Consider This from NPR - The Trump administration is changing student loans. Will it affect what people study?

Episode Date: July 10, 2026

July has brought a lot of changes to how the federal government handles student loans.They include how much students are able to borrow.And now, the government is assessing loans through a test: Based on how much money students make after graduating.Could this change what students plan to study and the professions they enter?For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] episode was produced by Jeffrey Pierre, Zephyr Weinreich and Karen Zamora, with audio engineering by Ted Mebane. Our director is Jonas Adams.It was edited by Nicole Cohen, William Troop and Tinbete Ermyas.Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

It's considered this where every day we go deep on one big news story. Today, the ever-shifting landscape of student loans. This month has seen a lot of changes to how the federal government handles student loans. They include how much students are able to borrow. Now the government is assessing loans through a test based on how much money students make after graduating. We hear calls for accountability and war local control. That's our goal to give parents access to. to the quality education their kids deserve.

To fix the broken higher education industry that has misled students into degrees that don't pay off. Here's Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifying before a House committee last June. When these colleges and universities set their fees of attendance, etc., and loans are gotten relative to that, those students who are applying for those loans are expecting to get a return on that investment

and those parents who are backing that. McMahon wants to test that return on investment idea. Consider this. The Trump administration is drastically changing the student loan landscape. Will it affect the types of professions people choose to enter? From NPR, I'm Scott Detrow. It's Consider This from NPR. The U.S. Department of Education is rolling out a new federal test, one that most colleges and universities will eventually have to pass. The test is known as Do No Harm, and it's pretty simple. If a program's graduates don't earn more than someone who never went to college, that program and its students could lose access

to federal student loans. My co-host, Juana Summer, spoke with NPR education correspondent Cory Turner to break down how this all works and the effects it might have. So, Corey, losing access to federal student loans sounds like a really big deal. So tell us how exactly this do-no-harm test is going to work. Yeah. So this new test, it comes courtesy of Republicans' one big, beautiful bill act from last year. And, I mean, really, as you said in the intro, it's pretty straightforward. For undergraduate programs, their students, four years after they graduate, are going to need to earn more than working high school grads who did not go to college.

And it's a pretty similar test for graduate schools, right? So a program's graduates need to earn more on average than those who finished college but did not go on to grad school. If a program dips below this earnings threshold for two years out of three, then students will no longer be able to take out federal loans to attend that program. Earlier this week, the Undersecretary of Education, Nicholas Kent, said of this change, quote, if a program can't show that it leaves its graduates financially better off than if they had never enrolled, it should not be underwritten by federal taxpayers.

I have also heard, though, Juana, from lots of folks, really a bipartisan collection of folks across higher ed, who say, look, this is a pretty reasonable. expectation. Here's Chris Medea with the nonprofit Institute for College Access and Success. I mean, this is really a very low floor, right? I mean, high school earnings is not a exceedingly high metric for a program to meet. And Corey, what can you tell us about the types of programs that might not be able to pass this new test? Well, fortunately, earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education released a trove of data that give us a pretty good idea of where the hammer's going be dropping. Broadly speaking, the data show that more than 800,000 students attend a program

that would likely fail this do-no harm test. We also know roughly half of them attend private for-profit schools, which already have a reputation for short-changing students. One more really big red flag in the department's data. Undergraduate certificate programs, you know, the kind that bill themselves as a, like a short-term fast track into a specific. career, well, a quarter of all of those students in those programs are in one that would likely fail. And the program with the highest predicted failure rate is an undergrad certificate in cosmetology, with more than 90% of all of those programs leaving their students worse off. Oh, interesting. I'm really curious, though, about more traditional bachelor's and master's programs.

How might they fare? Really well. According to the department's data, only about 1% of bachelor's degree programs would fail the test. And it's a bit higher for master's degrees, about 4%, but still not bad. There are, though, some interesting patterns in the kinds of programs that fail more often. At the master's level, we're talking about mental and social health services. And then at the four-year bachelor's degree level, its programs focused on theater, fine arts, music. I mean, I could imagine that some people might stop studying subjects like the ones you just mentioned because of this rule as well as a lack of access to student loans, which I mean, that kind of calls into question what higher education is supposed to be all about. Totally. This is what I find so fascinating about this whole idea,

want it. Like, do these numbers mean that these programs are bad? In some cases, yes. But in some cases, I think it also means that the U.S. economy just doesn't value the arts. So we're actually going to poke at this for a few more minutes with a colleague of mine. Her name is Tiffany Cam High. She's an education reporter with Oregon public broadcasting, and she has the story of a young teacher who graduated from a music program that would likely fail the government's new earnings test. Let's take a listen. One, two, three, one. Cindy Flores loves teaching mariachi music to middle and high school students in Oregon-Salem Kaiser School District. Their part goes like this. Two, three, three.

To get this dream job, she first had to study music at Portland State University and then get a teaching license. She took out federal student loans to pay for it all. I don't know. I feel like there's good side to it, really bad side to it. The good side is I was able to complete my degree. Like, that was the whole reason why I wanted to go to college just so I can get a music degree. The bad side was that by the time she got her license, she was $55,000 in debt. Still, she says it was worth it. You know, if it wasn't for PSU and the loans I could get, I wouldn't be a Mexican-American

mariachi teacher for my Mexican-American students. But future music students at PSU might not have the same access to federal financial aid. That's because the school's undergraduate music students often don't earn as much as high school grads. Education Department data shows the university's program would likely fail the new federal earnings test. But do students really go to music school to make money? And earnings is only a small piece of that puzzle. Leanne Scott O Adams heads the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. The nonprofit studies what happens to arts graduates.

And Adams has a problem with this new federal earnings test. She says it's a one-size-fits-all measure of student success. Yes, you need to make money and earn money to make a living to survive. But we see our creative workers. They want to make an impact culturally. They want to make an impact on their community. These are all metrics that fall outside of just straightforward earnings metrics. Adams also takes issue with measuring earnings four years after graduation.

She points to survey data that shows arts graduates often have unpredictable incomes at first, but their pay tends to stabilize and increase over time. Back in Oregon, Cindy Flores feels lucky to have full-time work teaching music. You get it? I get it. It's easy. That's in spite of all her student loan debt. It is never about the money. I realized I wanted to have a career music when I was in the eighth grade.

Because every music teacher I've had in the past was such good role models in my life. And I want to be part of that community. And to be that kind of role model for her own students. For NPR News, I'm Tiffany Kam High in Salem, Oregon. One, two, three, one. And NPR's Cory Turner is still with me here in the, studio. And Corey, as we just heard in that reporting, there's not a simple formula to calculate a career's worth. And as you pointed out earlier, this do no harm provision, it's not a particularly

high bar, but it doesn't take into account when we heard from Cindy Flores that she's wanted to do this and she was in eighth grade that she's passionate about teaching kids music. Is there anything else that you think this new rule misses? Yeah, I think there's one big wild card that's not in the formula. And that is student loan debt. There was a lot of debate about whether debt should be included in this new test. They decided against it. But, you know, there's a huge difference using music as an example between a graduate struggling with low pay and being debt-free and a graduate struggling with low pay and also paying off $50,000 or $60,000 in debt. And I wonder if they had included this in the formula, you know, how many more programs out there, especially at more prestigious, expensive

schools, would start to look like a bad deal? NPR education correspondent, Corey Turner, thanks. You're welcome. This episode was produced by Jeffrey Pierre, Zephyr Wynra, and Karen Zemora, with audio engineering by Ted Mebain. Our director is Jonas Adams. It was edited by Nicole Cohen, William Troop, and Tinbeat Armius. Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorney. Thank you to our Consider This Plus listeners who support the work of NPR journalists and help keep public radio strong. Supporters also hear every episode without messages from sponsors and unlock bonus episodes of Consider This.

You can learn more at plus.npr.org. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detrow.