Tag: Earnings

  • Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Negotiated rulemaking, in which the federal government convenes representatives of affected parties before implementing major policy changes, is one of the wonkier topics in higher education. (I cannot recommend enough Rebecca Natow’s book on the topic.) Negotiated rulemaking has been in the news quite a bit lately as the Department of Education works to implement changes to federal student loan borrowing limits passed in this summer’s budget reconciliation law.

    Since 2006, students attending graduate and professional programs have been able to borrow up to the cost of attendance. But the reconciliation law limited graduate programs to $100,000 and professional programs to $200,000, setting off negotiations on which programs counted as “professional” (and thus received higher loan limits). The Department of Education started with ten programs and the list eventually went to eleven with the addition of clinical psychology.

    In this short post, I take a look at the debt and earnings of these programs that meet ED’s definition of “professional,” along with a few other programs that could be considered professional but were not.

    Data and Methods

    I used program-level College Scorecard data, focusing on debt data from 2019 and five-year earnings data from 2020. (These are the most recent data points available, as the Scorecard has not been meaningfully updated during the second Trump administration. Five-year earnings get students in health fields beyond medical residencies. I pulled all doctoral/first professional fields from the data by four-digit Classification of Instructional Programs codes, as well as master’s degrees in theology to meet the listed criteria.

    Nine of the eleven programs had enough graduates with debt and earnings to report data; osteopathic medicine and podiatry did not. There were five other fields of study with at least 14 programs reporting data: education, educational administration, rehabilitation, nursing, and business administration. All of these clearly prepare people for employment in a profession, but are not currently recognized as “professional.”

    Key takeaways

    Below is a summary table of debt and earnings for professional programs, including the number of programs above the $100,000 (graduate) and $200,000 (professional) thresholds. Dentistry, pharmacy, and medicine have a sizable share of programs above the $100,000 threshold, while law (the largest field) has only four of 195 programs over $200,000. Theology is the only one of the nine “professional” programs with sufficient data that has higher five-year earnings than debt, suggesting that students in other programs may have a hard time accessing the private market to fill the gap between $200,000 and the full cost of attendance.

    On the other hand, four of the five programs not included as “professional” have higher earnings than debt, with nursing and educational administration being the only programs with sufficient data that had debt levels below 60% of earnings. More than one-third of rehabilitation programs had debt over the new $100,000 cap, while few programs in other fields had that high of a debt level. (Education looks pretty good now, doesn’t it?)

    I expect the debate over what counts as “professional” to end up in courts and to possibly make its way into a future budget reconciliation bill (about the only way Congress passes legislation at this point). Until then, I will be hoping for newer and more granular data about affected programs.

    Source link

  • Explore the earnings for graduates of beauty schools, other certificate programs

    Explore the earnings for graduates of beauty schools, other certificate programs

    Schools that train hairstylists, dental assistants and health aides will be able to keep getting federal student loan dollars even if the professionals they turn out don’t end up earning any more than a high school graduate.

    That’s because programs like those, which don’t end in a college degree, were granted an exemption from new accountability measures under President Donald Trump’s ”big, beautiful bill.” 

    A Hechinger Report analysis of federal data found at least 1,280 such certificate programs could have been at risk of their students losing access to federal student loans — but a successful lobbying effort excluded them from the accountability measures. 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    Under the new law, most graduates of associate, bachelor’s and graduate degree programs must earn at least as much as someone who has only a high school diploma. If programs fail to hit that benchmark for two out of three years, their students will no longer be eligible for federal student loans. (And the schools must warn students of this possibility if they miss the mark for just one year). Without that borrowing power, many students could not afford to attend. And without those students, some of the schools might not survive. 

    Using the table below, see which certificate programs might have been flagged under the Trump law if not for the exemption. If graduates of a particular program ended up earning less than adults with only a high school diploma, that program could have faced losing eligibility for federal student loans under the Trump law.

    Methodology

    What exactly does the “big, beautiful bill” call for?

    The legislation requires the Department of Education to compare earnings of working adults who have only a high school diploma to the earnings of adults four years after they complete a degree program or graduate certificate. If a postsecondary program’s graduates fail to outearn adults with only high school degrees for two out of three years, students can no longer obtain federal student loans to attend that program. 

    The law also sets up an appeals process and a way for programs to apply to regain eligibility for federal student loans.

    What data was analyzed? 

    The law directs the education secretary to use census data to calculate median earnings for working adults with only a high school degree in the state where a program is located. The Department of Education will release regulations that spell out exactly how to do that math. For example, the law does not spell out whether it will look at census data averaged out over 12 months or a longer period of time. 

    For earnings data for high school graduates, The Hechinger Report relied on calculations from the Department of Education, which were derived from the 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Public Use Microdata Sample from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    To calculate median earnings for graduates, the law directs the Education Department to put together earnings data for a cohort of at least 30 graduates who received federal student aid for postsecondary education — which typically includes grants, loans or work-study. Graduates are excluded if they’re currently enrolled in another higher education program. If there are fewer than 30 students in a cohort, the Education Department can lump together several years of data to get to 30 students.

    To get earnings data for graduates of certificate programs, Hechinger used a federal database known as College Scorecard. We downloaded field of study data for the 2022-23 school year. From this data, The Hechinger Report extracted information about certificate programs, at their main campuses, and included only programs that had median earnings data. The federal database suppresses earnings data for small programs. That left 4,431 currently operating certificate programs. 

    How was a program determined to be at possible risk of failing the accountability measure?

    For each program, The Hechinger Report compared median graduate earnings to the high school graduate earnings data of the state where the program was located. If the graduates earned less, the program was considered to be at risk.  

    Under the law, postsecondary programs that don’t meet the earnings benchmark for one year have to inform all current students that they are at risk of losing their eligibility for federal student loans. 

    Are there any limitations to the data? 

    The “big, beautiful bill” takes online programs into account by considering whether students live in the same state where their academic program is based. Under the law, student earnings are compared with national data rather than state data when fewer than half of enrolled students live in the state where the school is located, which may be the case for online programs. 

    The Hechinger Report’s analysis instead compares every program with state earnings. That’s because the College Scorecard field of study data set is limited and only includes information about graduates employed within the same state as the institution, not whether enrolled students live in the same state as the program. In addition, College Scorecard data provides earnings data for all graduates without a breakdown for whether they receive federal aid.

    Also, the Hechinger database looks at the available median earnings of all students four years after graduation for the school year 2022-23, regardless of the number of graduates. Though College Scorecard suppresses data on smaller programs, median earnings data is available for programs with 16 or more working graduates. The “big, beautiful bill” directs the Department of Education to instead lump together years of data to create cohorts of at least 30 students.

    Contact investigative reporter Marina Villeneuve at 212-678-3430 or [email protected] or on Signal at mvilleneuve.78

    This story about beauty schools was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Johns Hopkins Taps Endowment Earnings for Research Funding

    Johns Hopkins Taps Endowment Earnings for Research Funding

    Johns Hopkins University is turning to earnings on its $13.2 billion endowment to preserve research and protect researchers, trainees and staff amid drastic cuts to federal funding, The Baltimore Banner reported Monday.

    Since President Donald Trump started his second term in January, federal agencies have terminated or stalled billions in research grants to colleges and universities in a move scientists and higher education advocates warn will decimate university budgets, slow scientific innovation and hurt local economies. Johns Hopkins estimates that it has so far lost 100 federal grants, while others remain under review by the Trump administration to ensure they align with the federal goal of rooting out diversity, equity and inclusion, among other things. As a result, the university said it’s approaching $1 billion in federal funding losses so far this year.

    While Trump and his allies have suggested universities can use their endowments to fund research, officials at Johns Hopkins—which received more funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2024 than any other university—said Monday that’s not so easy.

    “It’s a common misconception that universities can simply ‘use the endowment’ in moments like this,” university officials said in a statement. “The reality is that most of our endowment is made up of legally restricted funds designated by donors for specific purposes. The principal of the endowment must legally be preserved in perpetuity—to support Johns Hopkins’ mission now and for future generations—and cannot be drawn down like a reserve fund.

    “That said, we are using flexible resources—some of which are tied to endowment earnings—to help sustain critical research in this moment of uncertainty.”

    Johns Hopkins hasn’t disclosed how much total earnings it plans to take from its endowment to help faculty and students continue their research, according to a news release.

    But in the plan released Monday, it said individuals will receive up to $100,000 for delayed grants or $150,000 for terminated grants during a 12-month period. The university will also offer a year of support to Ph.D. students completing their dissertations and postdoctoral fellows who had been expecting support from federal grants that were terminated, as well as expand a program that offers editorial support for grant proposals and journal articles and another that enables undergraduates to work with faculty mentors on original research or projects.

    Source link

  • Dual Enrollment’s Long-Term Effects on Student Earnings

    Dual Enrollment’s Long-Term Effects on Student Earnings

    Title: Do Dual Enrollment Students Realize Better Long-Run Earnings? Variations in Financial Outcomes Among Key Student Groups

    Authors: Navi Dhaliwal, Sayeeda Jamilah, McKenna Griffin, Dillon Lu, David Mahan, Trey Miller, and Holly Kosiewicz

    Source: The Research Institute at Dallas College and University of Texas at Dallas

    Dual enrollment partnerships between school districts and colleges and universities provide an opportunity for high school students to enroll in college courses, often saving them time and money. However, the long-term impacts of dual enrollment have not been studied in depth, and the existing body of research offers mixed results. A recent working paper reveals many dual enrollment students experience long-term economic benefits, although outcomes vary based on race and socioeconomic status.

    In the study, students from the 2011 graduating class across 22 Texas school districts were tracked and examined, contrasting the outcomes of students that participated in dual enrollment against those that did not. Ultimately, by the sixth year after graduation, dual credit students were earning more than their peers. Students earned 4 to 9 percent more annually between year six and year 12.

    Additional highlights from the working paper include:

    • Many dual enrollment participants benefited from higher earnings than non-participants in years six through twelve after high school graduation, but not all student subgroups saw significant benefits.
    • African American, Hispanic, and limited English proficient students experienced smaller increases in long-term earnings outcomes.
    • Economically disadvantaged and African American students that enrolled in dual credit programs also reported higher levels of student loan debt compared to non-participants. For example, there was an $831 to $855 increase in student debt from year three to four for economically disadvantaged dual credit students, and a $1,231 to $1055 increase in student debt from years one to four for African American dual credit participants.

    To read the full report, click here.

    —Austin Freeman

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link