
college degree remains a good investment for students and families, as
well as local communities and the national economy. Individuals with a
bachelor's degrees typically earn about $1 million more than high
school graduates over their lives. Individuals with an associate's
degrees earn $400,000 more than high school graduates over their lives.
And two out of three jobs in the modern economy are filled by
individuals who have more than a high school education.
A college-educated work force is also good for local economies.
Evidence shows that for every $1 a State invests in higher education,
it receives up to $4.50 in return in higher tax revenue and lowers
spending on public assistance.
Colleges also contribute to the cultural and financial strength of
communities across the country. We know that universities represent the
largest employers in 10 different States around the country and, in
rural areas, they are invariably the largest employer.
We also know that economic competitiveness is, to a large extent,
based on the availability of a well-trained and well-educated work
force. Even though college enrollment and completion are a matter of
economic competitiveness, only 48 percent of Americans ages 25 to 34
have obtained some sort of postsecondary credential. In Canada and
Japan, 60 percent of young adults have obtained postsecondary
education. In Korea, that figure reaches 70 percent.
If we do not address the rising costs, not only will we lose our
economic competitiveness, but a growing number of students and families
will lose out on the benefits of college degree. This is particularly
true for low-income students and students of color, who already face
significant barriers to earning a college degree. Today, we will
consider a broad range of solutions to make college more accessible and
affordable to individuals from all backgrounds, including:
* Halting increases in college costs by encouraging more State and
local investment in public institutions.
* Restoring the purchasing power of Pell Grants and expanding
eligibility, including to short-term high-quality programs that provide
both valuable technical skills and a path to a two-and 4-year degree,
so that students will be able to afford college.
* Making college loans both cheaper and easier to pay off, while
providing additional support for low-income students such as Federal
Work-Study, which empowers students to earn while in college.
The evidence of the benefits of a college degree are all around us.
In the recently completed 115th Congress, all Senators and more than
nine in 10 members of the House of Representatives held at least
bachelor's degrees. We, of all people, should not be discouraging
students from seeking the education that got us here today.
If we only tinker around the edges and do not take comprehensive
steps to address access and affordability, we will fail to serve the
students, parents, and communities who elected to serve. In sum, we
will fail the nation--and that is simply not an option.
I look forward to our discussion and I now recognize the Ranking
Member, Dr. Foxx.
______
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
your commitment to our working on this issue in a bipartisan
fashion. This hearing cuts to the heart of why postsecondary
education reform is necessary, and why it is so difficult to
accomplish.
It is necessary because college is so increasingly
expensive.
For decades, tuition and fees have risen higher than the
cost of inflation. Because costs have always varied between
different types of institutions, it is often hard to know what
option would provide the best value for the unique needs of
each student and their families. Here is a way to put the cost
of college into perspective. If the price of cars had risen at
the same rates tuition and fees have risen, the average car
today would cost more than $80,000.
The high cost of college is not a question for debate. It
is a matter of fact. It is also why change is so difficult.
High costs for all mean very, very high payouts for some. As a
former college administrator, I know firsthand the complexity
and the ripple effects of budget decisions at the institutional
level. Sometimes it takes creativity and resourcefulness to
manage an institution's finances well. Sometimes the easiest
way to grow your budget is to use an old business mindset and
simply pass cost to the consumer. In this case, the consumers
are students and families, and they are not willing to take the
high cost anymore. There are ways to protect students from
absorbing the cost of institution level budget decisions, and I
must say I do not believe every college administrator in the
country is giving students the consideration they deserve when
deciding how to manage institutional finances.
Any discussion of college affordability must involve
serious questions about institutional accountability. I hope we
will hear more about that today, and I hope we will all have
the courage to confront those who seek to maintain the status
quo at the expense of students for their own benefit.
The Federal Government's role in trying to help families
pay for college is a classic example of the unintended
consequences of good intentions. On top of the different types
of grants available, the Federal Government deals in 5 loan
programs, 9 repayment plans, 8 forgiveness programs, and 32
deferment and forbearance options. Somehow, all these numbers
and options have added up to more than $1.5 trillion dollars in
student debt and counting, a number no Congress could have
anticipated as each of these Federal aid options came online.
These facts should be further indication that college costs
are not simply a matter of supply and demand or loan amounts or
interest rates, but a symptom of deeper systemic flaws in
American postsecondary education systems and, perhaps more
importantly, popular perceptions and values. I have long said
we need bold reforms in postsecondary education, if we are
going to make the system work for students again, and I have
put those ideas forward. I believe in the necessity of
comprehensive reform today more than ever. However, I am happy
to acknowledge that there are few bright stars in the system as
we know it. The comparative success of the Pell Grant program
has made it the cornerstone of Federal student aid.
In today's economy, there are ways to strengthen the Pell
Grant program in ways that may not have been evident in
previous decades, and that comes back to my point about public
perceptions. If we consider ways to make Pell Grants applicable
to shorter term, skills-focused programs that meet the needs of
students and the communities in which they live, I believe we
will see a higher, faster, and more satisfying return.
All education is career education. American students view
postsecondary education as a necessity, and they are not wrong
in thinking that way. As we broaden our ideas of what
postsecondary options can look like for students of every age,
the question of how they will pay for it looms large. I am glad
to see increasing public interest in this issue, and I welcome
this hearing and these witnesses today. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
[The statement by Mrs. Foxx follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and Labor
This hearing cuts to the heart of why postsecondary education
reform is necessary and why it is so difficult to accomplish. It's
necessary because college is so increasingly expensive. For decades,
tuition and fees have risen higher than the cost of inflation. Because
costs have always varied between different types of institutions, it's
often hard to know what option would provide the best value for the
unique needs of each student and their families.
Here is a way to put the cost of college into perspective: if the
price of cars had risen at the same rates tuition and fees have risen,
the average car today would cost more than $80,000. The high cost of
college is not a question for debate, it is a matter of fact.
That's also why change is so difficult. High costs for all mean
very, very high payouts for some. As a former college administrator, I
know firsthand the complexity and the ripple-effects of budget
decisions at the institutional level. Sometimes, it takes creativity
and resourcefulness to manage an institution's finances well.
Sometimes, the easiest way to grow your budget is to use an old
business mindset and pass costs along to the consumer. In this case,
the consumers are students and families, and they are not willing to
take the high costs anymore.
There are ways to protect students from absorbing the costs of
institution-level budget decisions, and I must say, I don't believe
every college administrator in the country is giving students the
consideration they deserve when deciding how to manage institutional
finances. Any discussion of college affordability must involve serious
questions about institutional accountability. I hope we'll hear more
about that today, and I hope we'll all have the courage to confront
those who seek to maintain the status quo, at the expense of students,
for their own benefit.
The Federal Government's role in trying to help families pay for
college is a classic example of the unintended consequences of good
intentions. On top of the different types of grants available, the
Federal Government deals in five loan programs, nine repayment plans,
eight forgiveness programs, and 32 deferment and forbearance options.
Somehow, all these numbers and options have added up to more than $1.5
trillion in student debt and counting--a number no Congress could have
anticipated as each of these Federal aid options came online.
These facts should be further indication that college costs are not
simply a matter of supply and demand or loan amounts or interest rates,
but a symptom of deeper systemic flaws in American postsecondary
education systems and, perhaps more importantly, popular perceptions.
I have long said that we need bold reforms in postsecondary
education if we're going to make the system work for students again,
and I've put those ideas forward. I believe in the necessity of
comprehensive reform today more than ever. However, I'm happy to
acknowledge that there are a few bright stars in the system as we know
it. The comparative success of the Pell Grant program has made it the
cornerstone of Federal student aid. In today's economy, there are ways
to strengthen the Pell Grant program in ways that may not have been
evident in previous decades, and that comes back to my point about
public perceptions. If we consider ways to make Pell Grants applicable
to shorter-term, skills-focused programs that meet the needs of
students and the communities in which they live, I believe we'll see a
higher, faster, and more satisfying return.
All education is career education. American students view
postsecondary education as a necessity, and they aren't wrong in
thinking that way. As we broaden our ideas of what postsecondary
options can look like for students of every age, the question of how
they'll pay for it looms large. I am glad to see increasing public
interest in this issue, and I welcome this hearing and these witnesses
today.
______
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Without objection, all other
members who wish to insert written statements to the record may
do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically
by Tuesday, March 26th.
I will now introduce our witnesses. Dr. Douglas Webber is
associate professor of economics and the director of graduate
studies at Temple University. He holds a Ph.D. and master's in
economics from Cornell and undergraduate degrees in math and
economics from the University of Florida. He has published on
many topics in the field of labor economics, and current
research focuses most heavily on higher education finance and
the returns in and to investments in--return to an investment
by going to college.
Dr. Alison Morrison-Shetlar is the interim chancellor at
Western Carolina University, where she serves as chief
executive officer for the university, and oversees all major
divisions of the university, including academic affairs,
administration and finance, student affairs, and legal affairs.
She has nearly 35 years of experience working in higher
education in eight institutions in three countries, and in both
public and private universities.
Jenae Parker is the first in her family to graduate from
college, obtained an associate in plant science, in human
resources management, from Columbus State Community College, in
December. She is now enrolled at Franklin University, a 4-year
institution, where she plans to obtain her bachelor's degree in
human resources management by the Fall of 2020. She is a
student parent, and her 8-year-old daughter joins us in the
front row today.
Dr. Beth Akers is a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute.
Prior to her role in Manhattan Institute, she was a fellow at
the--Brookings' Institution's Center on Children and Families.
Then a staff economist on President Bush's Council on Economic
Advisors, where she worked on Federal student lending policy,
as well as other education and labor issues. She received a
B.S. in mathematics and economics from SUNY in Albany and a
Ph.D. in economics from Columbia.
James Kvaal is president of the Institute for College and
College Access and Success, a nonprofit organization that works
on the issues of affordability, accountability, and equity in
education. He previously served as the deputy director of the
White House Domestic Policy Council and has senior roles in the
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. House of Representatives,
and the U.S. Senate. He taught at University of Michigan's Ford
School of Public Policy and attended Stanford University and
Harvard Law School.
We appreciate all the witnesses for being here today, and
we look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses
that we have your written statements, and they will appear in
full in the hearing record pursuant to committee rule 7D and
committee practice. Each of you is asked to limit your oral
presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written statement.
Let me remind the witnesses that Title 18, the U.S. Code
Section 1001, makes it illegal to knowingly and willfully
present false information to Congress, but before you begin
your testimony, please remember to press the button on the
microphone in front of you, so that you will be able to turn
the microphone on, so that the members can hear you. As you
begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green.
After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow to signal that you
have 1 minute remaining. When the light turns red, we would
appreciate it if you could summarize your testimony and wrap
up.
We will let the entire panel make presentations before we
move to member questions. When answering a question, please
remember, again, to turn your microphone on.
We will first recognize Dr. Webber.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS WEBBER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR
OF GRADUATE STUDIES, ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Mr. WEBBER. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, and
distinguished members of the committee, I sincerely thank you
for the opportunity to testify today, and for your interest and
devotion to college affordability. My name is Doug Webber and I
am an associate professor of economics at Temple University,
where I have focused on higher education finance and the
returns to college investment.
Affordability is about access, the value of a degree, and
the risk associated with the investment. I say with great
confidence that college is a risk worth taking for the vast
majority of individuals and is worth the considerable public
investment that we make in trying to ensure that a quality
education is affordable for anyone who wants it.
But the price of college has outpaced inflation over the
past several decades, making college less affordable. The high
prices and prospect of significant debt deter low-income
students, including highly qualified, low-income, high school
students from even--from ever enrolling. Higher debt loads and
the fact that we have a complicated repayment system that does
nothing to automatically place distressed borrowers into
income-driven repayment plans have increased students' risks,
particularly for students who do not complete a degree.
The factors driving the increasing price of college are
complex and vary greatly across sector. My research has found
that at public institutions, State divestment is responsible
for roughly 30 percent of tuition increases since the year
2000, and 41 percent of increases since the Great Recession
began in 2007. Possibly the biggest single driver is known as
Baumol's cost disease. The returns to very high levels of
education, such as a Ph.D., in the private sector have
increased dramatically over time. For example, in my field of
economics, the combination of modern computing technology and
econometric scales taught in most Ph.D. programs have caused
private sector salaries for economics Ph.D.'s to rise
substantially. This increased competition from the private
sector pushes up the salary that a university must offer to
hire an economist. The difficulty here is that rising
instructional costs are driven by market forces completely
outside the control of universities.
The problem is that as tuition has increased, low-income
individuals have found themselves with little money to pay for
college. For starters, the purchasing power of Pell Grants has
declined considerably over time. The maximum available Pell
Grant of $6,095 covers only 30 to 40 percent of the annual cost
of attendance at the average 4-year public school. This is down
from 80 percent in the 1970's. The decline in purchasing power
is largely due to nontuition expenses, such as housing, food,
and other school supplies. At the typical public institution,
tuition comprises only a quarter of the full cost of
attendance. As college prices have increased and the purchasing
power of Pell Grants has decreased, more students are working
during school. Seventy percent of college students work. Over
half of those work more than 20 hours per week. This is
problematic, as needing to work this much has been shown to
lengthen the time it takes to get a degree and also reduces the
likelihood of graduating.
More students are taking out loans. Today, 69 percent of
students borrow to pay for college, with the average 4-year
college graduate owing roughly $30,000 in Federal and non-
Federal debt when they leave school. Although our system of
need-based aid and loans is often needlessly complicated, it
does help students enroll and graduate.
To conclude, the picture of affordability is very complex.
The financial value of a college degree has never been higher,
but the downside risk has also increased over time,
particularly for those who do not graduate, and, unfortunately,
wealth and family background play an important role in college
success. In one striking statistic, a high-achieving student
from a low-income family is less likely to graduate from
college than a low-achieving student from a high-income family.
For more on how the wealth gap impacts student outcomes,
especially along the dimension of race, see the excellent
research of a colleague of mine from graduate school, Dr.
Fenaba Adbo of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Dr.
Jason Houle of Dartmouth University. I think there are many
areas of bipartisan agreement that will lead to a better future
for the students of this country, particularly as it relates to
accountability, which is somewhat--something that I have done a
lot of work on.
Thank you all for this opportunity to come before you
today. I am eager to help in any way that I can, both today and
in the coming weeks and months. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Dr. Webber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Ms. Morrison-Shetlar?
STATEMENT OF ALISON MORRISON-SHETLAR, INTERIM CHANCELLOR,
WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Good morning. My name is Dr. Alison
Morrison-Shetlar, and I am the interim chancellor of Western
Carolina University, the westernmost institution of the
globally recognized University of North Carolina system. Our
mission is to serve our region and our community. Our student
body reflects that. Approximately 43 percent of the Western
Carolina students are Pell Grant recipients, and 40 percent are
first generation college students.
Western Carolina University has enjoyed great success over
the last 7 years. Enrollment has soared to more than 11,600
students. Freshman retention has increased from 71 percent to
80 percent, and our 6-year graduation rate has risen from 50 to
60 percent.
As a regional comprehensive university, we know the lion's
share of the work needed to lift families out of poverty
happens at universities like ours. We take that responsibility
very seriously. This past fall, Western Carolina implemented a
bold and innovative program, created by a forward-thinking
North Carolina legislator, to strengthen our crucial role as an
engine of economic mobility, to make college more affordable
for every student, and to provide access to truly affordable
higher education that leads to timely graduation and a
transformed future for our students.
North Carolina has a long and proud history of generous
support for its public universities, and ranks fifth nationally
in both per pupil and per capita spending toward higher
education.
Our State recognizes that our universities drive economic
development, create jobs, and unlock opportunities for our
students and communities, large and small. With this in mind,
North Carolina General Assembly has taken important steps to
invest in, rather than divest from, public higher education. In
2016, the General Assembly implemented a fixed tuition program
across the system that guarantees a student's tuition will not
change for eight consecutive semesters. The following year, a
cap on student fees limited increases to no more than 3 percent
per year, helping keep inflationary costs at a reasonable
level. 2016 also saw the creation of NC Promise, one of the
country's boldest moves in providing a radically affordable
college education.
NC Promise sets tuition at $500 per semester for in-State
students and $2,500 per semester for out-of-State students at
three UNC system institutions: Elizabeth City State University,
the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and Western
Carolina University. The State pays the difference between what
it used to cost before NC Promise to the tune of $51 million
this first year alone. For context, that is around one and a
half times Tennessee's investment in their innovative free
community college program, Tennessee Promise.
The goals for NC Promise are clear: increase access to
higher education, improve affordability, reduce student debt,
and continue to grow North Carolina's economy. I hear from my
students every day that this program is a game changer. It is
opening doors. It is changing the trajectory of their lives. It
is setting them up for success beyond their expectations, and
NC Promise's impact on decreasing student debt is significant.
NC Promise is unique compared to most access programs
nationally because it is a first-dollar scholarship. That means
the tuition price comes down before any other financial aid is
awarded. Under NC Promise, Pell Grants, State scholarships, and
institutional aid go a lot further. For example, at Western,
the program allows an in-State student who graduates in 4 years
to save approximately $12,000. That is nearly equivalent to the
total cost of attendance for one full academic year.
So, is NC Promise working? Unequivocally, the answer is
yes. At Western Carolina University, in fall 2018, total
undergraduate enrollment grew by 6.6 percent. At UNC Pembroke
and Elizabeth City, the two other--UNC Promise institutions,
enrollments grew by 14 percent and 19 percent, respectively. At
Western Carolina University, the number of first-time, full-
time freshman increased by 10.5 percent, and transfer of
students by 40.5 percent.
In a survey of our fall 2018 entering class, almost a third
of our new students with significant financial needs said that
if it had not been for NC Promise, they would not have been
able to attend any college or university. These numbers are
hard to ignore. All three NC Promise institutions are located
in historically underserved parts of North Carolina. Pembroke
and Elizabeth City are both historically minority-serving
institutions. This program is a target intervention that lifts
up the communities and families who need it the most.
There should also be no question that an educated
leadership ready for work force is absolutely essential for
economic development. We know that an affordable college degree
can transform a student's future. North Carolina's overall
investment in higher education and the groundbreaking NC
Promise program is a resounding win for all: students win;
their families win; the businesses that call our State home
win, and we are a step closer to creating a thriving economy
and a better life for all of our citizens.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you
today.
[The statement of Dr. Morrison-Shetlar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Ms. Parker?
STATEMENT OF JENAE PARKER, STUDENT, FRANKLIN UNIVERSITY
Ms. PARKER. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, and the
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. The price of college is a subject I know a lot about,
and so does my 8-year-old daughter, Journey Marie. On TV,
college looks like a lot of fun. Students live in dorms, eat
pizza on campus, relax at the gym between classes. It is really
seems like a mini vacation, but that image is nothing like what
I have experienced in real life. I suspect the reality is far
more common than the media stories. It needs to be a greater
part of the conversation about the real college experience that
Americans are having.
I am 29. I am a parent, like nearly one in four college
students. I am also a single parent, like 14 percent of
students. Eleven years ago, I graduated from high school and
went to the University of Toledo. Money was so tight that I did
not have a comforter when I arrived on campus. The university
cost over $25,000 per year, and all I got was a Pell Grant of
$4,300. I borrowed $20,000 in Federal and in private loans, and
worked at Starbucks, a grill, and also Target. It was
exhausting. I could not focus on school and, 2 years later, I
dropped out.
Time passed. I got married. I had Journey, and I also got
divorced. In 2013, I was working full-time and decided to try
college again, this time at Columbus State Community College. I
juggled full-time work and full-time college while raising my
daughter and caring for my mother, who had fallen ill.
I loved school, but when my mom passed away, I had to also
care for my two teenage brothers. Again, it seemed college was
not in the cards for me.
The third time, I enrolled in college part-time, and worked
several part-time jobs. It was slow, but it was the only way I
could afford school. Many people think community college is
already free, but Journey and I know that is not true.
Our bills got so tight we ran out of money for food, and
this was not about ramen. We lacked enough money to eat
regularly. Then we were evicted. I thought this was my fault,
but then I realized that 50 percent of college students are
also dealing with food and housing insecurity. More than one in
10 are homeless. Are we all just not college material or have
we all done something wrong?
Eventually, I found a college staff member who referred me
to childcare, health insurance, food stamps, a scholarship, and
housing in Scholar House, and I succeeded. In December 2018, I
earned my associate's and transferred to Franklin University,
where I am now pursuing a bachelor's in human resource
management, and I also plan on a graduate degree in psychology.
It seems that for Pell recipients like me, the only way to
attend college and eat is to use food stamps, but what happens
to the millions of students who cannot get that help? The U.S.
Government Accountability Office recently said that 2 million
students are having trouble paying for college, but not getting
help from SNAP. Like me, most are first-generation students.
Many are also single parents.
For me to go to college and to focus, I have to know that
my child is safe, but 95 percent of campuses with childcare
have long waiting lists, and some campuses do not have
childcare at all. I am here today because of my daughter. I am
also here for students like me around the country and students
like those that Journey will become. I know the odds are low
that Journey and I will ever escape poverty, but I also know
that college education--a college education helps, and we will.
I am clearly willing to work for this bachelor's degree, but on
days when money is tight and the bills are due, I wonder why I
am paying for the price for a badly broken system. What would
happen if Congress instead built a college financing system
that matched the strength and ambition of today's students,
like myself? I hope my story makes clear how desperately we
want to improve our lives, and how very real the struggle of
paying for college has become.
Thank you for your time.
[The statement of Ms. Parker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Dr. Akers?
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH AKERS, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN
INSTITUTE
Ms. AKERS. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Foxx, and members of the committee. My name is Beth Akers, and
I am a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where I
conduct research on higher education in the United States with
a focus on finance. I have now worked in this space for over a
decade; first, in my position as staff economist for the
Council of Economic Advisors and at the Brookings Institution,
as a fellow in both governance and economic studies. Thank you
for the opportunity to share my testimony here today.
College is expensive and getting more so every year. This
inflation, combined with the growing enrollment among less
well-off students, is driving student borrowing to tick up year
after year. The current outstanding balance of $1.5 trillion is
the highest level in history, but it is important to remember
that spending on higher education is, at least on average,
worth it. The increase in earnings that comes from having a
college degree tends to outweigh the upfront cost of
enrollment. This makes debt a reasonable mechanism for helping
students to pay for college. For those who do go on to see a
positive return on their spending, the problem of affordability
is an issue of liquidity or being able to borrow from their
future earnings, and not an issue of price.
This notion is borne out by the statistics. While the
popular media has frequently told stories of borrowers
struggling with repayment, like the dental student who managed
to amass $1 million in student debt, the vast majority of
borrowers have small balances, reasonable payments relative to
their income, and are eligible to take advantage of safety nets
that will reduce or stop payments in times of financial
hardship. The reality is that few borrowers have astronomical
balances. As of 2015, just 5 percent of borrowers had balances
in excess of $100,000, and many of those borrowers had
completed graduate or professional programs that would lead to
high-paying careers. While it is the responsibility of the
media to cover the dire circumstances of the few, I am afraid
that this has distorted our collective impression of the
magnitude of the college cost problem, but knowing they are in
the minority will provide little comfort to borrowers who find
themselves underwater on their educational spending, nor should
the infrequency of this problem cause policymakers to turn a
blind eye.
Sadly, many students are spending on college, only to end
up worse off financially than if they had not gone in the first
place. College is risky, and it is this risk, not the price of
college, that is untenable. The system of higher education
finance that we have in place today is not fundamentally out of
sync with the challenges we face, but a small number of
important policy changes could bring it closer in line with our
collective objectives.
First, we need to shore up the safety net for borrowers,
and redesign it so that it operates effectively and is fiscally
sustainable. It should be simple in design and foolproof to
utilize, such that all students, not just those who are
intensely financially savvy, can factor its existence into
their enrollment and spending decisions. To accomplish this, we
need to replace the existing system of Federal lending with a
single loan program that collects loan repayment through a plan
that ties monthly payments to a borrower's income.
There will always be a tension between providing a safety
net and diminishing the incentive for people to be self-
sufficient. Moral hazard is inevitable, but smart program
design can ensure that safety nets are as efficient as possible
and do not create incentives for perverse behavior, like those
that exist in the current system.
We also need to work to mitigate the financial risk of
college enrollment by empowering consumers with better
information. The introduction of the college scorecard during
the Obama Administration was a tremendous step forward. We
should continue these efforts by improving and expanding the
information that is available to students as they shop for
college. And before we consider increased spending on
subsidies, we need to make our current spending work harder for
students and taxpayers by moving dollars from hidden and
inefficient channels, like tax benefits and interest rate
subsidies, to places they will do the most good. I believe all
Federal subsidies to higher education should be delivered
through a single means-tested grant program that delivers the
most aid to the least well-off students.
With these primary changes in place, we should also look
for ways to support new, low-cost business models that can put
downward pressure on prices at all institutions. Innovation in
higher education marketplace is currently limited by the
constraints on access to Federal financial aid. It is
challenging for innovative startups to compete with traditional
institutions, where their students cannot access Federal grants
or subsidized student loans. We should continue the work
started with the EQUIP Program under the Experimental Sites
Initiative to explore how best to extend Federal student aid
dollars to new, low-cost providers.
Lastly, I urge you to reject the growing demand to make
college free. Universality would be justified if there were
fundamental barriers to a functioning marketplace in higher
education, but no market failure exists that is not rectifiable
through subsidies, provision of credit, and appropriate
regulation. Embracing universality and postsecondary education
would come at a tremendous financial cost, but would also rob
us of the byproducts of a competitive marketplace: innovation,
quality, and adequacy of supply.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look
forward to answering all of your questions.
[The statement of Dr. Akers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Is it Dr. Kvaal? Thank you.
Mr. KVAAL. Yes.
Chairman SCOTT. Dr. Kvaal.
STATEMENT OF JAMES KVAAL, PRESIDENT, THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE
ACCESS AND SUCCESS
Mr. KVAAL. Yes, thank you. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Foxx, and members of the committee, thank you for the great
privilege of being here today. American colleges and
universities are nearly unmatched in their potential to create
opportunity and raise living standards, but over the last
generation, we have had a sea change in how we pay for college.
States have cut funding for public colleges and universities,
and that drives up tuition for the three-quarters of students
who attend public universities and community colleges.
Higher costs mean many students do not enroll. There is a
long line of research that suggests that each additional
thousand dollars in costs reduce enrollments by 3 to 5
percentage points. Other students work long hours or enroll
part-time, often at the expense of academic success. Some go
hungry or homeless. Only 58 percent of our students earn a
degree within 6 years. The most common reason they give for
dropping out is to earn more money. It is not surprising then
that students with high earning parents are five times more
likely to hold a college degree. Latino adults are only half as
likely to hold a college degree as other Americans, and black
adults only two-thirds as likely.
Growing college costs have also created a concentrated
crisis in student debt. While most students benefit from
college and repay their loans, millions of students fall behind
on their loans, default, or see their balances grow over time
because their payments are smaller than accrued interest.
Struggling borrowers tend to have smaller loans, often because
they dropped out of college. Others successfully completed but
attended low-quality programs. For example, one study found
that certificate programs at for-profit colleges leave students
worse off, on average, because their increased learnings are
smaller than their student debts.
Over 1 million students a year default on their loans,
suffering punitive consequences that can drive them deeper into
debt. The experience of black borrowers, in particular, is
deeply disturbing. Seventy percent of black borrowers are
projected to eventually default. These problems were a
generation in the making and reversing them will not happen
quickly. However, I offer three recommendations.
First, Congress should set a goal of doubling the Pell
Grant, which is the level needed to end disparities in college
affordability. It may not be able to double the Pell Grant
immediately, but it should at least increase Pell Grants faster
than inflation every year. It should also make them a true
entitlement to protect them from the economic cycle.
Second, Congress should build a new relationship with
States. Federal efforts to make college more affordable simply
cannot succeed without robust State investments alongside them.
A new partnership with States should prioritize low-income
students, consider the full cost of college, not just tuition,
and address inequities in how States fund the colleges,
enrolling the most low-income students and students of color.
Finally, Congress should make it easier to repay loans as a
share of income. Students in income-driven repayment plans are
less likely to fall behind on their loans. They actually pay
back more as a result, and they are financially healthier
overall. However, improvements in IDR are needed. The five
existing programs should be combined into a single plan that
sets payments for all borrowers at 10 percent of income, above
a living allowance. It should be easier for students to enroll
and to certify their incomes, and after 20 years of payments,
any remaining balance should be forgiven.
Some final observations. First, too many unnecessary
defaults occur because of the low quality of the private
companies that collect student loans for the Department of
Education. I urge Congress to hold these companies to high
standards.
Second, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
encourages graduates to become teachers, nurses, service
members, first responders, but the program is far too
complicated and poorly run. In the first round of applications,
99 percent of applicants were denied. We should retain this
program, but we should simplify it.
Finally, the issue of affordability is intertwined with the
question of accountability for student outcomes. Some colleges
routinely leave students with unaffordable loans. I urge the
committee to carefully consider how accountability can improve
the value that colleges offer students and taxpayers.
After decades of shifting the cost to students, it is
important to remember that we all have a stake in helping more
Americans graduate. Investing in Pell Grants, partnering with
States, and ensuring loans are affordable are a realistic path
to help bring about the society we want.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Kvaal follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you, and I thank all our witnesses
for their testimony. Now, we begin with our members'
questionings. I will reserve my questions to the end and call
on the chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee, Ms. Davis.
Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
it. Thank you all for being here, particularly our student, who
is here to represent someone who is more close to this process
than some of us are. And I want to also mention very briefly,
because, you know, we can all imagine how many students and
parents are anxiously awaiting those letters on admissions
today, and how, in many ways powerless, they must be feeling
when they know they have worked hard, played by the rules, and
yet, we have this scandal that we are all going to be
following, and it hurts many communities, even in San Diego. I
know that the news is hitting hard.
I wanted to go--first to Dr. Webber. And you were
mentioning in your testimony how public institutions respond to
State budget cuts by increasing their tuition and cutting
spending. Can you just talk a little bit more how the cutting
of spending actually can be far more detrimental to students in
some cases than even the increase in tuition?
Mr. WEBBER. Absolutely. Well, thank you for that question.
And I also wanted to briefly mention that I am legally blind,
so I sincerely apologize if I am not making eye contact with
you at this moment.
So, spending matters quite a bit for graduation, and there
are many low, low resourced institutions that, you know, simply
are not able to provide the services that, especially, you
know, many at-risk students currently need for graduating. And,
you know, as we have, you know, talked about already today, the
students who are at the greatest risk in terms of student debt
are the ones who do not get the degree. So, to the extent that
spending cuts hurts the likelihood of graduation, that is,
potentially, even more damaging than a rising upfront cost.
Mrs. DAVIS. How do you think, and maybe others can answer
this, too, that our public institutions have addressed this
problem? What are they doing, specifically?
Mr. WEBBER. So, I think there are many different ways that
different States have, you know, tried to address this. So,
there are a number of States that have implemented Promise
programs, like--
Mrs. DAVIS. Right. We did hear from--mm-hmm.
Mr. WEBBER [continuing]. like North Carolina. I mean, my
colleague to my left might be better equipped at addressing
that than me.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I think the investment of the State
has been unprecedented for North Carolina, and as a result,
being able to ensure that the students receive the kind of
support that they need to be successful is paramount. And so
having the option to increase the number of students and,
therefore, increase the need for these resources or increase
the number of students and decrease these resources goes
counterproductive to the success of the students.
Mrs. DAVIS. Right, and I know that you addressed, briefly,
and others, just how that matters to the outcomes because we
have students who, unfortunately, are taking longer and, in
some cases, that might be okay, but it also costs them a lot
more to do that and it has a greater burden on the institution.
How have the outcomes been represented in that way?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. So, North Carolina's system has a
series of metrics as part of their strategic plan, and we are
held to those and we are accountable for those. And with North
Carolina Promise, what we are finding, even in the first year,
that we have had an increase in enrollment of low-income and
rural students, and that metric is something, as I say, we are
held accountable to. To be able to see that increase because of
a reduction in the cost of attendance really means that we have
to make sure that we have the resources available to make sure
that they are successful in their time to graduation. So, we
are also seeing retention as being a big component of this, and
resources need to be put in place so that we can continue to
retain our students, so that they are successful, graduate on
time, and then leave to get good jobs, where they can then
become good citizens of the community.
Mrs. DAVIS. Mm-hmm. Dr. Kvaal, you were talking about
accountability, as well. I think you have all kind of mentioned
that in terms of the ability of students who actually attend
some of the for-profit institutions to be able to graduate, and
to be able to pay back loans because they are earning a
reasonable amount of money that represents their effort. Could
you speak about our military, and how, in fact, we know our
veterans, our active duty personnel, and, certainly, their
families are affected by this, that they have really been
shortchanged on many levels and are really a target of some of
these institutions? How is that affecting them?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, we have seen some of the deceptive and
high-pressure recruiting tactics at for-profit colleges, focus
on service members and veterans, and there are, really, two
reasons for that. One is GI Bill benefits and military
education benefits can be quite generous. The second reason is
for-profit colleges, by law, can only receive up to 90 percent
of their revenue from Federal student aid, but that limitation
does not apply to veterans or military benefits. So, for every
veteran they enroll with GI Bill benefits, they can enroll an
additional nine students with Federal student loans, and so
that has led to some of the extreme pressure on military
service members and veterans.
Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I know, Mr. Chairman, that the time
is up, and perhaps, at some point, we can talk about how the
Federal Government can address that better. Thank you.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The ranking member will defer.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, first of all, Ms.
Parker, you hang in there. You are going to make it. I am going
to confess that if it were not for the small university, Austin
Peay, in my hometown of Clarksville, Tennessee, I would not be
sitting here today. I went to dinner the other night, on
Eighth, not a very expensive place, and two of us, my wife and
I, had dinner, no alcohol, and that cost more than a quarter of
college. I was able to go to college. I stayed home. I worked
the whole time I was in school and medical school to graduate
in 7 years with both of those, with zero debt, with a father
who was a factory worker and a mother who was a bank teller.
So, college was very affordable then. You could actually work
your way through school.
The average medical student where I taught, at Quillen
College of Medicine in Johnson City, graduates with $175,000 in
debt. That is a huge debt. I think the question is: is college
going to be relevant anymore? And I think it is a question to
ask, I think, at Western Carolina. And, by the way, East
Tennessee State beat you guys the other day, in basketball. I
want to point that out, and I do want to offer my condolences
to you for losing Coach Larry Hunter. I have booed him many
times at basketball games, but a good, a great man.
In Tennessee, we have decided that education had to be
affordable for our citizens. So, we put the Tennessee Promise
in and Tennessee Reconnect. You can now go to community college
in our State for free, and I will just give you a couple little
things. At our local TCAT, which is our technical school, at
one of them, I just saw the other day, 77 percent finish on
time, 97 percent are placed in a job, and 100 percent graduate
with no debt. So, you can go out in our State, and then, if you
go to--if you go from community college to a 4-year college,
East Tennessee State University, Tennessee Tech, Austin Peay,
wherever, you have the Hope Scholarship to help you. So, we
have tried to make it affordable for our students in our State,
and I think it is being successful. I really do, and we are
paying for that with our Lottery Scholarship.
Another confession, I have served on two foundation boards,
been the president of one, and I think the college investment
is the best investment I ever made, without a doubt. I have not
heard any of you all talk about it. I know you know Dr. Zeppos
at Vanderbilt University, who complains about the
administrative cost, and at Vanderbilt it adds about $10,000 or
$11,000. They spend $150 million a year complying with Federal
mandates and check the box. I heard no one talk about that, or
did not see it in your testimony, how much is added to FASFA
with 100-plus questions, and on and on. Could we streamline
that for you all and help with the cost a little bit because a
lot of the reporting does not add any value to the students?
Anyone can take that question.
Ms. AKERS. That is something I can chime in on. So, I
think, something to think about with the administrative costs,
we often see people pointing their finger at this as,
potentially, the driver of the rising costs that are getting
passed onto students. I think we want to realize that if we
were looking at an institution that was providing tremendous
outcomes for students, and they happen to have the large
expenditures on administration, we probably would not be
questioning whether or not that is an appropriate place for the
institution to be doing their spending. What happens inside the
school is somewhat of a black box in terms of their finances. I
think what we want to be concerned most with is the outcomes
that they are producing.
The thing that I want to ask is what is it about the demand
side of the equation that is enabling these institutions to
drive up their spending because of the increases in revenue
that is coming from the increased sticker price and tuition
that students are actually charged?
Mr. ROE. All that Ms. Parker is worried about, it was like
when I sent my children to college. All I was interested in,
when I drew the bottom line, was how much of a check do I have
to write you all, and that check keeps getting bigger and
bigger, and I looked at the inflation rate. I thought we were
bad in medicine. We were actually pretty good compared to
colleges. Colleges increased their costs almost 8 percent per
year for the last 40 years, annually. That is a huge increase,
and it is putting college out of the reach of people like Ms.
Parker. And I think colleges are going to have to rethink, with
all of the technology that is on this PDA I have got in my hand
right here, I can learn a lot at no cost.
So, if you look at going to Georgetown, I just pulled it
up, I do not want to pick on them, but at $75,000 a year, if
you then go teach school at Johnson City, Tennessee, that is
hardly a return on your investment. Then if you end up being an
investment banker in New York, it probably is, but you may want
to be a teacher. So, you are going to have to rethink where you
go.
And I think another thing that we are doing, that I think
both sides of the aisle do, is to educate these young people
when they come in, about you do not have to borrow the maximum
amount of money. You can borrow this much to get along because
you are going to have to pay for it, sooner or later.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Connecticut?
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for holding this
hearing early in the Congress. Hopefully, this is going to be
the year that the 116th Congress reauthorizes the Higher Ed. It
was 2008 was the last time, and we are way overdue for an issue
that, again, every part of the country is looking for help and
action.
First of all, I just wanted to note for, you know, my
friend from Tennessee cited the Vanderbilt report. Actually, if
you sort of drill down a little bit, in terms of the numbers
that they used, in terms of the $146 million, in terms of added
costs, most of those regs that they identified were, actually
had to do with the research component of universities and
colleges, and, you know, for things on human subjects, which, I
think, all of us would probably agree that is not a bad idea.
So, you know, that number, which, again, there is a report, I
do not dispute that, but the number is actually a little more
complicated than, I think, some of the reporting on it.
So, I checked this morning. The U.S. Treasury is selling
10-year notes for 2.6 percent. I always sort of use it as a
benchmark when we talk about the Stafford Student Loan Program
because those are 10-year term notes that the government
offers. Again, even today, we are still getting back around 4
to 5 percent in terms of--from students. So that, that
differential, that delta, between what the government is paying
when it borrows versus what students are paying when they
borrow from the same government, it is, again, just pure sort
of windfall for the Federal Government. GAO reported that
between the years of 2007 and 2012, the Federal Government had
a windfall of about $66 billion in terms of that differential
that is there.
This morning, myself along with a lot of my colleagues on
this committee are reintroducing the Bank on Students Emergency
Loan Refinancing Bill. Senator Warren is introducing a
companion bill in the Senate, which would allow people, both
private and--both public and private student loans, to write
down their interest rate to 3.7 percent, which was the rate
back in 2016. We know from last year's analysis by CBO that
would put about $50 billion into the pockets of students and
folks who have graduated and who are struggling with student
loans. It is not, you know, the panacea, but, certainly, if you
look--if you talk to middle class people, who, you know, are
trying to lower their monthly expenses, obviously, refinancing
their home mortgage, car loans, credit card debt. I mean, that
is a tool that is normal, and yet--but in the student loan
market because it is restricted in the public side by law, and
in the private side by the fact that you have to have equity to
go in and refinance, you need a--you know, some other piece of
property in terms of writing it down. This is the year we
should move forward on that. It is just, at least, one way of
trying to stop the bleeding.
And I guess, Dr. Kvaal, I guess, you have talked, again,
about these sort of the horror numbers in terms of default. At
least being able to refinance down an interest rate, I think,
would provide some mitigation of that problem. Would you agree?
Mr. KVAAL. Yes.
Mr. COURTNEY. Okay, and I do not know if anyone would
disagree, but I think that would, hopefully, be the case.
Ms. Parker, you talked about your story. Thank you for
being here. And I do not mean to, but, you know, the private
student loan interest rates are far higher than even the
inflated Stafford rates, and maybe just could comment, if
having that ability to write down the interest rates would be a
benefit to you and your friends?
Ms. PARKER. Thank you. I--yes, it would be a benefit to
myself and my peers--
Mr. COURTNEY. Congresswoman Shalala is very excited about
this bill, obviously, so--
Ms. PARKER. I have accrued now, and you said in private?--
Mr. COURTNEY. Both private and public can write down to 3
percent--
Ms. PARKER. I am at about $66,000, and I have an
associate's degree--
Mr. COURTNEY. Right--
Ms. PARKER. So, yes, it would be beneficial to merit.
Mr. COURTNEY. Well, thank you--
Ms. PARKER. Mm-hmm.
Mr. COURTNEY [continuing]. and I do not know if--
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I would agree, and also I would want
to say that the North Carolina Promise is a first-dollar plan,
whereas other free programs tend to be last-dollar and rely on
existing aid first. So, the North Carolina Promise is actually
better and more generous, particularly for low-income students,
so, and I think your comment, financial literacy is something
that we also need to be making sure that we are educating our
students and will.
Mr. COURTNEY. I guess we are about to run out of time, but,
again, it was part of the Aim Higher Act, last year and,
hopefully--we are very optimistic this is the year to move
forward on it.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg?
Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here. This, of course, is an unbelievably
important subject for us to be considering, and financial
literacy absolutely is something that we have not done well,
and we are seeing the challenges of that.
Dr. Morrison-Shetlar, I often hear that the FAFSA form is a
real obstacle to students in continuing their education. I have
supported legislation that would allow the IRS to share income
information with the Education Department, thereby making it
easier for students, and as families, to accurately complete
the FAFSA form and access student aid.
This policy would also improve accuracy and cut down on the
time that student aid administrators spend verifying a family's
income.
Dr. Morrison-Sheltar, has it been your experience at the
Western Carolina University that the FAFSA form can act as an
obstacle for students? And, second, what advice do you have for
us to simplify FAFSA in any HEA reauthorization?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I am in complete agreement that the
FAFSA and the protocol to complete the FAFSA is, for some
people, an insurmountable position. A lot of our students,
particularly at Western Carolina University, are first
generation. They come from low-income backgrounds, and when
faced with the questions that are on the FAFSA in which they
have to remember or they do not have the information, they just
do not do it and, as a result, they do not apply, and,
therefore, they do not go to university or college. And so to--
for my recommendation for all of the Federal grants and
applications, we do simplify them, help people with the
process, if needed, and we do that at Western Carolina
University when people approach us.
And so, yes, I would love to see us streamline those
compliance, make sure that is streamlined and allows people the
opportunity to get the education that they deserve and have
earned as their right.
Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. Dr. Akers, would you have any
addition to that from your experience?
Ms. AKERS. Absolutely. I would adore simplification of the
FAFSA. I think that your initial comments about financial
literacy are critically important. Just to cite some evidence
from some of my earlier research, we know that, through survey
data, that students are shockingly underinformed about their
own financial circumstances. So, only about half of students in
their first year of college education know how much they are
paying for their degree, and about a third of students are able
to accurately tell you how much they have borrowed. So, to me,
this is a pretty important crisis that we have in higher
education finance today.
Mr. WALBERG. So, a wake-up call of--for instance, Ms.
Parker, of $66,000, as you mentioned that. It is amazing. When
you first started, did you expect anything like that to be the
case in the process?
Ms. PARKER. Not only did I not expect it, I, honestly, had
no idea.
Mr. WALBERG. No.
Ms. PARKER. The financial illiteracy piece is a good--
Mr. WALBERG. Yes. Yes.
Ms. PARKER. It is a big piece because I just was not aware.
Mr. WALBERG. Yes.
Ms. PARKER. I was not informed.
Mr. WALBERG. Yes. You make the example point very clearly
that, why we have to move forward on this. Dr. Akers, in your
testimony, you note that, in some cases, the students are
spending money on college, only end up worse off financially
than if they had not gone to college in the first place. In
looking at the Federal Student Aid System, I am concerned about
perverse incentives to overborrow. Can you expand a bit on what
those perverse incentives are, and discuss ways we could
address them in reauthorization and do it in such a way that I
can explain it to my adult children in caring for their--my
grandkids as they come up?
Ms. AKERS. Sure. So, the most glaring, perverse incentive
that exists in the current financial aid regime is that
borrowers who anticipate that they will be eligible for student
loan forgiveness at the end of either 10 or 20 years, whether
they are in public or private sector, basically, face no
marginal cost for every additional dollar that they are
borrowing. So, consider I am a student at a very high-cost
institution. I have some understanding of what my career path
is going to be after I finish, maybe because I am in a
profession, like law or medicine, where careers are
relatively--or earnings are relatively well-known. I may reach
a point in my borrowing, if I have been at high-cost
institutions, where every additional dollar that I take on in
debt to support my lifestyle, for instance, will very likely,
or with almost certainty, be forgiven. And so, in that case, I
have incentive to borrow as much as I am able to borrow through
the Federal Lending Program.
What is the solution to this? I think we need to consider
limits on the eligibility for loan forgiveness, both in PSLF
and income-driven repayment plans, like IBR and Pay as You
Earn. Capping those, I think, would diminish that perverse
incentive considerably.
Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Well, thank you.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you.
Mr. WALBERG. I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge?
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you all for being here today; Ms. Parker from Ohio, as well. It
is a pleasure to see you, and to watch your daughter have such
great pride when she hears you speak.
Ms. Parker, surely, if we can provide $13 billion to
farmers because of the President's bad losing trade war with
China, we can help you. Surely, if we can give $1-1/2 trillion
in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country, surely we
should be able to help you and some of those very people we
have just seen in the news cheat to get their children in
college and you have done it the hard way. So, I am confident
that you are going to be successful.
I am confident that you are going to see your way out of
poverty because you have worked hard. You are committed and a
lot of these cheaters are not. So, be confident. Just claim
that, all right, because you are going to be successful.
Dr. Kvaal, do you think that it is important for us to
discuss loan forgiveness as we talk about income-driven
repayment plans?
Mr. KVAAL. I do.
Ms. FUDGE. And what should that be? What should that
discussion be like?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, my view is that students who are paying
everything they are supposed to pay over a period of 20 years
should, at that point in time, have the opportunity to have the
rest of their student loan forgiven. Twenty years is a very
long time. We know that student debt affects your credit score.
It makes it difficult to save for mortgage. After 20 years, you
may be trying to save for your children's education, and I
think there is an opportunity there, where we need to say that
we have collected what we can collect from the student.
Ms. FUDGE. So, is there something that we can do in a
shorter period than 20 years to help somebody like Ms. Parker?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, I think there is a--there are a couple of
things that people that qualify--that should qualify for
special help. I think one is people who go into public service
careers, and we know that student debt is an obstacle and does
affect career choices, and that can make it a challenge to
recruit people into the military and to teaching careers. It
impacts the diversity of those public service work forces.
I think a second category is people who have been cheated
by their colleges, and there are, currently, over 100,000
borrowers who have applications pending at the Education
Department claiming fraud or some other illegal conduct at
their college. Those people need to have their loans forgiven
as well.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. Just one more question for you, Dr.
Kvaal. Grad PLUS loans. How do you believe that Grad PLUS loans
assist with students in underrepresented communities, or even
fields, for that matter, can get to graduate school, and what
effect would there be if we eliminated them altogether?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, Graduate PLUS loans are an important
source of finance for many people pursuing graduate and
professional degrees, especially people whose families are low
in wealth, including communities of color. And we expanded
access to Federal loans for these communities because we were
concerned that, otherwise, they would borrow higher cost
private loans that have interest rates that can be as high as
13 or 14 percent.
Ms. FUDGE. Dr. Morrison-Shetlar, since you represent a
university that deals with a lot of first-time and low-income
students, what do you think we should be looking at to try to
reduce the ongoing, and sometimes it is exorbitant, rate that--
of loans that people have to take out? What do you think we
should be doing differently? Is it increasing Pell Grants? Is
it doing--just give me your ideas.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I certainly would approve of reducing
the cost to a student to be able to attend, and attend their
dream of a--of an education. There are a lot of grants, as we
heard, loans out there. I would like to see those simplified in
terms of applications and more investment in those.
Pell Grants is a really good example. With over 40 percent
Pell Grant--Pell-eligible students at Western Carolina
University, we could see a tremendous amount of reduction in
indebtedness with all of the results that occurs from that:
people graduating on time, not having to do three or four jobs
to be able to make it through, which distracts from their time
of really focusing on their education and their future careers.
So, I would like to see what we are all currently doing
expanded, and make sure that it is the easy--and relevant to be
able to apply for those opportunities.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, and I am going to close,
again, with Ms. Parker. You know, we live in a country where
people say if you work hard, you will be successful and you
will do well. I want you to know that those people who believe
people like you are lazy--you are a perfect example of someone
who is not. I wish you all the very best. I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Guthrie?
Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding time,
and thank you for the panelists for being here today. This is
an important hearing, and I appreciate the chairman for calling
it.
So, Dr. Akers, according to a study by the Brookings
Institute, only a quarter of first year students could
accurately report how much they had borrowed, and 14 percent of
students who had borrowed money thought they had no debt at
all. This information problem is very concerning to me, which
is why I have introduced a bipartisan counseling bill with my
friend, Congresswoman Bonamici from Oregon, in the last three
Congresses to enhance financial aid awareness and
understanding. The bill would require more detailed and annual
counseling for Federal aid recipients throughout their
education. Can you discuss the benefits of counseling students
on their financial aid?
Ms. AKERS. Sure. So, a lot of folks are looking into the
fact that the provision of information about the cost that
students are facing and the aid that they are receiving is
unnecessarily difficult to digest. So, the students were--
discussed just recently are receiving, right now, their
acceptance letters to universities and also their financial aid
award packages. These packages are not often, like, complete
transparent about the difference between loans and grants, and
I think this is leaving students questioning what exactly their
financial circumstances are. Obviously, it is leaving them
questioning that because we were able to document that using
survey data. So, if we want students to be able to police the
market for higher education using their dollars, that is
choosing to spend at institutions that are delivering good
outcomes for students, they need to understand what it is they
are paying. They need to understand what it is they are
borrowing.
We also, of course, want them to understand what it is that
institutions are delivering to students that they have served
previously. So, I think it is critically important to the
system, and also just to individual students themselves.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. And, Dr. Webber, with
$1.4 trillion in outstanding Federal loan debt, there is no
doubt that students are struggling with student debt. In your
testimony, you noted the large amount of misinformation on who
is suffering the most from taking on loan debt. Can you please
explain what level of education students with $60,000 or more
debt are seeking compared to the average balance of defaulted
loans?
Mr. WEBBER. Sure. So, on average, the typical student who
has, you know, more than, say, $100,000 in debt, first, they
are very rare. We are talking about 5 percent of borrowers.
Most of them are people who have gone to graduate school and
received, you know, professional degrees, med school that are
going to pay off in spades. Not all of them. And, you know, I
do not want to minimize the problems that some have, but it is
somewhat of a distraction from the much, much larger problem of
people who have, say, between $5,000 and $10,000 in debt, but
did not graduate, attended a, you know, low value institution
and under-resourced institution, and said--because the vast
majority of the college premium is tied up in actually getting
the degree, then, you know, having $5,000 or $10,000 in debt,
which is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, you are going to be
much, much more likely to default under that scenario than
someone with, you know, a graduate or professional degree and
much more debt.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. And Dr. Morrison-Shetlar,
I was interested in your testimony about the partnership with
regional community colleges, and could you elaborate on this? I
know, in Kentucky, a lot of people are getting their 2-years
degree and then moving on. They matriculate direct, straight
into our 4-year universities with the transferring credit. And
when I was in the State legislature, I worked with someone to
do dual credit, and we actually have people graduating from
high school with their associate's degree if they want to do--
move forward. Since they are with no debt, I think that there
is some cost to it, but it is not, typically, if they went,
graduated from high school and went. So, could you explain what
you guys are doing to keep college costs down by working with
community colleges?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Most certainly. The great thing about
Western Carolina University is that we work with all of our
community colleges. We set up MOUs through particular tracts of
education, so that students, when they go to the community
college, know what they need to take at the community college
that will count toward their 4-year degree, should they choose
to go on and do that. And so we work very closely with the
presidents and with the admissions office and with the advising
office, which I think is a key component to anyone transferring
from one institution to another. At Western, we have--42
percent of our students are transfer students, and we make sure
that the curriculum alignment is in place, and that, also, the
advising that they are getting at the community college is
enough affiliation with that at Western Carolina University.
So, a seamless transfer is really, really important. Curriculum
alignment is really, really important.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. I appreciate everybody for being
here, and the chairman for calling this meeting. My time has
expired, so I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from the Northern
Mariana Islands, Mr. Sablan?
Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing. Good morning to all the panelists.
Welcome, Journey. I hope that you will remember forever this
moment in your life, and how your mother is sharing her story
with us because that story is, has you as a part in it, a major
part.
I would also like to take an opportunity, the privilege, to
recognize in the audience a student from the Northern Marianas,
who is attending school here in Washington, DC, Olivia. So,
your name is on the record for good. She does not like that,
but anyway.
I come from a place where we have a community college, a 2-
year college. Ninety percent of our students qualify for a Pell
Grant. And when I went to college, I was, had to come here as a
foreign student. My father had a family of seven children to
raise, and was making $1.00, $1.25 an hour, and he lost his
job. I could not just go and get a job because I needed to get
immigration to approve it as well. So, it was not easy for me
to finish college, to be very honest.
Ms. Parker, congratulations. I mean, well, you are in my
prayers, too. You will succeed, also.
I agree with--but Chancellor Morrison-Shetlar, you may not
know this, but, again, my district, in the Northern Mariana
Islands and American Samoa, are the only two U.S. jurisdictions
without a 4-year public university. It holds a single community
college. Our students face the cost of nonresident tuition at
4-year institutions, as well as the extra travel cost to attend
school in Hawaii, 4,000 miles away from home, or almost 8,000
miles away from your school. And as a member of this Committee,
I have worked and I continue to work on legislation to help
reduce the cost for my constituents. I must compliment your
State for committing the resources, to be able to offer, make
college affordable, and also make sure the students are
nurtured, too.
I will submit my questions for the record, but as a
university chancellor, do you believe the Federal Government
has a role to play in assisting students with unique college
costs, such as those from the Marianas and American Samoa?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. The Federal Government has a number
of things in place, and, as I mentioned earlier, I think the
way to help people is to make sure that those grants and loans
that are available are able to be easily attained. At North
Carolina, we subsidize the in-State students up to the $500 per
semester. We also have a $2,500 for out-of-State, but we also
are, have an 18 percent cap on the number of out-of-State
students that we can take into North Carolina--
Mr. SABLAN. I--
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR [continuing]. and I think that is
something that one has to be aware of when we are funding the
students at North Carolina. I will say that we are very
fortunate at Western Carolina University, and within the
system, actually. Fifty percent of the students who come from
out of State to North Carolina end up staying in the State of
North Carolina--
Mr. SABLAN. Mm-hmm.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR [continuing]. and so that is a great
investment in North Carolina, and allows people to give back to
the economy within North Carolina.
Mr. SABLAN. Right. Thank you. And for me, we prefer that
you educate our students and then they come back home and use
what they learn.
But, Ms. Parker, college students in the Marianas and
across the country are juggling work, parenting, and school. In
fact, one in four students nationwide are parents. More than
one in three are older than 25, and almost two out of three
work while in college. So, what supports made it easier for you
to remain in college, persist?
Ms. PARKER. Thank you, and thank you for your wishes
earlier. I have been supported--I have been connected to
resources, and that is what has been able to get me to
completion. For example, the biggest help, I would say, was
being connected to the jobs and family services representative
on campus. I went to visit the representative for childcare
costs. I needed help getting childcare costs to be approved
while I was in school, and Journey was in daycare at the time.
When I went to speak to the job and family services
representative, she also let me know that I could enroll for
additional benefits, so the healthcare, the food stamps. And
then I was also referred to, in that same department, not
through her, specifically, but to Scholar House for the student
parent housing. It, takes a platform of all of those put
together for me to be able to get to completion.
Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, and thanks, Mr. Chairman. My time is
up. I will submit questions for the record. Thank you,
everyone.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Allen?
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for,
again, for this hearing. It is important to find out what has
actually got us to this point, and then try to fix it. It is a
difficult situation.
We have got 7.4 million jobs open in this country right
now, and we got college graduates that cannot get a job. I
cannot, for the life of me, understand that. And everywhere I
go, people need people and, now, this is not necessarily, a
college graduate. It is just, you know, skilled people. And, of
course, the Chairman put up a chart up there about the
difference in the wages of college graduates versus those who
maybe have technical training and all that. That gap, in my
opinion, is narrowing very quickly. I know that when I was in
college, I had the opportunity to learn how to weld, and
through that skill I was going to co-op, and through that skill
and working basically double time and help for my parents, I
was able to get through it. And, of course, I thought it was
terribly expensive back then, and I am sure I missed out on
some of the college experience, but I had no college debt
thanks to my great family and their support. So, I cannot
imagine, Ms. Parker, what you have been through.
And also to straighten out one other thing that came up
here today, and I just have to do this, is that I did notice
that you were on the Food Safety Nutrition Program. One of my
colleagues brought up the farm bill. Eighty percent of the farm
bill is funding the Safety Net Nutrition Programs. It is not
greedy farmers. We are just trying to keep our farmers in
business, so we can produce the best, safest, most efficient
food supply. It is a few--it is a national security actually.
So, since you are here, and you are learning from us and we are
learning from you, I thought you probably needed to know that.
So, with that, you know, Dr. Akers, your testimony mentions
ways to bring private capital back into the student loan space,
increase our competitive market participation in student
lending. And can you expand on those issues and discuss any
challenges policymakers should think about while considering
private sector participation and student learning--lending?
Ms. AKERS. Sure. Is the question about private sector
participation in provision of education or in the financing?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, in the financing. For example, we were
told that the student loan rate is somewhere between 7 and 8
percent, and I know that--I mean, I come from the business
world, and we borrow money for much less than that. Now,
obviously, you might have to get, you know, some, you know,
like a small business government-backed loan, but at least you
could reduce the interest rate substantially and provide a--you
know, where Ms. Parker could go and say, well, the government
is charging me this, and you are going to charge me, give her
choices.
Ms. AKERS. Mm-hmm.
Mr. ALLEN. And also, the financial institutions, I think,
would do a much better job at least. I have to do a portfolio
and tell them how I am going to have to pay the money back.
Maybe they could educate Ms. Parker on how to really pay that
money back.
Ms. AKERS. Sure. So, there is a bit of a misconception
about the idea that private sector capital was previously
involved in the Federal Student Lending Program. So, depending
on how long you have been involved in this issue, we previously
were providing Federal student loans through the FFEL Program,
in which the loans were originated and financed by the private
sector, but those loans were originated using terms that were
prescribed by legislation. So, in essence, Department of
Education was outsourcing to the private market the creation of
those loans. Those loans were not private sector or private
loans in any broader sense because they were not underwritten.
So, what you are talking about is the process by which a
private lender looks at a particular borrower and assesses
their ability to repay in the future. That does not happen in
the Federal Lending Program for student borrowers and did not
happen, even when private capital were involved. The way
forward, to think about private capital in higher education
finance, I believe, is in the realm of income share agreements.
So, income share agreements are a relatively newly employed
mechanism that are an alternative to loans that can help
borrowers finance their education. So, rather than taking out a
loan and having fixed payments to repay over 10 years, or
whatever the term of the loan is, a borrower takes cash up
front in exchange for a promise to pay a fraction of their
income over a set period of time, and so this provides an
insurance policy for students that if they face low income or
no income, for whatever reason, they are not on the hook for an
unaffordable financial obligation, and it also puts some skin
in the game for institutions. So, in thinking about private
capital, going forward, I think that is the place to focus
attention.
Mr. ALLEN. Well, again, for--I had an amendment on the past
bill markup to somehow put financial, actually, education into
the student loan program. So, you know, like, folks like Ms.
Parker would understand, you know, what she is up against.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I yield back. Thank
you.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms.
Bonamici?
Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and to Ranking
Member Foxx, for holding this hearing. Thank you to all of our
witnesses. Ms. Parker and Journey, and, especially, thank you
to you for being here and telling your story, and reminding us
that the costs of higher education are not just about tuition,
housing, childcare. There are so many other costs as well.
I also worked my way through. I started at 2 years of
community college, then 2 years of college, 3 years of law
school with a combination of grants, loans, and work study, and
ended up, because it was a long time ago, with a manageable
amount of debt. And my first job was with the Federal
Government, not with a law firm where I could have made more
money. And, unfortunately, that is not the story I hear
frequently today. So, I am really glad that we are having this
hearing, especially when we are talking about students who
remain underrepresented, but I am also glad that there seems to
be a general recognition about the importance of higher
education among people here today.
We certainly need a short-term solution for people like Ms.
Parker with existing debt, but we also need long-term solutions
to make sure that anyone who wants to go to college can do so
without being burdened with debt.
So, Mr. Kvaal, nice to see you. The Federal Work Study
Program allows students to get work study experience and
financial aid, and I have introduced the Opportunities for
Success Act to reform the Federal Work Study Program, to
modernize the funding formula, which has not been done for
quite some time, and also to make sure that work is going to,
the work study jobs are helping to align students, work with
their career goals and interests. We want the aid to go to the
students most in need. So, what are your suggestions about how
to make sure that institutions are serving the largest number
of low-income students and helping to align their interests
with their work study jobs?
Mr. KVAAL. Ms. Bonamici, thank you for the question. I
share your support for the work study program. Work is an
important strategy for getting students through college, both
because it fills important gaps in financial aid budgets, but,
also, research shows that modest amounts of work can actually
help retain students and give them an opportunity to explore
career interests and improve their earnings potential after
college. The challenge we have, though, is many students are in
the same low-wage work force as other low-income Americans, and
we know those jobs are very unstable, can be difficult to get
scheduled. So, to have an opportunity for a work study program,
where jobs are designed around schedules, the students, they
are often on campus. They are connected to career and academic
interests. It is very valuable.
The existing work study program funds colleges largely,
historically, and it does--no longer sends the money where
there are large numbers of low-income students. So, for
example, New York University gets a larger allocation than CUNY
does. In fact, if you are a low-income student at a 4-year
private university, you are more likely to get work study than
a low-income student at a public university, even with--we know
public universities disproportionately enroll low-income
students. So, I think that--
Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I want to get another couple
questions in, but--
Mr. KVAAL. I apologize--
Ms. BONAMICI [continuing]. I think the message that it is
time to update the funding formula. Thank you, also, for
mentioning my Simple Act that I have been working on to--I plan
to reintroduce this bill, which will protect many borrowers
from default by getting more students and keeping more students
in income-driven repayment. And you mentioned the importance of
automating the annual income recertification process, and also
automatically enrolling severely delinquent borrowers. These
are both changes in the Simple Act. Can you talk a little bit
about how this will help students?
Mr. KVAAL. Yes. The income-driven repayment is a really
important safety net. It allows us to tell students we think
loans are an excellent investment, but if it does not pay off,
we can guarantee that loan payments will be affordable. There
are very important changes that need to be made to the program,
to simplify the program for students, make it easier to enroll,
auto enroll delinquent students. And so I think the Simple Act
has a lot of potential to reduce loan delinquency and default
and make a real difference.
Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you so much. And I also heard retention
several times this morning, and that is a significant issue,
especially if we look at the students with debt. If they do not
graduate, they are much less likely to be able to pay that
back. So, who wants to talk about the importance of GEAR UP and
TRIO and programs that help with retention? Who--Dr. Morrison-
Shetlar?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. All of those programs help with
retention, and it is key that if you have students who have
debt that you get them through the process, and you get them to
a point where they can start to work and earn money and pay
back those debts, and those programs that you are talking about
are essential. They are--they include things like financial
literacy. They include things like working. If you are going to
work, work in something that will get you the experience that
will help you to succeed in your career. So, there are career
pathway experiences. And so all of those things help with
retention and just making sure that students can focus on their
studies and get their work done without having to work on two
or three jobs, really, really is important. So, all of--any
program that will help students be able to focus and get
through their degrees and be successful, I am fully supportive
of.
Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I am over time. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Smucker?
Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for Dr.
Shetlar. I would like to learn just a little bit more about
your transfer program, which helps students prepare for several
high-demand career fields that you described. How did you
determine what jobs are in high demand in the work force?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. So, within Western North Carolina, we
do surveys. We look to see what jobs are available, in
particular what jobs are needed. And so, in our particular
area, healthcare is a big industry, and one in which we are--
severely need for the citizens of Western North Carolina. And
so we make sure, as an institution, that we are providing the
right programs with the right qualifications and the right
experiences, so that students will then graduate and then go
into those careers and be successful, and that lifts up the
whole economic development of our region.
Mr. SMUCKER. Yes. Can you talk a little bit more about the
agreements that you have in place with some of the partner
colleges? Was it difficult to reach those agreements, or talk a
little bit about how that came about?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Well, we all have the same goal in
mind: for our students to be successful. And to do that, we
need to make sure that we have curriculum alignment. If you are
taking 2 years of community college and earning your A.A.
degree, then those credits transfer into your 4-year degree,
and then you can go through as seamlessly as possible. Advising
is really key on that. So, we do joint advising between the
community colleges and the university, making sure that the
advisors know what to say to the students if they even are
thinking about going to a 4-year degree because a lot of
students go to community colleges not thinking that they are
even going to have that dream. And so advising is a real
component.
And then making sure that those memorandums of
understanding between the colleges and the universities are
clear and updated regularly as curriculum changes to meet the
needs of a growing industry, like healthcare.
Mr. SMUCKER. Yes. Well, in your mind, what could other
regions learn from you? What obstacles would they have to
setting up similar arrangements?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. It is all about communication. It is
all about the best for the student, and making sure that
pathway is one that is affordable, that--and this is where NC
Promise, I think, has been fabulous because the cost of NC
Promise is--to the student can be similar to a community
college cost. And, therefore, if a student has managed to get
through the 2 years, then, with the cost of that, to be able to
transfer to Western Carolina University, for example, is an NC
Promise school, means that they are already on that pathway.
They know that they can afford it. They know how much debt they
are going to incur, and they know that they are going to get a
high-quality education provided by high-quality faculty and
staff, who make sure that they have the experiences that they
need to be successful.
Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. Dr. Akers, innovation in any
industry is critical to increasing competition amongst
providers in delivering a high-quality product to consumers at
a low price, and it appears that, you know, colleges and
universities--we know education is changing, but, in some ways,
continue to use the same model that has been in existence for a
long, long time, for decades and maybe longer. How can we be
helpful or to--maybe to what extent do you think the Federal
Government sort of constrains what colleges and universities
can do? How can we work with you to encourage more innovation
in higher education?
Ms. AKERS. Sure. So, in order for a new institution to come
into existence, they need to be able to find and retain
students. It is challenging for them to do that in the current
space because they are competing with institutions who have
eligibility for very generous aid through the Pell Grant
Program and access to subsidized student loans.
The way to potentially allow them access to Federal student
aid is through the Experimental Sites Initiative and the EQUIP
Program. So, this is an effort that was started under the Obama
Administration, to allow innovative institutions that do not
fit the standard model of what higher education looks like in
this country and, therefore, do not achieve the standards that
are necessary to gain access to financial aid. It allowed them
to partner with traditional institutions and to sort of play
with Federal student aid and experiment. That effort was not
largely successful, perhaps because of the way it was designed.
I would encourage that the Federal Government continue to
support those types of initiatives that do not just open the
floodgates and allow Federal student aid to be utilized by, you
know, these new and exciting business models without, you know,
any accountability, but rather to continue to test out and
using different sites and trial programs for these new programs
that have a proven track record of success.
Mr. SMUCKER. Great. I look forward to working with you on
that, but my time is up. Thank you.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from California,
Mr. Takano?
Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate that
you are holding hearings on this important topic. I want to
thank all of the panelists for being here today, but I want to
begin my question with Mr. Kvaal. It is good to see you again
and thank you for being here to share your recommendations on
improving college affordability.
I have a letter from Chancellor Oakley of the California
community colleges that describes how the California community
colleges have been hit hard, particularly by the for-profit
closures in the State of California. And when, so, what happens
is when for-profit companies suddenly shutter, the community
colleges, which are already under-resourced, how they mobilize
to provide support to affected students. So, without objection,
I would like to enter this into the record.
The ability of the community colleges to properly serve
these students is severely hampered by the poor-quality
education--the poor quality of education that the students
receive at the for-profit institution, and by the debt load
students carry after attending one of these schools. I have
heard too many stories about students attempting to transfer
their credits, only to find out that almost none of their
credits actually transferred, and that they are nearing the
maximum--their maximum loan limit, impeding them to continue
their education, in this case at community colleges. So, Mr.
Kvaal, what can the Federal Government do to provide better
upfront accountability of for-profit institutions to better
protect students?
Mr. KVAAL. Thank you for the question, Mr. Takano. We have
seen, over the last few years, for-profit colleges enrolling
over 100,000 students close and leave them in the bind. So, the
instances you mentioned, in California, are only the latest in
a long chain that began with Corinthian. It is important to
have strong accountability protection, such as the Gainful
Employment Rule, which requires that typical graduates of for-
profit programs be able to repay their loans; the Borrower
Defense Rule, which holds colleges accountable for illegal
conduct, such as fraud; the Incentive Compensation Rule, which
prohibits deceptive and high-pressure recruiting; and the 90-10
Rule, which requires at least 10 percent of students being
willing to pay for the education out of their own pocket. So,
there are important accountability rules. Many of them are
being neglected by the current administration, and others need
to be strengthened by Congress.
Mr. TAKANO. Yes, I am aware of the neglect and, actually,
the rollback of protections, and I understand in the chairman's
Aim Higher Act that we actually work to strengthen some of the
protections you mentioned. How do we ensure that students are
not left with burdensome debt after a for-profit closure?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, one important step is to make sure that
students have their loans discharged after a school closes. The
current law gives them the right to choose whether to transfer
or get their loans discharged. Many students never actually do
either, so it is important to guarantee them that automatic
right to have the school discharged. We need to adequately fund
tuition relief funds, so that students have that means, and we
also should not keep students in the dark. So, you know, when
the Argosy College and these other colleges closed last week,
it was not a surprise to the executives at those colleges. It
was not a surprise to the Department of Education, but it was a
surprise to a lot of the students who were borrowing and
dipping into their savings to go to those schools.
Mr. TAKANO. That is amazing. I want to talk about Income
Share Agreements, or ISAs, that are contracts between college
students and investors, in which an investor agrees to pay a
portion of a student's tuition for a portion of the student's
future income after graduation. Speaking frankly, I see ISAs as
another way to push the private market onto students, which has
never resulted in positive outcomes. In an effort to shore up
profits, the private market has been inclined to irresponsible
and unfair practices when lending to vulnerable students, which
is what led us to include consumer protections in the Dodd-
Frank Act in 2010. Given the history of the private market and
college financing, I am concerned with the potential abuse of
students through ISAs. Mr. Kvaal, what are some of the other
pitfalls of ISAs?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, I share your concerns, Mr. Takano. I think
that private loans, including ISAs, will always have higher
costs and weaker consumer safeguards than Federal student loans
do. ISAs, in particular, are not transparent, and because
students have very different earning trajectories, sometimes
because of labor market discrimination, ISAs have the potential
to have higher costs for some types of students and even
exclude some students from some types of programs or colleges.
Mr. TAKANO. Well, my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back. Thank you.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman from
Kansas, Mr. Watkins?
Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. So, I represent Eastern Kansas. It is agrarian, and
then there is lots of poverty issues there, and I know,
personally, what it is like to try and, oh, deal with mounting
school debt. So, it seems to me, the solution was a pro-
economic growth policy, characterized by low taxes and low
regulation that allows the economy to thrive, and does it work?
Well, our pro-growth economic policy has led to record low
unemployment. We are enjoying over 7 million job openings. The
Labor Department, when reporting on hiring competition, says
that here is an increase in average hourly pay by 3.4 percent
from last year, which is the highest in a decade. Given the
strong economy, Dr. Akers, are you seeing States beginning to
thoughtfully reinvest into their higher education institutions,
given the strong economic performance nationally?
Ms. AKERS. Yes. It does seem that there was a decline in
State support of higher education following the Great
Recession, and we have seen recent indication of an increase in
investment.
Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Doctor. Chancellor Morrison-
Shetlar, staying with the excessive red tape subject, would you
speak to any burdensome Federal regulations on the higher
education community that could be cut, so that you can spend
more focus on students and education?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. One of the main issues that we have
is just the cost of compliance, meeting the compliance
regulations and needs. It would be great if we could either
keep the amount of compliance that we have, that we have to
report on, or decrease it. That would certainly help us with
the burden of that because we are actually having to hire
people to be able to help us with that, rather than using those
resources to invest in education.
Mr. WATKINS. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chancellor, and
thank you all for being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my
time.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from North
Carolina, Dr. Adams?
Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The clock, there was
some extra time on there. Let me thank all of you, first of
all, for being here and for your testimony.
Ms. Parker, I am very moved by your story. I am a retired
professor of 40 years at Bennett College in Greensboro, North
Carolina, where I worked with young women just like you. I went
to school, like you, and took my children with me, and I know
the struggle, but, of course, when I was in school, many, many
years ago, the cost was not nearly what it is today.
Dr. Morrison, thank you for what you do for our students in
North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit, for the record, a
letter from CLASP, an organization that supports low-income
students.
Chairman SCOTT. Without objection.
Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. Let me ask, first of all, Chancellor
Morrison-Shetlar, you helped create the North Carolina Promise
Program. I was a member of the North Carolina House when that
discussion came up. I was a little concerned, as well, about
not only the fact, I think, we always need to try to make
college affordable. Access and affordability really are key for
students. Having worked at a private institution, knowing a lot
about our historically black colleges and universities in North
Carolina, I had a concern about the cost that the college would
incur, and with $500 that the students pay.
Do you have any information about, you know, I know
Elizabeth City is one of the schools. They are a fine
university. I had an opportunity to talk with the Chancellor
fairly--but I am curious about that, and I know how it is a
game changer for students, but in terms of the struggle for
universities?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. This is a very ambitious program and
the State has stepped forward and, this first year alone, $51
million have been put toward the success of this program. And
so the universities are subsidized and given the money by the
State to make sure that there is no impact on the quality of
the education that the institutions are able to provide.
Ms. ADAMS. Mm-hmm. I also know that, you know, with the
universities, and this is supposed to be for, what, 3 years for
the students? Is that correct?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. No. For the students, it is the
time--the whole time that they are in the university.
Ms. ADAMS. Oh, Okay. Okay. Okay. I was trying to figure
that out. Let me ask what considerations did you give in terms
of helping to get this program started?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. As soon as we heard about it, we
wanted to work very closely with our legislators to make sure
that it was functional for the universities and, most
importantly, that it was something that was transformational
for our students to have, particularly Western North Carolina.
We have a lot of low-income students. We are a very rural area.
The other three--the other two institutions are also in rural
areas. We wanted to make sure that the right people were able
to access this kind of--
Ms. ADAMS. Right.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR [continuing]. program--
Ms. ADAMS. Okay.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR [continuing]. and so the ability to
let people know that this was available to them, that an
education was available to them, was important.
Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Kvaal, this hearing has
focused a lot of attention on the hardships of students of
color and what they face in terms of the student aid space. Our
Nation's minority-serving institutions provide a quality
education to a sizable portion of black and brown students, and
do so at a fraction of the cost of most flagship public
universities. But despite the fact of what I just said, the
President's budget level funds Title 3 and 5 and allows
important mandatory funds to expire. In your opinion, if we
were to increase Federal investment in our Nation's MSIs, is it
your thinking that we could close some of the gaps in terms of
access, affordability, and completion among students of color
compared to their counterparts?
Mr. KVAAL. Yes. We know those funds get--those institutions
get much less funding per student, and it is not a surprise
that is one reason why their graduation rates are not as high
as some other institutions.
Ms. ADAMS. Okay. One quick question, and I think maybe Dr.
Akers spoke to this, in terms of the student understanding the
financial aid packages. What can we do to help them better
understand it? And if we can get Ms. Parker to make a quick
response, too, because she commented about that as well.
Ms. PARKER. I think that it is important that,
specifically, when students are going from high school to
college, to also educate their parents because if you are
talking about students from low economic backgrounds, it is a
generational effect. That is something that is happening before
it even got to that one student.
Ms. ADAMS. Okay.
Ms. AKERS. I think that higher education is an incredibly
complex product, and so, while I hate to have a recommendation
for heavy-handed approach about how institutions should be
delivering their financial aid award letters, I think it is
justified that we direct some sort of standardization in the
provision of that information to students.
Ms. ADAMS. Great. Thank very much. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlemen from--excuse me,
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright?
Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for your testimony today. And Dr. Morrison-Shetlar, what you
described as very similar that North Carolina is doing, and I
want to compliment your State, is similar to what the
university in my district has done, University of Texas at
Arlington. It is 55,000 students, including online courses. It
is the fastest growing campus in the UT System, which is a very
large system in Texas and second only to Austin. But here is
the interesting thing: it has the lowest debt, average debt,
for a graduating student of any college or university, private
or public, in Texas, and one of the lowest in the United
States. The average is like $14,700 of debt. And one of things
they did is similar to what you talked about in terms of
partnerships with community colleges, but they did something
really, what I think is special. And I wanted you to comment on
this because the president of the university and the president
of the community college, the school superintendents in the
area came together, and in order to try and lower that cost for
the students, the high school students can go to the community
college and take courses and get college credit, which, when
they get to UT Arlington is then recognized and accepted by the
university, and a lot of students are taking advantage of that.
Can you speak to that in terms of your experience? Do you all
engage the high schools in North Carolina to any degree?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I cannot speak directly from what the
schools do directly with the community colleges, but the idea
is absolutely fabulous, and in any way that we can make sure
that students have a seamless transfer from the K through 16 is
really, really a great thing to be thinking about. So, I would
like to learn more about it.
Mr. WRIGHT. Great, and I yield the rest of my time back to
Dr. Foxx.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. Dr. Webber, you discussed
noncompletion in your testimony, and call it the biggest risk
associated with going to college. Are you familiar with the
revenue theory thesis, where institutions are spending on
faculty prestige and influence instead of on support services
to help students graduate? I am particularly interested in your
opinion on the effects highly priced academic programs have on
perceived educational quality and student access.
Mr. WEBBER. Well, thank you for the question. It is very
important. First, I would say that there is mixed evidence as
to the impact of very highly priced educational programs.
Certainly, there are impacts of truly increased college
quality. There are large earning impacts from, say, going to a
high-quality State flagship university versus a regional
comprehensive, for any number of reasons. There are, I think,
are--I do not think that there is strong evidence to suggest
that these so-called fancy universities, the, you know, very
highly priced private institutions, that there is a causal
effect of, you know, higher earnings or anything from those.
Mrs. FOXX. I'm interested in the existing research behind
the trends in the value proposition of college. We have all
heard college graduate earnings outpace peers who attain a high
school education. However, according to the Federal Reserve
Bank of Saint Louis, the economic return on college is unequal
across the population and diminishing across successive
generations of college graduates. Dr. Akers, what can we do to
restore the return on investment to higher education and make
the prospect of college less risky?
Ms. AKERS. So, there is a vast body of evidence estimating
very large positive returns. Higher education, of course, there
is a dispersion of what those returns are across the different
classes of students, particularly with respect to their
family's wealth. I think the most important thing to consider
in maintaining the value that we have seen historically on
higher education is ensuring that prices do not continue to
creep up at the rate that they have been growing. I believe
that the most important tool we have for doing that is in
empowering consumers with information, so that they can make
informed choices about where to spend, to the extent that they
understand where spending is worth it and where it is not. They
can put pressure on the institutions themselves to keep price
in line with value.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wright.
Chairman SCOTT. Gentlewoman's time has expired. The
gentlelady form Connecticut, Ms. Hayes.
Ms. HAYES. Good afternoon everyone, and thank you, Chairman
Scott, for holding this very critical hearing. Ms. Parker, your
story is my story. You are me. So, I, everything that you said
resonates with me, and I am so in credibly familiar with the
idea of going through community college and working three jobs
because this is my experience.
I will disagree with you on one thing. You said the odds
are that you will not lift yourself out of poverty. You already
are lifting yourself out of poverty, so I hope you know that.
Again, I could take the whole 5 minutes because this is so
deeply personal to me, but two things that I want to, first,
clarify this idea that graduate debt is a choice. I have to
push back on that. All I ever wanted to be was a teacher. I
went to community college, went back and got a bachelor's
degree. In order to be an entry level teacher and maintain
Connecticut certification, you have to obtain a master's degree
within your first 5 years, and then professional certification.
So, in order for me to get an entry level job, I needed a
postgraduate degree. So, it is not a choice.
And then the other thing that, I could feel the energy
coming off of you when the comment was made that we could find
other jobs, you know, maybe welding or career training. I was
told the same thing 15 years ago, and I went and became a
certified nurse's aide and I worked my way through school. But
my question then and my question now is exactly the same. Do I
not get to dream? Do I not get to have aspirations? Do I not
get to provide a professional future for my children?
So, I, on purpose, chose professors that would allow me to
bring my kids to class. You know, I, on purpose, did those
things. And what I will tell you, Ms. Parker, is that in the
space of 7 years, I went from being the first person in my
family to ever graduate from college to being a second-
generation college-educated family because from my daughter,
she saw me every day going to school, and it was never an
option. And she went to college and she, too, is a teacher now.
So, if you ever question what this means and why it is
important, your daughter is seeing, through you, what the
possibility is, and you do get to dream.
So, my question, I guess, is for Chancellor Morrison-
Shetlar. When we are talking about eliminating programs, like
the Federal Supplemental Opportunity Grants, or TRIO, or GEAR
UP, are those programs directly attacking low-income families,
in your opinion? Because one of the things I was told when I
could not get a loan or a grant was to have my mother or my
family fill out a PLUS Loan or Parent Loan. If I am already
working three jobs and helping to take care of my family, my
mother did not have the capacity to fill out a loan on my
behalf. So, it just perpetuates this idea of generational
poverty. It says if you already do not have it, you cannot have
access to it. So, is the elimination of these programs, in your
opinion, a direct attack on low-income families?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I think that the problem is exactly
as you mentioned it. Anything that prevents people from being
able to apply for any aid or support at all is attack on
student learning and the ability to progress in their careers.
And that is why I am so proud of what North Carolina's doing in
terms of capping things, like a 3 percent cap on fees, making
sure that we have got State investment in the cost of
attendance for students. So, any program that puts barriers
toward people applying for support to be educated I think is
attacking student learning.
Ms. HAYES. Thank you. And for the remainder of my time, Ms.
Parker, actually, you figured it out a lot sooner than I did.
My children were older than Journey when I decide to go to back
to community college, but I still would have to create
opportunities for childcare and to bring them to class to do
different things. What do you think would happen to other
students if programs like the Child Care Access and childcare
that currently exists were further eliminated?
Ms. PARKER. Thank you. First of all, thank you. I think it
would give us, or I am saying a student parent, the opportunity
to move forward and progress and, like you said, break through
generational barriers that have been placed upon us. I think
that if I know that there is a safe place for my child while I
am in class, I would have the bandwidth to focus more on what
my studies are. Thank you.
Ms. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rest my time, or
no time.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin,
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. GROTHMAN. Sure. We have heard that part of the reason
for the increase in tuition is there is a lessening of
government support for the schools and they have to make it up
in tuition, but I think you said that was 30 percent of the
upper. Tuition has gone up dramatically, though, even without
that. To what do you attribute that, or how are we spending
more money today compared to 30 years ago for an equivalent
degree? Where is that cash going?
Mr. KVAAL. I will take this. So, the numbers are about 30
percent is due to State divestment since the year 2000, and
since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, it is about
41 percent State divestment is responsible for. There are,
across sectors, many different reasons. I mentioned the
competition with the private sector salaries, that in order to
hire a highly trained professor, universities--
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay
Mr. KVAAL [continuing]. have to compare--have to compete
with the private sector. One thing that is often mentioned is,
you know, so-called wasteful spending at universities. This is
really concentrated only among, you know, the universities
that--you know, the Harvards, the--you know, this amenity
spending is, you know, concentrated among a small set of
universities that--
Mr. GROTHMAN. Harvard is more wasteful than the other
universities? That is what you are telling us? We should not
take that waste program versus being typical?
Mr. KVAAL. I guess what I am saying is that the
universities that make the--make the New York Times for the
lazy river, so to speak, educate a very, very small percentage
of the students in this country and are not all representative
of where most people are being educated.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Kind of give you a followup question
there. One of the faculty members of my universities, they felt
that over time, not research personnel, but there had been,
say, over the last 30, 40 years, a significant increase in
nonteaching personnel at the universities, and that is why the
students are being pounded for the side tuition. Has there been
a significant increase in nonteaching personnel over the last
40 years?
Mr. WEBBER. There has, and I would say that there is--you
know, this is in part, but this is some student-centered
spending, that, you know, there are services to students that
are not being offered, necessary services, that are not--that
are being offered now, that were not being offered, you know,
decades ago, that helped students, especially middle--first
generation of students graduate.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Question for you. I think there is a
feeling over time that sometimes people take out more student
loans than are necessary. I do think it is a good idea to rank
universities as to how their students are doing on student
loans, but do you think, if we are going to begin to do that or
the rankings are going to begin to appear, if we should allow
the universities themselves some say into how much loans the
students are taking out? And I think there is a feeling among
some professionals, and this was true when I went to school,
like 40 years ago, that sometimes people take out more loans
then are necessary to a certain extent to support a lifestyle.
Would you be in favor of universities saying, you would have to
have the universities sign off before you got a loan?
Mr. WEBBER. I am very in favor of more accountability, and
I am also in favor of his proposal.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Good. That is great. One other thing. We talk
about, you know, loan--or Pell Grants for, you know, certain
demographics. Frequently, people from, say, middle class homes
or kids from married families, they may not be getting a lot
from their parents, but you could argue, and I have had parents
complain about this, that some people who live one lifestyle
are more likely to get grants than people who live another
lifestyle. Do you think that is perhaps unfair?
Mr. WEBBER. I--sorry. I do think that is unfair. I think
that it is easy to focus on anecdotes of, you know, this person
is getting something that, you know, maybe they ``do not
deserve.'' I do not think that is representative of the, you
know, general situations in--
Mr. GROTHMAN. People getting penalized for getting married,
for example, that sort of thing, or having married parents? Do
you think that is unfair? We will ask Ms. Shetlar. Do you think
that is unfair?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I think individuals come to
university or college with different backgrounds and different
support mechanisms. I am first generation and come from a
modest background, and was grateful for the grants and loans
that were available to me. And so I think it is hard to paint
everyone with one brush stroke. I think it is some of an
individual choice, in some cases, but sometimes a set of
circumstances occurs.
Mr. GROTHMAN. So, you are in favor of discrimination or?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I am not in favor of discrimination.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay.
Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you. The gentleman from California, Mr. Harder?
Mr. HARDER. Thank you so much, all, for being here on such
an important subject. Dr. Kvaal, I would love to start with
you. Can you share with us, once again, what the aggregate
amount of student debt is now in the United States?
Mr. KVAAL. $1.5 trillion.
Mr. HARDER. And I know I have not been here that long. It
was not that long ago since I was in college myself. When I was
in college in 2006, do you recall where the aggregate debt was
then?
Mr. KVAAL. I do not, but it was substantially less than $1
trillion.
Mr. HARDER. I think it was around about $500 billion. Does
that sound about right?
Mr. KVAAL. It does.
Mr. HARDER. So, in other words, in the last 10 years, since
I got out of school, the aggregated amount of student debt in
this country has tripled in the last 10 years? Is that fair?
Mr. KVAAL. Yes.
Mr. HARDER. And while we have done that, I think it is
interesting to note that we have also been disinvesting at the
same time in some of the Federal support services that are
really critical. So, in 1980, my belief is there--my
understanding is that the Pell Grant covered--the maximum Pell
Grant was about 76 percent of the cost of attendance for a 4-
year school, about 76 percent in 1980, is that--
Mr. KVAAL. Yes.
Mr. HARDER [continuing]. around correct? Do you know where
it is today?
Mr. KVAAL. It is about a quarter.
Mr. HARDER. Got it. So, in other words, the amount of
student debt has tripled over the last 10 years, and over the
last 30 years or so, we have gone from, about 40 years, we have
gone from about 76 percent of the cost of attendance of a Pell
grant, has slipped to about a quarter?
Mr. KVAAL. That is right.
Mr. HARDER. Is that fair?
Mr. KVAAL. That is right.
Mr. HARDER. And I would love to get the student perspective
on this as well, Ms. Parker, and thank you so much for being
here. It is interesting, day today, because we are about 24
hours after a, you know, real scandal in higher education,
where we have seen, I think, a renewed sense of the inequality
in our higher education system. To your belief, did your
parents bribe any school administrators or coaches to get you
in to school?
Ms. PARKER. No.
Mr. HARDER. Are you sure there is no, like, endowed
building, a couple million dollars that helped get you into
Franklin?
Ms. PARKER. I guarantee there is none.
Mr. HARDER. There is not in my alma meter either. And what
did you study when you were in school?
Ms. PARKER. This most recent time?
Mr. HARDER. Yes.
Ms. PARKER. Human resource management.
Mr. HARDER. And before you decided to study that, did you
have access to reliable data that told you this is what you are
going to make after 4 years of a program of study?
Ms. PARKER. If I had access to the data, it was not
something that I had background knowledge of knowing to do.
Mr. HARDER. Got it. Would that have been helpful in making
a decision about what to study?
Ms. PARKER. Yes.
Mr. HARDER. And, Mr. Kvaal, would you agree that students
today applying to college do not necessarily have the
information that they need to enroll in school?
Mr. KVAAL. Yes.
Mr. HARDER. And what is your sense of sort of the
fragmentation of our information in the transparency that we
give to students and parents in making what is one the most
important financial decision of their life? How is that?
Mr. KVAAL. Woefully inadequate.
Mr. HARDER. Why do you think that is?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, one reason is the Department of Education
is prohibited from collecting data on students who do not
receive student aid, which is about 30 percent of students, and
so we only know what we make colleges report to us. We do not
know how well students succeed after they transfer or they
articulate to a different program. We only have limited insight
into how well they do in the work force, and so there are a lot
of really critical questions that just cannot be answered by a
student deciding where to enroll right now.
Mr. HARDER. And I used to teach community college, I taught
Business 101, how to write a business plan, start a company, at
Modesto Junior College, in my community. What about community
college students? You mentioned 4-year students. What access to
information do you have if you are doing a 2-year degree?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, it varies by State, but, again, it is hard
to know whether our 2-year college graduate will go on to earn
a 4-year college degree, or how likely that is. Again, access
to labor market data for those earning occupational degrees is
hard to come by, very rare at a program level, which is really
what you want, and rare to get disaggregated by student
characteristics.
Mr. HARDER. And so, is there any Federal standard that sort
of standardizes the amount of information that students have
when they are getting a 2-year--when their 2-year degree, or
even a set of standards to know, you know, what are the college
graduation rates at one university versus--or one 2-year degree
or 4-year degree as opposed to another? Is there any sort of
standardization in that? So, you sort of--as you are making one
of the most important financial and lifelong decisions, you
have sort of a good understanding where you get the most bang
for your buck?
Mr. KVAAL. There is--the Department of Education operates
what is called the College Score Card. Again, though it is
limited in the data that it has. So you mentioned graduation
rates, and what the department measures is students enrolling
for the first time as full-time students, and so the success of
many students, like Ms. Parker, would not be in captured in
those statistics.
Mr. HARDER. So, in other words, we really have two problems
going here. One is we have the cost of education that has been
skyrocketing while we have been disinvesting in higher
education, and the second is there is no information. This is
why I am actually sponsoring a bill that tries to make sure
that we are standardizing some of these decisions, and I look
forward to working across the aisle with some colleagues to
meet that reality.
Thank you so much, and I yield back my time.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Meuser.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Dr. Foxx, for
holding a hearing on this extremely important issue of college
affordability. Thank you to all of our witnesses, very much,
for taking the time to share your expertise with this
committee.
As we have heard this morning, tuition fees at our
institutions of higher education are rising well over the
inflation rate, by at least 3 percentage points, and it is
almost an automatic increase virtually every year, and most
institutions that cost goes up, and this has been happening for
20 years at least, maybe more. Despite the vast number and
growing number of job openings in our economy, we have a skills
gap that must be addressed, and yet our costs continue to soar.
The average cost of attending a private 4-year institution
or 4-year university is $50,000. So, I will start with the
$50,000 question, if you will, or in actually in Ms. Parker's
case, the $66,000 question. What is being done to rein in these
costs? I know some of this has been addressed. What is being
done to truly provide a value or a return on the investment,
lowering costs, best education, appropriate and effective job
placement by these institutions, by these schools?
Dr. Webber, I will ask you.
Mr. WEBBER. Thank you for the question. One of the biggest
things that I can say, at Temple University, first, is an
initiative called Fly in 4, which is trying to keep students on
track to graduate in a reasonable timeframe. And if it--if they
take longer than the 4 years, but they have met certain
performance goals, then their--they will not have to pay for
classes after this point as long as they have been, you know,
meeting certain benchmarks.
In terms of the, you know, job placement, I think that the
best place for, you know, colleges of all types to invest in is
internship programs, that they have returns to a strong career
placement and internship program are very, very large. And I
can say that, you know, in my college, there has been a strong
push toward making partnerships with businesses in the local
community and really investing in this.
Mr. MEUSER. Great. I am certainly a fan of Temple
University, and I really hear some great things, and I think
your applications rate are a reflection of that. So go out--
Mr. WEBBER. I am a big fan as well--
Mr. MEUSER [continuing]. so go Owls. All right, very good.
Dr. Akers, another university that does very well is Purdue
University. Mitch Daniels has done some remarkable things there
and his staff, lowering costs, just making the school more
attractive and definitely delivering on job placement. Are
other schools following this model, and maybe you could comment
on that?
Ms. AKERS. Sure. So, one of the innovations I am
particularly interested in, that McShane Analysis brought to
Purdue, is the Back a Boiler Program, which is their college-
specific income share agreement. What that does, in the case of
Purdue, is takes university funds and basically invests in
students. So, the institution is putting their own finances at
risk and aligning the incentives, so that when their students
succeed, they succeed as an institution. We have seen--they
were the first to start a program like that.
We have seen other traditional institutions following suit
and creating income share agreements as well. The University of
Utah was second, the most recent large university to go in that
direction. Purdue is also leader in their recent action of
acquiring Kaplan, in that they are of--a dramatic expansion of
their online education program. I think this is a space where
traditional institutions have underutilized the potential for
technology to lower the cost of their provision of education.
So, I am hoping that we will see other schools following suit
in that area, as well.
Mr. MEUSER. All right, terrific. Thank you. And Dr.
Morrison-Shetlar, I just want to focus on vocational skill
learning, as well as the filling the jobs gap that exists. Now,
you mentioned in your written testimony the importance of
vocational and career education. What sort of resources, what
percentage of resources go toward your technical end of your
school, and do the students receive the same level of student
loans for vocational skills?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. The NC Promise Program makes sure
that every degree that a student wants to pursue is affordable,
and that means reduction in tuition, particularly, for in-State
students to $500. The other things that we have done in terms
of making sure that the students leave with less debt, for
example, is that with that reduction in tuition, this is about
$3,000 savings per year for our in-State students. The other
things that we have done, we have had a 3 percent cap on our
fees, so per year, so that those fees do not keep increasing,
as you mentioned. And I think that is really important to say,
and across the system we have an eight-semester fixed tuition
program. And so when people are coming in to get a degree,
whatever kind of degree they are getting, they are getting the
skills that they need.
It was previously mentioned by my colleague here,
internship programs, experiential learning opportunities, which
allow anyone who are in any field of education to be able to
show, while their getting their degree, that they have the
skills that they need to be successful. We are also seeing that
our students are getting jobs based on the experiences that
they are getting. And so with--the cost perspective of the
State of North Carolina is decreasing the cost for students, so
that they can then get the experiences they need, get the jobs
that they need when they graduate, and give back to the
economy.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SCOTT. The gentlemen's time has expired. The
gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath?
Mrs. MCBATH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin
asking my questions, I would like to echo my colleague, Mr.
Harder's, comments, but first by responding to the references
made about the need to reduce administrative burden on
colleges. It is important to keep in mind that Federal
regulation and oversight provides vital protections for our
students. This is particularly important for low-income
students and students of color, who are more likely to be
burdened by unmanageable debt and to be victims of fraud and
abuse by unscrupulous institutions.
There are, however, some bipartisan proposals for reducing
compliance costs, such as the College Transparency Act. This
bill would lift the ban on the collection of student level data
and make it easier for colleges to satisfy their reporting
requirements. The College Transparency Act would also provide
students and families with better information on the
educational and work force outcomes, which gets at some of the
problems about transparency that were raised earlier today.
It is true that the demographics of postsecondary students
are more diverse today than ever before. More women are
attending and graduating from college than men. In Georgia, the
State which I represent, 59 percent of college students are
women. Across the country, we are also seeing increases in the
number of students of color and students with a disability
attending college. These trends are very, very exciting, but we
still have so much more to do to address the systemic
inequalities that still exist today. Low-income students and
students of color are disproportionately affected by the costs
of education and the lack of available funding, resulting in
lower rates of matriculation, retention, and graduation.
In Georgia, and across the country, most Americans will
need to attain a postsecondary degree to achieve or maintain a
middle-class income. In fact, by 2020, 65 percent of the jobs
in my State alone will require some level of higher education,
specifically 22 percent will require a bachelor's degree. If a
college degree continues to be the surest path to economic
mobility in our society, we need to make sure that everyone has
the resources, especially financial resources that they need.
That is why it is critical for us to invest in Pell Grants.
In Georgia's Sixth congressional District, over 6,000
students received Pell Grants for the 2018 and 2019 school
year, totaling nearly $30 million. And for the State of
Georgia, more than 20--excuse me, more than 230,000 Pell Grants
were awarded to students. This brings the total for the State
to just over $900 million.
Now, I am proud to say that Georgia State University, an
institution with campuses in my district, is one of the many
institutions in Georgia to make great strides to narrow the
funding gap for low-income and first-generation students. At
Georgia State, 51 percent of the students are receiving Pell
Grants.
However, for first-generation college students, navigating
the financial burdens is not the only obstacle that they face.
Students face a culture shift from the comfort of their
hometowns and neighborhoods to an environment where many
students may not look like them, come from the same background,
or belong to the same socioeconomic class. When we talk about
higher education, we need to keep those challenges in mind, and
I want us also to think beyond tuition costs when talking about
completing a college degree. We speak of mental health in K
through 12 schooling, but what happens once those students move
on to postsecondary education? What happens to those students
who receive free or reduced lunch? It is one thing to get a
student to college, it is another thing to get them through
college. As we begin these conversations, I hope we will
consider the funding needed to help those students navigate
their college experience.
An accessible, affordable education is crucial to the
advancement of our society and to the future and wellbeing of
people that we are here to represent. We cannot expect greater
returns on our society unless we are willing to invest more in
our schools and the future of our country, our students. Today,
students are more diverse than ever before, and I am thrilled
to see so many first-generation college students, like Ms.
Parker, blazing the trail as the first in their families to
attend college.
Ms. Parker, as you said, balancing multiple priorities can
be exhausting and very stressful. We know that mental health
supports are critical for students on our college campuses. Can
you please talk a little bit more about anything that has
helped you manage your stress level while going to school and,
also, what more do you think that we, this body, can do to
address mental health on college campuses?
Ms. PARKER. Thank you. Last year, I attended counseling
services through Columbus State's campus and, I guess, coming
from my community, mental health is not something that is
addressed regularly. So, once I realized--like, once I found
out about the counseling services, what they offered, I was,
like--the first session I did not understand why I was there,
but I was, like, I guess that might be good for me. But
throughout the time, I realized how much I needed to--how much
I needed that counseling. All the things that I had been going
through over the years of trying to make my way through
college, how that was burdensome to me. I think mental health--
it should be a conversation that, on college campuses, that is
a normal conversation instead of being stigmatized, and not
just meant for career services--I am sorry,--counseling
services, not just meant for that area of the institution. I
think that is something that should be talked about in advising
or in TRIO Services because no matter who the student is
talking to, they see them as an advisor. It does not matter if
they are a president, if they are in admissions, you know, if
there is an instructor. There is still a way to connect with
the student, and they look at you as advisor, as someone that
they can, you know, lean into. That is--it should be a platform
of a regular conversation, what mental health is, and how it is
needed to be able to balance all of what you have going on, the
student.
Mrs. MCBATH. Thank you.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you, the gentlelady's time has
expired. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher?
Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to
raise a topic that I have not heard much about, and just going
through your testimony I have not seen, and in my home State of
Idaho, there has been a couple of things that has worked in a
positive way to drive down the overall impact of cost. One is
just, is competition. We have got a community college that was
put in place in close proximity to our largest university and
since it was put in place, the growth, student growth, has
exploded there, and the prevailing increase rate of the 4-year
university greatly slowed down. So, that was one thing.
The second thing was the implementation of a dual credit
system, and I was--selfishly, I was a proponent of that at the
State level, and it has really taken off. And so I would like
to maybe ask Ms. Parker, just because you have a compelling
story and the demographic that you grew up in is just different
than the typical demographic in my home State, and so, first of
all, just a question for you: if you would have had, or maybe
you did have, an opportunity to receive college credit while in
high school, would that have been something that you would have
pursued in your circumstance?
Ms. PARKER. I believe in my high school, my senior year is
when Columbus Day partnered with my high school to offer the
college credit. One, so, it was my senior year, and I was
already afraid of college. Going back, knowing what I know now,
yes, I would have, but I did not take advantage of it at that
time. But, mind you, I am a first-generation student, so.
Mr. FULCHER. I understand. That is okay. So, and this
really could be for anyone, but perhaps I will just ask Dr.
Webber. Have you seen any other States or any other track
records where the dual credit system was advantageous or
helpful in driving down the overall cost of college?
Mr. WEBBER. Yes, I think so, and my home State of Florida,
where I grew up, has a robust dual credit system that I took
advantage of. I had, I think, 12 or 15 credits from, you know,
my local community college. And the, you know, the general cost
of college in Florida is--it is one of the lowest in the
country. So, now, that is--there are other reasons for that, as
well, but I do think that part of the, you know, the effect is
a robust dual credit system.
Mr. FULCHER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Webber.
Mrs. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FULCHER. Yes, I yield my time, Dr. Foxx.
Mrs. FOXX. No. I am not--I am going to ask you a question--
Mr. FULCHER. Yes.
Mrs. FOXX [continuing]. or give you some information.
Mr. FULCHER. Please.
Mrs. FOXX. You hit on an issue I wanted to bring up,
eventually, and I am really pleased, and while you are here, I
wanted to say it. There is an article that came out February
10th that says that a student that takes at least one dual
credit course in high school is three times as likely to
graduate from college as students who do not take college
credits courses in high school. The study also had the higher
first, second, and third year GPAs. So, I want to compliment
the gentleman on bringing up the issue because it is something
that is proving to be very, very successful for students. So,
thank you for bringing up the issue, and I will yield my time
back to you.
Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Doctor.
Chairman SCOTT. Did the gentlelady want to put that in the
record?
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put
that in the record.
Chairman SCOTT. Without objection.
Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. I think the data in our
home State would validate that, and I yield to Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman has yielded back his time.
The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from
Washington, Dr. Schrier.
Dr. SCHRIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would
reiterate, I agree with my colleagues that we have a Running
Start Program in Washington State that has been incredibly
successful. It reduces the cost of college, lets kids get an
early start. It is, unfortunately, not available so much to
people in rural areas, but it is a great start.
We have heard about college tuition rates. Just for
perspective, I do not think I am that old, but, in the
eighties, when I went to college, I took a couple classes at a
community college for $5 a credit. Yes, and I went to UC
Berkeley for $2,000 a year, and I graduated from medical school
with about $60,000 of debt, which it pales in comparison to
anything that students today are facing. I came out with an
M.D., to pay off the same debt that Ms. Parker now is facing
without that potential salary earnings.
And so I have often said that the way we spend our money is
a reflection of our values, and we have just heard about how
college education leads to a million dollars more in lifetime
earnings, leads to a much bigger tax base, and will ultimately
pay itself off. And I have always felt that an investment in a
home and in education are the only two good kinds of debt.
And so I wanted to ask because, Dr. Kvaal, you mentioned,
ultimately, over time, doubling the amount that we give in Pell
Grants. I would note that at the University of Washington we
have about an 80 percent graduation rate for students receiving
Pell Grants, which I think is phenomenal compared to a lot of
the numbers we have been hearing. Why not just go for it
immediately, given what a good investment college education is,
and the ultimate payoff in tax revenues for our country?
Mr. KVAAL. Great. I am for it, and, in fact, the studies
show that investments in Pell pay for themselves in terms of
increased economic growth, and so it is a very worthwhile--it
would be a very worthwhile investment for Congress to make.
Ms. SCHRIER. Thank you. And then I would also just note,
and then I will yield back my time in a moment, but that the
costs of college today are so different for a person like me,
who happened to come from a middle class household and did not
have huge expenses, and Ms. Parker, who grew up with adversity
and just--the system is just so rigged. I mean, as we saw
yesterday, with the wealthy parents paying their way and false
test scores and everything else to get their kids into college,
who will have a cakewalk, and would have had a cakewalk either
way, and Ms. Parker, who has to work and raise a child and get
through college, that it just is--I do not think I could have
made it through Berkeley doing what you are doing, and I just
want to recognize that the cost of college is overwhelming and
I applaud you for your efforts. I yield back my time to the
Chairman.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Let me ask just, you know, one
question. Maybe Dr. Kvaal, there has been a reference to the
private income-based repayment plan, where you make a deal with
a private investor to get a percentage of your income. How do
those work, and why would anybody prefer that than the Federal
income-based repayment that we already have?
Mr. KVAAL. I think there is--thank you for the question,
Mr. Chairman. I think there is very little reason for any
student to prefer a private income share agreement to a Federal
student loan because of the option of income-driven repayment,
which will be a better option for almost every student, if not
every student. The Federal Government has lower cost of
capital. It has economies, a scale in collecting those loans,
and, as a result, they offer better rates to students than
private lenders will.
Chairman SCOTT. Is there any--would the private income
base--with the public income base repayment, you can just
decide if you got a real good job, just to pay off the loan and
be finished with it. Do you have that option with the private
deals?
Mr. KVAAL. Not necessarily. Oftentimes, you have to pay
back several times more than the value that--of your education.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Yields back. The gentlelady
yields back the balance of her time.
Ms. SCHRIER. May I take back the balance of my time?
Chairman SCOTT. Yes.
Ms. SCHRIER. I have a letter from the NEA that I would,
respectfully, request to submit--
Chairman SCOTT. Okay--
Ms. SCHRIER [continuing]. and thank you, and I will yield
back to whoever would like my time.
Chairman SCOTT. Without objection. Gentleman from South
Dakota?
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Parker, in your
testimony, because it is just a neat story, I know it has been
a hard story for you, but it is a neat story to see your
persistence. And at the end of your written testimony, you note
that you know the odds are low that Journey and I will ever
escape poverty, and I just want to echo Ms. Fudge and Dr. Roe
and others who said you are going to make it. You are going to
make it. And I know that because I think it is as true now as
it was when President Coolidge said it, but this is what
President Coolidge said, ``Nothing in this world can take the
place of persistence. Talent will not. Nothing is more common
than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not. Unrewarded
genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not. The world
is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination
alone are omnipotent.''
Ms. Parker, boy, do you have persistence, and you are going
to make it and Journey is going to make it. And I know that you
have traveled far, and that there are miles yet to go in your
journey, but, boy, are you going to make it. And so, through
that journey, I know you have learned a lot. I have got three
boys. One of them is 13. You know, he has not really started to
think about what is going to happen after high school yet, but
I would love to get you guys connected. Now, he is not here
today, but if he was, and if he says, Ms. Parker, what advice
do you have for me, about how--what I can be doing to have a
successful experience, whether that is related to affordability
or other measures of student success, what would you tell him,
ma'am?
Ms. PARKER. Get connected to as many resources as you can
because that is my experience. I do not know how to do it
without it. I do not know any other way, and to always be
mindful that, just because someone told you that this is the
way it is, that does not mean that has to be what it is. Ask
questions and continue to stay persistent.
Mr. JOHNSON. Ask questions. Boy, that--I think that is very
well said. I mean, you would need to be your own advocate--
Ms. PARKER. Right.
Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. at times in this system. We have
talked about how complicated it is to navigate. The system is
too complicated, but there have been times that you had to be
your own advocate, I assume?
Ms. PARKER. Yes, for years.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mm-hmm.
Ms. PARKER. Until I have realized now, later in my
educational journey, that, okay, there should have been a, you
know, a stepping point, all those years, where I could have
been caught and helped and guided.
Mr. JOHNSON. So, there is, you know, we have talked a fair
amount today, also, about that there is kind of a lack of
transparency, and it is hard to understand grants versus loans.
Some of the other panelists talked about that. Part of it is
also that we are kind of dealing with monopoly money. When
you're a young person and you are trying to think about paying
something back over 10 or 20 or more years, it is hard to
really, really--to really understand the financial impact that
it can have. Is there a moment, maybe there wasn't, but was
there moment when you really realized, oh, my gosh, this is
real money and I owe it?
Ms. PARKER. I understood that when I was 17 going to the
University of Toledo. Yet I was only taught to survive. So, it
was taking out the loans to make basic needs met in order to
still stay in school. I went to school with no money. Like I
said, I did not have a comforter for my bed. That was real.
When I got there, and I arrived and I see all my peers and
everyone setting up their room. They came, I mean, they had--I
don't even think they came from money. I knew they had money
because they had a comforter on their bed. I did not know what
``come from money'' meant, until I seen an extensive amount,
you know?
Mr. JOHNSON. You talked in your testimony, and I was glad
you did, about how hard you have worked and how many part-time
jobs, and at times more than a few of them, and we have also
heard from other panelists that can sometimes have a negative
impact on student success. But I have got to think, right now,
it would be hard for you to make it if you did not--if you were
not working. Employment is a key part of your success story
now, I would assume. Is that right?
Ms. PARKER. Yes. It is an important part of my success
story, and it also has given me experience. So, although I was
working all these jobs in, you know, in school, I was--I am
able to apply the experience that I have worked in all these
jobs to--is relevant to me now and in my career.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, this has been very well said. The
panelists have done a great job. Ms. Parker, you have done a
great job, and I think, yes, we do need to talk about what is--
we do need to have robust conversation about what is the role
the government in aiding student success and in increasing
affordability, but you are a great example of somebody who is
also doing what you can on your end. Hard work, curiosity,
being your own advocate, being persistent. I mean, there are a
lot of things that students need to own to be successful, and,
ma'am, you are owning them.
Mr. Chairman, if I can, I would like to yield back a little
time to the ranking member?
Mrs. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, to be fair, there is not enough
time to ask a question.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired. Let's see, gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Shalala.
Ms. SHALALA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I
would like to introduce into the record a letter from CLASP,
the Center for Law and Social Policy. To the panel, and I think
you have done an excellent job, but tuition is more complicated
than just what the sticker price is because so many of the
colleges and universities in this country, with probably the
exception of the for-profit institutions, discount tuition in a
variety of ways. Sometimes it is a scholarship, sometimes it is
just offering a lower price, and so it is hard to analyze
whether tuition alone is the factor. And it seems to me that
one of the things that we have learned is these wrap around
services that Ms. Parker has indicated that made a real
difference for her: access to housing, access to other kinds of
income and support services, in addition to the fact that she
took a job. So, could you talk a little about what the actual
tuition is, and how analysts treat that in relationship to
student success?
Mr. WEBBER. So, I think that--you bring up a very good
point. There is the sticker price of tuition, what it says on
the website, and I do want to say, this matters. It does deter
people from who just see the prospect of this, these really big
numbers with--and they are very reluctant to take out so much
debt, and that they are not aware of, you know, the financial
aid that they are actually going to receive, but then, what
students actually pay. One of the problems is that what they
actually pay is going to differ from year to year. It is not
clear what they are going to get from 1 year to the next.
The, you know, the financial aid packages that there is so
much fine print that, you know, you might--you know, it expires
after 4 years or it expires--you lose it if you fall below
certain thresholds, and it is incredibly complex, and this is a
real burden to students, I think.
Ms. SHALALA. Thank you very much. Mr. Kvaal, according to
research examining nationally representative data on student
demographics, we found that while academic programs at for-
profit colleges are more similar to those at public community
colleges, borrowing patterns for students who attend for-
profits are more similar to the not-for-profit 4-year colleges.
It seems like, to me, to mismatch in the types of programs for-
profits offers in the cost. Have you looked at that
differential in looking at the cost of college?
Mr. KVAAL. Yes. You are right. Programs at for-profit
colleges tend to have much higher tuitions, and they tend to
have much, much higher percentages of students who borrow.
Ms. SHALALA. And what about the retention and graduation
rates?
Mr. KVAAL. The retention and graduation rates are mixed.
The for-profit colleges tend to offer shorter programs, but if
you do it on an apples-to-apples basis, they are very similar
or, if anything, community colleges have slightly better
retention rates.
Ms. SHALALA. Dr. Shetlar, can you talk a little about the
wraparound services that you provide to students? I mean, you
talked about very low tuition, and you, obviously, have a large
number of students that work and go to school at your
institution. What kinds of services do you provide to support
students?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Educational supports, obviously, is
things like advising, and to attain the skills that they need
to be successful in their degree. Tuition is for--at Western is
about $3,000 a year--
Ms. SHALALA. Right--
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR [continuing]. Total cost of
attendance, with NC Promise is $14,000. So, it is room and
board, and the other supports, health services that need to be
in place, that are often the cost, additional costs.
Ms. SHALALA. Mm-hmm. Thank you very much. Ms. Parker, I
think you are going to do very well in the future. I would like
to be helpful. I actually know a lot of H.R. people in Ohio,
and so if you connect up with me after this hearing, I would be
happy to provide some introductions to you because I am going
to make sure you do not end up living in poverty for the rest
of your life. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman SCOTT. The lady's time was expired. The gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Cline?
Mr. CLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The cost of higher
education has unjustifiably run rampant in recent years, and
the overall cost of college is increasing as a result of many
underwritten factors, including administrative costs. While
some of my colleagues claim that college can and should be
free, the fact is college can never truly be free. Costs are
simply masked.
That being said, students should have the option to attend
an institution that prepares and enables them to be
contributing members of society. The problem with accessibility
is two-fold, which includes both the access for students to
attend, and their success and completion while at college. You
should not reach a point at which the cost of education is
entirely prohibitive, but recognizing that as just as
accessibility is important, so are graduation rates.
So, Mr. Webber, I would ask you, in your testimony you
State that only 60 percent of students at 4-year schools will
earn a degree within 6 years of initial enrollment. With more
and more resources at schools being devoted to administrative
costs, why are we not seeing a higher percentage of graduation?
And what benefits are they providing, if not contributing to
student success by ensuring their graduation?
Mr. WEBBER. Well, one of the issues is doing an apples-to-
apples comparison. So, over time, at the typical public
institution, graduation rates have stayed roughly constant, but
that is despite public institutions educating a much different
type of student today than 30, 40, 50 years ago. And so, from
an apples-to-apples comparison, in some sense our graduation
rates have increased because we are--because they have stayed
the same, if that makes sense.
Mr. CLINE. Thank you. Dr. Morrison-Shetlar, I am reading
your testimony; very interested in NC promise; sounds very
exciting. How long have you been chancellor, interim
chancellor?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Just slightly over 1 year.
Mr. CLINE. And are you familiar with your budgets over the
last, say, decade? I mean, can you speak to those budgets and
the increases in your budgets?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. To a certain extent, yes.
Mr. CLINE. Okay. Can you approximate for me how much the
budget has increased over the past 10 years per year, by
average?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Let me ask that question. I just
wanted to make sure it was somebody who actually has the
numbers. So, actually, over the last decade, we have stayed
relatively the same. What has happened is that we have had a
decrease in sort of capital expenditures or the ability to
invest in our current capital, and that is changing. With NC
Promise, we are beginning to see folks look at the cost of
attendance at the university, and to make sure that we have the
budget that we need to be able educate a growing population.
Mr. CLINE. That is not the answer I expected, so I want to
commend you for keeping your budgets under control. And given
that you have seen such a spike in enrollment, can you speak to
other ways in which you, as a higher education institution,
have managed to control costs on your own? Because from my
perspective, and I have a lot of different colleges and
universities in my district, they see continuing pressures on
their costs, and because your university is getting so much
support from the State to keep your tuition fixed and low, I
was curious whether or not you all were making it a goal to
actually control costs. And so can you speak to those?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Mm-hmm. Most definitely, I have
mentioned this previously, but one of the things that the NC
Promise is doing is helping us with retention, and so having
our students be able to stay on at the university is reducing
their cost, total cost of education.
Mr. CLINE. Not their costs, your costs.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Right, my cost. So, one of the things
that the--again, the system is doing is capped fees, and so
that we cannot go above 3 percent in terms of increasing our
fees. So, what we have to do--
Mr. CLINE. Right.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR [continuing]. if we are not getting
that, those additional funds, then we are looking at
reallocating to make sure that we are focusing. Western
Carolina University does not do everything. It does specific
things really well, and so, in past years, prior to my time
coming to Western Carolina, we looked at program
prioritization. What are the kinds of programs that we are
doing? Is it the right programs for our region? And if it is
not, then are we getting--eliminating those programs and
focusing our resources in other areas? The other things that we
do--a reallocation of resources is always the key to this. If
you do not have the money, what are your priorities and the
values of your institution? You know, follow the money.
And so, we have a very strong strategic plan that has a
focus on success, student success, time to graduation,
retention, and we make sure our resources follow those values,
those metrics, and the issues we are accountable for, so--
Mr. CLINE. Thank you very much.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR [continuing]. reallocation.
Mr. CLINE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Levin?
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
into the record two letters highlighting the critical
importance of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program; one,
from the American Federation of Teachers, and the other from
127 national and State animal health science professional
membership organizations.
Chairman SCOTT. Without objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that
restoring the middle-class means we must stop shortchanging our
students. All students in our country deserve a high-quality
education that helps them reach their full potentials, and we
must invest in higher educations, so students, like Ms. Parker,
are not buried in debt when they graduate.
I also believe strongly in loan forgiveness for those who
make the financial sacrifice to use their skills in public
service, such as working as teachers, firefighters, public
defenders, nurses, or members of the military. The PSLF, or the
Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, created with
bipartisan support in 2007, offers loan forgiveness to
individuals after they work in public service careers for 10
years. The program was designed to ensure that talented
individuals, including teachers, service members, and veterans,
can pursue careers in public service, even if they take out
loans to obtain a degree.
Dr. Kvaal, I would like to ask you a question. I think we
worked together in previous lives. It is good to see you again.
What would eliminating the PSLF Program do to diversity of the
public sector work force? Would it make it harder for
underrepresented groups to pursue careers in teaching, in
nursing, and the like?
Mr. KVAAL. It would. We know low-income students and
students of color are more likely to borrow, and they borrow
more, and so it would make those career choices more
challenging for them.
Mr. LEVIN. And how would eliminating this program make it
harder for low-income individuals, in particular, to pursue
careers in public service?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, we know student debt is an obstacle for
our students making their career choices, and students with
higher debts are less likely to choose low paid careers,
including public service careers.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. Today's college students often
struggle to find adequate, affordable housing options near
their campus. In fact, researchers believe that the population
of homeless students in higher education is close to 1.5
million. Furthermore, a recent GAO report examining college
student hunger found that low-income students, first-generation
students, and single parents are at greater risk of being food
insecure.
Ms. Parker, I was so moved by your story of struggling to
find housing with--for you and Journey. Thank you for sharing
this experience, and I am inspired by how you have overcome
that difficult time in your life. Can you tell us a little more
about what difference the stable housing that you found has
made for you, and can you expand more on how you were able to
find stable housing?
Ms. PARKER. Thank you. I was able to find the housing
through our advising. We have special circumstances advising at
Columbus State, and they directed me in the direction of
Scholar House, and--
Mr. LEVIN. And what is Scholar House?
Ms. PARKER. Okay.
Mr. LEVIN. Who stays--who lives there?
Ms. PARKER. Student parents. So, it is a community of
student parents, and they provide programming for us. So, we
have things for, like, mentoring, coaching, financial literacy,
programming offered to us, that is like a requirement. And it
is a partnership between CHMA Metro--I am sorry, Columbus
Metropolitan Housing Authority and Community Properties of
Ohio. It is a Section 8 voucher to allow us to have it at a
loan.
Mr. LEVIN. So, it is sort of a cooperative program of
different--
Ms. PARKER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN [continuing]. agencies working together to make
sure--
Ms. PARKER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN [continuing]. people can get housing?
Ms. PARKER. Exactly.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much. I think we need more of
that, not less. A part of the President's budget was released
this week, where the administration recommends eliminating
subsidized undergraduate student loans. Republicans have also
proposed eliminating subsidized loans. Currently, undergraduate
students can receive subsidized loans allocated based on
financial need, which do not accrue interest while they are in
school.
Dr. Kvaal, how would eliminating subsidized loans for
undergraduates affect students, and does this help make college
more accessible and affordable?
Mr. KVAAL. The President's proposal would use those funds
to reduce the deficit. It would raise costs by thousands of
dollars for many of students over the life of their loans, and
it would not make college more affordable.
Mr. LEVIN. Finally, let me ask you a clarifying question,
to you, Dr. Webber. There were some proposals offered by the
minority about limiting borrowing among certain students to
reduce debt loads. Do you believe debt loads, particularly
among low-income students, are the result of frivolous or
unnecessary spending or are they a reflection of rising prices
and insufficient grant aid?
Mr. WEBBER. I absolutely believe they are the latter, the
rising prices and insufficient debt aid. I think there are very
limited circumstances where, you know, some students, you know,
maybe because of lack of financial counseling, do borrow too
much, and so I think that schools should, you know, have more
flexibility to, you know, to be able to counsel those students.
Mr. LEVIN. More advising and counseling, rather than
limiting the amount they can borrow if they need it?
Mr. KVAAL. Exactly.
Mr. LEVIN. Okay. All right, my time has expired. Thank you
all so much. It is really an important subject.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Trone?
Mr. TRONE. I thank you all for being here this long day. It
is nearing the end.
Ms. Parker, I commend you for your phenomenal hard work and
perseverance and you are, absolutely, going to be successful,
and you will knock it out of the park. Just keep at it. My
question is, we have been looking at a higher education and a
education system that really has not changed much in the last
100 and almost 50 years. We have been a K through 12 system,
and then we have a 2-year or a 4-year college. You know,
everything else has changed in 150 years. I mean, our students
have changed. Their interests have changed. Where they would go
to graduate school, that has all changed.
What has changed? The type of jobs they are going to get
has changed. The way we communicate, knowledge has changed. I
would like to get some people's thoughts about is this system
just yesterday's system and something that we just keep going
with because it is there, or should we be trying to move to
something more like a Pre-K through 14, that is 100 percent
free, covers all those wraparounds, we cost--that we talked
about a while ago. And who in the--what State has done the best
practice in this area that could be something that we could
learn from and emulate? Let us start with Dr. Morrison-Shetlar.
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. I think the comment about free is
always difficult to determine. One of the things that NC
Promise does is a little different from others, is that it is
the first dollar, and so the students come and they know what
their tuition is going to be. They know what their other costs
are going to be, and then they can apply other loans and grants
to that. So, I think making this a process that is more
transparent, making a process that is more accessible,
particularly for low-income or first-generation students, would
be really, really important, and making sure that their
education is helping our students get the right kind of jobs.
At Western Carolina University, we do needs assessment in our
community. What is the kind of--what are the skills that are
needed?
What are the kinds of things that would help our economy,
and are a nimble enough university to be able to say, okay, we
need to be focusing and growing those particular things. So, I
think really knowing where--what your circumstances are. We are
in rural North--Western North Carolina. We know what the needs
of our community are, and as an institution, we meet those
needs and we exceed those needs, if we possibly can, but we
have to be nimble to be able to do that.
Mr. TRONE. Other thoughts on that?
Mr. KVAAL. Mr. Trone, if I might? There is an interesting
experiment happening in Detroit with the Kresge Foundation
about combining K through 12 schools with 4-year residential
college. It would be interesting to explore with you.
Mr. TRONE. How many States actually have a ``free'' first-
dollar or last-dollar community college, 2-year college?
Anybody have a number on that?
Mr. KVAAL. I do not think there is any State that is
entirely free.
Mr. TRONE. Tennessee? Nope?
Mr. KVAAL. Tennessee is covered, in large part, using Pell
grants. They have a last-dollar scholarship.
Mr. TRONE. Mm-hmm. Okay. Let us talk about work force a
minute. We support, you know, there is a lot of ideas in
innovation, promoting multiple pathways to students to learn,
and success in the workplace. At the end of the day, that is
what they are looking for, success in the workplace, in the
job. And sometimes these programs do not actually prepare
people adequately, but what kind of safeguards do we need if we
are spending Federal financial aid dollars to folks to help
pursue work force focus programs? Are students able to use
their Federal financial aid to help in these work force
programs?
Mr. KVAAL. In many cases, students are able to choose
degrees or certificates offered by community colleges or trade
schools that have direct occupational value. In order to get a
Pell Grant, you must be attending a program at least the length
of a traditional academic semester, which is 15 weeks. There
are some proposals to allow shorter term programs to receive
Pell Grants. Those programs may not necessarily be offered for
academic credit. They may not necessarily be accredited. And so
my view is those--there are a lot of those programs that are
high in quality and that are worthy of support, but we do need
to be careful, not just the types of programs that meet those
criteria today, but the types of criteria that--programs that
might be created to meet those criteria?
Mr. TRONE. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman's time has almost
expired. Thank you. The gentlelady from North Carolina is
Ranking Member Dr. Foxx.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Parker, I
want to congratulate you on getting your associate's degree,
and on continuing your education. I will tell you that I was
very, very poor growing up, but I worked my way through
college. It took me 7 years, and I had a family, and so I want
to encourage you, as other people have, to continue to do what
you do because getting your degree, I hope, will be worthwhile
for you. It has certainly been for me, and so I commend you for
continuing to do what you are doing.
Dr. Akers, I want to go back to the issue of the Public
Service Loan Forgiveness Programs, and in your testimony, you
mentioned that it is estimated it cost $24 billion over the
next 10 years. Could you give a few examples of how the PSLF is
inequitable and poorly designed?
Ms. AKERS. Sure. So, I have no objection to subsidizing
employment in careers that serve the public good and that are
undersubscribed with the market wages that exist in them, but I
firmly believe that the Student Lending Program is the wrong
place to provide those subsidies. It is sort of an obvious
example of where there is inequity, is you could imagine two
nurses working in a nonprofit hospital system. One of them went
to college and had the experience that Ms. Parker talked about
with pizza and partying in dorms, and then the other, you know,
scrimped and saved to have the low-cost experience. The
individual who has high amount of debt will have their loans
forgiven, essentially receiving a very large subsidy of
taxpayer dollars, while the person who was more careful with
their spending does not receive the subsidy. I would much
prefer if we just choose to support particular professions that
those subsides be delivered through something, like a tax
credit, that motivates all individuals to enter that
profession, rather than just those who have spent large sums on
their education.
Mrs. FOXX. Well, thank you for that example. I think, of
course, what Ms. Parker said, her idea, before she went to
college, was that is was a vacation, and I think many people
see that the taxpayers are subsidizing those kinds of students
who going to college to be on vacation and not having the kind
of seriousness that other students have, and I think your
example is an excellent one.
Dr. Morrison-Shetlar, thank you for coming to Washington to
testify about the wonderful things that are going on at Western
Carolina and other places in North Carolina. I think talking
about the Carolina Promise, talking about the programs that you
all have, where students can transfer from community college
and make sure that their credits transfer into their degree
programs, I happen to think North Carolina is doing a lot of
good things in that regard. Dual enrollment in high school that
costs absolutely nothing, and that is, by the way, all
throughout the State. I know you were a little unsure about how
to answer that question before, but it has been going on a long
time before I was involved, and before Ms. Adams and I were
both in the General Assembly, that program started. So, it has
been going on a long time, and it has been very successful, but
I know improving the economic mobility of your students is an
important value to you, and you eluded to that. Could you share
with us what you are doing on campus to work with businesses
and industry to make the transition from college graduate to
employee seamless for your students?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. We have a very robust career and
professional development service for our students that allows
us to find businesses and industries in our area that are
interested in taking our students before they graduate, so that
they are eligible for getting the experiences that Ms. Parker
talked about, as she did in her work experience. These are
really important connections to be made, and we live in an area
where the businesses and the industries are very supportive of
our student success. And a high percentage of our students,
when they do these internships or practicums, end up being
employed by those businesses and industries and, therefore, as
I mentioned earlier, stay in the area and contribute back to
the economy.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. And, Dr. Webber, I want to
say, again, a special thank you for being here today, and for
the written testimony that you provided, which is very, very
helpful to us. And, Dr. Kvaal, thank you, and, again, Ms.
Parker, thank you so much for coming and sharing your
experiences.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms.
Lee.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all
of you for being here today. As one of eight children, I was
able to put myself through college with a smorgasbord of help,
whether it was the Perkins Loans, the Pell Grants, student work
study, and that was significantly important to me. But we are
finding more and more that students are not having that same
opportunity, and, in fact, research from the Brookings
Institute predicts that by 2023, nearly 40 percent of borrowers
may default on their loans. So, to me, this indicates that we
do have a student loan default crisis, which is a much bigger
crisis for minority and low-income students, particularly those
who attend for-profit colleges. The study finds that default
for student at for-profit schools is almost four times that of
those that attend community colleges. We also know that black
students are three times more likely to enroll in for-profit
colleges than their peers, and students at the bottom quartile
are twice as likely to enroll at for-profit colleges than
students in the top.
Mr. Kvaal, I wanted to ask you, given these statistics, can
you explain why students who attend for-profit institutions are
at greater risk of default?
Mr. KVAAL. For-profit colleges tend to be significantly
more expensive. They tend to be priced at the level that would
require you to borrow Federal student loan at the maximum
level, and they often offer mediocre education or worse. And,
as a result, we do see a lot of students defaulting or failing
to make payments on their student loans.
Ms. LEE. Thank you. You know, you had said earlier that--
like you said that students that qualify from these for-profit
colleges, actually may do worse in the labor market than they
otherwise would do, even if they did not go to school. This
happens even though the credentials they offer tend to be 30 to
40 percent more expensive.
ABC interviewed a young veteran, Brian Babcock, a couple
years ago, who served our country in Iraq, and his plan was
policework when he graduated. He used his GI Bill money to
pursue criminal justice degree at ITT Tech, which we all know
what happened with that. He heard about the school on a
commercial. ITT promised him that all police agencies would
take his credential, and they even helped him fill out the
student loan application, which lead him to borrow up to
$70,000. He went on to apply to 20 to 23 police departments, to
only find out that none of them recognized this degree. We just
discovered today, and this is a particularly important point in
Nevada, we have a lot of for-profit universities that have shut
their doors, 30 in the last 10 years, and we just discovered
today, that 1,733 GI Bill recipients were affected by the most
recent closures of the Dream Education Schools, of which one is
in my district alone. Can you explain, more specifically, speak
to why minority students and veterans tend to be the target of
these predatory recruitment practices by for-profits?
Mr. KVAAL. I think in many cases, students do not have
experience with college. They have family members who do not
have experience with college. We know that for-profit colleges
engage in very high pressure or sometimes deceptive recruiting
tactics. In 2010, the GAO sent undercover investigators to for-
profit colleges. All 15 found misleading statements. Four of
them found fraudulent statements. The veterans are particularly
attractive to for-profit colleges because they generate revenue
outside of what is called the 90-10 Rule, which limits revenue
to 90 percent of student aid. And so, for all of those reasons,
you see the practices of for-profit colleges falling
disproportionately heavily on the communities you mentioned.
Ms. LEE. Thank you. Real quickly, we are running out of
time. Any quick suggestions for what the Federal Government can
do to protect these students?
Mr. KVAAL. I think it is really important to have
standards, to make sure that students graduate, can find jobs,
and can repay their loans. I think it is important to crack
down on the use of commissioned salespeople, which leads a lot
of this deceptive information. I would certainly include GI
benefits and DOD spending in the limitation on the amount of
Federal funds that these for-profit colleges conclude. And I
think that students who are defrauded should have a right to
get their loans forgiven, which is true in theory, but not in
practice today.
Ms. LEE. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you all.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from
Massachusetts, Ms. Trahan?
Ms. TRAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. It is so important to all of us. You know,
I was born and raised in a working-class family, in Lowell. I
was one of four girls and attended public schools my entire
life. You know, if not for a volleyball scholarship, I would
not have gone to the college that I had gone to, and so I am so
uniquely aware of the anxiety that goes around education and
funding your own education. You know the school--school tuition
had a high sticker price then, but I think what is more
alarming to me is that in the last 25 years, I have seen that
sticker price increase 3X, 3X in 25 years.
So, Mr. Kvaal, you know, I looked at your--the student debt
report that TCEA put out last September, and more than 200,000
colleges granting bachelor's degrees carried an average debt of
more than $35,000. I mean, today, we heard Ms. Parker's
testimony and your $66,000 debt. I just want to ask a couple of
basic, you know, questions on this because it would be--and I
think it is helpful for us to know what the major drivers are
for these tuition increases.
Mr. KVAAL. Well, for most students, three-quarters of
students go to public institutions, and for those students the
single biggest driver has been declining State support over the
last few decades.
Ms. TRAHAN. Yep, but--so that is fair. I have got three
stepsons. I have toured lots of college campuses in the last 10
years, and I have also seen a bit of an amenities arms race,
whether it is the dorms, the cafeterias, the gyms. And I am
wondering if you could speak to the--has the quality of
education or the job readiness, not just the student
experience, has it risen as a result of these tuition hikes?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, I think, in part, colleges do have a
challenge because they employ highly educated work force. It is
highly paid. It is difficult to become more productive, like
other parts of the economy because you cannot have more than 20
students in a seminar without the seminar getting worse. I also
think many of our colleges are chasing prestige in a way that
is measured by the U.S. News and World Report, for example,
which measures academic quality by the amounts institutions
spend, not the amount students learn, and we do not value
community colleges and regional universities that are inclusive
and affordable and higher in quality.
Ms. TRAHAN. Great. That is helpful. And you mentioned, I
think you are the only one in your testimony who sort of used
the word ``accountability.'' What accountability measures
should we employ to make sure that our young people, frankly,
get the return on their huge investment?
Mr. KVAAL. Well, the most basic question, I think, for
Federal policymakers is, can students repay their loans? We
have had the cohort default rate and statue for 30 years. It
has long been bipartisan, widely accepted. It is no longer very
effective at driving down student loan defaults. So, there is
series of reforms you could make to revitalize the student loan
default rate. I think there are other things that are worthy in
other areas. For example, the Gainful Employment Rules apply to
occupational programs, often at for-profit colleges, and look
at typical debts relative to expected earnings.
Ms. TRAHAN. Great. Thank you. I am going to switch gears
because I still have a little bit of time left. So, we heard
from Ms. Parker's testimony that far too many students and
their children, like Journey, are going hungry while you are
nobly trying to learn and get ahead. The help they need is not
reaching them. The GAO recently found that of the 3.3 million
students, and I think this was referenced earlier, who are
potently eligible for SNAP Benefits in 2016, less than half
said they participated.
So, Chancellor Morrison-Shetlar, I am wondering if you
could help with your experience? Is student hunger an issue you
see at Western Carolina, and if so, what are your
recommendations for helping students?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Student hunger is definitely
something that we are seeing in, I think, all of our
institutions. It is a big issue, and it is something that we at
Western, and across the system, are really, really conscious
of, making sure that students get to the resources that they
need to be able to be successful. Western Carolina University,
we have collaborated with the Baptist Children's Home to create
a food bank and resources for our students who are homeless,
who have issues, and they are referred through sometimes by
faculty, by staff. That we have really got to get the
information out to people about the resources that they have
available to them, as Ms. Parker has mentioned, and I think
communication is the big issue. We have got to get that
information out, and it has to be done in a way that is
compassionate and respectful for the person who is being
affected because that is one area where if people don't feel
like they are being valued or respected, they will just leave,
and so retention will become an issue.
Ms. TRAHAN. Right. Thank you. I have run out of time, so I
yield back, but thank you all so much for being here today.
Chairman SCOTT. The lady's time has expired. The gentlelady
from Washington, Ms. Jayapal?
Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding these important hearings. Thank you to the panel for
being here. This has been an issue that has been important to
me for some years. And I think that, if I am not mistaken, Dr.
Kvaal, when you were with the Obama Administration and I was
writing my bill in the State Senate for the Washington Promise
Act, I believe we worked with you, so thank you for your help
back then. And we did just in--we have one of the best
community college systems in the country. We did just in
Seattle add a 13th year to sort of the K-12 continuum, and so
we are excited to see how that goes. In Washington State, just
to echo some of the comments of my colleague that has just
spoke, we went from the State covering 66 percent of the cost
of college, public universities in 2008, to now covering only
35 percent, and we are in a very high, very unaffordable, let's
put it that way, area in terms of our living costs. So, the
challenges for students are tremendous. And I want congratulate
you, Ms. Parker, and all of the students across our country,
who go to through such challenges.
Let me start with you, Chancellor, and thank you so much
for your work on the North Carolina Promise Program. I wanted
to ask if you could zero in a little bit on what you have found
around college accessibility and income diversity of your
students, in particular? Any specific reflections on that
connection?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. The metrics of the UNC System have
put forward to us as a result of--just affordability and access
across the system, but then also including NC Promise, is
really to focus on making sure that low-income students, first-
generation students have access to a high-quality. affordable
degree. And, as a result, the NC Promise System chose three
institutions that allow students less than 150 miles' travel to
get to college, where they can get a 4-year degree, which means
that you are basically supporting your community, and that is
really, really important. And so people coming to Western and
to Pembroke and to Elizabeth City are people who want to have a
high-quality education, would not normally have been able to
afford it, but with NC Promise, that has allowed them to do
that. So, we are seeing increases in retention and time to
graduation, even in the fact that we have just been at this for
a short period of time, but we are seeing, particularly,
student retention because they are having--they are not having
the financial impact that they would have had otherwise.
Ms. JAYAPAL. That is perfect cause my next question was
going to be around sometimes we separate cost and affordability
from completion, and in my experience and the students I have
spoken to, and it has--talked to tens of thousands now across
Washington State. There is a very direct connection because if
you do not have the aid, if you have to go out and have a
second job or a third job, if you cannot afford your textbooks
or your--a computer now, because everything is--it really
affects your ability to complete. And so can you speak to that?
I know it is early, but can you speak to that and perhaps any
of the other panelists that might want to comment on that
relationship because they are so often separated? What comments
do you have around that completion and--?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Well, NC Promise is a first-dollar
program, and so students know exactly how much it is going to
cost, with their tuition and their fees, room and board, et
cetera, and so that knowledge allows planning. That knowledge
allows seeking other resources to complete that cost of
attendance, and that is something that I would love to see as
having a simpler process, a more transparent process, something
that first-generation students or low-income students can have
access to and be successful at. That would be a huge game
changer for the people and the students that you are talking
about.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Well, and actually I just want to say before
asking, if any of you have comments on that, that I actually
have championed a proposal to invest in a Federal-State
partnership to make public college, both 4-year and 2-year
tuition fee free for everybody. And under the plan, the
government, the Federal Government, would cover two-thirds of
the cost of eliminating tuitions and fees, and the States would
cover a third, and I believe that--actually, that is a really
important cornerstone of higher education authorization,
reauthorization. But you look like you were going to say
something, Dr. Webber?
Mr. WEBBER. Yes. I was just going to say that I think you
hit the nail right on the head with respect to affordability
and completion. That, on average, a college degree pays off in
spades, and this is true for the vast majority of people, but
risk is really the important thing here, that downside risk.
You know, the people who are in the single worst position are
those who are--do not complete, and for them--
Ms. JAYAPAL. Right.
Mr. WEBBER [continuing]. college is not affordable.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Exactly. Dr. Kvaal? I just have a couple
seconds here.
Mr. KVAAL. Just to add, we have this idea of college
students as being upper middle class, temporarily eating Taco
Bell, and the reality of their lives today are really very
different, and we need to think about cost of supporting
children, other family members, emergency expenses. There is a
whole range of costs that get in the way of completion that we
do not deal with.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. I would recognize myself for a
couple of questions. I see the votes have been called.
Mr. Kvaal, you mentioned the problems with the Public
Service Loan Forgiveness, that it is good in theory, but is
problematic in reality. Is the problem legislative or
administrative?
Mr. KVAAL. Both. I think it would help to simplify the
types of repayment plans that are eligible for Public Service
Loan Forgiveness. The types of employment is unclear. It could
be clarified by the department. It could also be clarified by
Congress.
Chairman SCOTT. Are you saying that somebody can be
working, year after year, thinking they are on a plan, and not
knowing and you get--after the 10 years, all of a sudden you do
not get any credit?
Mr. KVAAL. That is not only hypothetical, that has
happened.
Chairman SCOTT. And is that legislative or administrative?
Mr. KVAAL. There is a mess. In many cases, the department
has given inaccurate, or its contractors have inaccurate
information to students, but I think there is an opportunity
for Congress to fix it.
Chairman SCOTT. Are you talking about a problem with
servicers?
Mr. KVAAL. Yes.
Chairman SCOTT. Okay, and you mentioned the cost of the
for-profit colleges is higher than community college for the
same program. How much higher, is it close?
Mr. KVAAL. It is many times higher.
Chairman SCOTT. Many times, like three, four, five times?
Mr. KVAAL. Three, four, or five times is a fair estimate.
Chairman SCOTT. Ms. Morrison, you talked about the North
Carolina Promise, and you also mentioned a significant
improvement in graduation rates in several colleges. How much
did the financial assistance contribute to the increased
graduation rate?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. We are early on in the NC Promise,
and so our 6-year graduation rate at Western, over the last 6
years, have gone 50 percent to 60 percent. I anticipate that
with NC Promise we will see an increase in graduation rate. It
is too early, at this point in time, to say.
Chairman SCOTT. Is there a limit on how many students can
participate?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. No. Any of the students who are
enrolled at the three institutions have NC Promise.
Chairman SCOTT. So, if you can get into the institution,
you get the rate?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Correct.
Chairman SCOTT. You do not have to have a minimum grade
point average to get in?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. We have the standards, set by the
institutions, for entry, and if the student obtains those or
exceeds those, then they have the possibility of coming to
those three institutions.
Chairman SCOTT. Now, has this benefit at these three
colleges had an adverse effect on enrollment at other colleges?
Ms. MORRISON-SHETLAR. Not that we have data to show. In
fact, those institutions who have said that they have had a--
seen a decrease as a result of NC Promise, the numbers just
don't jive. We are seeing a 6.6 percent increase. Other
institutions, 14 and 19 percent increase. So, it is--what we
are seeing, particularly, was transfer students, as the
transfer students are coming from the same places that were
transferring from before. There is just more of them because it
is a more affordable option.
Chairman SCOTT. Okay, thank you. And, Ms. Parker, you
mentioned assistance you got from counselors. How important was
their advice in making it possible for you to stay and complete
your degree, and stay in school where you are now?
Ms. PARKER. Extremely important, sir. Their advice that
they gave me are coping skills on how to deal with anxiety when
dealing with things, like finances or worrying about child
care, or just coping mechanisms, so that I can still stay
focused, and it was extremely helpful.
Chairman SCOTT. Do you know how these counselors were paid
for? Were any of them in a TRIO program, like Student Support
Services?
Ms. PARKER. I also have an advisor for the TRIO, in Student
Services.
Chairman SCOTT. Has that been helpful?
Ms. PARKER. Yes, very helpful, connecting me to
scholarships and resources, guiding me.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. In light of the time, Ranking
Member, I will complete my questions now and submit others for
the record. Does the ranking member have closing comments?
Mrs. FOXX. I do, Mr. Chairman, and, again, in light of the
time, I will abbreviate my comments. I do want to say that I
will submit to Dr. Webber a question about a comment he made
about Temple that I would like to have some clarification on,
but I will do that.
Mr. Chairman, I want to, again, commend you for having this
hearing, and appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with you
on it, but there is a void in our focus, I think, today, and
that is the issue of the responsibility of the institutions and
the States because we see over and over that the issues is
completion. I am looking forward to some of the other hearings
in this series that will help us focus more on why so few
students are completing, and why so many students are not
seeking the educational program that best suits their
interests, and what is the responsibility of the institution,
the student, and the State?
I am, frankly, flabbergasted by what we heard from Ms.
Parker about the lack of concern by the University of Toledo
for her. I think that points out, again, lots of problems at
the State level, and I want to believe that no student going to
an institution in North Carolina would have faced that total
lack of concern. We have had a lot of hearings on postsecondary
education over the years and, as time goes on, statistics add
up. It is becoming clear that none of the issues stand alone.
Mr. Chairman, you and I share a love for methodical
processes, and a topical approach makes sense to many, but as
our witnesses have shown us today, each topic leads directly to
another. That is why this committee must focus on the following
touchstones for reform: strengthening innovation and
completion, modernizing Federal student aid, and promoting
student opportunities.
We have not even touched on some of the newer elements that
are finally being considered within the contents of
postsecondary education. Just the other day, I read about how
population challenges are beginning to impact small liberal
arts colleges. According to a new study by economist Nathan
Grawe, there will be 450,000 fewer students entering the
postsecondary system in the 2020's because there are fewer
people being born in this country. Without the tuition revenue
supported by the students, colleges are going to need to figure
out a way to adapt, and it is imperative for our country's work
force that the system supports students in completing an
affordable postsecondary education of some kind.
Mr. Chairman, you and I share a passion for seeing skills
education play a bigger role, but we cannot forget about small
institutions and the role of the liberal arts. Students must
have options. I look forward to continuing these conversations
with you in our next hearing, and I yield back.
Chairman SCOTT. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. And one of the things
that we want to make sure we do not leave out is access to
liberal arts education. Many people want to have a formula,
where you can monetize your education the day after you get
your degree. That is not often possible with the liberal arts
degree, but the long-term benefits in terms of transformation
of the student, I think, is extremely important. And for--
Mrs. FOXX. And as an English major, you know I agree.
Chairman SCOTT. And for those who are academically
qualified to make that choice, we do not want to limit that
choice just to those who can write the big tuition checks, but
we have heard today that a quality education is out of reach
for too many of our students. We have heard how Federal and
State disinvestment from public higher education has hindered
and under-resourced the school's ability to reach all of our
students. You have heard how the weakening Federal grant
programs and supportive services have made it difficult for
students to access higher education, and I think we have an
obligation, particularly with the State disinvestment. We heard
that going from the Pell Grant covering 75--to about 75 percent
going to 25 percent. Well, that triples the cost to the student
right there. Just in the Pell Grants, inflation has made the
portion they pay even more expensive. So, it is obvious that we
have do something, and today's hearing was extremely important
and informative for us to get our job done, and I want to thank
our witnesses for being with us today.
Thank you, and without objection, the committee hearing is
adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Mrs. Foxx follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Ms. Fudge follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Mr. Levin follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Ms. Shalala follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Ms. Schrier follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Mr. Takano follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Mr. Taylor follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Dr. Morrison-Shetlar response to questions submitted for
the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 1:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]