Bill Overview
Title: COLLEGE Act
Description: This bill requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) to provide cost-match awards to enrolled students based on the size of the IHE's endowment fund, makes IHEs responsible for a percentage of the student loan balance of students who are in default, and establishes related reporting requirements.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Enrolled students in institutions of higher education (IHEs)
Estimated Size: 19700000
- The bill targets institutions of higher education (IHEs), which includes universities and colleges worldwide.
- The students enrolled in these institutions will be directly impacted, specifically those receiving financial aid or loans.
- IHEs with larger endowments will be particularly affected, as they will have to match student aid funding.
- Changes in endowment usage could affect all students, even those not receiving financial aid, through redistribution of funds or tuition adjustments.
- Reporting requirements suggest an increase in administrative responsibilities for the IHEs.
- Globally, students who receive financial aid or loans for higher education will be impacted due to potential shifts in aid structure and availability.
Reasoning
- We need to consider the diverse impact this policy can have across different types of students and institutions.
- Students at institutions with large endowments might experience increased support from the additional cost-match awards, while smaller institutions might struggle to provide equal support due to limited funds.
- IHEs with large endowments that previously didn't focus spending on student aid might redirect resources, impacting the overall student experience.
- The policy might indirectly pressure institutions to increase tuition or find savings elsewhere to accommodate new financial responsibilities, impacting students who are not directly aided by loans.
- Administrative burdens on IHEs to report and comply with new standards may lead to operational shifts that affect the broader student population.
- Non-loan students might be affected if tuition and fees are adjusted to manage new financial obligations by their institutions.
Simulated Interviews
undergraduate student (New York, NY)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could potentially reduce my reliance on loans, which is exciting.
- If the university reallocates funds to meet the cost-match requirement, I worry about cuts to other helpful programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
graduate student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having the university cover part of my loan if I default could be a safety net.
- Concerned about potential tuition hikes if the university's financial burden increases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
part-time student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might not affect me directly since my institution has a small endowment.
- I'm more concerned about tuition increases as colleges adjust financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
undergraduate student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a step in the right direction for student financial support.
- Worried about long-term implications on academic resources if endowments are reallocated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
freshman student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy means more financial support for scholarships.
- There might be less focus on scholarships if priority shifts to loans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
graduate student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The university might leverage its partnerships to balance new financial responsibilities, which is positive.
- I'm wary of increased administrative reporting translating to higher fees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
PhD student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any shift in financial allocation by the university might risk funding for research programs.
- The policy might indirectly benefit through increased focus on student support services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
undergraduate student (Miami, FL)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might equate to better support systems for students.
- However, without careful management, there could be an increase in other student costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
adjunct faculty (Boston, MA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might impact job security if institutions cut costs elsewhere.
- The focus on loan defaults may decrease enrollment stress for students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
parent of a student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could greatly ease my financial burden if my child gets more aid.
- I'm worried about tuition rises due to institutional adjustment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)
Year 2: $3300000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $3800000000)
Year 3: $3600000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $4100000000)
Year 5: $4200000000 (Low: $3600000000, High: $4800000000)
Year 10: $5000000000 (Low: $4300000000, High: $5700000000)
Year 100: $20000000000 (Low: $15000000000, High: $25000000000)
Key Considerations
- IHEs may face liquidity issues from the need to match awards with endowment funds.
- Potential increase in tuition fees to cover new financial responsibilities without impacting endowment sizes.
- Impact and effectiveness will depend heavily on the financial health and existing endowment sizes of individual IHEs.
- Administrative and compliance challenges in tracking student defaults and reporting requirements.