U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–842 PDF 2017

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN 

HIGHER EDUCATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Serial No. 115–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Brandon Renz, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 7, 2017 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the 

Workforce ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Akers, Dr. Beth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, New York, NY ........ 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Cruz, Dr. Jose ́ L., President, Lehman College of the City University 

of New York, Bronx, NY ............................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Gilligan, Mr. Kevin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Capella Education Company, Minneapolis, MN ............................................................. 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Kirwan, Dr. William E., Co-Chair, Task Force on Federal Regulation 

of Higher Education, Rockville, MD ............................................................ 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Additional Submissions: 

Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 94 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96 

Rooney, Hon. Francis, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida: 

Article: UV Letters .................................................................................... 80 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: 

Letter February 21, 2017, from The George Washington University ... 102 

Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California: 

Letter February 2, 2017, from Sixteen Organizations ........................... 77 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 105 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Ms. Bonamici ............................................................................................. 116 

Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana ............................................................................................... 110 

Roe, Hon. David P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee ........................................................................................... 108, 121 

Mr. Scott .................................................................................................... 111, 114 

Stefanik, Hon. Elise, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ............................................................................................ 108 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn ‘‘GT’’, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 108, 119 

Response to questions submitted: 

Dr. Akers .................................................................................................... 122 

Dr. Cruz ..................................................................................................... 111, 114, 116, 124 

Dr. Kirwan ................................................................................................. 128 

Mr. Gilligan ............................................................................................... 126 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN 

HIGHER EDUCATION 

Tuesday, February 7, 2017 

House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Hunter, Walberg, Guthrie, 

Rokita, Messer, Byrne, Bishop, Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Lewis, 

Rooney, Mitchell, Smucker, Ferguson, Scott, Davis, Courtney, 

Fudge, Polis, Wilson of Florida, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, 

DeSaulnier, Norcross, Blunt Rochester, Krishnamoorthi, Shea-Porter, and Espaillat. 

Staff Present: Emmanual Guillory, Professional Staff Member; 

Tyler Hernandez, Deputy Communications Director; Amy Raaf 

Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy 

Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; 

James Mullen, Director of Information Technology; Krisann Pearce, 

General Counsel; Jenny Prescott, Professional Staff Member; Brandon Renz, Staff Director; Alex Ricci, Legislative Assistant; Emily 

Slack, Professional Staff Member; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy 

Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; 

Jacque Chevalier, Minority Deputy Education Policy Director; Michael DeMale, Minority Labor Detailee; Denise Forte, Minority 

Staff Director; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Christian Haines, Minority Education Policy Counsel; Stephanie Lalle, 

Minority Press Assistant; Arika Trim, Minority Press Secretary; 

Katherine Valle, Minority Education Policy Advisor; and Christopher Zbrozek, Minority Education Detailee. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Good morning, everyone. A quorum being 

present, including Duncan Hunter, the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce will come to order. We’re delighted to have everyone here. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on 

America’s higher education system. 

These are exciting times in higher education. Institutions across 

the country are providing their students new opportunities to earn 

a degree. As a result, we’re seeing more diversity on campuses and 

the idea of a traditional student has been turned on its head. Today’s students come from a wide range of backgrounds, they are at 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

various stages in their lives and careers, and they have new, 

unique, and changing needs. 

Perhaps the only thing that hasn’t changed in recent years is the 

importance of a higher education. A post-secondary degree or certificate is still vitally important to helping individuals pursue successful and fulfilling careers. It is also essential in helping many 

men and women achieve their own dreams and goals and earn success in their lives. 

Thankfully, today there are more opportunities for more 

0individuals to pursue higher education than ever before. However, 

America’s higher education system is also facing a number of significant challenges. 

For one, the cost of college is going up. Since 2005, average tuition and fees have increased by 25 percent at 4-year private nonprofit institutions. At 4-year public institutions, they’ve increased 

by more than 40 percent. 

And what do we have to show for that rise in cost? Have graduation rates gone up? Actually, it’s estimated that among students 

who started colleges in the fall of 2010, only 55 percent had earned 

a degree or certificate by 2016. 

We’ve worked in recent years to make changes that will 

strengthen America’s higher education system and help ensure a 

college degree is accessible and affordable. It’s clear that more has 

to be done. 

Fortunately, with reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, 

we have an opportunity to do just that -- advance bold, responsible, 

and meaningful reforms. We also have a strong foundation already 

in place. 

Through years of hearings, roundtables, meetings, and legislation 

action, this committee, including many of the members here today, 

developed a set of principles that will guide the work ahead. 

The first is empowering students and families to make informed 

decisions. Choosing a college or university is an important decision 

that will have a lasting impact on a student’s life. It’s vitally important that individuals have the information they need to choose 

the right school and make decisions about how to pay for their education. 

The second principle is simplifying and improving student aid. 

There are currently 6 different types of Federal student loans, 9 repayment plans, 8 forgiveness programs, and 32 deferment and forbearance options, each with its own rules and regulations. The current system is too complex and it leaves students and their families 

confused about their financial options and responsibilities. 

Third, we must work to promote innovation, access, and completion. For years, and particularly in the past 8 years, the Federal 

Government has tied States and institutions up in red tape. That 

red tape has made it more difficult for students to complete their 

education quickly and affordably. It has also gotten in the way of 

innovation that would make it easier for students to pursue and 

earn a college degree. It’s time for the Federal Government to get 

out of the way.0 

The fourth and final principle is providing strong accountability 

in a limited Federal role. Today, institutions are subject to a great 

deal of Federal reporting requirements and regulations. In fact, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

rules and regulations across the Federal Government currently impose an estimated $27 billion in compliance costs on colleges and 

universities. Unfortunately, those costs are often passed on to students in the form of higher fees and tuition. 

We need to repeal unnecessary reporting requirements and address many of the harmful and misguided regulations imposed by 

the former administration. However, we should do so while also delivering strong, commonsense accountability in Federal programs. 

It’s clear that we have our work cut out for us, but inaction is 

not an option. Today marks the beginning of the next phase in our 

effort to strengthen America’s higher education system for students, parents, institutions, and taxpayers. I look forward to the 

important work that lies ahead. Let’s get to work. 

With that, I yield to Ranking Member Scott for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

These are exciting times in higher education. Institutions across the country are 

providing their students new opportunities to earn a degree. As a result, we are seeing more diversity on campuses, and the idea of a ‘‘traditional student’’ has been 

turned on its head. Today’s students come from a wide range of backgrounds. They 

are at various stages in their lives and careers. And they have new, unique, and 

changing needs. 

Perhaps the only thing that hasn’t changed in recent years is the importance of 

a higher education. A postsecondary degree or certificate is still vitally important 

to helping individuals pursue successful and fulfilling careers. It is also essential in 

helping many men and women achieve their own dreams and goals and earn success 

in their lives. 

Thankfully, today there are more opportunities for more individuals to pursue 

higher education than ever before. However, America’s higher education system is 

also facing a number of significant challenges. 

For one, the cost of college is going up. Since 2005, average tuition and fees have 

increased by 25 percent four-year private nonprofit institutions. At four-year public 

institutions, they have increased by more than 40 percent. 

What do we have to show for that rise in costs? Have graduation rates gone up? 

Actually, it is estimated that among students who started colleges in the fall of 

2010, only 55 percent had earned a degree or certificate by 2016. 

We’ve worked in recent years to make changes that will strengthen America’s 

higher education system and help ensure a college degree is accessible and affordable. It’s clear that more has to be done. 

Fortunately, with reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we have an opportunity to do just that—advance bold, responsible, and meaningful reforms. We also 

have a strong foundation already in place. 

Through years of hearings, roundtables, meetings, and legislative action, this committee—including many of the members here today—developed a set of principles 

that will guide the work ahead. 

The first is empowering students and families to make informed decisions. Choosing a college or university is an important decision that will have a lasting impact 

on a student’s life. It’s vitally important that individuals have the information they 

need to choose the right school and make decisions about how to pay for their education. 

The second principle is simplifying and improving student aid. There are currently six different types of federal student loans, nine repayment plans, eight forgiveness programs, and 32 deferment and forbearance options—each with its own 

rules and requirements. The current system is too complex, and it leaves students 

and their families confused about their financial options and responsibilities. 

Third, we must work to promote innovation, access, and completion. For years— 

and particularly in the past eight years—the federal government has tied states and 

institutions up in red tape. That red tape has made it more difficult for students 

to complete their education quickly and affordably. It has also gotten in the way 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

of innovation that would make it easier for students to pursue and earn a college 

degree. It’s time for the federal government to get out of the way. 

The fourth and final principle is providing strong accountability and a limited federal role. Today, institutions are subject to a great deal of federal reporting requirements and regulations. In fact, rules and regulations across the federal government 

currently impose an estimated $27 billion in compliance costs on colleges and universities. Unfortunately, those costs are often passed on to students in the form of 

higher fees and tuition. 

We need to repeal unnecessary reporting requirements and address many of the 

harmful and misguided regulations imposed by the former administration. However, 

we should do so while also delivering strong, commonsense accountability in federal 

programs. 

It’s clear that we have our work cut out for us, but inaction is not an option. 

Today marks the beginning of the next phase in our effort to strengthen America’s 

higher education system for students, parents, institutions, and taxpayers. I look 

forward to the important work that lies ahead. Let’s get to work. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I thank the witnesses for coming. I look forward to your testimony. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to hear directly from different 

sectors and voices within the higher education community. It’s important for us to continue to work with a diverse array of leaders 

who will inform the development of research-backed policy solutions as the committee works to reauthorize the Higher Education 

Act. 

Madam Chair, during the last Congress, our committee enjoyed 

bipartisan cooperation on a number of issues -- Every Student Succeeds Act, juvenile justice, career and technical education, even 

several bipartisan higher education bills. I think there is room for 

more bipartisan collaboration in higher education, and 

in the past, we’ve come together to produce bipartisan higher 

education bills to address specific issues. This past success does not 

mean that the process of a higher education reauthorization will be 

smooth and straightforward, but I’m committed to working with 

you. Let’s see if we can’t get that done. 

And to that end, the House Democrats remain focused on ensuring that the Higher Education Act continues to provide pathways 

for a better life. Quality higher education must be accessible and 

affordable to empower America’s working families to succeed in our 

economy, and that means improving the system to work for all students and families. 

That was a promise made by President Lyndon Johnson when he 

signed the Higher Education Act into law in 1965. He said then 

that this means that a high school senior anywhere in this great 

land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any of 

the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor. 

Unfortunately, for too many working families, the promise of the 

HEA has eroded. For too many of our students, access to economic 

opportunity provided through higher education is, in fact, in jeopardy. 

Faced with borrowing substantial sums of money in order to enroll, higher education feels out of reach or not worth the cost for 

too many students. This inequity of opportunity serves to limit lifetime prospects, especially for low-income students, first-generation 

students, and students with disabilities. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

Any action we take in this Congress on higher education should 

increase the number of students who attend college, lower the cost 

of those that do, and help students complete a meaningful degree, 

on time, that will have value in the job market. The logical place 

to start is a renewed focus on institutions of higher education that 

enroll 75 percent of the students, that is, 2- and 4-year public colleges. These schools are the only higher education options in many 

communities and they have a track record of adapting to meet the 

educational needs of their communities and serving as engines of 

mobility into higher-income careers. Unfortunately, we’ve seen a 

disturbing trend of State support dwindling over the past few 

years. 

Democrats remain committed to a higher education system that 

has multiple pathways to obtaining a meaningful credential that is 

not necessarily a 4-year on-campus degree, but we remain committed to protecting access to the 4-year on-campus degree for any 

person qualified and desiring one. That will likely take sustained 

increased investment and resources. 

And while I understand that many members claim we don’t have 

the money to commit to higher education, I would counter that taxpayer money spent on higher education is a vital investment in our 

Nation’s security and workforce. We live in a global economy where 

education remains one of the best competitive advantages that we 

have, and we can’t lose that advantage by failing to invest in education. 

As the richest country in the world, we have resources to ensure 

that all students have access to multiple high-quality higher educational opportunities. We can increase the maximum Pell Grant 

award. We can provide funds to help schools create supports needed to accelerate completion. We can support the important work 

done at our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other 

minority-serving institutions. We can devise loan repayment and 

forgiveness options that allow student borrowers to repay their 

loans without surrendering their economic freedom. 

We can do all these things, but we have to make them within 

a system of priorities. You’ll remember, Madam Chair, that in 

2013, Congress renewed the Bush-era tax cuts at a cost of $3.9 trillion, including significant benefits for the top 1 percent. The next 

couple of weeks, we actually raised the interest on Federal student 

loans. We gave tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and then 

charged poor students more to borrow money to go to college. 

If the American people want our higher education system to remain the envy of the world, we can’t do it on the cheap. That 

means we have to have a priority to find solutions that promote 

sustained investments at both the Federal and state levels. 

Unfortunately, some higher education institutions fail to deliver 

on quality education. And so to protect the robust and sustained 

public investment, we need a strong triad of Federal regulation, 

State authorization, and private accreditation to guarantee institutional and program quality. All three play essential and necessary 

roles in ensuring the fitness of our higher education system. 

Federal regulations protect the sizeable investment of higher 

education and provide consumer protections for students themselves. State authorizers, those closest to the students, must be a 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

check to ensure that local actors provide quality instruction that is 

best suited for students in that State. Accreditors must be skilled 

arbiters of quality education. 

We will likely need to assess the duties of all three legs of this 

triad in a comprehensive reauthorization, but if we’re going to protect students and taxpayers effectively, I think we need to realize 

that deregulation for the sake of deregulation doesn’t make any 

sense. 

Going to and graduating from college remains one of the most 

consistent methods for eliminating many barriers to upward mobility facing millions of Americans. Look at President Obama, raised 

by a single working mother and her family, parlayed his college 

education into a successful career, leading all the way to the Oval 

Office. 

Similarly, Madam Chair, you know the power higher education 

has to change lives, because you dedicated large portions of your 

life to the pursuit of higher education and its improvement. 

One of the members of our committee, the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Norcross, a new member of the committee, got his start 

in higher education at a community college before moving on to 

what he calls the other 4-year degree, an apprenticeship with the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 

All of these examples show what can be achieved when deserving 

students have the opportunity of a post-secondary education. They 

and many others like them prove that the opportunities opened by 

college are limitless. New models that provide skills necessary to 

succeed in today’s global economy may have the potential to be the 

engines of upward mobility in the future. 

But if we focus solely on economic outcomes to write higher education policies and fail to look at the intangible benefits of higher 

education, we may be missing a lot of opportunities for many people. 

A 4-year degree may not be for everyone, but it should be available to all who are academically qualified to attend and wish to 

pursue it. Protecting that access while incentivizing new models 

that serve today’s students will make higher education work for all 

of America’s working families. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning Chairwoman Foxx, and members of the Committee. To the witnesses, thank you for being here, I look forward to your testimony. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to hear directly from different sectors and 

voices within the higher education community. It’s important for us to continue to 

work with a diverse array of leaders who will inform the development of researchbacked policy solutions as the committee works to reauthorize the Higher Education 

Act. 

During the last Congress our committee enjoyed bipartisan collaboration on issues 

from ESSA to CTE and even on some discrete bipartisan higher education bills. I 

think there is room for more bipartisan collaboration in higher education, and in 

the past we have come together to produce bipartisan higher education bills addressing specific policy issues. That past success does not mean that the process of 

a comprehensive reauthorization will be a smooth and straight forward path, but 

I am committed to working with you, Madam Chairwoman, over the course of this 

Congress to see if we can get to a comprehensive bill. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

To that end, House Democrats remain focused on ensuring that the Higher Education Act continues to provide pathways to a better life for all Americans. Quality 

higher education must be accessible and affordable to empower America’s working 

families to succeed in our economy. That means improving the system to work for 

all students and families. 

That promise was made when President Lyndon Johnson singed HEA into law in 

1965. He said, ‘‘[This] means that a high school senior, anywhere in this great land 

of ours, can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 states and not 

be turned away because his family is poor.’’ Unfortunately, for too many working 

families, the 

promise of HEA has eroded. For far too many of our students, access to economic 

opportunity provided through higher education is in jeopardy. 

Faced with borrowing substantial sums of money to enroll, higher education feels 

out of reach or not worth the cost for many students. This inequity of opportunity 

serves to limit lifetime prospects, especially for low-income students, first-generation 

students, and students with disabilities. Any action we take this Congress on higher 

education should increase the number of students who attend college, lower the cost 

for those who do, and help students complete a meaningful degree on time that will 

have value in the job market. 

A logical place to start is with a renewed focus on the institutions of higher education that enroll 75 percent of students: two- and four-year public colleges. These 

schools are the only higher education options in many communities, and have a 

track record of both adapting to meet the educational needs of their communities 

and serving as engines of mobility into higher income careers. 

Democrats remain committed to a higher education system that has multiple 

pathways to attaining a meaningful credential that is not necessarily a four-year oncampus degree, but we also remain committed to protecting access to a four-year 

on campus degree for any person qualified and desiring of one. 

That will likely take a sustained, increased investment of resources. And while 

I understand that many Members claim we don’t have the money to commit to higher education, I’d counter that taxpayer money spent on higher education is a vital 

investment in our nation’s security and workforce. The globalization of the marketplace has altered the way the U.S. and other countries compete for business. With 

the rapid development of this global marketplace, the U.S. is no longer the single 

dominant country in the world economy. And in our global economy, the main competitive advantage we have in America is our advantage in education. We certainly 

can’t compete with other countries when it comes to the lowest wages, when many 

around the world may work for a few dollars or even a few pennies a day. Nor can 

we compete in terms of location. You no longer have to be located near your co-workers; with today’s technology – video-conferencing, smartphones, tablets –if you can 

work across the hall from your co-workers, you can now work across the globe from 

your co-workers. Goods can be shipped around the globe in a matter of days if not 

hours, so there’s no advantage for a manufacturer to build his factory near his customers. No, the main reason that America remains strong and continues to attract 

business investment is because we have well educated workers. 

As the richest country on earth, we have the resources to ensure that all students 

have access to multiple, high-quality higher education opportunities. We can increase the maximum Pell Grant award. We can provide funds to help schools create 

the supports needed to accelerate completion. We can devise loan repayment and 

forgiveness options that allow student borrowers to repay their loans without surrendering their economic freedom. 

We can do all those things, if we look at the fiscal decisions made here in Washington in the collective, and not as individual choices. In 2013, Congress renewed 

the Bush-era tax cuts, including significant benefits for the top one percent, and in 

the next week raised the interest rate on federal student loans. We gave tax breaks 

to millionaires and billionaires and then charged poor students more to borrow 

money to go to college. If the American people want our higher education system 

to remain the envy of the world, we can’t do it on the cheap. That means working 

to find policy solutions that promote sustained investment at both the federal and 

state levels. 

Unfortunately, some in higher education fail to deliver on a quality education, and 

so, to protect the robust and sustained public investment, we need a strong triad 

of federal regulation, state authorization, and private accreditation to guarantee institutional and program quality. All three play essential and necessary roles in ensuring the fitness of our higher education system. 

Federal regulations protect the sizable investment in higher education, and provide consumer protections for students themselves. State authorizers, closest to students, must be a check to ensure that local actors provide quality instruction that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

is best suited for students in that state. And accreditors must be skilled arbiters 

of academic quality. 

We will likely need to assess the duties of all three legs of the triad in a comprehensive reauthorization. But if we are going to protect students and taxpayers 

effectively, I think we need to realize that blind deregulation in service of ideology 

can be as disastrous as federal overreach and overregulation. 

Going to and graduating from college remains one of the most consistent methods 

for eliminating the many barriers to upward mobility facing millions of Americans. 

Former President Obama, raised by a single working mother and her family, 

parlayed his college education into a successful career leading all the way to the 

Oval Office. Similarly, you 

Madam Chairwoman, know the power of quality higher education has to change 

lives, having dedicated large portions of your life to the pursuit of higher education 

and its improvement. Mr. Norcross, a new member on this committee, got his start 

in higher education at a community college, before moving on to what he affectionately calls the ‘‘other 4-year degree’’, an apprenticeship with the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). 

Each of these individuals is an example of what can be achieved when deserving 

students have access to a postsecondary education. They, and many others like 

them, prove that the opportunities opened up by a college education are limitless. 

New models that provide the skills necessary to succeed in today’s global economy 

may have the potential to be engines of upward mobility in the future. But, if we 

focus solely on economic outcomes to write higher education policy, and fail to look 

at the intangible benefits of higher education, we may be placing an insurmountable 

obstacle in front of the academy door for thousands of students who are taking their 

first step into higher education. A four-year college may not be for everyone, but 

it should be available to all who are academically qualified to attend and wish to 

pursue it. Protecting that access, while incentivizing new models that serve today’s 

students, will make higher education work for all of America’s working families. 

Thank you Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for 

the official hearing record. 

We’ll now turn to introductions of our distinguished witnesses. 

Dr. Beth Akers is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 

Previously, she was a fellow at the Brookings Institution Center on 

Children and Families. Additionally, Dr. Akers was a staff economist with the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under 

President George W. Bush, where she worked on Federal student 

lending policy as well as other education and labor issues. 

Dr. William English ‘‘Brit’’ Kirwan currently serves as chancellor 

emeritus of the University System of Maryland after retiring from 

his 13-year chancellorship in 2015. During his time as chancellor, 

he served as the co-chair of the Task Force on the Federal Regulation of Higher Education. Before serving as chancellor, Dr. Kirwan 

was the president of Ohio State University for 4 years and of the 

University of Maryland College Park, for 10 years. 

Dr. Jose ́ Luis Cruz is president of Lehman College of the City 

University of New York, CUNY. Prior to his appointment at 

CUNY, Dr. Cruz served at several institutions, including California 

State University Fullerton and the University of Puerto Rico system. Additionally, he was the vice president of higher education 

policy and practice at the Education Trust in Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Kevin Gilligan serves as chairman and CEO of Capella Education. Previously, he was president and CEO of United SubCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

contractors, Inc., USI, a national construction services firm, and 

president and CEO of Honeywell International’s second-largest 

business, Automation and Control Systems. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairwoman FOXX. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. We allow 5 minutes for each 

witness to provide testimony. When you begin, the light in front of 

you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. At the 5-minute mark, the light will turn red, and you should 

wrap up your testimony. Members will each have 5 minutes to ask 

questions. 

Now, Dr. Akers, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BETH AKERS, SENIOR FELLOW, 

MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. AKERS. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce. 

My name is Beth Akers. I’m a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where I research higher education policy. I’ve been engaged 

in research in this field since 2008, when in my role as staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers, I assisted the Department of Education as they quickly implemented the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. 

My testimony is also informed by the time I spent researching 

this subject, first as a Ph.D. student in the economics department 

at Columbia University, then as a fellow at Brookings, and now at 

the Manhattan Institute. 

Perhaps among the most well-known facts about higher education is that it’s expensive and getting more so every year. But it 

also pays large financial dividends, both to the student in terms of 

heightened future wages and consistent employment, and to society 

through greater tax revenue and reduced reliance on social safety 

nets. 

We should be concerned about the trajectory of college costs, but 

we should also be concerned with building a system of finance that 

supports students in making investments in themselves, even in 

the current high-priced environment. Student loans, which allow 

students to borrow from their futures selves, are an invaluable tool 

for students to finance investments they would not have otherwise 

been able to afford, and they are a tool that works quite well for 

many borrowers. 

My research shows that the typical borrower faces loan balances 

that are modest compared to their lifetime earnings. The large balances we often hear about in the media are, in fact, exceedingly 

rare, with just 7 percent of young borrowers with balances greater 

than $50,000 and 2 percent greater than $100,000, and these large 

balances are most often held by borrowers with advanced degrees 

that provide the opportunity for very high earnings. The monthly 

expense of repaying these burdens is also relatively small, with the 

average borrower paying only about 7 percent of their monthly income on repayment. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

But those statistics aren’t much of a consolation if you are one 

of the unlucky students who paid the price for college but saw no 

return. College is a gamble, it’s always been a gamble, but in the 

current high-cost marketplace, the consequences of making a losing 

bet on college are bigger than ever before. 

We can’t say exactly how many students end up underwater on 

their student loans, but the fact that almost half of those who start 

college degrees fail to complete them suggests that there is a large 

pool of former students who will see little to no return on their investment. 

In addition to making it possible for young people to borrow from 

their future to enroll in college, we also need to ensure that adequate safety nets exist to support those who don’t experience the 

anticipated returns. In doing so, we should recognize that it’s not 

the high price of higher education that’s the first order problem, 

rather, it’s that some students will pay that price but never see a 

return. 

Rather than using public resources to make college less expensive across the board, Federal funds should be targeted to encourage people to go to college who would not have gone otherwise and 

to provide relief to those who made a losing gamble on college. 

As the committee considers reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I’d like to encourage you to consider two primary challenges. The first is complexity in the Federal student aid program. 

Our system of Federal financial aid is needlessly complex, and research has shown that complexity is a significant barrier to college 

enrollment for students from our lowest-income households. 

I believe there are three steps to simplifying our system that are 

critical. First, rather than requiring potential students to jump 

through hoops to find out how much they are eligible for in aid, we 

should use data already collected by the IRS to determine eligibility. We should do away with the FAFSA, or at the very least 

make it much simpler to complete. 

Second, we should eliminate the menu of options for student 

loans and replace it with a single loan program with terms that are 

easy to understand. 

And third, we should put all student subsidies into a single grant 

program. This means eliminating tax credits for enrollment, deductions for student loan interest, and combining all Federal grants 

into a single program. The goal of this proposal is not to reduce 

subsidies necessarily, but rather to make them more transparent 

and, therefore, more effective. 

The second challenge that should be a priority as you consider 

reauthorization is our malfunctioning student loan repayment system and safety net. Many are surprised to learn that our Federal 

student loan program has a robust system of safety nets. This likely stems from the fact that there isn’t a single income-driven repayment plan, but rather a set of programs, each with different eligibility requirements and benefits, none of which are the default option for borrowers. 

We need to do away with this malfunctioning system and replace 

it with a universal income-driven repayment plan that is the default repayment option for all borrowers. Ideally, payment would 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

be collected through income withholding so that payments could 

automatically fluctuate with the borrower’s income. 

Before closing, I’d like to offer quick remarks on the idea of restoring private sector participation in Federal student lending. 

Bringing market discipline into Federal student lending isn’t a bad 

idea, but a return to the FFEL program would be a step in the 

wrong direction. There are good ways to inject market discipline 

into student lending. The best approach is to redesign the Federal 

lending program to focus on undergraduate students. Scaling back 

or eliminating Federal lending to graduate students and parents of 

college students would organically create an opening for private 

lenders to participate. 

Another smart approach would be to support innovations in the 

private education finance sector by establishing a regulatory framework for new financial products, such as income share agreements, 

which have the potential to address many of the financial challenges currently facing students. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I’m very 

pleased that the committee is devoting its attention to this issue, 

as a well-functioning system of higher education is critical to our 

collective economic and social well-being. I look forward to answering your questions today and serving as a resource in the future. 

[The testimony of Ms. Akers follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 23842.001
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 23842.002
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 23842.003
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 23842.004
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 23842.005
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 23842.006
18 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Akers. 

Dr. Kirwan, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM E. KIRWAN, CO-CHAIR, TASK 

FORCE ON FEDERAL REGULATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 

ROCKVILLE, MD 

Mr. KIRWAN. Good morning. I’m Brit Kirwan, chancellor emeritus 

of the University System of Maryland. I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott and the members of the 

committee for the opportunity to speak about streamlining and refocusing Federal regulations impacting higher education today. 

I’m here this morning to provide commentary on the report of a 

commission created by four members of the Senate HELP Committee: Chairman Lamar Alexander and Senators Barbara Mikulski, Michael Bennet, and Richard Burr. The commission consisted 

of 16 college and university presidents and chancellors from across 

all sectors of higher education. I was privileged to co-chair the commission with Nick Zeppos, chancellor of Vanderbilt University. 

The charge to the commission was to study and recommend ways 

to reduce the Federal regulatory burden on colleges and universities, while maintaining vitally important protections for students, 

families, and taxpayers. We in higher education recognize, with 

deep gratitude, the extraordinary fiscal commitment the Federal 

Government makes to our enterprise. Therefore, we recognize and 

embrace our obligation to be transparent, responsible, and accountable stewards of taxpayer money. 

Through the task force’s work, we learned that many regulations 

are well developed to address critically important issues and provide appropriate measures of institutional accountability. On the 

other hand, we also discovered that too many regulations are poorly framed, confusing, overly complex, ill-conceived, or poorly executed. 

The problem is exacerbated by the sheer volume of mandates, 

rules and regulations, and subregulations. There are more than 

4,000 pages of text in the Higher Education Act and related documents. Placed on the floor, these pages would rise to a height of 

between 4 and 5 feet. And the volume grows daily since the Department of Education issues official guidance to amend or clarify 

its rules at a rate of more than one document sent to our institutions every working day throughout the year. 

Over time, requirements have been layered upon requirements, 

resulting in a tangle of regulations and an ever-increasing cost of 

compliance, which, quite frankly, is a factor driving rising tuitions 

and harming affordability efforts. 

This last point is very important. Clearly, all colleges and universities, public and private, need to tighten their belts, reduce costs 

wherever possible, and emphasize efficiency in their operations, 

and this has been happening at institutions across the country. The 

reality is that the cost of regulations must either be passed on the 

students in the form of higher prices or in a reduction of services 

to them. 

The task force report highlighted 10 of the most problematic regulations identified through our conversations with stakeholders. In 

total, the full report identifies 59 unduly burdensome regulations 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

with proposed streamlining solutions. The Senate HELP Committee, I understand, reached agreement on the vast majority of 

these recommendations. 

I’m pleased to note that the House supported and the Department has already moved forward to address one of our recommendations, namely, the use of prior-prior tax data in the student aid verification process. 

In addition to looking at specific regulations of concern, the task 

force also examined ways to improve the process by which regulations are developed and implemented. Our report contains several 

ideas for reforms in this area, and I will highlight just two. 

First, the Department should recognize when institutions are 

acting in good faith. Very few violations of Federal regulations are 

deliberate or reflect negligence by institutions, nor are all violations equally serious. 

For example, in the summer of 2014, the University of Nebraska at Kearney was fined $10,000 for mistakenly misclassifying a 2009 

incident involving the theft of $45 worth of goods from an unlocked 

custodian’s closet as a larceny rather than a burglary. Because the 

Clery Act does not require the reporting of larceny, the university 

did not report the incident on its annual security report. In an 

audit, the Department ruled that the incident was a burglary, in 

the Department’s opinion, and fined the institution the $10,000. 

Second, the Department should be required to act in a timely 

manner when conducting program reviews and investigating and 

resolving complaints. While institutions are required to adhere to 

strict timelines in terms of responding to agency requests, there’s 

no time limits imposed on the Department in terms of issuing a 

final determination after a program review. 

By way of example, in May 2013, Yale University was ordered 

to repay financial aid funds based on a Department of Education 

audit undertaken in 1996. The repayment was in 2013. Taking 

over 17 years to complete a program review and issue fines should 

not be considered acceptable. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to present some of the 

task force’s recommendations, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The testimony of Mr. Kirwan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 23842.007
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 23842.008
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 23842.009
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 23842.010
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 23842.011
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 23842.012
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 23842.013
27 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Dr. Kirwan. 

Dr. Cruz, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOSE ́ LUIS CRUZ, PRESIDENT, LEHMAN 

COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, BRONX, NY 

Mr. CRUZ. Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning. My name is Jose ́ Luis Cruz. I am the proud president of 

Lehman College of the City University of New York. 

Lehman College serves 13,000 undergraduate and graduate students across 90 degree programs, plus 12,000 students in certificate 

and workforce development programs. Fifty percent of Lehman undergraduates have a household income of less than $30,000, 80 percent are students of color, and 41 percent speak a language other 

than English at home. 

The perspectives I bring today have been shaped by my personal 

experiences as a student who benefited from Federal and State aid, 

a faculty member and administrator at three large university systems, and an advocate for low-income students and students of 

color. 

We can all agree on the importance of our post-secondary education system, particularly in today’s economy, but right now our 

system is far too inequitable. Low-income students today enroll in 

college at rates lower than high-income students did in the mid1970s and are far more likely to enroll in institutions that graduate 

few of their students and create disproportionate debt. 

Lehman College and other public 2- and 4-year institutions are 

tackling these inequities head-on. A comprehensive study by the 

Equality of Opportunity Project concluded that mid-tier public universities have the highest mobility rate of any sector. The City University of New York alone propelled almost six times as many lowincome students into the middle class than all the eight Ivy League 

campuses, plus Duke, MIT, Stanford, and Chicago combined. 

So how are we doing this? Lehman and the City University of 

New York, like many other 2- and 4-year colleges across the country, are creating alternate and well-coordinated pathways, improving graduation rates, and reducing the time it takes our students 

to graduate with a degree or a certificate, and establishing publicprivate partnerships in leading-edge workforce development areas. 

Programs like the City University of New York’s Accelerated Study 

in Associate Programs, also known as ASAP, and Lehman’s adult 

degree program are just two examples of how colleges and universities are committed to an equity-focused system. 

These practices are changing the lives of students, and with the 

right policy environment and sufficient investment, they could be 

replicated across more institutions in the Nation. What we need, 

however, are equity-driven investments and policies to help move 

the work forward. I’ve often heard that the Federal Government 

has no more money left, but from my experience managing budgets, it’s all about where your priorities are at. 

My written testimony details several investment and policy recommendations to tackle inequities. Specifically, I want to highlight 

the importance of four of them. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

28 

One, establishing a well-thought-out Federal-State partnership 

focused on renewing State investments, which have decreased by 

20 percent since 1990, and focused on ameliorating funding inequities among colleges and universities within a given State. 

Two, investing in the Pell Grant program and strengthening it 

for the future. Pell’s buying power has decreased significantly since 

its inception, forcing low-income students to disproportionately borrow more money for college. 

Three, strengthening the direct loan program by reducing interest rates and simplifying and expanding eligibility of repayment 

options. 

And four, improving the quality of data available. With the right 

infrastructure, the burden would be minimal and the data far more 

actionable. 

We must also ensure strong protection exists for students and 

families. The gainful employment rule, restrictions on incentive 

compensation, and enactment of borrower defense have gone a long 

way to protect taxpayers and students from the worst for-profit colleges. Congress should strengthen these provisions, not weaken 

them, and improve accreditation to ensure Federal aid goes to the 

highest-quality institutions. 

In closing, I believe that we can and must do a better job of 

building a system that sustains rather than erodes opportunity. 

Thank you. 

[The testimony of Mr. Cruz follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 23842.014
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 23842.015
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 23842.016
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 23842.017
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 23842.018
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 23842.019
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 23842.020
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 23842.021
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 23842.022
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 23842.023
39 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Dr. Cruz. 

Mr. Gilligan, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. KEVIN GILLIGAN, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CAPELLA EDUCATION COMPANY, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Scott, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is 

Kevin Gilligan, and I’m the chairman and CEO of Capella Education Company. I’m honored to be in front of this committee as a 

voice for innovation in higher education and the American workforce. 

Before I discuss our work in the innovation space, I’d like to echo 

the comments of my fellow panelists around the challenges presented by the complexity and density of higher education regulation and the barriers they can present to new models and improving outcomes. We have a set of policy priorities that I’d like the opportunity to introduce to the congressional record. 

Our strategic focus at Capella is to create the most direct path 

between learning and career advancement. We want to lead the 

way in closing the skills gap. We do this through both Capella University, which is an online, competency-based, adult-serving institution where our average-age student is 40 years old and more 

than 50 percent of our students are learners of color, and offerings 

outside of the degreed education space focused on providing employers and individuals with job-ready skills needed to compete in 

the 21st century economy. 

In my written testimony, I focus on four areas of innovation we’d 

like to highlight for the committee. In my opening statement today, 

I’ll touch briefly on two opportunities for innovation. 

Three years ago, I came before this committee to discuss our 

FlexPath program, and I welcome the chance to update you on 

what we’ve learned. In 2013, Capella University became the first 

institution in the country to offer bachelor’s and master degree programs approved by the Department of Education that measured 

learning through the direct assessment of competencies instead of 

the accumulation of credit hours. 

Today we offer eight programs within this competency-based direct assessment model with over 3,000 FlexPath students and more 

than 500 FlexPath graduates. Students earn the same degree as in 

our credit hour model, but FlexPath provides a different model for 

earning the degree. 

Direct assessment works by decoupling student learning from 

time. As you know, the credit hour is the current foundation of 

higher education used to measure degree progress and around 

which Federal financial aid is based. In some cases, we do not believe that time-based tools constitute the best measurement of student progress, especially for the adult contemporary student. What 

matters is knowledge gained, not the amount of time it took to gain 

it. This decoupling allows students to move through their programs 

without any wasted time or money. 

We have seen firsthand that FlexPath can be a powerful tool for 

saving students time and money. Our early experience shows that 

our FlexPath graduates paid 58 percent less for their bachelor’s deCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

gree than the graduates from our traditional online programs, and 

FlexPath graduates borrowed 40 percent less in Federal student 

loan funds than the traditional credit hour graduates. 

Competency-based direct assessment programs like FlexPath are 

a powerful example of how seemingly minor changes to policy can 

create the space for innovation to help eliminate a barrier to access 

while providing the potential for significant cost savings to the student and the Federal Government. 

During your important work on reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, we hope you will take the opportunity to develop smart, 

responsible policy around competency-based direct assessment. 

Existing Federal financial aid rules are structured around the 

traditional credit hour format, and those rules stifle the opportunity to fully realize the power of the direct assessment model. 

Often, schools have to retrofit a direct assessment program into 

Title IV requirements in ways that create confusion for students, 

institutional burden, and limits the ability of programs to meet the 

needs of the contemporary student. 

In my written testimony, I’ve outlined four areas where I believe 

policy can be changed to ensure direct assessment models are 

available to students in a way that allows for innovation without 

lowering the bar on quality or creating the conditions for a race to 

the bottom. 

One innovation I’d like to discuss outside the degreed space is 

our RightSkill program. RightSkill is a partnership formed with 

CareerBuilder to build a net new supply of job-ready candidates for 

positions where significant supply-demand imbalances exist. We’re 

combining CareerBuilder data with Capella’s competency-based expertise to create a program aimed at closing the skill gap at scale 

in critical need areas within the workforce. 

While it is still in the early stages, we have now placed over 200 

candidates in jobs, and we’re partnering with nearly 30 employers, 

who are showing significant excitement for this program. This partnership is an example of the innovation that can come from the private sector. 

These examples of innovation are just a few in a crowded landscape of exciting new models. As policymakers, you’re gathering at 

a moment of unique opportunity to craft Federal policy to remove 

barriers to innovation, strengthen outcomes, simplify our system of 

education financing, and highlight innovations in the private sector. 

Let me close, Chairwoman Foxx, by thanking you and Ranking 

Member Scott for the opportunity to come here today and engage 

in a conversation about innovation and new models. 

[The testimony of Mr. Gilligan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 23842.024
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 23842.025
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 23842.026
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 23842.027
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 23842.028
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 23842.029
47 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilligan. 

I will begin the questioning today and then invite my colleagues 

to join me in order. 

Dr. Kirwan, I read in your report that institutions spend 26.1 

million hours annually completing DOE-mandated forms alone. 

These numbers are staggering. Couldn’t this money and time be 

better spent on serving students? 

And if we do our part to reduce meaningfully the burden of Federal regulation and reporting requirements on colleges and universities, do you think that could make a real impact on the cost of 

college that students and families currently face? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

Absolutely, I do. There is just no question that the regulatory 

burden and the reporting requirements add significant costs to our 

institutions. There was a study done at Stanford some years ago, 

and their estimate was that reporting requirements added 7-1/2 

cents to every tuition dollar for a student at Stanford. A study at 

Hartwick College, a private liberal arts school, produced similar 

kinds of data. 

So there’s just no question that this is adding to the cost of operating a university and either requiring increases in tuition or reducing services that we could provide to students. So rather than 

having staff who are working on regulatory reporting, it would be 

better to have those same staff advising students about their 

progress towards a degree. So we definitely have concluded that 

improvements could be made if there wasn’t such a heavy regulatory burden. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

Dr. Akers, in your testimony you discussed some of the realities 

around student loan debt. It’s a popular topic these days, and with 

$1.3 trillion outstanding, it’s clear why it is. But I agree there’s 

misinformation out there about what’s actually happening. Can you 

speak to who is borrowing the most and who’s most likely to default on their loans -- you indicated a little bit of that in your testimony -- and why that borrowing is not always paying off? 

Ms. AKERS. Certainly. So I think there’s a pretty widely held 

misconception that, in fact, it’s the borrowers who have the greatest outstanding debts who are in the most trouble. Research tells 

us through a number of different studies that, in fact, it’s borrowers who have less than $5,000 in debt who are most likely to 

be in default or have other measures of financial distress, like 

being late on other sorts of financial obligations, like cell phone 

bills and mortgage payments and things like that. 

It’s important to reconcile this fact with this misconception, because some of the existing policy proposals assume that this is the 

case. For instance, refinancing would work very well as a solution 

to help borrowers if it was, in fact, those high-balance borrowers 

who are struggling the most, but since it’s not, refinancing actually 

would be delivering benefits to people who need it the least. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

I want to go very quickly with this question, Mr. Gilligan, and 

see if we can get it answered. 

During the Obama administration, we noticed a coordinated attack on the proprietary sector. Gainful employment borrower deCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

fense were allegedly created to protect students, but what we saw 

were policies doing exactly the opposite. 

As you and I both know, the proprietary sector tends to serve 

low-income and hardest-to-serve students, and these policies have 

forced schools to roll back programs. From your experience, how 

have these types of regulations and other actions by the Department hindered your ability to serve the needs of your students? Are 

there any actions in particular by the Department that you believe 

should either be repealed or modified? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

So I would start responding by saying that Capella believes 

strongly that institutions should be transparent about their outcomes and accountable for student outcomes and be good stewards 

of Federal financial aid. So we need regulation, but the regulation 

needs to be responsible and commonsense and not lead to unintended consequences. So I’d give you two examples of recent regulations that I think were well intended but would in practice create 

challenges. 

In the case of gainful employment, by establishing a one-size-fitsall debt-to-income metric, it puts pressure on important professional areas for degrees in teaching and counseling and social work 

where because of programmatic requirements for those degrees 

there’s pressure on costs, but because of an arbitrary debt-to-income ratio, if you don’t meet that ratio, those programs cannot be 

offered through Federal financial aid, and that will ultimately have 

the impact of limiting access or reducing the number of programs 

that students can take advantage of. So I would say that’s an example of an issue with gainful employment. 

With respect to borrower defense repayment, we certainly agree 

that students who are deliberately misled or defrauded by their institution should have remedies for that and be protected, but our 

comment on borrower defense, like many institutions, was that the 

rule was poorly written, it lacks due process, and involves overreach. And we’re particularly concerned about the changes made to 

the financial responsibility requirements and the arbitrary way in 

which they can be administered. 

We’ve submitted written comments on this, so we invite you to 

read those if you’d like to understand our concerns better, and we 

hope that Congress and the Department will revisit these rules to 

create a more responsible version. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilligan. 

Congressman Scott, you’re recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Chair, I told our side, since you always defer 

to the end, that I’ll defer to Ms. Bonamici. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I’m sorry. 

Ms. Bonamici, then you’re recognized. 

I’m sorry. Thank you. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member Scott. 

Madam Chairwoman, in your opening statement you brought up 

a $27 billion compliance cost to make a point about overregulation 

of colleges and universities. And, unfortunately, this figure comes 

from a flawed study that does not actually estimate what its promoters suggest. It does not measure actual compliance costs. It acCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

tually states no distinction was made in costs that were incremental to what the university would do in the absence of regulation, and very little of what the report describes is actually specific 

to higher education. In fact, 80 percent of the purported $146 million -- this was at Vanderbilt -- has to do with rules about research, 

like protecting human subjects in medical research. So we 

shouldn’t rely on this report for policymaking. 

And I wanted to follow up on Dr. Kirwan. You talked about a 

task force. When I was in the state legislature, you we all agree 

that nobody wants unnecessary regulations, and I sponsored and 

passed a K-12 mandate relief bill to repeal several statutes and 

regulations. And it had strong bipartisan support, because we 

worked with all of the stakeholders, the Department of Education, 

the teachers, the school boards, the administrators, the school employees association. And I hope we can approach this issue in a 

similar way with the input of all of the stakeholders. 

Like my colleague Mr. Norcross, I started at community college 

and then worked my way through a 4-year university and law 

school. And when I graduated, I took a job in public service and 

still had little difficulty repaying the manageable amount of debt 

that I accumulated during my 7 years of higher education. So I 

know that this experience is less common. This is a critical issue 

to be discussing. 

And, Dr. Cruz, I want to ask you, we’ve heard a lot recently 

about institutions that have defrauded students and fabricated job 

placement rates, the sudden closure of ITT Educational Services, 

for example, and now there are investigations by State attorneys 

general, the SEC, the Department of Justice. That’s one example 

of an unscrupulous for-profit school that collected Title IV dollars 

and left students with an education of little value and poor job 

prospects. 

And you mentioned the importance of protecting students from 

being defrauded. Can you explain the accountability mechanisms 

that exist for public institutions and how they differ from the forprofit institutions? 

And I do want to have time for another question. 

Mr. CRUZ. Thank you. So the accountability mechanisms are 

similar for both, for public and for-profit institutions. What varies 

is the level of scrutiny to which each of the sectors are held accountable. In the case of the for-profit sector, we have the Federal 

regulations, we have State authorization, and we have the accreditation of programs, just as we do for the publics. 

But the problem is that in the case of the for-profits, State authorization is fairly symbolic. Institutions have to basically state 

that they in fact exist. And from the standpoint of accreditation, it 

has not been as strong as we would like in terms of verifying that 

the programs are, in fact, high-quality programs. In fact, an accreditation agency was recently deauthorized from doing that work because they had been authorizing some of the bad actors that you 

mentioned earlier. 

So basically what we’re left with is just the Federal oversight, 

which is currently primarily enforcing the gainful employment regulations. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

On the public side, you have the Federal, you have the State, 

and you have the accreditation. And the State is much stronger, because they basically go do things like authorize programs and also 

determine whether or not the institutions can increase tuition. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

And I want to ask Dr. Akers and Dr. Cruz, last Congress I introduced a bipartisan bill to help borrowers, particularly distressed 

borrowers, continue to make affordable payments based on their income. And I know, Dr. Akers, you talked about income-based repayment. The bill uses tax data to automatically recertify borrowers’ income. It’s a response to the research that suggests that 

more than half of the borrowers don’t recertify on time, sometimes 

causing a sudden spike in payments. 

Do you agree that this committee and the Department of Education should take steps to simplify the repayment processes, especially for struggling borrowers, by including automating income recertification for borrowers in income-driven repayment plans? We 

worked very hard with the Department of Education and the 

Treasury on this. 

Ms. AKERS. I fully support this step, as it’s very clear that the 

complexity in the repayment system is very likely driving many 

borrowers into default needlessly when there are safety nets that 

could be supporting them. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Dr. Cruz. 

Mr. CRUZ. I support it as well. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

One more thing. In Oregon we have the Oregon Manufacturing 

Innovation Center. It’s an exciting new collaboration of businesses, 

higher education partners, and workforce development folks. And I 

just want quick input on how we can support collaborative initiatives like this that recognize the needs of students, workers, and 

businesses to build on the strengths of our innovation economy. 

Dr. Cruz. 

Mr. CRUZ. I think providing incentives for more of these collaborations to move forward would be very valuable. As we all know, 

the skill gaps across the country are primarily regional in nature. 

So to the extent that we can provide basic support for these coordinating bodies, we will likely be able to see some success. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Walberg, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the panel 

being here. 

Mr. Gilligan, you focused in the area of competencies in your testimony, and I appreciate that, the skills gap issues that are there, 

the most efficient way to address this problem. I think in the, I believe, 3 years since you last testified in front of this committee, 

that’s still a problem, and I appreciate the uniqueness that Capella 

seems to bring to the process. And the fact that you’re still around, 

I think, indicates that as well. 

In talking with my manufacturers, with small business all across 

the spectrum, education as well, we’re still finding that skills gap, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

of actually dealing with what takes place in the marketplace, what 

takes place on the manufacturing floor, what takes place in the office structure, doesn’t always match up with what the student has 

come out. And, again, in significant debt at times, but a process by 

which they paid for an education, and yet it doesn’t meet the real 

world situation. 

Can you describe the work Capella has done to align the competencies being taught to students with what employers want in 

order to better meet the needs of the American workforce? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

So we do it in two different ways. In our degree programs, we 

work with employers and professional organizations to understand 

what are the competencies that individuals need to successfully 

perform the job that we’re trying to re-skill or up-skill them for, 

and then we design those competencies into our curriculum, and 

then we teach to those competencies and we assess our students 

against those competencies. 

So when a Capella University student graduates, they not only 

have a classical transcript that we’re familiar with from traditional 

colleges, but they have a competency portfolio that they can then 

use with the employer to demonstrate these are the competencies 

that I demonstrated proficiency or mastery over during my course 

work at Capella. That’s very valuable to the student in being able 

to articulate what they know and what they can do, which is really 

what employers want to understand, but it’s also valuable to the 

employer to translate that into the workplace. 

So we’ve been designing our programs that way for over 10 

years, and it’s one of the reasons, I think, just to go back to gainful 

employment for a minute, that the income data on our graduates 

compare so favorably to other institutions. I think we’ve got very 

relevantly designed programs aimed at exactly what the employer’s 

looking at. 

What we’re increasingly seeing, though, is that a degree is not 

always the answer, and this is why we developed our RightSkill 

program by focusing with employers on what are jobs you can’t fill, 

what are the skills and competencies needed in those jobs. So an 

example might be front-end web development or information security. We design learning solutions around those competencies. We 

then find individuals we think are qualified to be successful in 

those fields, we train them and place them with the employer. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is there continued feedback with the employer as 

you go through this process as well? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. So in the case of our degree-based programs, we’re 

able to track with employers how learners perform based on the 

competencies we taught them. In the case of RightSkill, and this 

is a newer model, but we’re working with the employer to place. 

And the employer actually pays us for the placement, and we guarantee the employer that if that person we place doesn’t work out 

within a period of time, we’ll replace that person at our cost. So 

there is an accountability mechanism that goes back to the employer. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Let me go on. How can Congress encourage 

more direct alignments between learning institutions and employCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

ers in a way that strengthens the workforce and ultimately drives 

down the cost of education? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Well, I spoke earlier about our FlexPath program, 

and we’re finding that FlexPath is very innovative, not just for the 

consumer, because it reduces the amount of time and cost to get 

the degree, but it also does align to the employer. Anything we can 

do to create greater flexibility in the system, keeping in mind we’re 

serving working adults. These are people that are working fulltime, raising families, maybe supporting extended families, and 

trying to fit college into their incredibly busy lives. And so the more 

flexible we can make it the better. 

So FlexPath, I think, has gone a long way to doing that, but 

there’s still a requirement in the Federal financial aid system to tie 

direct assessment programs back in certain ways to the credit hour 

and to seat time. That creates complexity, it confuses the student, 

and creates administrative burden. And in our written testimony, 

I’ve provided some examples of some simple changes we can make 

that I think would achieve a higher level of flexibility without compromising academic quality. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. My time has expired, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. 

Congresswoman Davis, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I greatly 

appreciate our starting this set of hearings and have the ability to 

really look freshly, I think, at what we even think of as higher education and how it is moving forward past high school in many different ways. And a lot of you have spoken about that and the multiple pathways. 

I wanted, Dr. Kirwan, to just ask you briefly about your experience on the task force. And I know you said that you saw that 

there were certainly some transparent and responsible ways to 

work with protections for students and for institutions, and at the 

same time there are areas where that is a problem, and I certainly 

understand that. And as a former school board member, I can relate to that as well. 

But I wanted to ask you, because recently we’ve heard that some 

of the protections might be looked at, and I was concerned about 

that. Title IX protections regarding sexual assault falls within the 

important role of the Federal Government that you acknowledged 

in your statement. I’m wondering what you think about a recent 

comment, and you may have not seen that, but in Reuters where 

Mr. Falwell, the recently appointed head of the President’s higher 

education task force, would push to remove these safeguards. Any 

thought about that? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Davis. 

The task force did not in any way suggest the elimination of 

these protections. In fact, I think there’s a consensus, a uniform 

view in higher education that the goals of the Clery Act and the 

Uniform Crime Reporting, et cetera, are very important. 

The issue we did raise in the task force is the confusion between 

some of the new reporting requirements and the Clery Act. Activities have been defined as crimes in the Clery Act that are not considered crimes in the Uniform Reporting Act. So the only comment 

we made on this issue is that we would suggest that the Congress 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

get the Department of Justice to clarify so that there is a consistent definition of what crimes should be reported both in Clery 

and in the Uniform Reporting Act. But we are 100 percent in support of the goals of these protections. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, thank you. I appreciate that, and, again, for 

your service on the task force. We know that can be really valuable 

time that you’re giving, and I appreciate that. 

I wondered, Dr. Cruz, if you could share with us a little bit more 

about the ways in which we are collecting more data today and the 

importance of that and what you think are those data points that 

give students the information that they need to help them be the 

most informed going into this rather lengthy and very important 

and costly endeavor as they move forward in higher education. 

Mr. CRUZ. Thank you. I believe that we can do some improvements with our data systems that, if we do them right, will not be 

overly burdensome to the institutions but would go a long way to 

helping students and their families have the right information they 

need to make those decisions, and also to provide institutions an 

opportunity to actually have actionable data, data that they can 

look at and identify potential areas for improvement. 

So just in general, I would suggest that, for example, right now 

with the College Scorecard, we can see data on overall graduation 

rates, future earnings, debt levels, but that’s overall. If I’m a student or the parent of a student, I would want to know what are 

the odds and what do those statistics look like for students that 

look like me or my kid. And so if we could disaggregate that data 

so I can see what are the graduation rates for transfer students, 

for underrepresented minorities, for low-income students, that 

would be very helpful. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And is that information that the universities, colleges, schools have, even tech schools have? 

Mr. CRUZ. Yes, that is information we have and we collect and, 

in fact, we share. I had the privilege of working with Brit on the 

Access to Success Initiative where 22 systems across the country 

with over 312 campuses and more than 3.5 million students collaborated, defined some metrics to disaggregate, collaborated on 

the definitions -- 

Mrs. DAVIS. So that would not necessarily be burdensome on the 

schools to do that, to provide that information? 

Mr. CRUZ. Correct. 

Mrs. DAVIS. It shouldn’t be. All right. Thank you very much. I 

appreciate all of your testimony. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Congresswoman Davis. 

Congressman Guthrie, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. 

And this is important to me. Eighteen years ago when my young 

daughter was born, we were all happy and excited. Then I did the 

math. I said, wait a minute, she and her brother are going to be 

in the college at the same time. So I’ve got a senior and a freshman 

in college this year. And so -- and it’s not just my experiences with 

the expense of college. And we make -- it’s that those are the peers. 

You talk to the parents of your friend’s children, and so a lot of 

them are going through the affordability of college. And so it’s 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

something that I hear about quite a bit and experience. And not 

only experience, but hear about quite a bit. 

So I have a few questions first for Dr. Akers. In looking at our 

Federal aid system, I’m concerned about the perverse incentives to 

overborrow, and appreciate you raising the issue in your testimony. 

Can you expand a bit on what those incentives are and discuss 

ways we could address them in reauthorization? 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. So I think the place where this comes into play 

the most is with the forgiveness provisions and the current incomedriven repayment plans that are available to borrowers. So once 

borrowers hit a particular level of borrowing, they’re very likely to 

anticipate that they will be eligible for forgiveness in the future, 

which means that any marginal dollar that they borrow is a dollar 

that they will not have to pay back. 

And so the way that forgiveness is structured in the current program does create this perverse incentive for overborrowing. What 

I proposed is eliminating the forgiveness provisions as they’re written; instead, using the bankruptcy system as a means for dissolving borrowers of debts once they become financially insolvent. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. Thank you for the answer. 

And, Dr. Kirwan, I notice your undergraduate University of Kentucky. Go Cats. Hopefully we will get rolling again in the next few 

weeks. March is approaching so we need to get it going, right? 

I have a question for you. We’ve heard today from Capella about 

the exciting and innovative opportunities available to students 

through distance education. And I know the University of Maryland has been doing really great work in this space as well. In your 

written testimony, you mentioned the State authorization of distance education regulation as one the top ten most problematic regulations. Can you elaborate on why this regulation is so toxic for 

the growth of innovative online programs? 

Mr. KIRWAN. I am happy to do so, Congressman Guthrie. Historically, both Congress and the Department of Education have required that an institution offering a degree program need only seek 

authorization in within the State with which it’s located. What this 

distance education reg from the Department of Education attempts 

to do is to require authorization in every State where there is at 

least one student taking a distance education program. 

And the problem this creates is, is that a distance education program from, say, the University of Maryland University College, 

they would have to expend the funds to go to every State, get a 

lawyer, go through the process, and get approval for that program 

in the State. And that’s just an unreasonable cost to bear. And so 

there’s, you know, an example already of where Vanderbilt University developed a distance education program. Because of this reg, 

they decided not to let the program be taken in various States. 

So we would very much hope -- you know, this has been a very 

contentious issue in the higher education community. Congress has 

spoken out, the House has spoken out about its displeasure with 

this. And we would very much hope that in the reauthorization 

process it would be clarified that the requirement for obtaining authorization is only in the State where the institution exists is delivering the program. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you for that answer. I know you’ve led and 

you’ve been president of and led systems in great universities, but 

your loyalty is always to your undergraduate institution. Right? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Go Cats. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So, Mr. Gilligan, in your testimony you mentioned 

the success you’ve had with FlexPath program over the last several 

years. Can you provide a little more detail about how the program 

works and how it allows students with the opportunity to complete 

their program more quickly and with less cost than a traditional 

degree? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yes, Congressman, happy to. So FlexPath -- the 

fundamental difference between a FlexPath program and a credit 

hour program is in the FlexPath program you earn your degree by 

demonstrating competencies as opposed to accumulating credit 

hours. So students are decoupled from the credit hours standard, 

which allows them to move faster. And this is particularly effective 

for working adults, and that’s who we serve. We bring a lot of competency into the course room by virtue of the work experience. So 

it’s the ability to move faster that creates the value for them. 

And we offer FlexPath on a subscription pricing basis, so there’s 

12-week cycles, and we charge between $2,200 and $2,500 a cycle. 

And in that cycle, students can consume or demonstrate as many 

competencies as they’re able to. So students see the opportunity to 

go quickly, leverage a subscription model, and that’s where we’re 

seeing dramatically lower completion costs. 

And I would mention most of our bachelor students are degree 

completers. It’s very rare that a Capella student gets their entire 

undergraduate degree at Capella. So typically, we’re looking at people that are bring some transfer credits in, they never finished 

their degree at the bachelor level, and they’re looking for a way to 

get it done. 

And if I can just quickly mention, a woman at Capella, a 

FlexPath graduate by the name of Connie Pash recently was at a 

White House meeting on innovation and higher education, and she 

was one of four people talking about her experience as an innovative model, and she’s an FlexPath graduate. And what she said 

was, ‘‘I would not have gone back to college unless I could take advantage of the flexibility and affordability that FlexPath offered.’’ 

And what she was really saying is the credit hour model didn’t 

work for me. And I can tell you that there’s a lot of Connie’s out 

there. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. I’m running out of time. 

I yield back. Thank you for the answer. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Courtney, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you 

for holding this hearing. We’re about 3 years late in terms of a 

higher ed reauthorization. So hopefully this is a good sign we’re 

going to move forward. And again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for your thoughtful testimony this morning. 

Professor Akers, in particular I wanted to salute your comments 

regarding the notion that restoring private sector participation in 

Federal student lending is really not the best path to move forward 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

on. That idea kind of keeps popping up in the political atmosphere 

or ether that’s out there right now. 

But again, just to drive that point home, I mean, to have private 

lenders originate loans but have the Federal Government there to 

insure it. I mean, there really is just no logic in terms of protecting 

the taxpayers with that kind of an arrangement. We sort of went 

through that whole process both under the Bush administration 

and the Obama administration, but maybe you could elucidate a 

little bit more on that. 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. Just to clarify my remarks, I did indicate that 

I thought a return to the FFEL lending program -- 

Mr. COURTNEY. Right. 

Ms. AKERS. -- would be a step in the wrong direction. I don’t 

think that incorporating private -- the private lending industry into 

student lending more broadly is a bad direction to be headed. I just 

prefer to see that happen through the paring back or potentially 

the elimination of loan eligibility for parents and graduate students 

so that the market can serve those populations independently of 

participating through a Federal lending -- 

Mr. COURTNEY. Sure. And I’d like to sort of go into that too. Also, 

we just passed a measure in terms of loan forgiveness for people 

going to pediatric subspecialties last year. It was either part of the 

Cures Act or the -- it was the Cures Act. And, again, that was the 

result of a painful process post-Sandy Hook, in terms of recognizing 

that we have an appalling shortage of pediatric psychiatry in the 

country. That’s really being driven by the fact that the reimbursement for people who go into that really important profession just 

does not make it sustainable in terms of paying back student loans. 

So admittedly, it’s through the National Health Service Corps 

and not through the other program, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. But I would argue that there are really good 

reasons why we have set up loan forgiveness that is not creating 

inefficiencies, it’s just making sure that we have critical workforce 

professions filled for our kids and for other people, particularly in 

the healthcare system. 

Ms. AKERS. There are absolutely good reasons to be providing 

subsidies to different professions in public service. I’d commend 

those efforts because it sounds like those were appropriate places 

to do that. The objection I have is providing those subsidies 

through the Federal lending programs. We have a problem, huge 

problem with complexity in this system. Layering subsidies in 

through the repayment system compounds the complexity of the 

system. And it’s also an inefficient way of subsidizing those types 

of employment. I’d much prefer to see those subsidies be delivered 

through a different mechanism, potentially through the Tax Code. 

Mr. COURTNEY. All right. Well, I mean, certainly, we’re all ears 

in terms of those kinds of ideas. I just would say that you constructed a while ago in one of the prior questions that people are 

overborrowing because they know there’s loan forgiveness at the 

process there. I have a hard time sort of really believing that students or families are sort of calculating their borrowing decisions 

based on having to exhaust the loan forgiveness program which 

takes decades. I don’t think people think that way. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

And I think they’re doing it because tuition is really high and 

they believe that there’s a gainful employment opportunity that’s 

going to take care of the debt, not that they’re trying to game the 

system in terms of getting loans forgiven. 

Ms. AKERS. I think you’re right, actually. I do think that there 

is a perverse incentive that exists for a particular group of borrowers. It’s probably a small group of borrowers. I think you’re 

right that the majority of the growth that we’ve seen in student 

debt over the past two decades is driven largely by increases in 

price and not through this type of gaming behavior. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Right. Thank you. And so, again, you’re an economist who follows the economy closely. Just maybe a pop question, 

pop quiz, do you know what the 10-year Treasury rate is today? 

Ms. AKERS. I do not. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Okay. It’s 2.46 percent. And one thing -- I raise 

that point because when people take Stafford loans with a 10-year 

term, and particularly those who took it out in prior years, there 

is a legacy interest rate that far surpasses what the government 

is charging for its borrowing needs. And for the government to be 

basically making a profit off the differential is just totally unacceptable. And we need to set up a system where people can write 

down their interest rates at least to a comparable level as the Federal Government. This is not loan forgiveness; this is just refinancing, which we do in other sectors of the economy, whether it’s 

housing, credit cards, et cetera. We need to do it with student 

loans. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Messer, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this important hearing. 

You know, as we’ve talked about often in this committee, our 

Federal higher education policy is largely built on access and providing greater access to every American. By that measure it’s been 

wildly successful. Of course, in today’s world a couple of things 

have changed. One, if you’re going to get an economic benefit from 

college, you’ve got to complete a degree. And if you don’t, you have 

debt, you’re in a lot of trouble. 

So part of what this hearing is about is thinking about innovation. I’ve got three different questions I hope to hit in my 4-1/2 

minutes. We’ll see if I get to all three. 

I want to start with Dr. Akers. And I appreciated in your testimony that you mentioned income share agreements and how that 

is not a silver bullet but an innovative approach to providing access 

to college. In my home State of Purdue, under Governor Mitch 

Daniels’ leadership they’ve created a back boiler program that has 

been very successful right out of the gate. 

And I would ask if you could explain, first, just the concept of 

what an income share agreement is, some of the legal challenges 

that is there at the outset of trying to start this new idea, and any 

thoughts you might have on Federal policy that we could implement to help encourage them. 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. So just to give a basic primer, income share 

agreements are, essentially, a contract between a lender or a finanCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

cial institution and a student, where the student takes money up 

front from that lender or from the financial institution to pay their 

cost of attending higher education. In exchange, they don’t make 

fixed payments but instead, they promise to deliver a fixed portion, 

a fixed percentage of their income back to the financier. 

So the reason that this is a system that works quite well is because it solves two of the problems that students have. First, they 

need cash up front when they’re very likely to have cash in the future because of the heightened employment opportunities that 

come from going to college. And two, they need risk mitigation. So 

going to college is a risky thing. Students don’t know with certainty 

what their future employment outcomes are going to look like. 

And so if we want to encourage more people to go into college, 

we need to ensure those outcomes in some way. Income share 

agreements succeed in doing that because, rather than making a 

fixed payment, students pay back in proportion to the earnings 

that they ultimately receive. 

So right now, income share agreements are an emerging market. 

The reason we don’t have more growth in this industry, I believe, 

is because there’s lack of certainty around the regulation -- 

Mr. MESSER. So you can do it by contract, right? And some folks 

are. But the point you’re making is because it’s not clear in the law 

what the boundaries of this agreement is, some folks see as a risky 

investment. 

Ms. AKERS. That’s right. So it’s on the capital side where this is 

the problem. So the contracts are sort of clear. My sense is that the 

institutions that are offering these contracts are having difficulty 

raising capital to finance them because of the lack of certainty 

among investors. 

Mr. MESSER. And what would we need to do in Congress, I mean, 

just to essentially clarify that this is a legal way to conduct business and set some boundaries in how -- 

Ms. AKERS. Exactly right. So in particular, we would want to see 

what are the boundaries for consumer protections for these types 

of products. And I think the industry would welcome this clarification. 

Mr. MESSER. Great. Thanks. 

Next, I’d like to go quickly to Mr. Gilligan and follow up on Mr. 

Guthrie’s questions to you regarding FlexPath and competencybased education. A very exciting story that you told. 

Could you talk a little bit about some of the challenges? I think 

in your written testimony, you mentioned that the regulation requiring regular and substantive faculty intervention creates some 

challenges with these programs. 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yeah. So let me clarify that comment for you. So 

there are two things about our direct assessment model that are 

unique: One is that we are decoupled from the credit hours, as I 

said. The other is that the faculty’s at the center of the model. And 

what that means is the faculty defines the competencies, develops 

the curriculum, develops and administers the assessment, and provides instruction to the assessment process. 

It’s really critical to maintain that to ensure we have a high 

quality, robust direct assessment model for the future, because we 

don’t want to have a race to the bottom. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

Mr. MESSER. Yes. 

Mr. GILLIGAN. But as we have advances in new learning methods 

and educational learning technology, the role of the faculty is being 

defined. And I think we’re at a point where we should be revisiting 

what do we mean by regular and substantive faculty interactions. 

Mr. MESSER. And in 40 seconds, what should we -- how should 

we clarify that? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Well, I think we should have a conversation 

around where are the areas that the faculty can create the greatest 

value in the learning process and ensure that those are reinforced. 

And if there are technologies available to support one of those 

other ways, we ought to allow that into the conversation. 

Mr. MESSER. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cruz, I have some questions about reverse transfer agreements and how important it is to be able to transfer back. I’ll provide those to you in writing. Thank you for that innovative program as well. 

I yield back to the chairman. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Messer. 

Mr. Polis, I believe you are next, and I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx for convening this 

important hearing. I know that this is an important priority for Dr. 

Foxx and it is for me as well. 

My district includes two flagship universities, Colorado State 

University and University of Colorado Boulder, several community 

colleges, and Colorado Mountain College. I hear almost daily from 

constituents about the cost of higher education and affordability, 

everything from student loans to FAFSA, to the intimidating price 

tag that families face. 

I’m very optimistic that today’s hearing is the beginning of a 

thoughtful bipartisan conversation on how we can update the Higher Education Act to make more college more affordable and accessible. And I want to say I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle towards that end. 

First, I want to highlight one of the strategies for affordability, 

dual and concurrent enrollment. In Colorado, about 24,000 students participated in concurrent enrollment last year, students that 

take courses for college credit usually in partnership with a community college while still in high school. Students who participated 

were more likely to enroll in college, less likely to seek remediation. 

We had a number of students who graduated high school with an 

associate’s degree. Concurrent enrollment is truly a proven strategy 

for bringing down higher education costs. 

Dr. Cruz, can you discuss the benefits of concurrent enrollment 

for first-generation and low-income students, and specifically how 

exposure to concurrent enrollment in high school can support their 

access to college? 

Mr. CRUZ. Dual enrollment programs are a particularly interesting mechanism to help first-generation and low-income students 

earn academic credit that can accelerate their work once they get 

into college. But more importantly, as you mentioned, it provides 

them an opportunity to engage with the college environment. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

The City University of New York has a very strong dual enrollment program called CUNY Now that serves over 400 high schools 

in the city through 17 of our campuses. Lehman has one of these 

programs. We are in 60 schools and have around 1,700 students 

that come after school to Lehman to take classes with Lehman College faculty. And so we have seen directly the impact that this has 

on their ability to graduate. In fact, 30 percent of the freshmen in 

City University of New York were at some point part of these programs. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. And I do have a bipartisan bill we’ll be 

introducing soon with Representative Reed regarding support for 

dual and concurrent enrollment programs that I hope can be included in the Higher Education Authorization Act. 

Next, I want to mention another cost-cutting strategy, and that’s 

open source textbooks. Open source textbooks are openly licensed, 

free for use. As you know, on average, students spend over $1,200 

a year on books alone, one of the big detriments and one of the big 

components of the cost. 

Because tuition at community college is generally lower, the proportional cost for textbooks is even higher than it is at 4-year universities, and for students struggling to make ends meet after paying for tuition, living expenses, thousands of dollars in textbook 

costs often make college even less affordable than it is. 

Dr. Cruz, can you share what CUNY and Lehman College are 

doing to support access to open textbooks as a way of bringing 

down costs for students? 

Mr. CRUZ. Sure. So just a couple weeks ago, Lehman College announced the first recipients of a faculty fellowship project, a small 

grant that we’re doing to incentivize faculty to develop open textbooks for their courses. So we’re doing this for the first time now. 

More recently, my previous position was as a provost and VP of 

Academic Affairs at Cal State, Fullerton. In California, state law 

created an incentive for institutions to move in this direction, basically providing some grant funding for faculty, not necessarily to 

create their own materials, but look at existing materials and determine whether or not they could be adapted to their curriculum, 

particularly courses to have multiple sections and impact thousands of students. So there are ways that we can scale that up and 

accelerate progress across the country in this field. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

For Dr. Akers, I want to discuss income-base repayment. Now, 

there’s a number of proposals. There’s broad bipartisan support for 

income-base repayment, but there is the question of exactly what 

the parameters will look like. Some proposals suggest students pay 

10 or 15 percent of their income above a certain level, some allow 

forgiveness. I have had a bipartisan bill where repayment is capped 

at 150 percent of original value, but there’s not forgiveness. 

Can you speak to the specifics of income-base repayment? What 

percent is correct? How should we handle capping repayment? 

What do you think the kind of best practice IBR looks like? 

Ms. AKERS. I think, as I mentioned in my testimony, that the 

first job is to streamline the program into a single program. And 

I’ll have to admit, I’m -- 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

Mr. POLIS. To be clear, I think all of the reform proposals would 

do that. It’s a question of what that single program looks like. 

Ms. AKERS. Right. And I’ll refrain from commenting on what specific parameters I think would be best today. But I would encourage policymakers to think about setting those parameters with the 

thought in mind that they would be at least reconsidered in the future after there’s -- 

Mr. POLIS. And perhaps you can follow up with your analysis in 

writing so you can be more thoughtful about discussion of what 

those -- pros and cons of those different parameters are. I know 

that the committee would appreciate that as we move in this direction. 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. 

Mr. POLIS. I thank the chair, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Polis. 

Representative Lewis, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the 

guests for coming today. 

There’s -- obviously, in a hearing like this, there’s a lot of talk 

about repayment and financing and loan forgiveness, but I want to 

go back to the cost, especially as regards to taxpayers. As the chair 

pointed out in her opening statement, we’ve seen this massive escalation in the cost of higher ed. I’ve got a graph here in front of me 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing since 1996, the cost 

of food and beverage is up 64 percent; medical care, 105 percent; 

child care, 122 percent. They all pale in comparison to college tuition, up 197 percent. The only thing that beats that are textbooks, 

up 207 percent. 

Mr. Kirwan, you mentioned regulations in your testimony. I want 

to get a little bit more specific there as to what we can do to lower 

the cost. And everybody’s got these anecdotes, I understand that. 

But when I was going to undergrad, I think the tuition for a full 

load in a semester for 16 credits was $350. Now, this was in the 

early 1970s. That was a lot of fun before running water. It was a 

while ago. 

But the fact is we’ve got a cost crisis here. So we’ve spent all day 

trying to figure out what we’re going to do to forgive the loans or 

to finance it. What are the regulations that you would address that 

are driving the costs? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, thank you, Congressman Lewis. In our report, 

we’ve identified, and I think I said, 59 regulations that we feel 

have undue reporting requirements that are definitely driving up 

the cost. So we have a specific set of 59 recommendations -- regulations in our report that we have identified. And we’ve also proposed 

solutions that we think would streamline and lower the cost of 

compliance. 

In no way did the commission feel that higher education should 

not be regulated or that regulations aren’t an important an -- an 

important tool. We need to be held accountable. But we can 

streamline this process and take significant cost out of the operation of our institutions. 

I’ve referenced a study from Stanford University that said that 

regulation could be as much as 7 percent of the tuition costs at the 

student’s experience. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

Mr. LEWIS. Actually, there’s a study from Vanderbilt that says 

they spent 11 percent of the University’s entire budget complying 

with regulations. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Right, right. 

Mr. LEWIS. So that’s something we clearly need to look toward 

and delve into a little more. 

I also want to talk -- and I’ll address this to Dr. Akers. And I 

don’t know how to describe this, but I used to have a friend, who’s 

sadly passed away, but he was a shop teacher for 30 years in Minnesota. And he was a lifelong Democrat, I’m a lifelong Republican, 

but we used to lament the fact that so many high schools don’t 

have shop. We’re not introducing kids to a vo-tech training. It’s 

cheaper, the loans are lower, and they actually get a job when they 

get out from under that or out from school. 

Is there a general emphasis on a traditional 4-year liberal arts 

degree, in many cases costing, you know, even in public schools, 

$60,000, $70,000, $80,000, to the detriment of vo-tech in this current system? 

Ms. AKERS. I’m not so sure that policy has been -- played a big 

role in diminishing the role of vocations in our economy, but I do 

think that the rhetoric surrounding higher education has overcelebrated the bachelor’s degree as a pathway to financial success. It’s 

become in a way part of the American Dream, if you will. And I 

think that’s done a large disservice to students who would have 

been better served by alternative pathways to employment. 

Mr. LEWIS. And what can we do to expose students that may not 

be best suited or best served by a traditional 4-year liberal arts degree and get them into some sort of technical training? 

Ms. AKERS. That’s not a question I’m prepared to talk about 

today, but I’d be happy to follow up with you. 

Mr. LEWIS. Anybody else on the panel have an idea there? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Congressman, I would say continue to promote innovative new models. So I mentioned earlier, RightSkill is a model. 

College isn’t for everybody, and employers are having a difficult 

time finding skilled workers in not only technical categories but 

nontechnical categories, like customer service reps, entry-level recruiters. And using competency-base learning, you can develop very 

low cost, affordable learning solutions quickly. And when I say 

quickly, in a matter of a month equip an adult with the skills that 

would make them eligible for that job. 

Mr. LEWIS. Is that a euphemism for apprenticeships, what we 

used to call apprenticeship? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. No, no. It’s basically understanding -- let’s just 

take customer service rep job -- what are the critical competencies 

that the employer needs the candidate to be able to demonstrate. 

You map those into a curriculum. You teach the candidate those 

skills, you assess to validate that the candidates learn those skills, 

and you put them into the workplace. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Wilson, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Foxx and 

Ranking Member Scott for holding today’s hearing on higher eduCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

cation. And I thank the witnesses for sharing their testimony with 

us this morning. 

As a former educator, school board member, and the founder of 

the 5,000 Role Models of Excellence Project, a dropout prevention 

mentoring program in the Miami-Dade County public schools, I 

have been sending hundreds of boys of color to college for nearly 

25 years, also training them for the workforce in general. I know 

how difficult it can be to afford to go to college. That is why I support Pell grants and Parent PLUS loans, and upon graduation 

being able to pay off these loans in a manner that makes sense. 

I’ve introduced the Student Loan Borrowers Bill of Rights to provide basic protections to student loan borrowers, and the Student 

Loan Debt Protection Act to allow a borrower to discharge in bankruptcy a student loan. Less student debt benefits not only the student loan borrowers, but our Nation as a whole, since it allows 

them to have additional purchasing power which in turn boosts our 

economy, creates jobs, and increases the tax base. 

Dr. Akers, the existing Parent PLUS program makes Federal 

loans available to the parents of undergraduate students who are 

unable to pay tuition upfront. And these loans are particularly important to students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

Similarly, Federal loans to graduate students help ensure that 

graduate education isn’t restricted only to those able to pay out of 

pocket or find a cosigner with sterling credit. You’ve called for scaling back or eliminating Federal loans to parents and graduate students and turning this role over to private lenders. 

Private student loans carry higher interest rates than Federal 

loans for borrowers who have faced economic challenges in their 

lives. Furthermore, Federal loans to parents and graduate students 

already have the lowest default rates across all Federal student 

loans. 

Why, why should we replace this system with one that will 

charge more to students who already face economic disadvantages, 

if it doesn’t shut them out entirely, Dr. Akers? 

Ms. AKERS. Thanks for the question. It’s my belief that the role 

of the Federal Government in student lending is to step in where 

the private market would fall short. We -- it’s a bit up to speculation as to whether or not the parents currently being served by 

PLUS would be completely served by the private market, but I believe to a large degree they would. And the same is true for graduate students. 

We shouldn’t necessarily have a system of Federal loans or financing higher education that relies on students having a parent 

who can borrow for them to access higher education. I agree with 

you that access is an important issue to solve, but I disagree that 

providing students loans when they’re unlikely to be able to repay 

them is the best mechanism to do that. I prefer the access mission 

be addressed through the direct subsidies, through Pell grants, and 

potentially through the Tax Code. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. Do you agree that existing racial disparities and family wealth and income mean that the private market 

would charge more on average to minority students and their families? Wouldn’t the change you suggest have a disproportionate effect on these students? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

Ms. AKERS. Yes, that’s exactly right. So any sort of introduction 

of underwriting in the student loan market would likely have implications for access, and certain groups of disadvantaged students 

would be impacted more severely. I would argue again that subsidies is the correct place to address that issue and not through the 

availability of debt. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. Why should we support a policy that 

would make it harder to close racial gaps in educational attainment? Do you think that’s important? 

Ms. AKERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. But why should we support that kind of 

policy to make it harder -- 

Ms. AKERS. I think -- 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. -- for racial gaps to be closed in higher 

education? 

Ms. AKERS. Because I believe that’s the wrong instrument for 

closing that gap. As I said, I would prefer to see subsidies used for 

that objective. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. This question is for Dr. Cruz. It’s important that we have an understanding of all of the variables and factors affecting the rise of college costs. I understand that State disinvestment has led to tuition increases. What else has driven the 

cost of colleges public 2- and 4-year institutions, Dr. Cruz? 

Mr. CRUZ. Thank you, Congressman Wilson. State disinvestments is the primary driver of cost in public education. Other considerations include compliance, as Dr. Kirwan mentioned earlier, 

but more importantly we have issues about around personnel costs, 

the rising cost of health care, and pensions for our employees. We 

have energy costs, we have increases in the cost of maintaining and 

upgrading a tech infrastructure on our campus to provide our students with the best equipment, in smart classrooms and whatnot. 

We have increased costs in our library subscription services for the 

journals. 

But also, we also have increased costs because we realize and we 

have committed to ensure that our students are successful. And because of the needs that our students have, we have to direct more 

of our energy toward ensuring that they have the support services 

inside and outside of the classroom to succeed. So that’s also been 

a primary area where we have had to try to innovate given the 

State disinvestments in order to make it work all together. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

We will send every member of the committee the link to the report that Dr. Kirwan is referring to, but that’s what it looks like. 

And as he said, there are 59 recommendations. I’m going to read 

it this week, but I’m told by other people who’ve read it that you 

can do it on an airplane ride to a reasonably far away place. So 

we’re going to test that out. But everybody will get a link to this. 

It actually is in the link -- it’s mentioned in the memo that went 

out about this hearing, but we’ll get another one to you. 

Mr. Byrne, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Kirwan, I am the former chancellor of postsecondary education from the State of Alabama. And I have a great appreciation 

for the accreditation process. I think it made the institutions that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

I was responsible for better. I will admit that there were some interesting interactions between some of my institutions and the 

creditors, but I think it made the institutions better. I think it also 

helps in our efforts to safeguard the taxpayers’ money. 

Therefore, I was really interested in the part of your report that 

highlighted regulations that impact institutional accreditation. And 

I wonder if you could expand on that just a little bit and tell us 

if you have any specific recommendations with regard to that. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that question. Like you, I feel the accreditation process is a very important 

instrument. It was created to help institutions improve their academic performance. 

One of the concerns that the commission expressed in its report 

is that over time, the accreditation expectations in requirements 

placed on the accreditors has included a lot of additional requirements unrelated to the academic mission of the institution. I mean, 

for -- one small example is that accreditors have to certify that institutions are meeting their fire code laws, and that’s not an area 

of expertise of the people doing academic accreditation. 

So I think sort of taking accreditation back to its originally intended purpose would be one recommendation in getting rid of 

some of the excessive requirements imposed on accreditors would 

be one. 

Secondly, I’m a great believer that accreditation needs to ramp 

up the accountability that institutions must need. Putting greater 

expectations on improved retention and graduation rates, we need 

to find the means within the accreditation process to ensure that 

institutions have improvement plans in place and are under pressure to improve completion rates. 

And thirdly, I think we need a system of accreditation that would 

respect a differentiated accreditation process. Institutions that are 

high performing, who finances are well placed, shouldn’t be expected to jump through the same hurdles as institutions who are 

underperforming, low graduation rates, challenge financials. So we 

need to develop in this country, I think, a differentiated system of 

accreditation that respects and puts emphasis on those institutions 

that are in the most need of improvement. 

Mr. BYRNE. I appreciate that response. I think it’s spot on. We 

talked to one of the accreditors -- two of the accreditors last year. 

They were talking about how they can make the sort of differentiation that you just alluded to, so I hope they’ll do that. 

Dr. Akers, I want to talk to you about refinancing for a second. 

Would a Federal refinancing option actually help struggling borrowers? And are there any refinancing options currently available? 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. So refinancing Federal student loans would actually help all borrowers. The problem is that it would help the 

borrowers who need it the least the most. So it’s the borrowers 

with the very high balances that would benefit the most financially 

from the refinancing. We know from research that it’s the borrowers with less than $5,000, many of whom didn’t complete a degree, who are struggling the most to make student loan payments, 

but also to make other sorts of financial obligations. 

If we were to do refinancing, which I don’t think is the best approach to moving forward, I think it would need to be a highly tarCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

geted program and one that aims to devote resources to supporting 

the people who are really struggling. 

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chairman, I appreciate this entire panel. I 

think this has been very useful. 

Higher education has been often used as the means of moving up 

in society, but higher education is highly differentiated in America, 

which is our strength. We’ve got not-for-profits, for-profits, religious 

schools, 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and we’re not a one-sizefits-all Nation. And we shouldn’t have Federal policies trying to put 

this one-size-fits-all on our institutions of higher education, because 

that diversity is the great strength of what we provide to our people. 

And I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Byrne. We can always count 

on you for giving us lots to think about. 

Congresswoman Adams, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Scott, for hosting this hearing to discuss the importance of higher 

education. Education is clearly the pathway to a better life and upward mobility. I want to thank the witnesses today for sharing 

your thoughts on the current landscape of higher education. 

I am a former college professor and administrator, 40 years at 

Bennett College in Greensboro, North Carolina. And I’m a first 

generation, I was a first-generation college graduate. So I know 

postsecondary education leads to economic mobility and opportunity. Higher education can open doors, but working families, lowincome and minority students feel the burden of student loan debt 

and the challenges to achieving a high-quality higher education. 

Approximately 8 million individuals rely on Pell grants to pay for 

college. The Pell grant now covers just 29 percent of college costs 

at public universities compared to 79 percent almost 40 years ago 

when I got started. As a result, many low- and middle-income students find themselves acquiring loans to finance their education. 

And to make matters worse, statutory adjustments that make sure 

the Pell grants keep pace with inflation will soon expire. Republican budget resolutions over the past several fiscal years have proposed making deep cuts to Pell grants, balancing the funding needs 

on the backs of college students who are working hard, sometimes 

two and three jobs full-time to pay for school. 

Dr. Cruz, can you explain to us the importance of protecting Pell 

grants for the students where you’ve worked? And what could policymakers do to responsibly expand and strengthen the program 

for the next generation of students? 

Mr. CRUZ. Thank you, Congressman Adams. It is hugely important, the Pell grant is. I believe that when you think about how 

much low-income students are expected to contribute towards their 

education, approximately 76 percent of their household income 

after all aid is taken into account, you have to realize that the Pell 

grant program as the foundation upon which they finance their 

education is of utmost importance. 

So there are a few things that I think can be done in the short 

term. For certain, we should extend the increases due to inflation 

adjustments moving forward. We should think about bringing yearround Pell back, because it allows students to progress through 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

their degree at a faster pace. We should also consider taking steps 

over time to try to get the buying power of the Pell grant program 

back to where it should be. As you know, when it started, it was 

about 75 percent of the total cost of attendance. It’s now around 25 

percent. So can we get it to 50 percent in the next 10 years? So 

those are some of the areas that I think should be given some attention. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. In your written testimony, you discuss 

how inequitable policies and practices impede our ability to fulfill 

promises of opportunity and upward mobility. Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, while they only make up less 

than 3 percent of our institutions of higher education, graduate 20 

percent of all African American undergraduates, 25 percent of African American graduates in the STEM field. These schools enroll a 

disproportionate number of first-generation, low-income and minority students who must borrow at higher rates. 

So what role do you see Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority serving institutions playing in closing the 

intergroup inequities in higher education? 

Mr. CRUZ. They have a crucial role. One, because they serve the 

majority of the underrepresented students in our country. And 

without us being able as a country to educate them better and get 

them with the degrees they need to be successful, we will never 

once again lead the world in educational attainment. 

Also, it’s important that they are resourced adequately so that 

they can carry out this mission. Because the fact of the matter is 

that they have the experience dealing with these populations and 

it is in their mission. So to the extent that we can support these 

institutions to narrow achievement gaps across the country and 

also serve as models for others that are now just starting to manage the new demographics of this country, I think we’ll be successful. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. So in your opinion, the diminished purchasing power of Pell grants and reduced State and Federal investment in higher education does impact students who attend these 

schools that I’m talking about? 

Mr. CRUZ. It significantly does. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, sir. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Congresswoman Adams. 

Congressman Hunter, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good afternoon, 

everybody. 

Dr. Akers, my question is to you. When you opened up, you said 

that college is a gamble. That’s one of the quotes that you made 

today. One of the ways that you reduce risk off of anything, you 

buy down risk, is by having knowledge. Right? And the more that 

you’re made aware of the outcomes of students going to any university, the more -- you’re more informed in your decisionmaking 

when kids choose what university that they want to go to. 

In a recent publication for the Manhattan Institute titled Five 

Reforms to Improve Higher Ed, you ranked the repeal on the ban 

of a student unit-record system as priority number two for the 

higher ed act. Specifically, your quote is: ‘‘As a first step to ensurCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

ing that the Federal Government can generate and publish comprehensive data on student outcomes, Congress and the new administration should lift the ban.’’ 

As you and many of my colleagues know -- in fact, Mr. Polis is 

on this bill, Ms. Davis is on my bill, and it’s the Student Right to 

Know Before You Go Act. Marco Rubio was a cosponsor, Speaker 

Ryan was a cosponsor. That act accomplishes that goal that you 

mentioned, while at the same time providing program level student 

outcome data institutions every 2, 6, and 15 years after completion. 

So the question is, how would unlocking this data improve our 

knowledge of student outcomes, and why is it important? That’s the 

first kind of softball opener. 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. Okay. I appreciate that. We have a marketbased system of higher education, albeit one that has a very large 

degree of Federal and State intervention. What that means is that 

we need to rely on consumers to play a role in policing institutions 

for quality. 

There is a huge problem of asymmetry of information in this 

market. Without access to government data on student outcomes, 

consumers would have a very difficult time holding institutions accountable for the value that they provide. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So right now at this point in time, we use the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, IPEDS. How would 

repealing the ban on the student unit record allow that to work 

more coherently and have everything work together so my -- I’ve 

got a 16-year-old son. He can look at SDSU, UCSD, USD and say 

if I’m majoring in engineering, in 5 years, I’ll be making -- the average kid makes this much money. It takes him 6 months to get 

a job if going -- getting that degree from that university. We then 

have knowledge that we’re armed with and we can make better decisions. 

What would it do with IPEDS if you repeal the ban? 

Ms. AKERS. I’m sorry? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Specifically. What would repealing the ban, how 

would that play in IPEDS, which is the Integrated -- that’s the way 

that we do this now. 

Ms. AKERS. Sure, sure. So essentially, repealing the ban would 

create a more comprehensive data system which would capture the 

universe of borrowers rather than a sample of borrowers currently 

captured by survey data. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Because right now, what do they do? They -- each 

university has people call out, just call people, right, every day. So 

you graduated 5 years ago. Do you have a job and how much do 

you make? Right? 

Ms. AKERS. To be honest, I’m not exactly aware of that process. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That’s how they do it. 

Ms. AKERS. Right. So the connection of IRS records on earnings 

with Department of Education data would create -- rather than a 

survey level data which is subject to reporting error, it would be 

more comprehensive and more correct. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We would know exactly how much people are making after getting certain degrees from universities, and all anonymously, correct? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

Ms. AKERS. That’s right. That’s right. And the other advantage 

is because of the greater availability of data, we could have more 

granular level outcomes. So as was previously mentioned, program 

level outcomes could be reported in addition to institution level outcomes. The problem with reporting institution level outcomes as it’s 

done currently, it obscures a lot of the information that there is 

variation outcomes across programs within institutions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And I’m just curious too, you didn’t mention this 

at all in your opening statement, but you rank it as the number 

two priority to fixing higher education. 

Ms. AKERS. Uh-huh. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. All right. 

Dr. Kirwan, I’ve got a question. The same question to you but not 

representing a Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education. But based on your experience at the University of Maryland, what is your take on repealing the ban on the student 

records? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, as you -- thank you, Congressman. As you 

point out, this was not an issue that the Task Force addressed. If 

you’re asking my personal -- 

Mr. DUNCAN. If you would, just step outside of that. If you would, 

just answer personally. 

Mr. KIRWAN. You’re asking my personal view as a former university president. I actually believe that the access to unit-record data 

would be extremely valuable in higher education because it would 

provide a means, not just as Dr. Akers mentioned, but also in 

terms of improving performance. You’d have a real sense of what’s 

working, what isn’t working. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Competition between universities? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Exactly. 

Now, I also recognize there, you create an enormous database 

like that, there are confidentiality issues, and that’s a concern that 

needs to be addressed. But assuming that can be addressed, I think 

it would be an important tool for improving the performance of 

higher education. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And if you would, please, I would like to meet with you later, go 

over the bill, the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act, and 

have you both take a look at it, especially you, Dr. Akers. All right. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. Espaillat, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Madam Chair, for highlighting the 

American Council of Education’s task force report. But let me remind my colleagues that the American Council of Education is the 

primary lobbying organization for the Nation’s colleges and universities. 

If we imagine for a moment that we were discussing, for example, the automotive industry instead of colleges here, this task force 

would be equivalent to a group of auto executives and lobbyists 

talking about regulations they find often burdensome without anyone speaking, for example, of vehicle safety or the environment. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

There may be, of course, things we can learn from the task force 

report, but we need to remember at all time that this is a document that reflects a single specific set of values and views and cannot represent a broad consensus across higher education. 

Dr. Kirwan, you have referred to compliance and you have referred to regulations as a -- reasons for the increase, the spike in 

the cost of a student’s education. If the Department of Education 

were to eliminate right now all regulations faced by, say, Vanderbilt University, which you cite in the report, would it cut its tuition 

by $11,000 for students? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I can’t speak for 

Vanderbilt University, so I don’t know what they would do. But I 

do want to reemphasize that this commission fully supports the 

need for regulation and accountability. There was no intention in 

any way to get out from under the expectation of being responsible 

for taxpayer dollars to the students and families we serve. So this 

task force was about smarter regulation, not the elimination of regulation. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. But 2 years ago, you and Nicholas Zeppos, the 

chancellor of Vanderbilt University, coauthored the task force report, and testified before the Senate. During his testimony, Dr. 

Zeppos highlighted that Vanderbilt spent $146 million annually on 

Federal compliance, equating it to, and I quote, approximately 

$11,000 in additional tuition per year for each of his 12,757 students. 

So if we eliminate these regulations, will there be in fact a dramatic drop of $11,000 per students at Vanderbilt? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, again, Congressman, I really can’t -- I wasn’t 

part of the Vanderbilt study. That study was not part of our report. 

And so I really can’t comment on that report or what Vanderbilt 

would do. But I think no one is advocating, that I know of, in higher education the elimination of all regulations. It is -- the whole essence of this report is smarter regulation. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Dr. Cruz -- thank you, Dr. Kirwan -- can you tell 

me a little bit about the work that colleges and universities are 

doing to better train students for jobs of today and tomorrow, particularly in the county of the Bronx where the Lehman College is 

at, where I know that the healthcare arena is the primary employer of folks in that particular county. Can you tell me what kind 

of activities, what kind of initiatives you’re taking at Lehman College to ensure that there are more jobs available for the young people that attend your college? 

Mr. CRUZ. Sure. So we have several initiatives at Lehman College through which we interact with our community college partners, industry, and the labor unions, particularly in the healthcare 

industry with 1199 SEIU. And so we have a broad portfolio of initiatives through our adult degree program in particular. One of 

them, for example, involves developing online programs for in-service healthcare workers so that they can access higher-paying jobs 

that haven’t been already identified by the union and the health 

industry locally. 

And more recently, we did a public-private partnership in the 

high tech area in augmented reality and virtual reality through 

which we are collaborating with a major vendor in the country to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

train new coding experts in this area for the growth that we’re seeing in the Bronx in the tech field. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you so much, Dr. Cruz. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mitchell, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to everyone for being here. 

Let me continue on some of the questions that Mr. Hunter raised 

during his questioning. Dr. Akers, you referenced in your testimony 

that, unfortunately, there are many that make a losing gamble in 

going into higher education, be it postsecondary college or a postsecondary program. Isn’t part of the problem that they’re facing is 

exactly what Mr. Hunter references, which is a lack of programmatic success data at college and universities? You have institutional data, but you don’t have any data on specific programs 

within the university. 

Ms. AKERS. We do see that there are systematically bad outcomes coming from particular institutions and particular programs. 

This would lead you to believe that if students were armed with 

better information on the front end, they could choose institutions 

where they’d have a higher likelihood of success. So yes, I think 

that’s correct. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does anybody else on the panel have any opinion 

on that question? Mr. Gilligan? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yes. So Capella fully agrees that institutions 

should be transparent about outcomes and be accountable for outcomes. And the more that we can make information available, I 

think the more competitive the initial will be, the more opportunity 

for innovation it would be. So we fully support that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Anybody else? Dr. Kirwan? 

Mr. KIRWAN. I echo my colleague’s comment. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Okay. Thank you. 

Another question for you. Let’s talk a little about gainful employment for the sake of -- you’re all aware of the history of it, I won’t 

repeat it, it’s got a pretty checkered history. Let’s be honest about 

it. How long are the regs? The new regs are, what, 650 pages or 

something like that? 

Question for you, did the commission -- Dr. Kirwan, did you consider applying some version, albeit maybe irrational version, if you 

can find one, of GE across the higher education sector that, in fact, 

for purposes of accountability for all institutions, for all programs, 

that gainful employment should be applicable for all higher education? Did you consider that, and what were your thoughts? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, the commission strongly supported the concept of ensuring programs of a vocational nature that prepared students for successful careers of study. There was considerable concern about the gainful performance regulation, not only about the 

way it was developed, but the fact that it -- 

Mr. MITCHELL. Let me stop you, Dr. Kirwan. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Yes. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The distinction of vocational I think for me is 

troubling. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Right, right. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

Mr. MITCHELL. It’s troubling because, as one of my colleges on 

the other side of the aisle indicated, that the journal is in school, 

going to pediatrics, that those are vocations. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Right. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That people are expecting to get a career, to earn 

an income and be able to pay their loans and support their families. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Right. 

Mr. MITCHELL. So I think the vocational distinction that’s been 

made by the Department of Education is at best artificial, and I 

have other terms for it that probably can’t use in this hearing. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Right. 

Mr. MITCHELL. On a broader scale, across the spectrum of university programs, is there some rationale why it is we don’t consider gainful employment the gainful outcome for students? 

I see Dr. Akers who is anxious, maybe she has an opinion on it. 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, certainly, I think providing data on the economic gain produced by an institution in its academic programs 

should be available and could be very useful to parents and students. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And that data is currently not available? 

Mr. KIRWAN. That’s correct. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Akers, your opinion? 

Ms. AKERS. It sounds like I need to work on my poker face a little bit. But I think the observation you’re making is correct. I have 

actually suggested at times that gainful employment might be applied across all institutions, but the theme of my recommendation 

is really more that I’d prefer a more outcome-based system of accountability and one that can be applied across institutions equally. 

Ms. AKERS. When we survey students about why they go to college, 90 percent of them report that among the top reason is to 

have better earnings and planned outcomes in the future. So I’d 

prefer to see a system of accountability that more better matches 

what students are anticipating. 

Mr. MITCHELL. It certainly was the reason I went to college, I 

was the first in my extended family to even attend college let alone 

graduate and it certainly was to be able to pay the bills. 

The question for either of you, especially those who are around 

for gainful employment when it first came out. Do you remember 

the first data dump that was done by the Department and which 

institutions topped that list, the first issue of gainful employment, 

do you remember that one, sir? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. I believe so, there were some Ivy league schools 

I believe that were in that list. Is that what you’re referring to? 

Mr. MITCHELL. That would be correct. Some very interesting Ivy 

league schools, and they were on there because of the cost of their 

tuition, not that we don’t think they are valuable programs, correct? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. I assume. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thanks very much. My time’s almost expired. I 

yield back. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. Mr. Takano, you’re 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

Oh, I’m so sorry. I apologize. It’s Ms. Blunt Rochester. I looked 

at it wrong on the list. I apologize. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 

Member Scott and to the witnesses. This is a very important issue. 

As a parent of adult children who are paying student loans, as 

a former Secretary of labor and State personnel director in the 

State of Delaware, and also as a person who has a lot of constituents, this is one of our top priorities. 

I want to ask, in Delaware we’ve had some great partnerships 

between our colleges and our employers. Mr. Gilligan and Dr. Cruz, 

how is labor market information used in developing courses and 

programs? And also, do you have suggestions to continue or improve the use of this kind of information? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. So thank you for the question. We do use labor 

market data. We use different sources of data to understand not 

only where is the job growth today and the demand today, where 

is the demand going to be in the future, and what are the skills 

and competencies that are going to be required by employers in 

those areas. And then we use that to inform the design of our curriculum. 

Mr. CRUZ. We have a similar structure through which we have 

industrial advisory boards and also, as I mentioned in my previous 

response, we work directly with the local unions to identify what 

the skill gaps are and what the opportunities are, and with that 

we drive our curriculum development, particularly in the part of 

continuing and professional studies. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Is there anything that can be done to improve the process for you? Anything that -- whether it’s the relationship between Department of Labor, economic development, 

business roundtables, is there anything in particular, any suggestions or strategies? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. I don’t have any particular suggestions today, but 

I think it’s a good question. If we could think about that and get 

back to you, we’d appreciate that. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. All right. And then another question I have 

for Mr. Gilligan. Many of Capella’s students are in programs such 

as education, public policy, nursing and health services, and may 

stand to benefit from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. 

One of today’s witnesses Dr. Akers mentioned that it may make 

sense to eliminate this option. 

Mr. Gilligan, is this benefit important to your students who are 

pursuing careers in public service? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. So I would say most Capella graduates earn a 

very attractive income. And we know that as a fact from the gainful employment data that’s published by the Federal Government. 

And we experience very low core default rates. So I think our 

learners are pursuing their degree for career advancements and 

economic opportunity. They are paying their loans back. I’m not 

sure income base repayment is -- or loan forgiveness rather is an 

important consideration up front. That’s not to say there aren’t 

some of our graduates that take advantage of it. And I would say 

as long as it is not creating perverse incentives, it’s probably a very 

productive tool. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Dr. Cruz, I don’t know if you wanted to add 

to that. 

Mr. CRUZ. I think in general loan forgiveness programs are important. One thing that I would look at more from the macro level 

is who are the winners and who are the losers. Anything inequitable, use the funds, in terms of the lowest income students being 

able to get their fair share. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Dr. Akers, I don’t know if you want to add 

any more to it. 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. I will just clarify again that, you know, the intention of that policy proposal is not to remove subsidies entirely 

from public service, but rather to put them into another mechanism that would be more fair, and more effective, at encouraging 

those types of employment. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. Good reason I should 

recognize you when you are on the line. 

Mr. Allen, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And coming from the 

business community and as far as technology and efficiency, it 

looks like we’re doing things the same way we’ve always done them 

in education. 

My parents were involved in education. In fact, one of the funniest stories that I heard was when I attended the college orientation of one of my children and the Dean of the freshmen said that 

a father called him and was very upset because his son could not 

schedule freshman English the first semester. And so the Dean 

said, well, let me get back with you. 

So he called over to the English department and sure enough the 

9 o’clock class, and the 10 o’clock class, and the 11 o’clock were full, 

but the 8 o’clock class was wide open. And I said, wow, we need 

to figure out some way to motivate folks and get a little more efficient in what we’re doing and how we’re scheduling things. And of 

course Stephen Covey said, you’ve got to begin with the end in 

mind, in the seven habits of highly successful people. 

So with that it looks like, to me, that we’ve got a long way to 

go in higher education as far as implementing a lot of the policies 

that we’ve implemented to become one of the most productive business and industry institutions in the world. What do we got to do 

to catch up? 

Dr. Akers, did your research look at productivity and efficiencies 

and how we really turn out folks that we need for -- again the job 

placement and all that sort of thing? 

Ms. AKERS. That’s not something I studied explicitly, but I would 

be happy to follow up in my written remarks. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. Dr. Kirwan, your commission did you all look 

at -- I mean, like, our lieutenant governor said that we had over 

5,000 liberal arts graduates in the State of Georgia, but about 250 

job openings. I said, well, where do these kids go? And you know, 

mainly service jobs. How do we correct that? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, this was not an issue we were asked by the 

HELP Committee to look into. We were focused on existing regulations in the regulatory environment. But I’m actually quite encourCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

aged by what’s going on in higher education right now. There is a 

tremendous amount of innovation bubbling up at our institutions. 

We have come to embrace the potential of technology in the learning sciences to dramatically improve the way student’s courses are 

taught, students are learning -- adaptive learning, the use of 

MOOCs, these massively open online courses. The partnership between the two- and four-year sector, the reverse transfer. You 

know, I feel very confident in the next 5, 6 years we’re going to see 

a significant improvement in completion rates. 

Mr. ALLEN. How about cost? How do we reduce cost? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, you know, I think -- we’re in a situation now 

where I do not anticipate significant increases in cost. I think institutions are working hard to find ways to use technology and innovation to hold down the growth in cost. 

The States are not going to be able to invest significant new 

funds in public institutions. I think most States are putting some 

kind of limit on increases in tuition. So I honestly believe we’ve 

passed through this period of huge, significant tuition increases. 

And this is encouraging in putting pressure on institutions to find 

new and better ways to deliver courses. So I actually feel quite optimistic about the future in that regard. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yeah. That’s good to hear. 

Mr. Gilligan, we talk about work study programs. Obviously, 

when we look at a resume in our business, we would look at not 

only education, but experience of that student. And it sounds like 

you -- that’s something that you’re -- most of your folks already 

have a job getting --completing their education. How do you see the 

importance of that? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Well, sir, as you said, most of our students are 

working adults, they are employed. About 75 percent of them are 

going on to get a graduate degree. So in that context work study 

really doesn’t come into play. 

What they are looking for are competencies and skills, that are 

in high demand by employers, that are allow them to practice at 

the top of their profession. So we have a very strong focus on linking our curriculum to the demand side which is the employer. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Takano, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule protects taxpayers and 

students alike against fraudulent colleges seeking to profit off Federal funds without providing a quality education. Perhaps more importantly it provides desperately needed relief to students who 

were scammed by schools that shouldn’t have had access to Federal 

financial aid in the first place. 

Jose ́ Morales, a veteran and student from my State, said, I quote, 

‘‘I told the recruiter when I signed up that I couldn’t afford any 

payment plan since I didn’t have enough financial aid to cover the 

cost of tuition. After a few minutes the recruiter came back and 

said I received a scholarship that would cover the costs. When I 

started class, there was no evidence of any scholarship in my account, but there was a balance due of about $1,400. I called the reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

76 

cruiter and she said she forgot to submit the scholarship application and she would get to it next week. There was a continuous 

conversation and her scholarship never appeared. The recruiter 

lied to me to get me to sign up and now I have loans for a degree 

I can’t complete’’ end quote. 

The Borrower Defense Rule is a commonsense protection for students. If the choice is between protecting student borrowers who 

were lied to by their schools or protecting an industry that wants 

relief from this rule, I will protect the student. 

As Members of Congress, we must ensure that our veterans and 

Active Duty servicemembers and their families have the information and support needed to succeed in college. It is our responsibility to protect these individuals who have and are currently serving our country. I’ve heard stories from student veterans all across 

California who were defrauded by for-profit institutions. Students 

were told their credits would be transferrable by recruiters or that 

they would receive scholarships that never appeared. 

Dr. Cruz, why do you think veterans are such a target for these 

institutions? 

Mr. CRUZ. I believe they are such a target because of the 90/10 

loophole. For-profit institutions are required to secure no more 

than 90 percent of their revenues from public funds. And because 

of a congressional oversight many years ago the GI Bill was not 

considered as a public source of funds. So that created an incentive 

to try to bring more ‘‘nonpublic’’ public dollars into the equation for 

the for-profit sector to continue to operate. 

As you know, there are more than three dozen Attorneys General 

across the country now that are looking into this. And I believe 

that it’s important that this loophole be closed to take away that 

incentive. 

Mr. TAKANO. Dr. Cruz, are you telling me this loophole specifically incentivizes for-profit institutions to target our veterans because their money is not counted as part of the total Federal funding that the school receives? 

Mr. CRUZ. Exactly. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. That’s incredible. Given that veterans are such a 

target, what can Congress do to protect these veterans -- these students? 

Mr. CRUZ. The same that can be done for students in general 

through the strengthening of the general of the gainful employment 

provisions, clamping down in the incentive compensation area and 

also borrower defense. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, at this time, just this past week the committee received a letter signed by 16 organizations representing 

service members and veterans across the U.S. urging us not to 

weaken the gainful employment rule or the defense to repayment 

regulation and not to eliminate the ban on incentive compensation. 

I would like to submit this letter for the record. It’s down there, 

Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 23842.030
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 23842.031
79 

Mr. TAKANO. I want to turn now to the gainful employment regulations, Mr. Gilligan. There was mention that the Ivy League 

schools have made it on to this list. And I’m thinking that we’re 

referring here to a program at Harvard University, my alma mater. 

It’s a nonprofit institution of great national repute, but they have 

an arts program that is really expensive. It’s, like, up to $78,000 

per year. And the expectation is that graduates, not all of whom 

will make it to the big league, are paid $32,000 a year. 

Do you think that the American taxpayers should shoulder that 

risk of students admitted to this program -- I understand that Harvard itself has voluntarily put a pause on students coming to this 

program to reevaluate this program. 

Don’t you think the gainful employment regulation was very useful, even in detecting within our elite institutions maldesigned programs? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Well, I would say that the gainful employment 

regulation is designed to ensure that students can earn an income 

at a high enough level to repay their loans. And the problem that 

I have with the rule it that it’s a one size fits all metric. And I 

would argue that as an example, a student that attends a vocational school maybe to become an auto mechanic or a cosmetologist, 

We apply exactly the same debt to income threshold to that student 

as we do to a say a teacher or a principal of the school who was 

getting a doctoral degree to become student of schools, who’s going 

to earn a return on investment over a lifetime. 

And so part of problem with the rule in my opinion is the one 

size fits all nature to it. The other is it only applies to for-profit 

schools. So if we think it’s good policy that eligibility for Federal 

financial aid should be tied to debt to income thresholds, it ought 

to be, in my view, a level playing field for everyone in the industry, 

for-profit and not for-profit. And we’ve got to recognize the difference in programs. 

Mr. TAKANO. I wish I could explore it further, but my time has 

run out. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rooney, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Dr. Kirwan, thank you very much for your testimony here and 

for working on the task force. You identified and talked about a lot 

of costly burdensome government mandates that drive up the cost 

of education. But you didn’t mention much about administrative 

costs. 

I’ve got an article here and few papers I am going to ask Ms. 

Foxx to put in the record, if that’s okay. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 23842.065
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 23842.066
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 23842.067
83 

Mr. ROONEY. They talk about administrative costs that have skyrocketed since 1975. Administration to student ratios have skyrocketed while the student to faculty ratios have stayed the same. 

Administrative costs overall have gone from 9 percent to 15 percent 

of the college budget since 1975. And the number of administrators 

in public universities has gone up 66 percent and private ones 135 

percent. 

So I’ve got two questions for you. One is what can we do about 

this, which has got to be part of the excessive cost of education, 

which has gone up faster than anything except tobacco products 

since 1980 . And the second question is referring back to one of 

questions earlier that if those 59 recommendations were taken and 

that $11,000 a student, could be saved, don’t you think the free 

market would work to drive the tuition prices down and some of 

that savings would be reaped by students? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Thank you, Congressman, for those questions. As I 

said earlier in my testimony, if we had a more streamlined regulatory system I think it would lower the cost to our universities 

and would have some positive effect on tuition levels. 

You know the issue of -- and obviously excessive growth of administrators is something that needs great scrutiny and should not 

be tolerated when as we look at the cost of education. On the other 

hand, sometimes we overlook the fact that the non-instructional 

staff play a very important role in the institution. I’ll just give you 

one example, Georgia State was one of the first universities to use 

big data to analyze student retention and graduation rates. And 

what they learned was using big data is that there were certain 

moments in a student’s time at the university when intrusive advising was absolutely essential in terms of keeping that student on 

track to graduate. So they invested significant money in bringing 

on these professional advisers and they increased their graduation 

rate by 15 percentage points. 

So we have to be very careful when we talk about the growth of 

administration. We need to know what are these administrators 

doing and are they playing a role in helping students be more successful at our institutions? 

Mr. ROONEY. I’m sure there are a lot of important contributions 

in that respect, but there’s also significant increases in salaries of 

university presidents, vice presidents, vice presidents for vice presidents. And this data is replete with the number of people that are 

earning over $1 million that run universities and half a million dollars for vice presidents. And maybe it’s just that I come from the 

construction business, but that’s a lot of money. 

My question for you and for the experts is how do we get it under 

control rather than just talking about how to finance it all the 

time, how do we get cost under control? 

Mr. KIRWAN. Well, I think the reality of what -- all I can speak 

to is the public sector. And the reality of the declining investment, 

by States and public higher education, the great resistance to any 

kind of significant increase in tuition is putting a new kind of constraint on the growth of cost of administrators and salaries. 

And I have to let you know that I never earned a salary of that 

magnitude and I think that very few people in the public sector do. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

Mr. ROONEY. I have got just a few more seconds. I would like to 

thank Dr. Gilligan for the important contribution that you all are 

making to preparing people to do the kind of jobs that we have out 

there right now and that we need, and for the incredible innovation 

of changing from time-based arbitrary rules to this direct assessment of the students performance. 

I am also going to ask to put Clay Christensen’s article in the 

record about mastery-based learning, which is the same thing. 

[The information follows:] 

[Extensive material was submitted by Mr. Rooney. The submission for the record is in the committee archive for this hearing.] 

Mr. ROONEY. And so my question for you is with 50 percent of 

the people not graduating within 6 years, and another 50 percent 

defaulting on their loans, don’t you think a lot of the space that 

you’re occupying and that regionally applied education colleges occupy could fill that for them? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Is this question for me? 

Mr. ROONEY. Uh-huh. 

Mr. GILLIGAN. I’m sorry, I didn’t quite understand the question. 

Mr. ROONEY. The people that are defaulting on loans and aren’t 

graduating within 6 years, would they be better off in a different 

kind of place? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Potentially. I mean, to be successful on a direct 

assessment program you need to bring a baseline of competencies 

into the course room. So it’s ideally suited for working adults. It’s 

not necessarily a solution for other segments. But it doesn’t mean 

there isn’t room for innovation to address those other segments 

with other models that are better suited to their needs. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank 

you all so much for coming today and testifying about this very, 

very important topic of how do we improve our higher education 

system. 

Thank you, Congressman Rooney, for asking those questions. I 

wanted to piggyback off of something that Congressman Rooney 

just asked. And I would like to direct it to Dr. Akers actually. 

Dr. Akers, one of things that my constituents sometimes ask 

about universities is they are sometimes perplexed by the amount 

of construction that’s happening on college campuses and so forth. 

I very much care about access and affordability of higher education, 

but at the same time I have to address their questions about are 

there ways to curb costs, because we all want to make sure that 

every student has access to higher education, but at the same time 

we have to bring transparency and assure them that they are getting value for their dollar. 

So can you just speak about that for one moment and then I 

have some other questions. 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. Especially regarding the comment regarding 

the construction on campuses, I think there’s been accusations that 

a lot of institutions are creating this luxury experience for students, which is driving up the cost of education. Most students are 

attending public institutions and the cost of education there is 

quite affordable. So I’d encourage people to think about the variety 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

of options that are available to them and if we can get consumers 

to be sensitive to price, it will benefit them individually, but also 

put pressure on institutions to keep their own prices in line with 

value and maybe reconsider some of those construction projects. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. I understand. And some of those construction projects are important. And perhaps Mr. Rooney’s former firm 

was able to participate. I don’t know. You know, it’s one of those 

things where we just have you to keep an eye on these dollars. 

I have a question for Dr. Cruz. givenG that it’s in our Nation’s 

best interest to remain globally competitive and to sustain an educated workforce, I feel very strongly the Federal Government must 

find ways to increase college access and success. 

So I just want to ask you, Dr. Cruz, what in your opinion are 

some, you know, very basic ways that the Federal Government can 

leverage its resources to improve access and success for students? 

Mr. CRUZ. I think there is an opportunity for Federal-State partnerships that will encourage and incentivize the States to reinvest 

in the public higher ed institutions in the States. And also to do 

so in a way that’s more equitable so that the campuses that are 

serving the students have traditionally been underserved receive 

the resources they need to get those students through their degree 

quicker. So that’s one particular area. And then of course, focusing 

on how to strengthen the existing Pell program and other financial 

aid vehicles. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Now, are there any other ways that the 

Federal Government can strategically invest in higher education to 

make our students more successful and what will make the system 

work better for them? 

Mr. CRUZ. I think there might be an opportunity to ensure that 

the investments that are being made are in fact driving not only 

the outcomes higher— graduation rates, lower time to degree, reduce achievement gaps— but also are doing it in a way that works 

for all students. So how do we put the equity variable into those 

policies and those incentives so that we can in fact leverage the 

changing demographics of America on behalf of our workforce and 

our competitiveness. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, sir. I have -- in my remaining 

time, I had a couple of questions for Dr. Kirwan. You know, over 

the last couple of weeks, State governors around the country have 

unveiled their budget proposals for their State. In Missouri the Republican Governor Eric Greitens has announced $146 million in 

cuts to State higher education funding. And then Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has made clear that he wants to cut higher education programs as well. 

I’m just concerned that when States cut their higher education 

budgets, public universities must raise tuition in order to keep 

serving the same number of students. So my question for you, Dr. 

Kirwan, is would it be safe to say that cuts to State funding are 

just making it harder for working families to send their kids to college? 

Mr. KIRWAN. I would agree -- yeah, absolutely. I think the disinvestment in public higher education is doing great harm to our 

Nation. Not only do we need to serve the same number of students, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

we need to educate a lot more people. And the absence of public 

investment is compromising our capacity to do this. 

So, when I think about our country and things that keep me up 

at night, this is maybe right at the top of the list. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. Mr. Smucker, you’re 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My district I represent is in Pennsylvania. And Pennsylvania’s 

well-known for its system of higher education. We have excellent 

schools that range from great research institutes to State system 

schools, to community colleges, to many private institutions and 

others. 

I was chair of the Senate education committee in the Pennsylvania State Senate. About 40 to 45 percent of our budget, at the 

State level, was for education, which include K through 12, but as 

well support for what we called our State related schools and our 

State system, and our community colleges, and our trade schools. 

And I want to talk a little bit about our institutions that provide 

trade and vocational training, education. We’ve already had some 

discussion. But I think this is an area in terms of all the options 

that are available to students, we have many, many great options 

that students take advantage of to prepare them for the life, career, whatever it may be. 

But I always felt, in Pennsylvania, that we did not provide 

enough support and emphasis for our trade schools, our vocational 

training. And students were not aware of the opportunities there. 

And Dr. Akers, I think you mentioned the over celebrated bachelor’s degree. I would never discourage anyone from a bachelor’s 

degree. We know there’s a lot of value to that, but there are other 

options that people -- that students and families at times are not 

familiar with. 

And I just want to talk, just very briefly, about an institution in 

my district, Thaddeus Stevens school of technology, this is a 2-year 

school. The demand for their students far outpaces the number of 

students that are graduating. In fact, it is so bad that for a job skill 

or job fair for about 200 students available, there are 450 companies at this job fair. They lose students because they get job offers 

before they graduate. 

I was at an event there, turned around talked to some students 

who were behind me. One student had been there for 3 weeks and 

already had an outstanding job offer. Their placement rating is 98 

percent for the field for which they were trained, their average salary leaving -- average earnings, leaving the school, is well over 

$45,000, some students earning $100,000 within a year of leaving 

the school. 

I think we need many, many more institutions that are providing 

those kind of services. And, you know, I’m not sure that as a public 

policy that we place enough emphasis on that. And as we are reauthorizing the higher education system or Higher Education Act, I 

should say, Dr. Akers, are there particular ideas, suggestions that 

we would have -- that you would have for us to help elevate the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

importance or at least the opportunity that’s available with the 

trades education? 

Ms. AKERS. Sure. I agree that we do need to put generally more 

emphasis on vocational and trades. As I said earlier, I’d be happy 

to follow up in my written remarks with specific recommendations 

for how policy can achieve that. 

Ms. AKERS. It’s worth noting that currently those intensive programs are eligible for Federal student aid, which is one way of supporting it, there may be others and I would happy to think more 

about that. 

Mr. SMUCKER. This is also an unmet need for our businesses. 

And to the point I made in regards to the job fairs is that there’s 

a huge need. We’re not meeting the needs of business, and we’re 

not providing sufficient applicants to fill their positions. 

I was in the construction industry. Our number one issue was always finding qualified people who are able to do the work for the 

jobs that we had available. 

Any other comments from maybe Mr. Gilligan, any comments at 

all in regards to the question? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Well, I just would encourage Congress to continue 

to think about new models, you know. We have a historical perspective on what the degree looks like. A very different way to 

think about a degree is an accumulation of competencies over period of time. And so rather than the focus being on getting a degree, the focus is on, what are the skills and competencies someone 

would need to achieve gainful employment and economic opportunity. 

And in an environment where technology is moving so fast and 

upskilling and reskilling is going to be required, education is not 

going to be a one and done event, it’s going to be over a professional lifetime. We need flexible models that working adults can 

take advantage of to stay current with skills that are in demand. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. And I look forward to learning more 

about your programs. And I think another aspect -- and I see I’m 

out of time, but another aspect is we need more communication, 

interaction between the business community and the education 

community to ensure that we are preparing students for the jobs 

that are available. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. Mr. DeSaulnier, you’re next for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. That sounds ominous, Madam Chair. 

I just want to thank you and the ranking member for a wonderful hearing and all the witnesses. It’s nice when public policy actually gets discussed here so thank you very much. 

For what is -- I agree with Dr. Kirwan, one of the real key issues 

for this country, coming from the San Francisco Bay area, we talk 

a lot with a sense of urgency about keeping our innovation edge, 

and our patent edge. And of course a lot of that comes from our 

-- not just Stanford and Berkeley, but the State colleges and the 

private colleges. 

So along with that, though, and Dr. Cruz and maybe Dr. Akers, 

one of our challenges, and I talk to people particularly because I 

am from the East Bay, at the Cal State East Bay campus, is young 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

people who are waiting for housing. And we heard this at Berkeley 

as well. Not so much at Stanford, but it is still an issue at Stanford. 

So these young people who can’t get on-campus housing, obviously it is a very high cost area. I assume it is the same from what 

I’ve read in your case being in metropolitan New York. How do we 

help -- I had a bill last session to try to include a little more flexibility in Pell grants so that with appropriate level of oversight, so 

people don’t abuse it, allow some of these kids who are going to 

take 6 years to get through school -- most of them are students 

whose parents didn’t go to college, they are from disadvantaged 

communities, but they are incredibly talented based on the merits. 

So things that you’re doing maybe to address this issue that I know 

is impactful in your institution? 

Mr. CRUZ. So from a practical perspective, public institutions are 

left at this point in time to try to identify other revenue streams 

that they can then use to help students through scholarships from 

alumni, and philanthropists, through grant programs and contracts 

to allow us to supplement the inability of Pell in particular to meet 

the full cost of attendance. 

I mentioned earlier that of Lehman College students, 50 percent 

of them have less than $30,000 of family income a year. While our 

tuition in the City University of New York is fairly affordable, 

around $6,500, the total cost of attendance because of the cost of 

living is closer to $22,000. 

So to the extent that Congress can look at ways to return the 

purchasing power to Pell that it had when I was a student, when 

I could not only pay for my tuition and fees, but had a little money 

left over to buy my books and pay my dorm, if we could get closer 

to that we’ll be in much better shape. Maybe 50 percent of the average total cost of attendance in 10 years might be a goal to think 

about. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Dr. Akers, have you looked at this in your 

work? 

Ms. AKERS. Not explicitly, but I will sort of echo Dr. Cruz’s remarks in essentially emphasizing that we need to remember that 

the cost of attendance far exceeds tuition and fees. And in many 

cases the living expenses are in fact much larger than the tuition 

and fees. 

When we think about what Federal support should be for higher 

education, this is an important aspect to consider. I think this 

weighs into the discussion about Pell grant funding and continuing 

to keep Pell grant purchasing power along with prices, but also emphasizes the importance of Federal student loans in playing a role 

for covering the expense for student. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thanks. Mr. Gilligan, I see you went to school 

in Chestnut Hill. 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yes, I did, proudly. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Oh. Well, I went to school at a Jesuit college 

in Worcester and we used to -- and we used to think fondly of Boston College. 

Mr. GILLIGAN. I’m familiar with that. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Yes. So maybe one of the challenges I think for 

me to understand the return on investment, for what you have 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

89 

done, is the innovation and certainly the public sector can learn 

from the private sector. But maybe compare your experience at 

Boston College with your experience now after being in the private 

sector, and particularly what I would imagine is a challenge for you 

to sustain for your investors a return on investment, whereas Boston College doesn’t necessarily need to do that. 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yeah. So are you getting at how can a for-profit 

school align the interests of students and tax payers with shareholders? Is that what you’re after? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. That was a succinct way -- 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yeah, I got it. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. andAnd on an ongoing basis, because if you’re 

looking at return on investment growth, all the time, to get that 

investment, it seems to me to be a struggle, counterintuitive. 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yeah. So -- but it’s what we do. And I’m not a educator, I’m a businessperson. So if I could just describe education as 

a service business, I’ve got many years of experience in service 

business. The fundamental principle is you don’t have a sustainable business model unless you’re delivering high quality service to 

your customer. And so that’s translatable into an education environment. And so we run Capella with a very simple principle, if 

our learners succeed, we succeed. And the best brand building investment we can make is in the success of our learners. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. The only thing is you’ve got to have growth, 

right -- 

Mr. GILLIGAN. But the way we get the growth it is a virtual 

cycle. As our learners succeed, our brand grows. As our brand 

grows, more people know about us, more people enroll, it creates 

a virtuous cycle. 

And our opportunity to earn a profit really comes from our ability to drive efficiency and innovation in ways to deliver increasing 

value to students and learners, at the same time creating value for 

shareholders. You know, we’ve got at 25-year track record of doing 

-- we’re very proud of it. I think we are an example that for-profit 

institutions can play very a constructive role in the future of higher 

education. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. Mr. Scott, you’re recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, we’ve had a lot of talk about the regulations, 

there are good regulations and bad regulations, everybody’s good 

regulations. And in this case, we have the unusual situation rather 

than just a bunch of complaints, Dr. Kirwan has presented 59 specifically identified regulations that are problematic and recommendations to fix them. So I would recommend that we have a 

hearing on those so that we can save the good regulations and deal 

with the problematic regulations. 

Chairwoman FOXX. We’ll see if we can find the time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sounds good. 

Mr. Gilligan, I went to law school in Chestnut Hill. And that actually dates me, because they moved the law school from Chestnut 

Hill to Newton in the late 70s. But back to gainful employment, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

90 

one, I think the gainful employment measure applies not just to 

for-profits, but for all career schools. 

But one of the things you left out was the fact that it also measures the demographics of the student body. If you start off with a 

bunch of high income students, they are going to do better than if 

you start off with a bunch of low-income students. And so the 

measure of gainful employment unfortunately measures the demographics of the student body as much as the quality of the education. 

But you know there are some good ones and some bad ones. If 

we don’t use gainful employment, what do you recommend putting 

in its place to separate the good from the bad? 

Mr. GILLIGAN. Yes. So first of all I agree that we need to risk 

adjust metrics to reflect the populations that we serve, otherwise 

we will only serve the only the highest potential students, and the 

people that need education will be left behind so I certainly support 

that comment. 

You know, I think -- it starts in my mind it starts with transparency. I think the higher education system in the United States 

would work better if all institutions were transparent about the 

outcomes that they were delivering for students. Completion rates, 

graduation rates, income rates. And when we begin to see the data, 

I think that creates a cycle of innovation. 

There are existing regulations in place that the Department can 

enforce today, that the Department could have enforced, before 

gainful employment, to address let’s call it, let’s say the bad actors 

in the space. I mean, if you are deliberately misleading students 

about your programs or defrauding students, there are mechanisms 

in place where that can be addressed. 

So the idea of saying we expect institutions to be accountable for 

outcomes and we want to create debt to income thresholds, I 

wouldn’t say it’s a totally objectionable idea, but I think it needs 

to be done with more thought. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Dr. Akers, you mentioned the FAFSA 

form. We know that a lot of people fail to apply for student aid because they can’t get through the form. And a lot fail to reapply. 

You mentioned that we should use Internal Revenue Service information. Is there information on the FAFSA form that’s necessary 

that you do not find in your tax information? 

Ms. AKERS. Yes. The FAFSA is more comprehensive than the information that the IRS would have to be able to do aid allocations. 

There would be some cost in terms of targeting of the aid that 

would occur. 

It’s my belief, based on some research that I observed, that the 

tradeoff of getting more students into college would outweigh the 

cost of any -- 

Mr. SCOTT. So that information that you don’t get is not -- there’s 

more harm in the complication of the form than not getting that 

information? 

Ms. AKERS. I think that’s right. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Cruz, you mentioned -- well, all of you have mentioned completion rates. Has TRIO been helpful in increasing your 

completion rates? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

91 

Mr. CRUZ. TRIO is an important component of the work that we 

do from the standpoint of wraparound services for the students, 

first generation students, and low-income students that need support beyond the classroom. 

The fact of the matter is that many of our students across the 

country that come from these populations, when they drop out of 

college or stop out of college, they are still in good academic standing. So it’s not necessarily they can’t manage the academics, but 

that they have other issues that they need support with. So TRIO 

programs allow us to provide those counseling, financial and personnel services that they need. 

Mr. SCOTT. There is a question about credit hours and non-credit 

hours as eligibility for student aid. Should those who need remedial 

work be able to get credit in terms of access to financial aid, noncredit remedial education, as well as actual credit hours towards a 

degree? 

Mr. CRUZ. I think that if the question is from the perspective of 

providing financial aid to cover those remedial courses, if I understand correctly, then I would suggest yes, because if the K–12 system failed the students from the perspective of preparing them for 

the college work that the institution has admitted them to do, then 

I believe the student should have the resources needed to be successful. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Scott. Would you like to make your closing remarks? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing that I would 

like to just mention is the bachelor’s degree. I think Mr. Smucker 

mentioned that there is value in the 4-year, on-campus liberal arts 

degree that’s very difficult to monetize. But it certainly is a key to 

upward mobility in our society. And if it’s overrated, well, that’s 

the way it is. And that should not be disparaged. There is something about that 4-year, on-campus liberal arts experience that 

transforms a person in such a way that we shouldn’t denigrate. 

One of the things that this hearing has not talked a lot about is 

the importance of education. And I think that’s just because we all 

know how important it is and so you can get right to access and 

completion as the focus of the hearing. 

We’ve had specific targets, one, the FAFSA form and the other 

is the State reinvestment. So I hope we can work on these issues, 

Madam Chair, as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. And I want 

to thank our witnesses again for coming to testify today and for the 

valuable information that you’ve shared with us. I told you at the 

beginning I thought this would be a very good hearing and I think 

it has been an excellent hearing. 

I don’t talk about this all the time, but Mr. Scott alluded to it 

in his opening comments. I don’t think there’s anybody in this Congress who appreciates more the value of completing a degree, a 4- 

year degree than I do. It took me 7 years to get my undergraduate 

degree and I was just about to move without having it and realized 

I’ve got to get this degree, I’ve got to get it now, it might not happen again. And so I’m very conscious of that. And I have a degree 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

92 

in English an AB in English. One of the probably -- people figure 

the probably the most useless degree you can have, you know, is 

an AB in English. Not qualified to teach, not qualified to do a lot 

of things that are necessary to do, but I’m very proud to be one of 

those closet English majors. 

So again, I don’t say that at the beginning of every -- a lot of our 

hearings, but I think it’s assumed by all of us and I appreciate Mr. 

Scott bringing it up that 4-year degrees are important and they 

have been always the step to increasing our mobility in this country. 

We have as Congressman Byrne said, the greatest diversity in 

education institutions anywhere in the world. And people come 

here all the time to get a degree because we have such wonderful 

educational institutions and we all appreciate that. But I do think 

that we have to bring more accountability to all of our educational 

institutions in this country. 

You know, I appreciate Dr. Cruz your saying we just need to increase Pell funding. Well, we see the studies that show the more 

money the Federal Government puts in to higher education, the 

higher the costs go. 

Now, if you only look at what Pell does in terms of paying for 

tuition and fees, as Dr. Akers pointed out, it’s not so bad anymore. 

So anyway, there are a lot of things that we need to look at that 

most of us again, if I put a glass up here with -- an 8 ounce glass 

with 4 ounces of water, I’m going to say it’s half full, somebody is 

going to say it’s half empty. So we look at things differently. 

We’ve had competency based credits since I was an assistant 

Dean of the general college at Appalachian State University and 

was able to give people credit for life experiences. My goodness, 

why has it taken us so long to get to the point where that is widespread? 

Concurrent enrollment brings down the cost of higher education. 

Why don’t we do more of that? 

Your program, Dr. Cruz, moving forward in reverse, that’s catching on around. Appalachian State University did something similar 

to that years ago. So we have lots of things that have been done, 

distance education, 40, 50, 60 years ago that have not simply 

caught on in higher education. 

But I hope that Dr. Kirwan is right, that people are going to 

start voting with their feet, and they are going to go to where they 

can get the best bargain for their money and their time. 

And I want to really, really commend Mr. Gilligan and other 

schools like his who are working at what you said, and I think it’s 

a point that maybe not a lot of people heard you say, a degree 

should be the accumulation of competencies over time. And in too 

many cases, students are graduating with a degree and no competencies. So what used to be an education is no longer for everybody. 

And then the last thing, I cannot get out of this meeting today 

without talking about, is Representative Scoot’s alma mater, Harvard, which began as a vocational school. Harvard began to educate 

ministers. It was a vocational school. And I take real exception 

with using the term vocational, because I’m assuming somebody 

said 90 percent of people graduating from college want to get a job. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

93 

I’m assuming it’s 100 percent of people who graduate from college 

want a job. 

And so in my opinion, all education is vocational education. And 

I think one of the problems that we have with the issues that were 

brought up by Mr. Smucker, Mr. Gilligan and other people is that 

we have created tiered systems in our country where we give a lot 

more credit to the over celebrated 4-year degree and not quite 

enough credit to the other programs which are helping people accumulate competencies over time, that could much later in life, you 

know, develop into a 4-year degree, and we know many people 

doing that. 

So you all have brought up many, many issues today that I think 

are real food for thought for the members of our committee. I think 

you’ve done a lot to educate all of us. You’ve given us some great 

phrases today from my perspective. 

So I want to thank you again. And you have behind you a very 

patient audience that has paid attention all day. So thank you all 

very much for your time. 

And there being no further business and the bell ringing to vote, 

this committee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 23842.032
95 

[Additional submission by Mrs. Davis follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 23842.033
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 23842.034
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 23842.035
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 23842.036
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 23842.037
101 

[Additional submission by Mr. Scott follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 23842.038
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 23842.039
104 

[Additional submission by Mr. Takano follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 23842.040
106 

[Questions submitted for the recorded and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 23842.041
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 23842.042
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 23842.043
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 23842.044
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 23842.045
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 23842.046
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 23842.047
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 23842.048
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 23842.049
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 23842.050
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 23842.051
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 23842.052
119 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 23842.053
120 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 23842.054
121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 23842.055
122 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 23842.056
123 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 23842.057
124 

[Dr. Cruz’s response to questions submitted for the record follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 23842.058
125 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 23842.059
126 

[Mr. Gilligan’s response to questions submitted for the record follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 23842.060
127 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 23842.061
128 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 23842.062
129 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 23842.063
130 

[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 23842.064