Thomas Botzman: Simplifying student loans |
Featured Commentary

Thomas Botzman: Simplifying student loans


The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 was part of the Great Society campaign of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. Part of its noble goal was to create opportunities for students who dreamed of earning college degrees and advancing their careers by providing financial aid to students in need.

By any measure, HEA has been a resounding success. Through the years, presidential administrations have reauthorized it nine times, most recently President George W. Bush in 2008 — providing subtle changes in order to remain current with changing dynamics in higher education and society.

More than 10 years later, HEA is ready for renewal. With U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a former educator and chair of the Senate committee with oversight of higher education, retiring in 2020, it seems an opportune time to update HEA. After several years of limited hope for revision, it appears legislators on both sides of the aisle are recognizing an updated HEA supports future economic growth by growing a skilled workforce.

Interestingly, it seems there is more pragmatic and direct discussion of how an updated HEA can benefit students and families. While there are many facets to HEA, its primary purpose since establishment has been to support students with financial need in order to provide greater access to a college education.

Much of the discussion has centered on those facets of financial aid that support a student while in college, such as federal grants and loans. Indeed, the recently passed federal budget slightly increased the annual Pell Grant to $6,095. For many, such as students attending most community colleges, this is sufficient to make attending affordable without loans.

Most four-year college graduates received both grants and student loans. Students who graduate with loans presently face a confusing array of nine possible repayment plans. The revised HEA presents a timely opportunity to simplify the plans, perhaps to one or two options. The first would be a variant of the current standard 10-year repayment plan, which would continue to be the choice for many graduates. It would continue to be similar to most loans where there is a standard payment for a fixed amount of time until the loan is satisfied.

The second option is an innovative income-based plan. There are several advantages, as payments would not exceed more than 10 percent of discretionary income. In addition, those who are unemployed or do not reach an established income threshold would pay less. Furthermore, it would remove the need to recertify income annually as is required under the current loan plans. Currently, failure to recertify can lead to a substantial and unexpected increase in payments. Simpler with less undesirable surprises seems to be a theme of this proposal.

Recent discussions and legislative support for grants, such as Pell and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, have led to a somewhat improved outlook for need-based support of students who are ready to tackle the work to attain a college degree. Increased federal and state grants, coupled with institutional financial aid, are the best route to lowering the need for borrowing. Addressing the loan repayment process, especially for subsidized federal student loans, is another step toward giving every student the opportunity to choose their best path forward.

Our country needs students to be ready to become future managers, welders, scientists, teachers, social workers, health care professionals, and so much more. An enhanced, simplified and thoughtful reauthorization of HEA in 2019 is a terrific step in the right direction for everyone.

Thomas Botzman is president of Misericordia University in Dallas, Pa.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.