The fight for student loan borrowers continues! In the last remaining days of the Biden-Harris Administration, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is pushing some final relief through for student loan borrowers, new Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) Account Adjustment payment counts are live, and we have new fact sheets shedding light on the impact of the student debt crisis on borrowers.
Here’s a roundup of the latest:
Over 5 million borrowers have been freed from student debt.
In a major win for borrowers, ED announced that the Biden-Harris Administration has now approved $183.6 billion in student debt discharges via various student debt relief fixes and programs. This relief has now reached over 5 million borrowers and includes new approvals for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) relief, borrower defense relief, and Total and Permanent Disability Discharge relief.
This relief is life-changing for millions of families, proving the power of bold, decisive action on student debt. Yet, there is much more work to do. Every step toward relief underscores the need to continue fighting for policies that reduce the burden of student debt and ensure affordable access to higher education.
Final phase of the IDR Account Adjustment is underway—take screenshots!
In tandem with the latest cancellation efforts, ED has also finally started updating borrower payment counts on the Federal Student Aid dashboard. Providing official payment counts will help borrowers receive the credit they have earned towards cancellation under IDR, and ensure that all borrowers who have been forced to pay for 20 years or longer are automatically able to benefit from relief they are entitled to under federal law. ***If you are a borrower with federal student loans, we recommend that you check your dashboard on studentaid.gov, screenshot your new count, and save it in your records.
Previously, many borrowers—including those who work in public service jobs and low-income borrowers struggling to afford payments—were steered into costly deferments and forbearance, preventing them from reaching the 20 years or longer for IDR relief or the 120 payments necessary for PSLF cancellation. Under the IDR Account Adjustment, these periods are now counted, even if borrowers were mistakenly placed in the wrong repayment plan or faced servicing errors.
These are the remarks by Alison Payne, Research Director at Reform Scotland, at the HEPI / CDBU event on funding higher education, held at Birkbeck, University of London, on Thursday of this week.
We are also making available Johnny Rich’s slides on ‘Making graduate employer contributions work’ from the same event, which are available to download here.
Thanks to the CDBU and to HEPI for the invitation to attend and take part in today’s discussion.
My speech today has been titled ‘A graduate contribution model’. Of course, for UK graduates not from Scotland, I’m sure they would make the point that they very much do contribute through their fees, but the situation is very different in Scotland and I’m really grateful that I have the opportunity to feed the Scottish situation into today’s discussion.
I thought it may be helpful if I gave a quick overview of the Scottish situation, as it differs somewhat to the overview Nick gave this morning covering the rest of the UK.
Although tuition fees were introduced throughout the UK in 1998, the advent of devolution in 1999 and the passing of responsibility for higher education to Holyrood began the period of diverging funding policies.
The then Labour / Lib Dem Scottish Executive, as it was then known, scrapped tuition fees and replaced them with a graduate endowment from 2001-02, with the first students becoming liable to pay the fee from April 2005. The scheme called for students to pay back £2,000 once they started earning over £10,000.
The graduate endowment was then scrapped by the SNP in February 2008. A quirk of EU law meant that students from EU countries could not be charged tuition fees if Scottish students were not paying them but students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland could be charged. This meant that from 2008 to 2021/22 EU students did not need to pay fees to attend Scottish universities, though students from the rest of the UK did.
We’re used to politics in Scotland being highly polarised and often toxic with few areas of commonality, but for the most part the policy of ‘free’ higher education has been supported by all of the political parties. Indeed at the last Scottish election in 2021 all parties committed to maintaining the policy in their manifestos. It is only recently that the Scottish Tories have suggested a move away from this following the election of their new leader, Russell Finlay.
But behind this unusual political consensus, the ‘free’ policy is becoming increasingly unsustainable and unaffordable. Politicians will privately admit this, but politics, and a rock with an ill-advised slogan, have made it harder to have the much needed debate.
The Cap
While we don’t have tuition fees, we do have a cap on student numbers. And while more Scots are going to university, places are unable to keep up with demand. Since 2006 there has been a 56% increase in applicants, but an 84% increase in the number refused entry.
It is increasingly the case that students from the rest of the UK or overseas are accepted on to courses in Scotland while their Scottish counterparts are denied. For example, when clearing options are posted, often those places at Scotland’s top universities are only available to students from the rest of the UK and not to Scottish students, even if the latter have better grades. As a result, Scots can feel that they are denied access to education on their doorstep that those from elsewhere can obtain. Indeed, there are growing anecdotes about those who can afford it buying or renting property elsewhere in the UK so that they can attend a Scottish university, pay the higher fee and get around the cap.
Some commentators in Scotland have blamed the lack of places on widening access programmes, but I would challenge this. It is undoubtedly a good thing that more people from non-traditional backgrounds are getting into university, it is the cap that is limiting Scottish places, not access programmes. This is a point that has been backed by individuals such as the Principal of St Andrews, Professor Dame Sally Mapstone [who also serves as HEPI’s Chair].
Financial Woes
The higher education sector in Scotland, as with elsewhere in the UK, is not in great financial health. Audit Scotland warned back in 2019 that half of our institutions were facing growing deficits. Pressures including pensions contributions, Brexit and estate maintenance have all played a role and in the face of this decline, but nothing has changed and we’re now seeing crisis like those at Dundee emerge. Against this backdrop, income from those students who pay higher fees is an important revenue stream.
There is obviously a huge variation in what the fees are to attend a Scottish university, considerably more so than in the rest of the UK.
For example, to study Accounting and Business as an undergraduate at Edinburgh University, the cost for a full-time new student for 2024/25 is £1,820 per year for a Scottish-domiciled student (met by the Scottish Government), £9,250 per year for someone from the rest of the UK and £26,500 for an international student.
It is clear why international students and UK students from outside Scotland are therefore so much more attractive than Scottish students.
However, there is by no means an equal distribution of higher fee paying students among our institutions.
For example, at St Andrews about one-third of undergraduate full-time students were Scots, with one-third from the rest of the UK and one-third international. The numbers for Edinburgh are similar.
At the other end of the scale, at the University of the Highlands and Islands and Glasgow Caledonian, around 90% of students are Scottish, with only around only 1% being international.
So it is clear that institutions’ ability to raise money from fee-paying students varies very dramatically, increasing the financial pressures on those with low fee income.
However, when looking at the issue, it is important to recognise that it is not just our universities who are struggling, Scotland’s colleges are facing huge financial pressures as well.
The current proposed Scottish budget would leave colleges struggling with a persistent, real-terms funding cut of 17 per cent since 2021/22. Our college sector is hugely important in terms of the delivery of skills, working with local economies and as a route to university for so many, but for too long colleges have been treated like the Cinderella service in Scotland. The prioritising of ‘free’ university tuition over the college sector is adding to this problem.
Regardless of who wins the Holyrood election next year, money is, and will remain, tight for some time. It would be lovely to be able to have lots of taxpayer funded ‘free’ services, but that is simply unsustainable and difficult choices need to be made.
This is why we believe that the current situation is unfair, unsustainable, unaffordable and needs to change.
Reform Scotland would offer another alternative solution. We believe that there needs to be a better balance between the individual graduate and Scottish taxpayers in the contribution towards higher education.
One way this could be achieved is through a fee after graduation, to be repaid once they earn more than the Scottish average salary. This would not be a fee incurred on starting university and deferred until after graduation, rather the fee would be incurred on graduation.
In terms of what that fee could be, the Cubie report over 25 years ago suggested a graduate fee of £3,000, which would be about £5,500 today. This could perhaps be the starting point for consideration.
Any figure should take account of different variations in terms of the true cost of the course and potential skill shortages.
However, introducing a graduate fee would not necessarily mean an end to ‘free’ tuition.
Rather it provides an opportunity to look at the skills gaps that exist in Scotland and the possibility of developing schemes which cut off or scrap repayments for graduates who work in specific geographic areas or sectors of Scotland for set periods of time.
Such schemes could also look to incorporate students from elsewhere for Scotland is facing a demographic crisis. Our population is set to become older and smaller, and we are the only part of the UK projected to have a smaller population by 2045.
We desperately need to retain and attract more working-age people. Perhaps such graduate repayment waiver schemes could also be offered to students from the rest of the UK who choose to study in Scotland – stay here and work after graduation and we will pay a proportion of your fee. A wide range of different schemes could be considered and linked into the wider policy issues facing Scotland.
According to the Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) there were 3,370 graduates from the rest of the UK who attended a Scottish institution in 2020/21. Of those, only 990 chose to remain in Scotland for work after graduation. Could we encourage more people to stay after studying?
Conclusion
A graduate fee is only one possible solution, but I would argue that it is also one with a short shelf life. As graduates would not incur the fee until they graduated, there would be a four-year delay between the change in policy and revenue beginning to be received. Our institutions are facing very real fiscal problems and there is a danger of a university going to the wall.
If we get to the 2026 election and political parties refuse to shift the dial and at least recognise that the current system is unsustainable, then there is a danger that nothing will change for another Parliamentary term. I don’t think we can afford to wait until 2031.
There is another interesting dynamic now as well. Labour in Scotland currently, publicly at least, oppose tuition fees. However, there are now 37 Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster who are backing the increase of fees on students from outside Scotland, or Scottish students studying down south. Given the unpopularity of the Labour government as well as the tight contest between the SNP and Labour for Holyrood, it seems unlikely that position can be maintained.
All across the UK there are increasing signs of the stark financial situation we are facing. Against that backdrop, along with the restrictions placed on the number being able to attend, free university tuition is unsustainable and unaffordable. People outside Scottish politics seem to be able to see this reality, privately so do many of our politicians. We need to shift this debate in to the public domain in Scotland and develop a workable solution.
When
borrowers default on their federal student loans, the U.S. Department
of Education (“Department of Education”) can collect the outstanding
balance through forced collections, including the offset of tax refunds
and Social Security benefits and the garnishment of wages. At the
beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education paused
collections on defaulted federal student loans.
This year, collections are set to resume and almost 6 million student
loan borrowers with loans in default will again be subject to the
Department of Education’s forced collection of their tax refunds, wages,
and Social Security benefits.
Among the borrowers who are likely to experience forced collections are
an estimated 452,000 borrowers ages 62 and older with defaulted loans
who are likely receiving Social Security benefits.
This
spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan
borrowers affected by the forced collection of Social Security benefits.
It also describes how forced collections can push older borrowers into
poverty, undermining the purpose of the Social Security program.
Key findings
The
number of Social Security beneficiaries experiencing forced collection
grew by more than 3,000 percent in fewer than 20 years; the count is
likely to grow as the age of student loan borrowers trends older.
Between 2001 and 2019, the number of Social Security beneficiaries
experiencing reduced benefits due to forced collection increased from
approximately 6,200 to 192,300. This exponential growth is likely driven
by older borrowers who make up an increasingly large share of the
federal student loan portfolio. The number of student loan borrowers
ages 62 and older increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to
2.7 million in 2023, compared to a 1 percent decline among borrowers
under the age of 62.
The total amount
of Social Security benefits the Department of Education collected
between 2001 and 2019 through the offset program increased from $16.2
million to $429.7 million. Despite the exponential increase in
collections from Social Security, the majority of money the Department
of Education has collected has been applied to interest and fees and has
not affected borrowers’ principal amount owed. Furthermore, between
2016 and 2019, the Department of the Treasury’s fees alone accounted for
nearly 10 percent of the average borrower’s lost Social Security
benefits.
More than one in three
Social Security recipients with student loans are reliant on Social
Security payments, meaning forced collections could significantly
imperil their financial well-being. Approximately 37 percent of the
1.3 million Social Security beneficiaries with student loans rely on
modest payments, an average monthly benefit of $1,523, for 90 percent of
their income. This population is particularly vulnerable to reduction
in their benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019,
the average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was
$2,232 ($186 per month).
The physical well-being of half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default may be at risk.
Half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default and
collections skipped a doctor’s visit or did not obtain prescription
medication due to cost.
Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship.
Currently, only $750 per month of Social Security income—an amount that
is $400 below the monthly poverty threshold for an individual and has
not been adjusted for inflation since 1996—is protected from forced
collections by statute. Even if the minimum protected income was
adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries would likely still experience
hardship, such as food insecurity and problems paying utility bills. A
higher threshold could protect borrowers against hardship more
effectively. The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan
borrowers who receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225
percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), an income level at which
people are as likely to experience material hardship as those with
incomes below the federal poverty level.
Large
shares of Social Security beneficiaries affected by forced collections
may be eligible for relief or outright loan cancellation, yet they are
unable to access these benefits, possibly due to insufficient
automation or borrowers’ cognitive and physical decline. As many as
eight in ten Social Security beneficiaries with loans in default may be
eligible to suspend or reduce forced collections due to financial
hardship. Moreover, one in five Social Security beneficiaries may be
eligible for discharge of their loans due to a disability. Yet these
individuals are not accessing such relief because the Department of
Education’s data matching process insufficiently identifies those who
may be eligible.
Taken together,
these findings suggest that the Department of Education’s forced
collections of Social Security benefits increasingly interfere with
Social Security’s longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries
from poverty and financial instability.
Introduction
When
borrowers default on their federal student loans, the Department of
Education can collect the outstanding balance through forced
collections, including the offset of tax refunds and Social Security
benefits, and the garnishment of wages. At the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic, the Department of Education paused collections on defaulted
federal student loans. This year, collections are set to resume and
almost 6 million student loan borrowers with loans in default will again
be subject to the Department of Education’s forced collection of their
tax refunds, wages, and Social Security benefits.
Among
the borrowers who are likely to experience the Department of
Education’s renewed forced collections are an estimated 452,000
borrowers with defaulted loans who are ages 62 and older and who are
likely receiving Social Security benefits.
Congress created the Social Security program in 1935 to provide a basic
level of income that protects insured workers and their families from
poverty due to situations including old age, widowhood, or disability.
The Social Security Administration calls the program “one of the most
successful anti-poverty programs in our nation’s history.”
In 2022, Social Security lifted over 29 million Americans from poverty,
including retirees, disabled adults, and their spouses and dependents.
Congress has recognized the importance of securing the value of Social
Security benefits and on several occasions has intervened to protect
them.
This
spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan
borrowers affected by the forced collection of their Social Security
benefits.
It also describes how the purpose of Social Security is being
increasingly undermined by the limited and deficient options the
Department of Education has to protect Social Security beneficiaries
from poverty and hardship.
The forced collection of Social Security benefits has increased exponentially.
Federal
student loans enter default after 270 days of missed payments and
transfer to the Department of Education’s default collections program
after 360 days. Borrowers with a loan in default face several
consequences: (1) their credit is negatively affected; (2) they lose
eligibility to receive federal student aid while their loans are in
default; (3) they are unable to change repayment plans and request
deferment and forbearance; and (4) they face forced collections of tax refunds, Social Security benefits, and wages among other payments.
To conduct its forced collections of federal payments like tax refunds
and Social Security benefits, the Department of Education relies on a
collection service run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury called the
Treasury Offset Program.
Between
2001 and 2019, the number of student loan borrowers facing forced
collection of their Social Security benefits increased from at least
6,200 to 192,300.
That is a more than 3,000 percent increase in fewer than 20 years. By
comparison, the number of borrowers facing forced collections of their
tax refunds increased by about 90 percent from 1.17 million to 2.22
million during the same period.
This exponential growth of Social Security offsets between 2001 and 2019 is likely driven by multiple factors including:
Older
borrowers accounted for an increasingly large share of the federal
student loan portfolio due to increasing average age of enrollment and
length of time in repayment. Data from the Department of Education
(which is only available since 2017), show that the number of student
loan borrowers ages 62 and older, increased 24 percent from 1.7 million
in 2017 to 2.1 million in 2019, compared to less than 1 percent among
borrowers under the age of 62.
A larger number of borrowers, especially older borrowers, had loans in default.
Data from the Department of Education show that the number of student
loan borrowers with a defaulted loan increased by 230 percent from 3.8
million in 2006 to 8.8 million in 2019. Compounding these trends is the fact that older borrowers are twice as likely to have a loan in default than younger borrowers.
Due
to these factors, the total amount of Social Security benefits the
Department of Education collected between 2001 and 2019 through the
offset program increased annually from $16.2 million to $429.7 million
(when adjusted for inflation).
This increase occurred even though the average monthly amount the
Department of Education collected from individual beneficiaries was the
same for most years, at approximately $180 per month.
Figure 1: Number of Social Security beneficiaries and total amount collected for student loans (2001-2019)
Source: CFPB analysis of public data from U.S. Treasury’s Fiscal Data portal. Amounts are presented in 2024 dollars.
While the total collected from
Social Security benefits has increased exponentially, the majority of
money the Department of Education collected has not been applied to
borrowers’ principal amount owed. Specifically, nearly three-quarters of
the monies the Department of Education collects through offsets is
applied to interest and fees, and not towards paying down principal
balances.
Between 2016 and 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury charged the
Department of Education between $13.12 and $15.00 per Social Security
offset, or approximately between $157.44 and $180 for 12 months of
Social Security offsets per beneficiary with defaulted federal student
loans. As a matter of practice, the Department of Education often passes these fees on directly to borrowers.
Furthermore, these fees accounted for nearly 10 percent of the average
monthly borrower’s lost Social Security benefits which was $183 during
this time.
Interest and fees not only reduce beneficiaries’ monthly benefits, but
also prolong the period that beneficiaries are likely subject to forced
collections.
Forced collections are compromising Social Security beneficiaries’ financial well-being.
Forced
collection of Social Security benefits affects the financial well-being
of the most vulnerable borrowers and can exacerbate any financial and
health challenges they may already be experiencing. The CFPB’s analysis
of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) pooled data for
2018 to 2021 finds that Social Security beneficiaries with student
loans receive an average monthly benefit of $1,524.
The analysis also indicates that approximately 480,000 (37 percent) of
the 1.3 million beneficiaries with student loans rely on these modest
payments for 90 percent or more of their income,
thereby making them particularly vulnerable to reduction in their
benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019, the
average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was $2,232
($186 per month).
A
recent survey from The Pew Charitable Trusts found that more than nine
in ten borrowers who reported experiencing wage garnishment or Social
Security payment offsets said that these penalties caused them financial
hardship.
Consequently, for many, their ability to meet their basic needs,
including access to healthcare, became more difficult. According to our
analysis of the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economic and
Decision-making (SHED), half of Social Security beneficiaries with
defaulted student loans skipped a doctor’s visit and/or did not obtain
prescription medication due to cost.
Moreover, 36 percent of Social Security beneficiaries with loans in
delinquency or in collections report fair or poor health. Over half of
them have medical debt.
Figure 2: Selected financial experiences and hardships among subgroups of loan borrowers
Source: CFPB analysis of the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Household Economic and Decision-making (2019-2023).
Social Security recipients
subject to forced collection may not be able to access key public
benefits that could help them mitigate the loss of income. This is
because Social Security beneficiaries must list the unreduced amount of
their benefits prior to collections when applying for other means-tested
benefits programs such as Social Security Insurance (SSI), Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Medicare Savings Programs.
Consequently, beneficiaries subject to forced collections must report
an inflated income relative to what they are actually receiving. As a
result, these beneficiaries may be denied public benefits that provide
food, medical care, prescription drugs, and assistance with paying for
other daily living costs.
Consumers’
complaints submitted to the CFPB describe the hardship caused by forced
collections on borrowers reliant on Social Security benefits to pay for
essential expenses.
Consumers often explain their difficulty paying for such expenses as
rent and medical bills. In one complaint, a consumer noted that they
were having difficulty paying their rent since their Social Security
benefit usually went to paying that expense.
In another complaint, a caregiver described that the money was being
withheld from their mother’s Social Security, which was the only source
of income used to pay for their mother’s care at an assisted living
facility.
As forced collections threaten the housing security and health of
Social Security beneficiaries, they also create a financial burden on
non-borrowers who help address these hardships, including family members
and caregivers.
Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship.
The
Debt Collection Improvement Act set a minimum floor of income below
which the federal government cannot offset Social Security benefits and
subsequent Treasury regulations established a cap on the percentage of
income above that floor.
Specifically, these statutory guardrails limit collections to 15
percent of Social Security benefits above $750. The minimum threshold
was established in 1996 and has not been updated since. As a result, the
amount protected by law alone does not adequately protect beneficiaries
from financial hardship and in fact no longer protects them from
falling below the federal poverty level (FPL). In 1996, $750 was nearly
$100 above the monthly poverty threshold for an individual.
Today that same protection is $400 below the threshold. If the
protected amount of $750 per month ($9,000 per year) set in 1996 was
adjusted for inflation, in 2024 dollars, it would total $1,450 per month
($17,400 per year).
Figure
3: Comparison of monthly FPL threshold with the current protected
amount established in 1996 and the amount that would be protected with
inflation adjustment
Source: Calculations by the CFPB. Notes: Inflation adjustments based on the consumer price index (CPI).
Even if the minimum protected
income of $750 is adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries will likely
still experience hardship as a result of their reduced benefits.
Consumers with incomes above the poverty line also commonly experience
material hardship. This suggests that a threshold that is higher than the poverty level will more effectively protect against hardship.
Indeed, in determining an income threshold for $0 payments under the
SAVE plan, the Department of Education researchers used material
hardship (defined as being unable to pay utility bills and reporting
food insecurity) as their primary metric, and found similar levels of
material hardship among those with incomes below the poverty line and
those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.
Similarly, the CFPB’s analysis of a pooled sample of SIPP respondents
finds the same levels of material hardship for Social Security
beneficiaries with student loans with incomes below 100 percent of the
FPL and those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.
The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan borrowers who
receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225 percent of
the FPL.
Accordingly, all of those borrowers would be removed from forced
collections if the Department of Education applied the same income
metrics it established under the SAVE program to an automatic hardship
exemption program.
Existing options for relief from forced collections fail to reach older borrowers.
Borrowers
with loans in default remain eligible for certain types of loan
cancellation and relief from forced collections. However, our analysis
suggests that these programs may not be reaching many eligible
consumers. When borrowers do not benefit from these programs, their
hardship includes, but is not limited to, unnecessary losses to their
Social Security benefits and negative credit reporting.
Borrowers who become disabled after reaching full retirement age may miss out on Total and Permanent Disability
The
Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program cancels federal
student loans and effectively stops all forced collections for disabled
borrowers who meet certain requirements. After recent revisions to the
program, this form of cancelation has become common for those borrowers
with Social Security who became disabled prior to full retirement age. In 2016, a GAO study documented the significant barriers to TPD that Social Security beneficiaries faced.
To address GAO’s concerns, the Department of Education in 2021 took a
series of mitigating actions, including entering into a data-matching
agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to automate the
TPD eligibility determination and discharge process.
This process was expanded further with new final rules being
implemented July 1, 2023 that expanded the categories of borrowers
eligible for automatic TPD cancellation. In total, these changes successfully resulted in loan cancelations for approximately 570,000 borrowers.
However,
the automation and other regulatory changes did not significantly
change the application process for consumers who become disabled after
they reach full retirement age or who have already claimed the Social
Security retirement benefits. For these beneficiaries, because they are
already receiving retirement benefits, SSA does not need to determine
disability status. Likewise, SSA does not track disability status for
those individuals who become disabled after they start collecting their
Social Security retirement benefits.
Consequently,
SSA does not transfer information on disability to the Department of
Education once the beneficiary begins collecting Social Security
retirement.
These individuals therefore will not automatically get a TPD discharge
of their student loans, and they must be aware and physically and
mentally able to proactively apply for the discharge.
The
CFPB’s analysis of the Census survey data suggests that the population
that is excluded from the TPD automation process could be substantial.
More than one in five (22 percent) Social Security beneficiaries with
student loans are receiving retirement benefits and report a disability
such as a limitation with vision, hearing, mobility, or cognition.
People with dementia and other cognitive disabilities are among those
with the greatest risk of being excluded, since they are more likely to
be diagnosed after the age 70, which is the maximum age for claiming
retirement benefits.
These
limitations may also help explain why older borrowers are less likely
to rehabilitate their defaulted student loans. Specifically, 11 percent
of student loan borrowers ages 50 to 59 facing forced collections
successfully rehabilitated their loans, while only five percent of borrowers over the age of 75 do so.
Figure
4: Number of student loan borrowers ages 50 and older in forced
collection, borrowers who signed a rehabilitation agreement, and
borrowers who successfully rehabilitated a loan by selected age groups
Age Group
Number of Borrowers in Offset
Number of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement
Percent of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement
Number of Borrowers Successfully Rehabilitated
Percent of Borrowers who Successfully Rehabilitated
50 to 59
265,200
50,800
14%
38,400
11%
60 to 74
184,900
24,100
11%
18,500
8%
75 and older
15,800
1,000
6%
800
5%
Source: CFPB analysis of data provided by the Department of Education.
Shifting demographics of
student loan borrowers suggest that the current automation process may
become less effective to protect Social Security benefits from forced
collections as more and more older adults have student loan debt. The
fastest growing segment of student loan borrowers are adults ages 62 and
older. These individuals are generally eligible for retirement
benefits, not disability benefits, because they cannot receive both
classifications at the same time. Data from the Department of Education
reflect that the number of student loan borrowers ages 62 and older
increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to 2.7 million in 2023.
In comparison, the number of borrowers under the age of 62 remained
unchanged at 43 million in both years.
Furthermore, additional data provided to the CFPB by the Department of
Education show that nearly 90,000 borrowers ages 81 and older hold an
average amount of $29,000 in federal student loan debt, a substantial
amount despite facing an estimated average life expectancy of less than
nine years.
Existing exceptions to forced collections fail to protect many Social Security beneficiaries
In
addition to TPD discharge, the Department of Education offers reduction
or suspension of Social Security offset where borrowers demonstrate
financial hardship.
To show hardship, borrowers must provide documentation of their income
and expenses, which the Department of Education then uses to make its
determination.
Unlike the Debt Collection Improvement Act’s minimum protections, the
eligibility for hardship is based on a comparison of an individual’s
documented income and qualified expenses. If the borrower has eligible
monthly expenses that exceed or match their income, the Department of
Education then grants a financial hardship exemption.
The
CFPB’s analysis suggests that the vast majority of Social Security
beneficiaries with student loans would qualify for a hardship
protection. According to CFPB’s analysis of the Federal Reserve Board’s
SHED, eight in ten (82 percent) of Social Security beneficiaries with
student loans in default report that their expenses equal or exceed
their income.
Accordingly, these individuals would likely qualify for a full
suspension of forced collections. Yet the GAO found that in 2015 (when
the last data was available) less than ten percent of Social Security
beneficiaries with forced collections applied for a hardship exemption
or reduction of their offset.
A possible reason for the low uptake rate is that many beneficiaries or
their caregivers never learn about the hardship exemption or the
possibility of a reduction in the offset amount.
For those that do apply, only a fraction get relief. The GAO study
found that at the time of their initial offset, only about 20 percent of
Social Security beneficiaries ages 50 and older with forced collections
were approved for a financial hardship exemption or a reduction of the
offset amount if they applied.
Conclusion
As
hundreds of thousands of student loan borrowers with loans in default
face the resumption of forced collection of their Social Security
benefits, this spotlight shows that the forced collection of Social
Security benefits causes significant hardship among affected borrowers.
The spotlight also shows that the basic income protections aimed at
preventing poverty and hardship among affected borrowers have become
increasingly ineffective over time. While the Department of Education
has made some improvements to expand access to relief options,
especially for those who initially receive Social Security due to a
disability, these improvements are insufficient to protect older adults
from the forced collection of their Social Security benefits.
Taken
together, these findings suggest that forced collections of Social
Security benefits increasingly interfere with Social Security’s
longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries from poverty and
financial instability. These findings also suggest that alternative
approaches are needed to address the harm that forced collections cause
on beneficiaries and to compensate for the declining effectiveness of
existing remedies. One potential solution may be found in the Debt
Collection Improvement Act, which provides that when forced collections
“interfere substantially with or defeat the purposes of the payment
certifying agency’s program” the head of an agency may request from the
Secretary of the Treasury an exemption from forced collections.
Given the data findings above, such a request for relief from the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on behalf of Social
Security beneficiaries who have defaulted student loans could be
justified. Unless the toll of forced collections on Social Security
beneficiaries is considered alongside the program’s stated goals, the
number of older adults facing these challenges is only set to grow.
Data and Methodology
To
develop this report, the CFPB relied primarily upon original analysis
of public-use data from the U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Income and
Program Participation (SIPP), the Federal Reserve Board Board’s Survey
of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED), U.S. Department of
the Treasury, Fiscal Data portal, consumer complaints received by the
Bureau, and administrative data on borrowers in default provided by the
Department of Education. The report also leverages data and findings
from other reports, studies, and sources, and cites to these sources
accordingly. Readers should note that estimates drawn from survey data
are subject to measurement error resulting, among other things, from
reporting biases and question wording.
Survey of Income and Program Participation
The
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a nationally
representative survey of U.S. households conducted by the U.S. Census
Bureau. The SIPP collects data from about 20,000 households (40,000
people) per wave. The survey captures a wide range of characteristics
and information about these households and their members. The CFPB
relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021
waves for a total number of 17,607 responses from student loan borrowers
across all waves, including 920 respondents with student loans
receiving Social Security benefits. The CFPB’s analysis relied on the
public use data. To capture student loan debt, the survey asked to all
respondents (variable EOEDDEBT): Owed any money for student loans or
educational expenses in own name only during the reference period. To
capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all
respondents (variable ESSSANY): “Did … receive Social Security
benefits for himself/herself at any time during the reference period?”
To capture amount of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all
respondents (variable TSSSAMT): “How much did … receive in Social
Security benefit payment in this month (1-12), prior to any deductions
for Medicare premiums?”
The
Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Household Economics and
Decision-making (SHED) is an annual web-based survey of households. The
survey captures information about respondents’ financial situations. The
CFPB relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2019 through 2023
waves for a total number of 1,376 responses from student loan borrowers
in collection across all waves. The CFPB analysis relied on the public
use data. To capture default and collection, the survey asked all
respondents with student loans (variable SL6): “Are you behind on
payments or in collections for one or more of the student loans from
your own education?” To capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the
survey asked to all respondents (variable I0_c): “In the past 12
months, did you (and/or your spouse or partner) receive any income from
the following sources: Social Security (including old age and DI)?”
College students have changed greatly in 30 years, but how has student satisfaction changed?
Think back 30 years ago to 1995. What is different for you now? Where were you and what were you doing in the mid 1990s? Perhaps you were still in school and living at home, or not even born yet. Perhaps you were in your early years of working in higher education. Take a moment to reflect on what has (and has not) changed for you in that span of time.
Thirty years ago, I was just starting my position at what was then Noel-Levitz. What stands out for me was that I was about to become a mom for the first time. Now my baby is grown and will be a new mom herself later this year. And I find myself being on one of the “seasoned professionals” in the company, working alongside members of my team who were still in elementary school back in 1995.
Thirty years ago, we were just beginning to utilize email and the internet. Now they have become the primary way we do business, communicate professionally, and discover information. Artificial intelligence (AI) is the new technology that we are learning to embrace to improve our professional and personal lives.
Thirty years ago, students were arriving on our campuses, seeking an education, guidance, growth, belonging, value for their investment and ultimately a better life. That’s still the case today. Plus, students are navigating more technology options, they are more openly seeking mental health support, and they are living in a world full of distractions. Online learning is a reality now and continues to become more accepted as a modality, especially after the experiences of 2020. As the demographic cliff looms, colleges are expanding their focus to include lifelong learners.
Thirty years ago is also when the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) was launched to provide four-year and two-year institutions with a tool to better understand the priorities of their students. (In the early 2000s, we added survey instruments specifically for adult and online populations.) The data identified where the college was performing well and where it mattered for them to do better in order to retain their students to graduation. The concept of looking at satisfaction within the context of the level of importance was new back then, but in the past three decades, it has become the standard for capturing student perceptions. Since 1995, we have worked with thousands of institutions and collected data from millions of individuals, documenting what is important and where students are satisfied or dissatisfied with their experience. As we reach this 30-year milestone for the SSI, I took some time to reflect on what has changed in students’ perceptions and what has stayed the same.
Consistent priorities
What stood out to me as I reviewed the national data sets over the past 30 years is that what matters to students has largely stayed the same. Students continue to care about good advising, quality instruction and getting access to classes. The academic experience is highly valued by students and is the primary reason they are enrolled, now and then.
Another observation is that there are two areas that have been consistent priorities for improvement, especially at four-year private and public institutions:
Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
Adequate financial aid is available for most students.
These two items have routinely appeared as national challenges (areas of high importance and low satisfaction) over the decades, which shows that institutions continue to have opportunities to communicate value and address the financial pain points of students to make higher education accessible and affordable.
Campus climate is key
One thing we have learned over the past thirty years is how students feel on campus is key to student success and retention. The research reflects the strongest links between students’ sense of belonging, feeling welcome, and enjoying their campus experience to their overall levels of satisfaction. High levels of satisfaction are linked to individual student retention and institutional graduation rates. Campuses that want to best influence students remaining enrolled are being intentional with efforts to show concern for students individually, building connections between students from day one, and continuing those activities as students progress each year. It is important for institutions to recognize that students have lots of options to receive a quality education, but the environment and the potential student “fit” is more likely to vary from location to location. What happens while a student is at the college they have selected is more impactful on them than which institution they ultimately chose. Creating welcoming environments and supporting students’ sense of belonging in the chosen college is a way for institutions to stand out and succeed in serving students. Colleges often ask, “Why do students leave?” when they could be asking, “Why do students stay?” Building positive campus cultures and expanding the “good stuff” being done for students is a way to critical way to improve student and institutional success.
One sector where the data reflect high satisfaction scores and good consistency, especially in the past five years since the pandemic, is community colleges. Students attending their (often local) two-year institutions want to be there, with high percentages of students indicating the school is their first choice. Community college students nationally indicate areas such as the campus staff being caring/helpful, students being made to feel welcome, and people on the campus respecting each other, as strengths (high importance and high satisfaction). These positive perceptions are also reflected with overall high levels of satisfaction and indications of a likelihood to re-enroll if the student had it to do over again. The data indicate that two-year institutions are doing a nice job of building a sense of community among primarily commuter student populations.
Systemic issues and pockets of improvement
Everyone talks about “kids today,” but in reality, they have been doing that for generations. It can’t be a reason not to change and respond appropriately to the needs of current students. When we consider the priorities for improvement in higher education that have remained at the forefront, we may need to recognize that some of these areas are systemic to higher education, along with recognizing that higher education generally has not done enough to respond. There are certainly pockets of improvement at schools that have prioritized being responsive and, as a result, are seeing positive movement in student satisfaction and student retention, but that is not happening everywhere. Taking action based on student feedback is a powerful way to influence student success. The campuses that have bought into that concept are seeing the results.
This year’s analysis takes a closer look at the national results by demographic subpopulations, primarily by class level, to get a clearer view on how to improve the student experience. Institutions have found that targeting initiatives for particular student populations can be an effective way to have the biggest impact on student satisfaction. Download your free copy today.
Language can be complicated. According to Merriam-Webster, the verb “blast” has as many as 15 different meanings — “to play loudly,” “to hit a golf ball out of a sand trap with explosive force,” “to injure by or as if by the action of wind.”
Recently, the word has added another definition to the list. Namely, “to attack vigorously” with criticism, as in, “to blast someone online” or “to put someone on blast.” This usage has become a commonexpression.
That’s what Leigha Lemoine, a student at Horry-Georgetown Technical College, meant when she posted in a private Snapchat group that a non-student who had insulted her needed to get “blasted.”
But HGTC’s administration didn’t see it that way. When some students claimed they felt uncomfortable with Lemoine’s post, the college summoned her to a meeting. Lemoine explained that the post was not a threat of physical harm, but rather a simple expression of her belief that the person who had insulted her should be criticized for doing so. The school’s administrators agreed and concluded there was nothing threatening in her words.
But two days later, things took a turn. Administrators discovered a video on social media of Lemoine firing a handgun at a target. The video was recorded off campus a year prior to the discovery, and had no connection to the “blasted” comment, but because she had not disclosed the video’s existence (why would she be required to?), the college decided to suspend her until the 2025 fall semester. Adding insult to injury, HGTC indicated she Lemoine would be on disciplinary probation when she returned.
Screenshots of Leigha Lemoine’s video on social media.
HGTC administrators claim Lemoine’s post caused “a significant amount of apprehension related to the presence and use of guns.”
“In today’s climate, your failure to disclose the existence of the video, in conjunction with group [sic] text message on Snapchat where you used the term ‘blasted,’ causes concern about your ability to remain in the current Cosmetology cohort,” the college added.
Never mind the context of the gun video, which had nothing to do with campus or the person she said needed to get “blasted.” HGTC was determined to jeopardize Lemoine’s future over one Snapchat message and an unrelated video.
Colleges and universities would do well to take Lemoine’s case as a reminder to safeguard the expressive freedoms associated with humor and hyperbolic statements. Because make no mistake, FIRE will continue to blast the ones that don’t.
FIRE wrote to HGTC on Lemoine’s behalf on Oct. 7, 2024, urging the college to reverse its disciplinary action against Lemoine. We pointed out the absurdity of taking Lemoine’s “blasted” comment as an unprotected “true threat” and urged the college to rescind her suspension. Lemoine showed no serious intent to commit unlawful violence with her comment urging others to criticize an individual, and tying the gun video to the comment was both nonsensical and deeply unjust.
But HGTC attempted to blow FIRE off and plowed forward with its discipline. So we brought in the big guns — FIRE Legal Network member David Ashley at Le Clercq Law Firm took on the case, filing an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. On Dec. 17, a South Carolina federal district court ordered HGTC to allow her to return to classes immediately while the case works its way through the courts.
Jokes and hyperbole are protected speech
Colleges and universities must take genuine threats of violence on campus seriously. That sometimes requires investigations and quick institutional action to ensure campus safety. But HGTC’s treatment of Lemoine is the latest in a long line of colleges misusing the “true threats” standard to punish clearly protected speech — remarks or commentary that are meant as jokes, hyperbole, or otherwise unreasonable to treat as though they are sincere.
Take over-excited rhetoric about sports. In 2022, Meredith Miller, a student at the University of Utah, posted on social media that she would detonate the nuclear reactor on campus (a low-power educational model with a microwave-sized core that one professor said “can’t possibly melt down or pose any risk”) if the football team lost its game. Campus police arrested her, and the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office charged her with making a terroristic threat.
The office eventually dropped the charge, but the university tried doubling down by suspending her for two years. It was only after intervention from FIRE and an outside attorney that the university relented. But that it took such significant outside pressure — especially over a harmless joke that was entirely in line with the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric one expects in sports commentary — reveals how dramatically the university overreacted.
Political rhetoric is often targeted as well. In 2020, Babson College professor Asheen Phansey found himself in hot water after posting a satirical remark on Facebook. After President Trump tweeted a threat that he might bomb 52 Iranian cultural sites, Phansey jokingly suggested that Iran’s leadership should publicly identify a list of American cultural heritage sites it wanted to bomb, including the “Mall of America” and the “Kardashian residence.” Despite FIRE’s intervention, Babson College’s leadership suspended Phansey and then fired him less than a day later.
Or consider an incident in which Louisiana State University fired a graduate instructor who left a heated, profanity-laced voicemail for a state senator in which he criticized the senator’s voting record on trans rights. The senator reported the voicemail to the police, who investigated and ultimately identified the instructor. The police closed the case after concluding that the instructor had not broken the law. You’re supposed to be allowed to be rude to elected officials. LSU nevertheless fired him.
More examples of universities misusing the true threats standard run the political gamut: A Fordham student was suspended for a post commemorating the anniversary of the Tianneman Square massacre; a professor posted on social media in support of a police officer who attacked a journalist and was placed on leave; an adjunct instructor wished for President Trump’s assassination and had his hiring revoked; another professor posted on Facebook supporting Antifa, was placed on leave, and then sued his college. Too often, the university discipline is made more egregious by the fact that administrators continue to use the idea of “threatening” speech to punish clearly protected expression even after local police departments conclude that the statements in question were not actually threatening.
What is a true threat?
Under the First Amendment, a true threat is defined as a statement where “the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
That eliminates the vast majority of threatening speech you hear each day, and for good reason. One of the foundational cases for the true threat standard is Watts v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court ruled that a man’s remark about his potential draft into the military — “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ” — constituted political hyperbole, not a true threat. The Court held that such statements are protected by the First Amendment. And rightfully so: Political speech is where the protection of the First Amendment is “at its zenith.” An overbroad definition of threatening statements would lead to the punishment of political advocacy. Look no further than controversies in the last year and a half over calls for genocide to see how wide swathes of speech would become punishable if the standard for true threats was lower.
Colleges and universities would do well to take Lemoine’s case as a reminder to safeguard the expressive freedoms associated with humor and hyperbolic statements. Because make no mistake, FIRE will continue to blast the ones that don’t.
Career and technical education can support students’ socioeconomic mobility, but inequitable completion rates for students of color leave some behind.
NewSaetiew/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Career and technical education programs have grown more popular among prospective students as ways to advance socioeconomic mobility, but they can have inequitable outcomes across student demographics.
A December report from the Urban Institute offers best practices in supporting students of color as they navigate their institution, including in advising, mentoring and orientation programming.
Researchers identified five key themes in equity-minded navigation strategies that can impact student persistence and social capital building, as well as future areas for consideration at other institutions.
The background: The Career and Technical Education CoLab (CTE CoLab) Community of Practice is a group led by the Urban Institute to improve education and employment outcomes for students of color.
In February and May 2024, the Urban Institute invited practitioners from four colleges—Chippewa Valley Technical College in Wisconsin, Diablo Valley College in California, Wake Technical Community College in North Carolina and WSU Tech in Kansas—to virtual roundtables to share ideas and practices. The brief includes insights from the roundtables and related research, as well as an in-person convening in October 2024 with college staff.
“Practitioners and policymakers can learn from this knowledge and experience from the field to consider potential strategies to address student needs and improve outcomes for students of color and other historically marginalized groups,” according to the brief authors.
Strategies for equity: The four colleges shared how they target and support learners with navigation including:
Usingdata to identify student needs, whether those be academic, basic needs or job- and career-focused. Data collection includes tracking success metrics such as completion and retention rates, as well as student surveys. Practitioners noted the need to do this early in the student experience—like during orientation—to help connect them directly with resources, particularly for learners in short courses. “Surveying students as part of new student orientation also provides program staff immediate information on the current needs of the student population, which may change semester to semester,” according to the report.
Reimagining their orientation processes to acclimate first-year students and ensure students are aware of resources. Chippewa Valley Technical College is creating an online, asynchronous orientation for one program, and Diablo Valley College is leveraging student interns to collect feedback on a new orientation program for art digital media learners. Some future considerations practitioners noted are ways to incentivize participation or attendance in these programs to ensure equity and how to engage faculty to create relationships between learners and instructors.
Supporting navigation in advising, mentoring and tutoring to help students build social capital and build connections within the institution. Colleges are considering peer mentoring and tutoring programs that are equity-centered, and one practitioner suggested implementing a checklist for advisers to highlight various resources.
Leveraging existing initiatives and institutional capacity to improve navigation and delivery of services to students, such as faculty training. One of the greatest barriers in this work is affecting change across the institution to shift culture, operations, structures and values for student success, particularly when it disrupts existing norms. To confront this, practitioners identify allies and engage partners across campus who are aligned in their work or vision.
Equipping faculty members to participate in navigation through professional development support. Community colleges employ many adjunct faculty members who may be less aware of supports available to students but still play a key role in helping students navigate the institution. Adjuncts can also have fewer contract hours available for additional training or development, which presents challenges for campus leaders. Diablo Valley College revised its onboarding process for adjuncts to guarantee they have clear information on college resources available to students and student demographic information to help these instructors feel connected to the college.
Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.
As a first-year college student, Sarah Ellison never imagined working in higher education or earning a doctorate, but her experiences have developed her passion for helping students identify their strengths and build strong foundations for their futures beyond graduation.
Sarah Ellison, Sonoma State University’s associate vice president of student affairs
Sarah Ellison, Sonoma State University
Since Jan. 8, 2024, Ellison has served as associate vice president for student affairs at Sonoma State University, part of the California State University system, overseeing the university’s student access and success team. Ellison spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her work in and outside higher education, her portfolio at Sonoma State, and her goals for the future.
Q: What led you to a career in higher education?
A: I’ll have to say, it wasn’t something I was looking for.
I, right out of high school, went to the University of Hawaii and was planning to do a business degree. I failed my entire freshman year and went to community college. In community college, I thought I would do a focus still in business, so I did do my associate’s, and then continued on to my bachelor’s at the University of La Verne in business.
My whole entire plan was to go into sales. That’s what I thought I would do. I was really fascinated with companies like Coach and Michael Kors, Macy’s.
But throughout that time, life just happens while you’re in college, right? You’re learning about yourself, you’re learning about your goals, defining them, more and more.
During that time, I was very fortunate to meet my husband, and life started to happen during that time as well when I was finishing my undergrad. I actually went to work for a nonprofit organization, Goodwill, in California and got to work at Fort Irwin, which is a military base, serving as a career adviser for transitioning veterans. And I really loved it.
Career services was a new field to me, and I really thought that’s what I wanted to do. And so I ended up doing my master’s in career services, and was trying to think about how I would advance my career from that role into career services in higher education. I really couldn’t find a direct path, but I got into academic advising, and fell in love with academic advising. I met a recruiter at one of our fairs for military folks, and she really introduced me to the whole field of higher education. I had been exposed through going to college and meeting with different mentors. I did my internship in career services at the University of La Verne, and the director there was phenomenal, and that’s what kind of started that piece.
But that’s how I found myself working directly in higher education. I started at a small private university, then went into the Cal State system, then went to University of Kentucky, and then now I found myself back in the Cal State system. It’s been a bit of a wild ride, but it’s been a lot of fun.
Q: Would you say that you’ve brought any of your career services experiences into the work that you do now?
A: I felt that my experience working with transitioning veterans and working in career services really helped my advising platform and role working with students from the advising standpoint, because I was able to better connect with students, with their plans for their degree, and then all of the opportunities that come from different knowing different career fields and aspects, and then helping them leverage all of their experience.
I worked with nontraditional students, first-generation students [and] traditional students, and it’s just amazing how much students can learn from the career aspect that helps with their finishing of their degree, so working towards retention and degree completion.
While I don’t directly find myself in career services in higher education in my current role as associate vice president, I have a pretty large portfolio, and one of those areas being career services now. Now I get to oversee both academic advising [and] career services, as well as many other parts of my portfolio that include advising for equity and access program, disability services, and then also precollegiate programs. It is cool to find myself now directly overseeing those aspects.
Q: Who are your learners at Sonoma State and what are some of the challenges and opportunities at the university based on your student population?
A: Sonoma State has a very diverse student population. We are an HSI, so we do serve a large proportion of Hispanic students. We do have a large proportion of first-generation students, but our makeup is really, really diverse.
I think with anything, like most institutions are facing right now in terms of serving our students, it’s really about showing that pathway, so really working within the community, so that our [high school] students see a path directly into a four-year institution.
[Through] a lot of my precollegiate programs, which serve our K-12 setting, we’re really trying to strengthen and build pathways for those students who typically come from low income, and also our will-be first-generation college students, really helping them to define that pathway and see a clear vision for going into a four-year institution.
I also think it’s the life after, it’s the career trajectory, it’s the employability plans for students that they see the value in their degree. That’s what we’re really working with here, with our students, is really helping them see the value of their degree, retaining them and helping them move them into careers that are both fruitful, exciting and in line with how they saw themselves, with their goals and what they wanted to do.
Q: One of the cool things about working at a public institution is you get to serve your region and the state as a whole. How is that incorporated into your vision for student success?
A: That is one thing I’ve always enjoyed about the Cal State system is that regional perspective and focus that we have.
My first Cal State experience was at Cal State San Bernardino, and then now being here at Sonoma State, it’s amazing how different the Northern California and Southern California regions are—even the issues that we face with those students—but coming together in the system is always really exciting, because we do get to collaborate and think about how we serve the state, but then also, again, focus in on initiatives specific to the regions that all of the Cal State [institutions] are in.
In the work that I do now, I find myself in the community a lot more: serving on different boards, working with different local employers, local community agencies. I will say that Sonoma State has had a pretty good grounding in that prior to my time here.
Before coming to Sonoma State, I worked at the University of Kentucky, which is a land-grant–serving institution, and [that] also gave me a lot of experience to what it is to serve the community in the region and meet the needs of the state as well, too. I spent about three years there learning a lot about extension work.
I strongly believe that it’s amazing to have those ties to the community, because it helps us keep a pulse on what the needs are of the community, helping to prepare our students to go into different career fields, but also have a civic tie as well to what they’re doing.
Q: “Access” is a key word in your list of responsibilities, managing the student access and success team. How is access central to your role?
A: When it comes to access, I think it’s critical for students, because when we think about the different student populations we serve, there’s also these technology pieces. In higher ed—at least at all of the institutions I’ve worked at—we love new technology. We love starting new programs and new platforms.
I think it’s always really critical that we ensure our students understand and have a knowledge base as well, and that the technology works for them. So how they schedule appointments, the flexibility to do Zoom, and then also thinking about some of our students who are native in other languages. Do we have opportunities and space for students to be able to speak with advisers and faculty and have support in their native language? That’s always been really critical, because the meaning is different.
When I was at Cal State San Bernardino, we had some really great faculty from our Spanish department who would come in and help in group advising sessions and do it in Spanish, which is really helpful for our students.
When we think about the technology pieces, that’s critical, how they apply to come to any university. And then when they get to campus, and that consistent communication from the time that they’re interested to … actually enrolling, and then when they’re here, can I get ahold of and work with folks in all of the offices that I need to? That’s critical for us in higher ed to always consider and be mindful of, because that is another part of the student experience.
Q: What are some of your short- and long-term goals at Sonoma State?
A: I’m a year in, so I still consider myself very new in my role.
In terms of some short-term goals … we’re really looking at making sure students have an adviser, someone they can connect with. That we’re breaking down silos within the institution, so that way, advisers, faculty, staff [and] directors feel comfortable working with each other and communicating and supporting each other.
In terms of long term, it’s really strengthening that career side. We have a lot coming down from the governor here in California related to workforce development and those things. I’m partnering with our vice president for student affairs and our provost and associate provost, building out and strengthening our career services programming. So that’s another focus, and some long-term planning that we really need to think about for the future here at Sonoma State, while still continuing to focus on improving equity gaps, retention rates, graduation rates and enrollment as well.
Q: Career services is a growing focus nationally within higher education. What are some of those barriers that you’re facing, or where do you need those resources to really strengthen that arm of the institution?
A: I would say, throughout my time in higher ed for all the institutions I’ve worked at, I think staffing is a huge piece of career services, being able to have enough career staff to meet the needs of the campus.
I also think there’s a training and development piece, and that, to me, ties in to the connection with the faculty and academic departments to make sure that the career advising aligns with the major and department and career pathways.
Leveraging the network as well, I think that’s another thing with career services, is really building strong portfolios for professional networks, and that can be an issue depending on the institution, what their access, their leadership, being embedded in the community and those things, as well as embedded nationally to see new trends, new careers.
That’s another exciting piece about careers, that there are jobs that we don’t even know of that are going to be created here soon. How do we think about skill sets and plans and helping students see their strengths in everything that they’ve accomplished throughout their time, in their academics and at the institution, to prepare for [future] fields? And then we have emerging fields, in AI, green technology, agriculture, health services and all of that.
That’s what’s kind of the fun side of career services, but also creates the challenges, because you’re thinking about current trends, emerging trends and then the trends that you don’t even know are going to exist yet. Helping students define and understand the skill sets that they have, and making sure they’re building and aligning those to those professional fields.
Do you have a career preparation program that impacts student success? Tell us about it.
Feelings of belonging have a significant positive impact on academic success and progression, but we know that creating belonging isn’t as simple as putting up a welcome sign.
Belonging is not something that can be automatically created by an institution, regardless of its commitment to access and inclusion. To make students feel they belong in a higher education environment, having the power to shape and co-create the environments in which they participate is essential.
For students in higher education, liminal digital spaces (those informal areas of interaction that sit between formal academic environments and students’ broader social contexts) offer unique opportunities for students to lead, collaborate, learn and foster a sense of belonging, and the freedom to shape their learning environment and exercise agency in ways that may not be available within more formal institutional frameworks. They also offer opportunities for institutions to create places that nurture academic success without assuming responsibility for the development and delivery of all support.
But squaring the ownership, credibility and safeguarding triangle is complex, so how can universities do this while also embracing digital tools?
Taking ownership for learning
Focusing on digital spaces allows institutions to expand the space their students feel comfortable inhabiting and learning in, without limiting engagement from those who may not be free to meet at a specific time or be able to meet in person.
Digital learning resources can help students connect to their peers, further strengthening their sense of place within the institution. These spaces could act as connectors between university resource and student-driven exploration and learning in a way that more formal mechanisms sometimes fail to. At Manchester, resources such as My Learning Essentials (a blended skills support programme) can be used by the students within the spaces (via online resources) and signposted and recommended by peers (for scheduled support sessions).
Although this model exists elsewhere, at Manchester it is enhanced by the CATE-awarded Library Student Team, a group of current students who appreciate and often inhabit these spaces themselves. The combination of always available online, expert-led sessions and peer-led support means there is a multiplicity of avenues in the support. This allows the University to partner with, for example, its Students’ Union, and work alongside students and the wider institution by hosting these digital spaces, acting as mediators or facilitators, and ensuring the right balance of autonomy and support.
Keeping learning credible
Wider institutional support like My Learning Essentials already takes advantage of digital spaces by delivering both asynchronous online support and scheduled online sessions, and it can be easily integrated, signposted and shaped by the students using it.
These spaces need to be connected to the institution in such a way as to feel relevant and powerful. “Leaving” students to lead in spaces, giving them leadership responsibility without institutional support or backing, sets both them and these spaces up for failure.
Universities can work alongside students to help them define collective community values and principles, much like the community guidelines found in spaces like MYFest, a community-focused annual development event. Doing so ensures these liminal spaces are inclusive and responsive to the needs of all participants. Such spaces can also help students transition ‘out’ of the university environment and support others to build skills that they have already developed, such as by mentoring a student in a year below.
Safeguarding in a digital world
Universities should also allow students to follow the beat of their own drum and embrace digital outside of university spaces to further their learning.
Kai Prince, a PhD candidate in Maths at The University of Manchester, who runs a popular Discord server for fellow students, notes:
If the servers are led by a diverse group of students, I find that they’re also perfect for building a sense of belonging as students feel more comfortable in sharing their difficulties pseudo-anonymously and receiving peer-support, either by being informed on solutions or having their experiences, such as impostor syndrome, acknowledged.
Spaces like Discord allow students to engage in peer-led learning, but universities can enhance the quality of that learning by making available and investing in (as is done with My Learning Essentials) high-quality online materials, clear paths to wider support services and formal connections with societies or other academic groups. These mechanisms also help to keep the space within a student’s university experience, with all the expectations for behaviour and collegiality that entails.
The higher education sector is a complex and diverse space, welcoming new members to its communities each year. But it is often mired in a struggle to effectively engage and include each individual as a true part of the whole.
Work to address this needs to incorporate the students in spaces where the balance of power is tilted, by design, in their favour. Recognising the potential for digital spaces, for accessibility, support and familiarity for students as they enter higher education means that universities can put their efforts towards connecting, but not dictating, the direction of students and helping them forge their own learning journeys as part of the wider university community.
Personal life events impact students’ ability to meet academic expectations, which can result in academic dismissal, according to new research.
visualspace/E+/Getty Images
Around 40 million Americans have some college credit but no credential. While some of these students left higher education voluntarily, others left involuntarily due to academic dismissal, or repeated low academic achievement.
Recently published research from a Texas A&M University, San Antonio, faculty member seeks to understand how students who experienced academic dismissal fared and how institutions can support these learners as they return to college.
Author Ripsimé K. Bledsoe found a majority of learners experienced a major life event that contributed to their academic shortfall, including loss of a loved one or illness of self or others. Students who have returned to college after dismissal demonstrated greater self-awareness, help-seeking behaviors and understanding of how to achieve success.
The background: While students stop out for a variety of reasons—with recent studies pointing to the high costs of higher education as a major driver—academic challenges are a common factor. At many colleges, students whose cumulative grade point average falls below 2.0 are placed on academic probation, followed by academic dismissal if they make insufficient academic progress.
Previous research shows a gap in creating a model of academic dismissal reinstatement, one that has created challenges for institutions who want to assess readmission policies or create programs to address the issue, according to the report.
The present study uses community college student survey and interview data to understand the factors that influenced them to return to college and what assisted in this process.
Methodology
All students who participated in the study had left a two- or four-year college due to academic dismissal; re-enrolled at a large, urban community college; and were taking a Strategies for Student Success course. The survey includes 171 respondents from 13 course sections, and researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 11 of the respondents. Data was collected in fall 2018.
Students say: The survey results demonstrated that academic readiness from high school did not directly predict success in college, as a majority of students took key college preparatory coursework in high school, including AP classes or Algebra 2 or higher, and only 40 percent took developmental courses in college.
Further, almost half of students were “downward transfers,” with 45 percent admitted to a four-year college, and 41 percent attended a four-year institution at some point. Around 75 percent of students had enrolled in college within three months of completing high school or a GED, and half of respondents passed some type of first-year seminar.
The greatest share of students on academic dismissal (43 percent) appealed to return immediately after being placed on dismissal. One-third returned a year later or more time.
Two-thirds (67 percent) of dismissed students said a life-changing event was the strongest reason their grades dropped, including the death of someone close to them (26 percent), sickness (24 percent), the birth of a child (17 percent), moving away from home (11 percent), involvement in a violent experience (8 percent), loss of a job (7 percent) or spousal problems (6 percent).
Put in practice: In interviews, researchers identified five factors that affected students’ dismissal and could, conversely, impact academic momentum.
College readiness. For some students, transitioning to college contributed to their dismissal because the environment was more challenging and less structured. To combat this upon their return, students sought more structure and community to ensure academic achievement, including investing in study skills, note taking, time management and self-monitoring.
A critical incident. While many learners experienced dismissal following a challenging experience in their lives, academic dismissal provided a turning point, particularly for learners who spent their time away from college working, to reassess their goals and ambitions. The institution where study participants attended required learners to reflect on their experiences prior to re-enrolling, which also helped students’ self-evaluation. “Consequently, institutions with automatic reinstatement, loose structuring, or no policies at all, can potentially rob students of the critical impact of academic dismissal and an appeal process,” according to the report.
Effective teaching. Students said faculty interactions and support was one of the most important factors of success in the classroom upon their return. Faculty who created an atmosphere for active learning and participation were more engaging and effective. Students also identified their own learning strategies, including metacognition and self-regulation, as previous barriers to success and now a focus area.
Academic resilience. Learners who returned had motivational attributes including a strong growth mindset, clear goals, self-determination and sense of personal responsibility. Students also demonstrated resilience when they faced setbacks and found solutions for the obstacles in their way, including turning to peers, tutors or faculty members.
Supportive guidance. All participants in the study participated in specialized advising to guide them through the appeal process as well as help around course choices, loads and majors. These experiences were relational, not transactional, and helped affirm students’ help-seeking behaviors in positive ways, mitigating students’ feelings of confusion or like they must navigate higher ed on their own.
So what? While this study provides characteristics of students returning from academic dismissal, there is a need for more data around probation, time away after dismissal or forced withdrawals versus voluntary departure, according to the report.
College and university leaders should also consider their appeal process to create greater connections between students and staff or faculty, rather than an automatic reinstatement policy or a loose policy.
“Formulating a well-crafted, institution-specific policy provides a meaningful milestone for students to stop, seek support, and reassess,” Bledsoe wrote.
The study does not advocate for dismissal programs but does ask institutional leaders to create policies with more awareness of the different factors that impact academic success and to tie dismissal to support systems.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
There are the big, systemic, institutional policy failures that make their lives miserable. These might be social ills of discrimination and prejudice rendered into the classroom experience. These might be reasonable adjustment policies that turn out to be entirely unreasonable. Or it might be the pecuniary architecture that collapses the student experience into unending part-time work and just about squeezing study in.
In general students’ unions and universities are set up to address these kinds of challenges. There are committees, policies, liaison groups, central budgets, and a power and decision making architecture which faces these problems. This doesn’t mean they can always solve these issues, if they ever can be solved, but it does mean they are at least positioned to have a go at doing so.
Power
In the realm of the fundamentally bad and wrong a senior executive often can make things better. After all, they set institutional budgets, strategies, policies, contracts, and rules that impact every student. However, there is another kind of problem that impacts students where they just have less proximity to the issue.
Imagine the student where things are basically ok. Life is tough, as it is for many students, but as far as they can tell they do not believe they are being treated unfairly, they seem to be broadly getting the big things they were promised when they turned up, and all available evidence suggests their lecturers are working within a set of policies that seem to be pretty fair. In other words, things aren’t too bad.
However, as time goes on things don’t go badly wrong but they do go a little awry. The common room they went to before lectures doesn’t open until 09:30 in the winter. Their feedback has gone from arriving in six weeks to seven which adds a little bit more pressure on their exams. The library is suddenly much busier as the cold nights have set it. The buses are now much less frequent after a timetable change. The kit they need for their programmes is now more booked up as a new term has brought a new set of modules. And onward and onwards on the ever more bits of bad experience ephemera that clog up students’ lives.
This is the rubbish bin theory of the student experience. Nobody is doing anything terribly wrong, in fact many people will be doing the right thing in some context and doing the best with the time they have, but the little bit of bad experience builds up and up until the whole student experience stinks. Some of these bits of rubbish are bigger than others, some might even amount to breaches of OfS’s ongoing conditions, but nobody is doing anything which is intentionally malicious.
The rubbish bin theory of the student experience posits that everyone within a students’ ecosystem can make perfectly reasonable decisions within their own domains, turning down the heating to save on budgets, reconfiguring communal meeting space for staff offices, and changing opening hours of the reception desks might make sense in the context of the university more generally and even for some students some of the time. It is that the university is too big, too bureaucratic, and does not always operate on a small enough level to always take the rubbish out.
The rubbish bin
The problem with the smelly rubbish bin is that it’s often only noticed when it’s full. For example, the classic students’ union response is to bring together lots of information from course reps, school reps, committees, and other sources, to then feedback for subsequent years about a different bin, different ways to take out the rubbish, new bin liners (you get it I have tortured the metaphor now). The challenge is that even if you really push down the rubbish in one place it will only pop out in another (ok I am really done this time).
This is because the issues are often too small-scale to warrant institutional intervention, which the union is well set up to advocate for, and often too local, emerging in programmes or departments, to be wholly made visible to the union or to be wholly made to work with university policy. The bin is able to get more and more full because everyone just flings their bit of rubbish in and it’s not anybody’s job to take it out from time to time (ok, sorry).
The university incentive is to deal with the regulatory challenges in front of them. And while these are ongoing conditions the information the university can rely on, publish, and collate, is often a retrospective indicator. To take only two examples. NSS reporting encourages universities to deal with the issues of students no longer at the insitution. Graduate Outcomes measure student performance at a point in time in an ever changing labour market.
This isn’t to say students’ unions don’t do lots of things for individuals, it’s not to say that universities only care about the big issues, that isn’t true, it’s a question of how these two institutions keep an eye on both the structural problems and the emerging challenges.
Public administration
There are three interesting public administration and organising theories that might help conceptualise this challenge. Henry Mintzberg, one of the most important public administration theorists of the 20th century, imagines organisation strategy like a potter at a wheel. The raw ingredients exist (staff, committees, students’ unions, money, representatives, and so on), but the shape of the pot only comes into focus when hands are applied to it. This is strategy by doing says that strategic intent only becomes apparent through patterns in retrospect.
This would mean that students’ unions would have much looser resource allocations and move across departments, programmes, central university structures, representative groups, and ways of working, where the challenges and insight led them. It would mean that universities find the means to have more hands at the wheel. Giving school, departmental, and faculty committees more power, allocating budgets for taking out the rubbish bin, and challenging central structures so they spend more time focussing on emerging problems, not the retrospective ones encouraged by the regulatory reporting cycle.
Community organising, which is a direction of travel across students’ unions, is slightly different to Mintzberg’s theory of emergent strategy. As imagined by the likes of Saul Alinsky community organising assumes that communities have the solutions but not the positional power to address issues. Emergent strategy places a greater emphasis on cross-organisational actions that can both exist within and between sites of local organising. They are both about allowing ideas to emerge with greater flexibility; it is that ideas of emergent strategy places greater emphasis on the initiation of those ideas and the provision of the materials to affect change within an organisational context. This would hold that rather than having a committee of people to take the rubbish bin out let students do it themselves through helping them organise and giving them budgets and responsibilities.
The other important theorists here are Denhardt and Denhardt and their idea of New Public Service which sets out organisations to serve rather than steer their stakeholders. In this model universities and students’ unions would spend much less time trying to fix the problems of their students but instead provide the spaces through which students could learn from each other, provide resources through which students could advocate for themselves, and provide insights that would allow students to more effectively make the case for change to the people in power. In this model the emphasis would be on how universities and students’ unions open up bureaucratic spaces to allow a greater plurality of student voices to come forward.
These are just three models amongst many but they raise the question of the best means of keeping an eye on the accumulation of student issues that lead to generally bad experiences. It comes down to a set of trade-offs which could be brought into sharper relief. The extent to which the universities, students’ unions, and their partners, ultimately develop policy and ways of working to support people to solve their own problems and they extent to which they are better served putting the organisational bureaucracy behind these bigger issues.
The rubbish bin theory although a metaphor brings into focus the literal problem of how universities value maintenance. The accumulation of student issues are partially addressed by the ongoing commitment to keeping stuff open, working, reliable, and functioning. In general, reward often follows doing a good new thing rather than keeping the good old thing working. The issue of the student experience is intrinsically tied to the recognition and reward of those who take the rubbish out.
