Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Students from Worthless Degrees Act
Description: This bill makes an institution of higher education (IHE) ineligible to receive federal student financial assistance if it fails to meet certain requirements. It also requires an IHE to make certain certifications about its gainful employment programs. Specifically, an IHE that offers a degree or certificate program to prepare students for entry into a profession that requires licensing or certification as a precondition for entry is not eligible to receive any federal student financial assistance unless (1) a student is fully qualified to take the required entry examination or be licensed or certified for the profession upon the successful completion of the program, and (2) the institution provides timely placement for all of the academically related pre-licensure requirements for entry into the profession (e.g., clinical placements or internships). An IHE must also certify that each eligible gainful employment program meets specified requirements, including approval or accreditation by a recognized agency and satisfaction of applicable educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification. If an IHE does not satisfy such prerequisites, it must notify a student who intends to enroll in the program and obtain a handwritten acknowledgement from the student that they wish to enroll. Lastly, an IHE that offers distance education or correspondence courses must be legally authorized within each state in which its enrolled students are located.
Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: Students enrolled in programs at institutions of higher education
Estimated Size: 8000000
- The bill targets institutions of higher education (IHEs) and their compliance with federal financial aid rules.
- It specifically affects students enrolled in programs requiring licensing or certification to enter a profession.
- This includes any student in a gainful employment program offered by such institutions.
- The impact extends to all students relying on federal student financial assistance.
- IHEs offering distance education or correspondence courses to students across state lines are affected by state authorization requirements.
Reasoning
- The primary target of the policy is students enrolled in higher education programs that lead to professional licensure or certification, with a particular emphasis on ensuring these programs provide the necessary educational and practical components to qualify graduates for relevant exams or licenses. Therefore, students in these programs will see the most direct impact from this policy.
- Institutions that offer these programs will also be significantly influenced by the policy, needing to ensure compliance or face losing federal funding, which could in turn affect their overall operations and attractivity to prospective students.
- Federal student financial aid is a critical resource for many students, and some students may be deterred from enrolling in non-compliant programs if the financial aid is withdrawn. This can lead to different career or educational paths depending on the student's circumstances.
- The simulation includes a variety of students representing different demographics, locations, and educational aspirations to provide a comprehensive assessment of the policy impact.
- Budget considerations constrain the immediate and long-term impact of the policy, with a focus on select programs across the U.S. initially, and expanding over time to a broader set of institutions and student bodies.
Simulated Interviews
nursing student (New York, NY)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful the policy will force my program to provide the necessary clinical placements.
- It's reassuring that my degree will better guarantee I can take the licensing exam.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
software engineering student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much change since my program already meets industry standards.
- The policy gives me more confidence in distant education standards.
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 |
current certified pharmacy technician (Dallas, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved knowing my school will need to meet accreditation standards by law now.
- I wish the policy had been around when I started my journey as a pharmacy tech.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
no current occupation (Miami, FL)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy affects me directly, but it's good to know it protects others.
- I might still be concerned about taking loans without it ensuring my education's value.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
dental student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should stop programs from unclear promotion about my licensure readiness.
- Hoping this forces schools to offer better practical training placements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
college administrator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing the policy aligns our programs with compliance obligations, but restructuring is challenging.
- Concerned about losing federal aid for some non-compliant programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
mechanic (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Great to know that my potential college will have to align with standards for certification.
- I'm expecting better structured guidance for my future coursework.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
law student (Boston, MA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While relevant for undergrad and new enrollees, my law program is long-established and accredited.
- Appreciate stronger regulations in general, beneficial for future students.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
apprentice electrician (Houston, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Significant benefit knowing my trades training counts fully towards my state licensing.
- Hope this pushes institutions to offer better hands-on opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
stay-at-home parent (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Plan to re-enroll with clarity on certification programs for psychology work.
- Feeling more secure about program readiness for actual job applications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $19000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $24000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy saves costs by removing federal aid from underperforming programs, but ensuring compliance could be costly initially.
- IHEs will face pressure to improve program quality and compliance with employment outcome standards.
- There may initially be resistance from institutions affected, which could affect policy uptake.