学生债务太多？还是大学学生太多？保守派瞄准高等教育
【中美创新时报2024 年 12 月 22 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）将在即将上任的特朗普政府期间影响教育政策的保守派认为，长期以来一直是美国向上流动的主要驱动力的高等教育，对于太多学生来说已成为一项糟糕的投资，需要进行全面改革。《波士顿环球报》记者希拉里·伯恩斯对此作了下述详细报道。
他们指出，大量学生退出学位课程，高达 40%，以及那些背负沉重债务或从事低薪工作但拥有昂贵学位的学生。
但占主导地位的保守派思想领袖并没有直接试图阻止大学申请者，而是希望在毕业生拖欠贷款或收入无法证明学费合理时对学校进行经济处罚。
“大学应该承担责任，这样如果学生成功了，他们就成功了，如果学生失败了，他们就失败了，”美国企业研究所兼职研究员迈克尔·布里克曼说。
批评人士表示，这样的政策可能会导致招收低收入和第一代学生比例最高的学校关闭，这些人更有可能因为经济困难而辍学。这也可能阻止一些学校接受进入艺术、教育和社会科学等低薪领域的学生。
加州大学河滨分校社会学和公共政策教授史蒂文·布林特说：“如果该法案通过并实施，它将给机构施加压力，使其减少这些收入相对较低的项目，甚至比现在减少的还要多。”“这将给经济实力较弱的机构带来很大压力，但它们在社会流动中发挥着相当重要的作用。”
近年来，共和党和民主党从不同但并无二致的角度来讨论这个问题。但是，随着共和党从明年开始控制所有三个政府部门，他们将主动承担家庭和国家的巨大经济负担。根据教育数据倡议，未偿还的学生贷款债务总额高达 1.73 万亿美元，其中大部分是通过联邦政府借入的。现在的平均债务可能超过 40,000 美元，高达 42% 的借款人在 20 年后仍在偿还债务。
偿还这些债务的困难对个人、社会和经济产生了巨大的影响，从欠债太多的心理压力，到借款人推迟或完全放弃买房或建立家庭。尽管研究表明，学士学位可以增加毕业生一生的收入，但乔治城大学 2021 年的研究人员发现，自 1980 年以来，平均大学费用增长了 169%，而 22 至 27 岁工人的收入增长不到 20%。
拜登政府一直在推动提供更多信息来帮助消费者，包括更新大学记分卡工具，该工具提供毕业后收入数据，以便学生和家庭可以考虑某个课程或学习领域的财务影响。
它还加强了所谓的有酬就业规则，该规则将从 2026 年开始要求所有大学向借款人披露有关“典型毕业生收入多少、典型毕业生欠款多少以及如果这些债务负担根据专家指南无法承受，我们会提醒你”的信息，教育部副部长詹姆斯·克瓦尔在接受采访时表示。
“这将是一个前所未有的工具，可以揭示所有这些无法承受的债务来自何处，以便我们能够开始真正讨论解决方案，”他说。
新规则有处罚，但目前这些处罚仅限于营利性大学和非营利性大学的非学位劳动力计划。那些让学生从事低收入职业或背负与收入相比高额债务的学校将失去联邦财政援助计划的机会，这可能会严重打击他们的入学率。
一些人希望将这些处罚扩大到包括所有高等教育计划，这将要求国会修改《高等教育法》。
与此同时，共和党现在强调一项名为“风险共担”计划的概念，即当毕业生未能按时偿还学生贷款或他们的收入无法支付学费时，学校将向政府支付费用。这项措施包含在众议院教育和劳动力委员会即将卸任的主席、北卡罗来纳州共和党众议员弗吉尼亚·福克斯发起的一项立法中，目的之一是向学校施压，要求其降低学费，尤其是针对低薪领域的学位。
“哥伦比亚大学——或者任何一所大学——没有理由让电影专业的学生背负平均超过 18 万美元的债务，因为他们知道学生毕业时的收入将处于贫困线水平，”共和党领导的众议院教育委员会发言人 AnnMarie Graham-Barnes 说。
国会预算办公室的分析发现，由于学术项目和整个学校的关闭，该立法将使学生贷款额减少多达三分之一；一些学校也可能选择不参与联邦学生贷款计划，以避免风险分担付款。
立法者表示，这项拟议的立法将在十年内为纳税人节省 1850 亿美元，还将奖励那些将教育服务与劳动力需求相结合并帮助低收入学生从某些课程毕业的大学。
但马萨诸塞州独立学院和大学协会首席执行官 Rob McCarron 表示，这些奖励不会抵消大多数学校的风险分担处罚的成本。根据全国独立学院和大学协会的数据，历史上黑人学院、女子学院、天主教学院和培养许多教师的大学将受到这些付款的影响最大。
田纳西大学诺克斯维尔分校教授 Robert Kelchen 表示，风险分担可能是出于好意，但“挑战在于，你想切断什么风险？掠夺性的计划，还是为风险更高的学生提供服务的计划？”
在给《波士顿环球报》的一份声明中，福克斯否认了该提案可能导致大学招收更少的低收入学生和有色人种学生的说法。
“学院和大学会找各种借口来解释为什么他们不应该被追究责任，包括威胁停止招收那些最有可能从大学学位中受益的学生，”福克斯说。
一些民主党人过去曾支持这种做法。马萨诸塞州参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦 (Elizabeth Warren) 于 2022 年与罗德岛州参议员杰克·里德 (Jack Reed) 共同发起了一项法案，该法案要求参与直接学生贷款计划的学校在学生违约达到一定水平时同意分担风险。但目前尚不清楚有多少人会在当前环境下表示支持，因为高等教育正处于新保守派的攻击之下。沃伦拒绝置评。
近年来，大学入学率一直在下降，主要是由于出生率下降。大学与学院理事会协会 (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges) 顾问拉里·拉德 (Larry Ladd) 表示，对于陷入困境的学校来说，风险分担费用可能会扭转局面。信用评级机构惠誉集团 (Fitch Group) 去年 12 月预测，2025 年将有更多大学关闭，理由是“立法环境极不确定”可能会加剧现有的财务压力。
由于预算压力和入学人数下降，以及学生和家庭选择起薪更高的专业，许多大学已经在削减人文学科课程，这对那些从事艺术事业的人来说是一个令人担忧的发展。
“我靠我热爱的事情谋生，”马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校戏剧系主任克里斯托弗·贝克 (Christopher Baker) 说，他之前在戏剧界工作过。“我的生活质量实际上非常好。虽然不花哨，但真的很好。”
一些保守派人士认为，许多学生最好根本不上大学。总统当选人唐纳德·特朗普圈子里最具影响力的高等教育代言人之一、保守派活动家兼作家克里斯托弗·鲁福最近告诉《华尔街日报》，他认为入读四年制学校的美国人数量应该“减少一半以上”。鲁福没有回应置评请求。
进步派人士认为，保守派对学术界的批评是虚伪的。许多共和党人，包括特朗普和副总统当选人 JD Vance，都在常春藤盟校接受了昂贵的教育，特朗普的儿子目前就读于纽约大学，这是美国最昂贵的学校之一。
“他们真的建议不要上大学吗？”凯尔琴说。“他们是在推荐一个学徒计划，而这个计划往往比大学毕业需要更长的时间才能完成？他们[给他们]创业的种子资金吗？那里发生了什么？”
此外，特朗普本人也涉足教育行业，创办了一所营利性大学，该大学被指控采取了保守派希望遏制的一些做法。在当选总统第一任期开始前几周，特朗普大学声称要向学生传授“特朗普的房地产成功秘诀”，但后来与学生达成和解，要求赔偿 2500 万美元，这些学生称自己被这所现已停办的学校欺骗了。
与传统的非营利性学术机构相比，营利性学校最有可能让学生背上债务，而且拿不到学位。根据美国国家教育统计中心的数据，2020 年，公立学校的六年毕业率为 63%，私立非营利性学校的六年毕业率为 68%，营利性学校的六年毕业率为 29%。
艾尔顿·特谢拉想知道，其他没有得到他那样大学待遇的低收入学生会怎么样。特谢拉是东北大学罗克斯伯里分校的第一代学生，他曾考虑在职业高中毕业后成为一名工会电工，但东北大学为他提供了全额奖学金。他现在在科罗拉多州担任自动化工程师，这是学校合作项目的一部分。
虽然他毕业时没有贷款，可以进入一个收入丰厚的行业，但他担心特朗普政府可能会限制其他低收入学生的机会，这些学生将无法获得像他一样多的经济援助，或者如果为低收入学生提供服务的机构关闭或被鼓励减少招收低收入学生，这些学生可能会被完全拒之门外。
“我理解他为什么这么做，因为特朗普是一名企业家——他是一名商人，”特谢拉说。“他只关心钱。如果没有人偿还这些学生贷款，那么就需要有人来偿还……[但]如果我不上大学，我就不会成为今天的我。”
然而，一些现在和以前的学生借了巨额贷款上大学，他们并不相信他们做出了正确的决定。阿曼达·德隆-卡特借了大约 6 万美元进入俄亥俄大学，并于 2016 年毕业，获得英语和创意写作学位。她在一家加油站找到了一份最低工资的工作，然后在母校的图书馆上夜班，努力支付账单几年后，才在一家保险公司找到了一份薪水更高的工作。
虽然她在大学里学到了关于友谊和人际关系的重要课程，但她认为她本可以找到一种更经济的方式来学习工作技能。她的父母是家里第一个上大学的孩子，他们强调高等教育的重要性，但她说，现在对很多学生来说，这笔钱根本算不上什么。
“当我的父母谈到 80 年代初上大学的费用与生活成本时，他们觉得差别很大，”德隆-卡特说。“接受教育仍然是一件好事……但对很多人来说，没有好的方法可以做到这一点。”
题图：2024 年毕业典礼期间，马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校的学生走进麦奎克校友体育场。John Tlumacki/Globe 员工
附原英文报道：
Too much student debt? Or too many students in college? Conservatives take aim at higher education.
By Hilary Burns Globe Staff,Updated December 18, 2024
UMass Amherst students marched into the McGuirk Alumni Stadium during the 2024 commencement.John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
The conservatives who will influence education policy during the incoming Trump administration believe higher education, long the principal driver of upward mobility in the United States, has become a poor investment for far too many students and is in need of sweeping reform.
They point to the large number of students who drop out of degree programs, as many as 40 percent, and those saddled with crippling debt or stuck in low-paying jobs despite holding expensive degrees.
But instead of directly trying to discourage college applicants, the ascendant conservative thought leaders want to penalize schools financially when their graduates are late on loan payments or their earnings don’t justify the cost of tuition.
“There should be accountability on the colleges and universities, so that if the students succeed, they succeed, and if their students fail, they fail,” said Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Critics say such a policy could result in the closures of schools that enroll the highest proportions of low-income and first-generation students, who are more likely to drop out because of financial obstacles. It also might discourage some schools from accepting students heading into lower-paying fields, such as the arts, education, and social sciences.
“If it’s passed and enforced, it’ll put pressure on institutions to reduce, even more than they have [already], these programs where the earnings are relatively low,” said Steven Brint, professor of sociology and public policy at the University of California Riverside. “It’s going to put a lot of pressure on financially weaker institutions that nevertheless play a pretty important role in social mobility.”
Republicans and Democrats have circled the issue from different, though not dissimilar approaches in recent years. But with the GOP controlling all three branches of government beginning next year, the initiative will be theirs to take on what’s become an enormous financial burden on families and the nation. Outstanding student loan debt totals a staggering $1.73 trillion, according to the Education Data Initiative, most of which was borrowed through the federal government. The average debt may now top $40,000, and a whopping 42 percent of borrowers are still paying off their balances after 20 years.
The struggle to repay this debt has enormous personal, social, and economic repercussions, from the psychological stress of owing so much, to borrowers delaying or foregoing altogether buying homes or starting families. Although research shows a bachelor’s degree increases a graduate’s earnings over a lifetime, Georgetown University researchers in 2021 found that average college costs increased 169 percent since 1980, while earnings for workers between the ages of 22 and 27 grew less than 20 percent.
The Biden administration has pushed for more information to help consumers, including updates to the College Scorecard tool that provides data on post-graduation earnings, so students and families can consider the financial implications of a program or field of study.
It also strengthened the so-called Gainful Employment rule that will, starting in 2026, require all colleges to disclose information to borrowers about “what a typical graduate earns, what a typical graduate owes, and we will warn you if those debt loads are unaffordable according to expert guidelines,” James Kvaal, undersecretary of education, said in an interview.
“This is going to be an unprecedented tool to shed light on where all this unaffordable debt is coming from so that we can start to have a real conversation about solutions,” he said.
The new rules have penalties, though for now those are limited to for-profit colleges and nondegree workforce programs at nonprofit colleges. Those that saddle students with low-earning careers or large debts relative to their earnings would lose access to federal financial aid programs, which could deal a severe blow to their enrollments.
Some want those penalties expanded to include all higher education programs, which would require Congress to amend the Higher Education Act.
The Republicans, meanwhile, are now emphasizing a concept known as a “risk-sharing” program, in which institutions would pay the government when their graduates are late on their student loans or their earnings don’t justify the cost of tuition. The measure was included in legislation sponsored by the outgoing chairwoman of the House education and workforce committee, North Carolina Republican Representative Virginia Foxx, and one aim is to pressure schools to cut tuition, especially for degrees in lower-paying fields.
“There is no reason that Columbia — or any college for that matter — should be leaving film majors with an average debt of over $180,000 when they know that students will be making poverty-level wages when they graduate,” said AnnMarie Graham-Barnes, a spokesperson for the Republican-led House education committee.
A Congressional Budget Office analysis found the legislation would shrink student loan volume by as much as one-third due to closures of academic programs and entire schools; some schools would also likely choose not to participate in the federal student loan program to avoid the risk-sharing payments.
The proposed legislation, which lawmakers say would save taxpayers $185 billion over a decade, would also reward colleges for aligning educational offerings with workforce needs and helping low-income students graduate from certain programs.
But Rob McCarron, chief executive of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, said those rewards would not offset the costs of risk-sharing penalties for most schools. Historically Black colleges, women’s colleges, Catholic colleges, and universities that educate many teachers would be among the most affected by those payments, according to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.
Risk-sharing may be well-intended, said Robert Kelchen, a professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, but “the challenge is, what risk are you trying to cut off? Programs that are predatory, or programs that serve students that are riskier?”
In a statement to the Globe, Foxx rejected the notion the proposal could result in colleges enrolling fewer low-income students and students of color.
“Colleges and universities will make every excuse as to why they shouldn’t be held accountable, including threatening to stop enrolling those who stand to benefit from a college degree the most,” Foxx said.
Some Democrats have supported this approach in the past. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored a bill with Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed in 2022 that would have required schools participating in the direct student loan program to agree to risk-sharing payments when student defaults hit a certain level. But it’s not clear how many would show support in the current environment, with higher education in the cross-hairs of a new conservative establishment. Warren declined to comment.
College enrollment has been falling in recent years, largely due to declining birth rates. For struggling schools, risk-sharing fees could tip the balance, said Larry Ladd, a consultant with the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Credit rating agency Fitch Group predicted in December that more colleges will close in 2025, citing “a sharply uncertain legislative landscape” likely to compound existing financial pressure.
Many colleges are already cutting back humanities programs amid budget pressures and declining enrollment and as students and families opt for majors with higher starting salaries, a worrisome development for those who have made a career in the arts.
“I’ve made my living in the thing that I’m passionate about,” said Christopher Baker, chair of the theater department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who previously worked in theater. “I have a quality of life that is actually really good. It’s not fancy, but it’s really good.”
Some conservatives argue many students would be better off not attending college at all. One of the most influential higher education voices in President-elect Donald Trump’s circle, Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist and writer, recently told the Wall Street Journal that he thinks the number of Americans enrolling in four-year schools should drop “by more than half.” Rufo did not respond to requests for comment.
Progressives see hypocrisy in the conservative critique of academia. Many Republicans, including Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance, have received expensive educations at Ivy League universities, and Trump’s son currently attends New York University, one of the costliest schools in the country.
“Are they really recommending no college?” Kelchen said. “Are they recommending an apprenticeship program that can often take longer than college to finish? Are they [giving them] seed money to start a business? What’s going on there?”
Moreover, Trump himself infamously dabbled in the education business with a for-profit university that was accused of some of the very practices the conservatives say they want to curb. Weeks before the president-elect’s first term, Trump University, which claimed to teach students “Trump’s secrets” to success in real estate, settled for $25 million with students who said they were defrauded by the now defunct school.
And for-profit schools are by far the most likely to leave students with debt and no degree compared with traditional nonprofit academic institutions. In 2020, the six-year graduation rate was 63 percent at public institutions, 68 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 29 percent at for-profit institutions, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Ailton Teixeira wonders what would happen to other low-income students who do not get the college deal he did. A first-generation student at Northeastern University from Roxbury, Teixeira considered becoming a union electrician after vocational high school until Northeastern offered him a full scholarship. He’s now working as an automation engineer in Colorado as part of the school’s co-op program.
While he will graduate with no loans and enter a well-paying field, he worries the Trump administration could limit opportunities for other low-income students who won’t get as much financial aid as he did, or who could be shut out of higher education altogether if institutions serving low-income students close or are incentivized to enroll fewer low-income students.
“I do understand why he’s doing it because Trump, he’s an entrepreneur — he’s a businessman,” Teixeira said. “All he cares about is money. If nobody’s paying these student loans, then somebody needs to. … [But] I wouldn’t be who I am today if I didn’t go to college.”
Some current and former students who took out significant loans to attend college, however, are not convinced they made the right call. Amanda DeLong-Carter borrowed about $60,000 to attend Ohio University, graduating in 2016 with a degree in English and creative writing. She took a minimum wage job at a gas station, then worked nights at her alma mater’s library, struggling to pay her bills for several years before getting a higher-paying job with an insurance company.
While she learned important lessons about friendship and relationships at college, she thinks she could have found a more economical way to learn workforce skills. Her parents, the first in their families to attend college, emphasized the importance of higher education, but she said the math doesn’t add up these days for many students.
“When my parents talk about the price of going to college in the early ‘80s versus the cost of living, it’s insanely different,” DeLong-Carter said. “It’s still good to get an education. . . . But there’s not a good way for a lot of people to do that.”
