This analysis was prepared by Venable, LLP on behalf of AACOM.
Memorandum
Committee: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)
Subject: The State of Higher Education (link)
Date: May 21, 2025
During the Senate HELP hearing on the state of higher education, senators and experts explored multiple themes: ensuring college affordability through expanded need‑based aid like Pell Grants and reevaluating Parent PLUS loans; holding institutions accountable for student outcomes via risk‑sharing measures; improving transparency with data tools such as the College Transparency Act, uniform aid offers, and earnings dashboards; simplifying FAFSA to reduce barriers; and promoting workforce readiness by aligning curricula with evolving job markets while preserving liberal arts adaptability. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of campus values, free expression, and moral clarity to foster inclusive, principled environments.
Witnesses
Dr. Andrew Gillen, Research Fellow, Cato Institute
Dr. Michael Lindsay, President, Taylor University
Dr. Mark A. Brown, President, Tuskegee University
Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart, Chancellor, Austin Community College District
Mike Pierce, Executive Director, Student Borrower Protection Center
College Affordability and Pell Grants
Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) argued that in today’s wealthy America, every student should be able to pursue higher education regardless of income – noting many talented young people “simply can’t afford it” and forgo college. He highlighted his proposed College for All Act to make public colleges tuition-free, as countries like Germany, France and Sweden have done. Sanders also warned that a pending Republican budget would eliminate Pell Grants for 1.4 million students and cut them for 3 million more, calling it the “elephant in the room” that all witnesses opposed.
Dr. Mark Brown, representing Tuskegee University, testified that the “vast majority” of his HBCU students rely on Pell – if Pell is reduced, students will be forced to borrow more, and if loan access is capped at the same time, college opportunity for the poorest students “will hurt” the most.
Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart, Chancellor of Austin Community College (ACC), added that proposals to tighten Pell eligibility for part-time students would cause 5,000 ACC students (working adults taking 6–7 credits) to lose Pell aid, likely forcing them to drop out of workforce programs.
Dr. Michael Lindsay, President of Taylor University, called Pell Grants an “incredibly important catalyst” that has allowed hundreds of students to enroll and persist at his institution. He thanked Congress for recent Pell Grant increases, noting “the key difference that Pell has made” in students’ lives.
Dr. Lindsay echoed Sanders’ point that society loses “wonderful young scientists and teachers” when college is unaffordable, and Sanders asserted education is a “human right” as well as an economic investment in a skilled workforce.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) said he graduated top of his high school class but chose a community college over a university because “I would have had to borrow” for a four-year school. He compared average tuitions – about $5,000 per year at a community college vs. $12,000 at an in-state public university and $30,000–$43,000 at out-of-state or private colleges – to illustrate prudent financial choices.
Sen. Marshall argued students should factor cost into college decisions and perhaps be rewarded for financially responsible choices.
Dr. Lindsay testified that Taylor University has combined “generous financial aid with strategic cost-saving” – since 2010, Taylor’s net tuition (after aid) decreased by 24% (inflation-adjusted) while the school tripled its annual scholarship aid from $14 million to $48 million.
He noted that member colleges of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities collectively contribute $5 in institutional aid for every $1 students receive in federal aid, a “shared investment” model making a “measurable difference” for thousands of low-income students.
Student Debt, Parent PLUS Loans, and Institutional Accountability
Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) noted that too many graduates are “paying off their student debt 20, 30, 40 years” after college, and cited the extreme case of medical students facing $500,000 in loans – an “insane” situation given doctor shortages. He and others singled out federal PLUS loans (which allow unlimited borrowing) as a driver of rising debt and tuition. Cassidy pointed to Graduate PLUS loans as “inflationary” and noted Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)’s Graduate Opportunity and Affordable Loans (GOAL) Act to end Grad PLUS lending, which aims to put “downward pressure” on graduate tuition costs.
He also highlighted the problem of Parent PLUS loans, which let parents borrow large sums for their children’s education. Cassidy said roughly 34% of Parent PLUS borrowers take on more than the proposed $50,000 cap, with some parents borrowing for multiple children and “drowning in debt”. “There needs to be another way to finance it,” Cassidy urged.
Dr. Mark Brown argued Parent PLUS loans are inappropriate for families unable to repay, creating a debt trap that undermines education. A retired Air Force general at Tuskegee, he noted the Higher Education Act relied on grants instead of parent loans. He said without Pell Grant increases, Parent PLUS is necessary for access. Brown also highlighted after 2011’s strict credit criteria, HBCU enrollment dropped 3–4% while other institutions grew, showing this policy favored wealthier students.
Dr. Gillen proposed eliminating Parent PLUS loans and boosting Pell Grants to improve college affordability. He noted private lenders would avoid lending beyond borrowers’ means. He advocated “risk sharing,” holding institutions responsible for a portion of defaulted loans to align incentives. This would prevent colleges from profiting at students’ and taxpayers’ expense by keeping tuition when loans go unpaid. While acknowledging complexity, he maintained the risk‑sharing formula is no more intricate than past gainful‑employment regulations.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) raised a concern that risk sharing could make schools “more hesitant…to admit certain types of students” – for example, those from lower-income backgrounds – if colleges fear those students might have trouble repaying loans. “I could see a potential consequence…that [schools] become more selective,” Kim warned. Dr. Brown concurred that this “unintended…but…possible” outcome “should not be the case”: colleges must not shun “low-income or first-generation students” to protect their loan default rates. He vowed HBCUs “would not do that” given their mission, but stressed that risk is higher for schools that “decide to serve a larger group” of at-risk students.
Dr. Gillen agreed colleges should account for “random life circumstances” that cause some graduates to struggle. He suggested building in a small default allowance (e.g. exempting a 3% share of loans) so that institutions aren’t punished for a few unforeseeable hardships. The primary “value” of risk-sharing, he maintained, is “weeding out” programs that consistently leave students worse off – in effect, forcing low-performing colleges to improve or lose access to aid.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) noted ideas to let student loans be dischargeable in bankruptcy (as most debts are).
Dr. Gillen cautioned against easy discharge immediately after graduation – “nobody has any assets” in the first few years – but endorsed allowing bankruptcy relief after a fixed period. He proposed prohibiting discharge for the first 3 years after a student leaves school, then permitting it later as a safety net.
Transparency in Outcomes and Costs
Chairman Cassidy touted the College Transparency Act (which he co-sponsors with Sen. Elizabeth Warren) to create new data tools allowing students to compare outcomes across schools and majors. “It’s a given, but I emphasize the power of education,” Cassidy said – students need to see which colleges actually deliver results.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) noted she has reintroduced the Understanding the True Cost of College Act (with Sens. Grassley, Smith, and Tuberville) to mandate a uniform financial aid offer form. This would let applicants easily compare financial aid packages “to determine what’s the best fit for them,” rather than deciphering each college’s different award letter.
Sen. Hickenlooper proposed a public online dashboard to show prospective students projected earnings for degrees. Dr. Gillen endorsed the idea, noting the DOE College Scorecard’s median earnings data and urging expansion to include job placement and career-path information, criticizing current tools for omitting these outcomes. Adding employment data would help students grasp post‑college realities. Dr. Brown agreed transparency is crucial, arguing institutions should display regional average salaries for degrees to help students weigh costs and rewards. He acknowledged some fields, like teaching, offer lower pay but high societal value, yet students deserve clear data to make informed choices.
Dr. Lindsay cautioned that raw earnings data by major can be misleading. “I’m not a huge fan of saying that what you major in is the predictor of…earnings,” he said, noting he changed majors four times himself. Often a student chooses a field “because you love the faculty,” and many liberal arts majors go on to great success in business or other sectors.
Lindsay’s research on 550 CEOs and senior leaders found 73% had majored in liberal arts fields. His point was that a college’s overall educational quality and mentorship might matter more than a specific major. Still, he agreed with senators that transparency about outcomes is essential, and he supports efforts to give families a clearer “vision of what [students] can earn in the future” after different programs.
FAFSA Simplification and Financial Aid Reform
Sen. Hassan pressed the issue, stating “we can all agree” the debut of the new, streamlined FAFSA “could have and should have gone a whole lot better.” She pointed out that in March, the (new) administration announced a plan to slash the Department of Education’s staff by 50%, including cuts at Federal Student Aid – and “within 24 hours” of those layoffs being announced, the FAFSA website went down for hours. Hassan asked Mike Pierce how these “chaotic and arbitrary” cuts are affecting aid operations, and whether FSA can meet its legal obligations with so many fewer staff.
Mike Pierce, who leads the Student Borrower Protection Center, answered bluntly: “We are already watching the Office of Federal Student Aid come apart at the seams.” He cited a brand-new survey (by NASFAA) showing nearly 60% of college financial aid offices are experiencing delays and difficulty reaching FSA by phone. This comes after what he called “a disastrous financial aid cycle” that left students and families fearful they “won’t be able to figure out how to navigate our complicated financial aid system.” In Pierce’s view, “this is the wrong time to cut staff” at FSA – the FAFSA process is already complex, and support is dwindling just when millions of students need help.
Dr. Lowery-Hart reinforced that FAFSA complexity remains a major barrier, especially for first-generation students. “It is one of the biggest barriers,” he said, “especially [for] students who may not have familial support to make sense of the bureaucracy.” In fact, he noted, Austin Community College now requires a financial literacy module for all students before they take out any loan (or even receive a scholarship). Navigating financial aid is “very cumbersome” for those without experience, he explained, so ACC tries to ensure students understand their obligations and options up front. Senators of both parties agreed on the need to fix the FAFSA process.
Workforce Readiness and Skills Alignment
Sen. Bernie Sanders stressed that the U.S. must greatly increase the number of skilled professionals to compete globally. “We have an understaffed workforce,” he said, pointing to “massive shortages” of healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, dentists, mental health professionals) that this Committee has often discussed. He also noted that as the nation tackles infrastructure and climate challenges, “we don’t have enough” trained engineers, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc., largely because “we have not made apprenticeship programs and trade schools widely available.” Sanders argued for investing in vocational and lifelong learning, reminding colleagues that education is not just about one’s first job: “from 2 to 102, people strive to learn – it’s part of being human.”
Sen. Ashley Moody emphasized aligning college curricula with industry needs. She lauded Florida institutions (like UCF, UNF, and Florida Tech) that “cooperate with local employers” to ensure academic programs evolve with the job market. This leads to “more successful outcomes for students,” Moody said, and helps fill in-demand roles as manufacturing and tech jobs return to the U.S.
Dr. Lindsay argued that Taylor University integrates career preparation with character formation as complementary. He noted that two‑thirds of freshmen will enter professions that do not yet exist, so nurturing critical thinking and adaptability—liberal arts essentials—is the best preparation. This “intellectual agility” enables graduates to navigate a changing economy. Concurrently, Taylor instills civic‑mindedness and virtue alongside professional skills, ensuring students “marry a commitment to developing virtue with the intellectual and professional development” vital for lifelong success. By volunteering with nonprofits and interning in local businesses, students gain practical experience and cultivate a service mindset—a model Lindsay believes all colleges should adopt.
Sen. Andy Kim urged caution that in pushing for ROI and job-aligned education, “we don’t undermine our traditional liberal arts.” He praised the “creativity, the innovation” that comes from a broad education and warned against moves that would pressure colleges to “divest” from humanities or arts programs. Risk-sharing or outcome-based funding formulas, Kim suggested, could unintentionally make liberal arts programs look like liabilities if graduates earn less in those fields.
Dr. Lindsay backed up the value of a liberal education: many leaders and innovators did not major in directly career-specific fields. He himself switched majors four times, and he sees merit in students exploring and learning how to learn – skills that ultimately benefit the economy in unpredictable ways.
Campus Values, Free Expression, and Institutional Trust
Sen. Ashley Moody recalled that from America’s earliest days, education was seen as the “bedrock” of the Republic, vital to forming virtuous, informed citizens. She lamented that “in recent times, we’ve seen our institutions move away from [that] basic mission.” Students are graduating with record debt “with degrees that are sometimes not even useful,” Moody said, and in some cases with a “disdain for the very principles and ideals” that sustain American self-government. She criticized many colleges for failing to protect students from harm or to foster intellectual debate: too often, campuses have allowed disruptive protests to turn violent and “buildings to be overrun,” instead of ensuring the “availability of [diverse] ideas.” All this, Moody noted, is happening “while…tuition continues to rise,” undermining the public’s confidence.
Chairman Cassidy echoed these issues, saying there’s widespread talk about a “lack of moral clarity on college campuses” and tolerance for “incivility” that can escalate to violence. He worried that university leaders too often default to “counseling [students] with different views” rather than taking a principled stand, creating “tension” between unfettered free speech and guiding values. Cassidy posed this dilemma to Dr. Lindsay, noting Taylor University is a Christian institution that likely encounters viewpoints “noxious” to its theology. “How do you manage that tension,” Cassidy asked, between allowing free expression and maintaining “moral clarity”?
Dr. Lindsay argued that at Taylor University, faith‑based moral clarity and academic freedom reinforce each other. Believing all truth is God’s truth, the community openly tackles difficult topics—lacking at his former R1 institution. Taylor’s shared moral commitments provide a framework that actually expands freedom. With guiding Foundational Documents prominently displayed, students and faculty understand and engage in dialogue. Lindsay noted that families value this environment: moral clarity has become a competitive advantage. Over the past four years, incoming classes have grown by 60%, reflecting parents’ preference for accountability and conviction rather than credentials without a guiding ethos.
Chair Cassidy asked if Taylor would host speakers advocating views contrary to its values. Lindsay affirmed they could speak, but before an audience grounded in moral clarity. He explained Taylor regularly invites diverse speakers, confident that students are prepared to critically engage pressing moral issues. Cassidy praised this approach, contrasting it with elite institutions like Harvard, which declined to testify despite rising antisemitism and DEI concerns. Cassidy argued that universities must be transparent and proactive in upholding values to maintain public trust and taxpayer support. “Universities must make the case to the American people why they are worthy of investment,” he said.