LEGISTLATION TO ADDRESS RISING STUDENT LOAN DEBT AND THE COST OF COLLEGE

Higher Education;Student Loans;Public Management

Redmond, Alexis Judith ElizabethWeinstein, Paul J. ;

Johns Hopkins University

关键词: Higher Education;    Student Loans;    Public Management;   

Others  :  https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/39405/REDMOND-CAPSTONE-2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: JOHNS HOPKINS DSpace Repository

【 摘 要 】

Increasing student loan debt levels have created a market failure where graduate students consumer participation is severely hindered, as the mounting debt impacts their general purchasing power and ability to obtain credit. By taking a qualitative exploration through the legislative history of the Higher Education Act of 1965, student loan borrowing and state investment trends, a policy proposal was discovered to address rising student loan debt levels and tuition costs. This policy proposes (1) creating a new state-federal matching program that would provide grants to states to incentivize state higher education investment, (2) penalizing public institutions that receive federal funding, who increase tuition greater than the rate of inflation and (3) capping Parent and Grad PLUS federal loan program limits. In analyzing this policy, it was found that it would have an immediate impact on state investment into higher education, reduce long-term tuition costs and accumulation of student loan debt, and would incentive cost-cutting measures by colleges and universities. However, potential challenges created by the policy could limit college access for low- and middle-income students in the short-term, program funding would raise excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and it could force the closure of low-quality and underperforming schools, displacing thousands of students. Politicians and key stakeholders can both get behind the general issue of reducing debt levels and college costs. However, based on the lack of budget neutrality and short-term challenges to college access and affordability, there would likely be resistance by the opposition and key stakeholders. Thus, a recommendation could not be made in favor of the policy.