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

25–426 PDF 2017

EMPOWERING STUDENTS AND FAMILIES TO MAKE 

INFORMED DECISIONS ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 24, 2017 

Serial No. 115–17 

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 

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 

Ron Estes, Kansas 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky, Chairman 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

Ron Estes, Kansas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Ranking Member 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Mark Takano, California 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 24, 2017 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development ............................................................. 5 

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

Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education and 

Workforce Development ................................................................................ 1 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Benton, Mr. Andrew K., President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Pepperdine University .................................................................................. 51 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53 

Delisle, Mr. Jason, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute ........... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Schneider, Dr. Mark, Vice President, American Institutes for Research .... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Voight, Ms. Mamie, Vice President of Policy Research, Institute for Higher Education Policy ....................................................................................... 39 

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

Additional Submissions: 

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

Letter dated May 24, 2017 from the Consumer Bankers Association .. 88 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado: 

Bicameral College Act ............................................................................... 69 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

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

State of Oregon ...................................................................................... 113 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina ............................................................................. 93, 95, 97 

Mitchell, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan............................................................................... 93, 95, 97, 100 

Responses to questions submitted for the record: 

Mr. Benton ................................................................................................. 101 

Mr. Delisle ................................................................................................. 104-105 

Dr. Schneider ............................................................................................. 106 

Ms. Voight .................................................................................................. 111-114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

EMPOWERING STUDENTS AND FAMILIES TO 

MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ON HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

Wednesday, May 24, 2017 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Brett Guthrie [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Guthrie, Thompson, Messer, Grothman, 

Stefanik, Allen, Lewis, Mitchell, Garrett, Estes, Davis, Courtney, 

Adams, DeSaulnier, Krishnamoorthi, Polis, Blunt Rochester, and 

Espaillat. 

Also Present: Representatives Foxx, Scott (VA), and Bonamici. 

Staff Present: Bethany Aronhalt, Press Secretary; Andrew 

Banducci, Workforce Policy Counsel; Caitlyn Burke, Legislative Assistant; Courtney Butcher, Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Emmanual Guillory, 

Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education 

and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; 

Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Jake Middlebrooks, 

Legislative Assistant; James Mullen, Director of Information Technology; Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alexandra Pena, Staff Assistant; Alex Ricci, Legislative Assistant; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; 

Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Emily Slack, Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority 

Press Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Education Policy Director; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Veronique 

Pluviose, Minority General Counsel; and Katherine Valle, Minority 

Education Policy Advisor. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on Higher Education and Workforce Development will come to 

order. 

Good morning. And welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. I 

would like to thank our panel of witnesses and my colleagues for 

joining today’s important discussion on higher education and transparency. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Many people in this country grow up dreaming about the college 

experience, leaving home and starting off in their own world, hoping to obtain the education and skills they need to be successful in 

life. With more than 7,000 postsecondary institutions in the U.S. 

to choose from, selecting the best schools and finding the best way 

to pay for it can be a daunting task. 

In fact, just this morning some key details of a new report said 

to be fully unveiled early next month were publicly released, and 

they provide some fresh insights into how prospective students 

make important decisions that affect their long-term academic and 

professional futures. 

According to the preliminary findings of a national survey conducted by Gallup, in partnership with the Strada Education Network, most people rely on a family member or relative when deciding which major or field to choose. As well, as we all know, this 

decision often impacts which college or university a person decides 

to attend. 

Fortunately, there are those who are relying on trusted high 

school counselors or college advisors. Very few turn to online resources, including websites maintained by the schools. But it is 

also troubling to learn that more than 20 percent of individuals 

with some college experience never sought the advice of anyone or 

used any other available resources as they made these important 

decisions. 

Without objection, I would like to submit to the record a letter 

from Strada highlighting some of the key findings of this national 

survey. Hearing no objections, the letter will be made part of the 

record. 

In 2008, Congress took steps to improve transparency in higher 

education. Because of these reforms, colleges and universities were 

making information about price, financial aid, and demographics, 

and graduation rates more readily available to the public. Many of 

these initiatives provide helpful resources to students and their 

families, but clearly there is more work to be done. 

First, much of the information currently available is about firsttime, full-time students, despite the fact that only 21 percent of the 

undergraduate students are attending postsecondary education 

full-time and for the first time. Today’s college students come from 

a variety of backgrounds that no longer neatly fits into the traditional full-time student schedule, which is why they need information that properly reflects the unique circumstances they face. 

Secondly, we want to be sure that institutions are not overburdened with red tape. Collecting this information can be time-consuming. The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 

also known as IPEDS, currently requires institutions to complete 

12 separate surveys capturing hundreds of pages of data, taking 

nearly 1 million combined hours each year to complete. The time 

and money universities and colleges spend on data collection requirements can lead to higher costs that inevitably affect the students who attend. 

Third, it is important that we as policymakers can properly 

evaluate the success of the Federal Student Aid System and ensure 

taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly. Unfortunately, in 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

many ways, that is just not the case today. Much of the information surrounding students defaulting on their loans is unknown. 

We don’t know how much they have paid back before defaulting 

on the loan. We also don’t know the type of repayment plans they 

are using when they default. We also don’t know how much the 

various income-driven repayment programs are really costing taxpayers or how many students who receive a Pell Grant are actually 

graduating. Quite frankly, we really don’t know what is working 

and what is not. As policymakers, we need to be better equipped 

to conduct proper oversight of how tax dollars are being spent. 

Lastly, but most importantly, we must balance the need for 

transparency and accountability with the need to protect student 

privacy and maintain a limited Federal role. Striking that balance 

is never easy; however, the need to provide students and policymakers with more information, no matter how valuable that information may be, should never come at the expense of student privacy. 

At the end of the day, the college experience should be a joyous 

occasion for students and their families. That is why it is important 

for the Federal student aid system to be efficient and effective. And 

that is why it is important to do everything we can to provide better transparency so students are able to make informed decisions. 

As we work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, empowering students and families and improving accountability will be 

leading priorities. 

I am looking forward to hearing the testimonies of this panel of 

witnesses who have great insight into how we can do just that. 

Thank you, again, for your attendance. I now recognize Chairwoman Foxx for a brief comment. 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education and Workforce Development 

Many people in this country grow up dreaming about the college experience—leaving home and starting off on their own in the world—hoping to obtain the education 

and skills they need to be successful in life. With more than 7,000 postsecondary 

institutions in the U.S. to choose from, selecting the best school and finding the best 

way to pay for it can be a daunting task. 

In fact, just this morning, some key details of a new report—set to be fully unveiled early next month—were publicly released, and they provide some fresh insights into how prospective students make important decisions that affect their 

long-term academic and professional futures. 

According to the preliminary findings of a national survey conducted by Gallup 

in partnership with the Strada Education Network, most people rely on a family 

member or relative when deciding which major or field to choose. And as we all 

know, this decision, often impacts which college or university a person decides to 

attend. 

Fortunately, there are those who are relying on trusted high school counselors or 

college advisors. Very few turn to online resources, including websites maintained 

by schools. But it is also troubling to learn that more than 20 percent of individuals 

with some college experience never sought the advice of anyone or used any other 

available resources as they made these important decisions. 

Without objection, I would like submit for the record a letter from Strada highlighting some of the key findings of this national survey. Hearing no objections, the 

letter will be made a part of the record. 

In 2008, Congress took steps to improve transparency in higher education. Because of those reforms, colleges and universities are making information about price, 

financial aid, demographics, and graduation rates more readily available to the public. Many of these initiatives provide helpful resources to students and their families, but clearly there is more work to be done. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

First, much of the information currently available is about first-time, full-time 

students—despite the fact that only 21 percent of undergraduate students are attending postsecondary education full-time and for the first-time. Today’s college students come from a variety of backgrounds that no longer neatly fits into the traditional full-time student schedule, which is why they need information that properly 

reflects the unique circumstances they face. 

Secondly, we want to be sure that institutions are not overburdened with red 

tape. Collecting this information can be time-consuming. The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, also known as IPEDS, currently requires institutions to complete 12 separate surveys capturing hundreds of pages of data taking 

nearly one million combined hours each year to complete. The time and money universities and colleges spend on data collection requirements can lead to higher costs 

that inevitably affect the students who attend. 

Third, it’s important that we as policymakers can properly evaluate the success 

of the federal student aid system and ensure taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly. Unfortunately, in many ways, that’s just not the case today. 

Much of the information surrounding students defaulting on their loans is unknown. We don’t know how much they’ve paid back before defaulting on the loan. 

We also don’t know the type of repayment plans they are using when they default. 

We also don’t know how much the various income-driven repayment programs are 

really costing taxpayers or how many students who receive a Pell grant are actually 

graduating. 

Quite frankly, we don’t really know what’s working and what’s not. As policymakers, we need to be better equipped to conduct proper oversight of how taxpayer 

dollars are being spent. 

Lastly, but most importantly, we must balance the need for transparency and accountability with the need to protect student privacy and maintain a limited federal 

role. Striking that balance is never easy. However, the need to provide students and 

policymakers with more information—no matter how valuable that information may 

be—should never come at the expense of student privacy. 

At the end of the day, the college experience should be a joyous occasion for students and their families. That’s why it’s important for the federal student aid system to be efficient and effective. And that’s why it is important to do everything 

we can to provide better transparency so students are able to make informed decisions. 

As we work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, empowering students and 

families and improving accountability will be leading priorities. I’m looking forward 

to hearing the testimonies of this panel of witness who will have great insight into 

how we can do just that. Thank you, again, for your attendance. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much, Chairman Guthrie. I would 

like to take a moment to thank one of our staffers who served this 

committee now for more than 7 years and spent a total of 10 years 

here in the House. Today is Brian Newell’s final committee hearing. 

As our committee communications director, Brian has truly been 

an invaluable member of our team. Beginning under Former Chairman Kline’s leadership he played a critical role in the committee’s 

bipartisan efforts surrounding the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act, and the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. 

During my time as chair, I have gotten to know Brian personally, 

and he has been a joy to work with. 

I know I am speaking for all members of the committee in expressing our gratitude for Brian’s hard work and dedication over 

the years. 

Thank you, Brian. We wish you the best of luck in your new venture, and know there are exciting opportunities in store for you, 

but we are going to miss you. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. I also recognize Ranking Member Scott for 

a brief comment. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And I want to join the accolades. This 

committee has a lot of issues for which we can agree and a lot we 

disagree. And being able to work on those that we agree depends 

on cooperative attitude amongst the members, but also the staff. 

And I want to thank Brian for his good work, particularly on the 

Multiemployer Pension Plan that we worked on together. And also, 

just being a travel companion on the codel we took. 

So, I want to wish you well on your future endeavors. And thank 

you and the rest of the staff for the cooperative way that we can 

work together on those that we agree on. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. Again, thanks, Brian. I appreciate it. I now recognize my distinguished colleague, the subcommittee’s ranking member, Susan Davis, for her opening remarks. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. And 

thank all of you, our witnesses, for being here today. I certainly 

look forward to your testimony. 

You know, as Chairman Guthrie noted, the profile of our students attending college today looks much different than it did when 

the Federal Government began collecting data on colleges and universities in the mid-’60s. Back then your typical student was a 

white 18-year-old male, going to college from high school in order 

to pursue intangible benefits. Today, our students are older; they 

are attending college part-time while balancing many priorities, 

like children and work; and they are also from more 

socioeconomically and racially diverse families than their peers of 

decades past. 

Many of them are first in their family to go to college and have 

attended more than one institution throughout their college education. And more and more, students are going to college to receive 

tangible benefits, a decent chance of getting a job with a living 

wage and health benefits. 

But our current postsecondary data system doesn’t reflect that, 

doesn’t reflect today’s students. Our most comprehensive database, 

the federally mandated Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, more commonly referred to as IPEDS, leaves many students unaccounted for. 

Some students, for example, are unable to attend college in the 

fall right after high school due to financial setbacks or inability to 

line up child care. And schools, particularly community colleges, 

they allow for that flexibility, but, of course, many do not. 

However, many of the enrollment figures in IPEDS only account 

for students who first enrolled in the fall and leave out students 

who may have enrolled in the spring. 

What is worse in this incomplete picture of graduation rates, although nearly three out of five students attend more than one 

school, and nearly two out of five attend school part-time, IPEDS 

outcome metrics only account for first-time, full-time students. 

And, again, this means that transfer and part-time students are 

largely invisible in our higher education system. Although the Department of Education has been working to include more students 

in these metrics, it is simply not enough. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

Given our investment in higher education, and that is a very significant one and really is part of our discussion, I think, in the 

back of that discussion today, we have a vested interest in ensuring 

that colleges and universities are serving all their students well; 

and to do that, we need comprehensive information that accurately 

portrays today’s students. 

Additionally, many students have signaled that the current system of data reporting duplicates efforts by the institution. Directly 

involving the Department of Education would decrease administrative burden placed on colleges. 

Students also need better data. 

When Isabella asks how long it usually takes students to gradate 

at her school of interest, there should be an answer for her. And 

when she specifically asks questions about the success of other students who took courses like hers, the response should not lead to 

political excuses. 

In fact, our committee is aware that providing better consumer 

information has been a partisan issue. Members have been pushing 

improvements to the postsecondary data infrastructure for years. 

Where there are concerns about the privacy of our students, and 

we certainly acknowledge those concerns, our committee can come 

together to have a solutions-based conversation about the best way 

to secure this data. To dismiss this critical lack of data for privacy 

reasons seems shortsighted and one that we really need to look at. 

This type of data collection is what would allow us to uncover equity gaps in access, affordability, and completion for all students, 

and empower them to make better informed decisions about where 

to spend their time and their hard-earned money. 

That is why two of our members on our committee, Representative Paul Mitchell and Representative Jared Polis, introduced the 

College Transparency Act last week. This bill would repeal the student unit record ban currently in HEA and create a cohesive student unit record data system. I applaud my colleagues for taking 

this bold step forward. 

One thing we know for certain, our data infrastructure has not 

evolved with the changing student demographics, and it simply is 

not equipped to do so. We need to improve our postsecondary data 

infrastructure system to move the needle on access and affordability and completion. 

Thank you so much, Chairman. 

[The statement of Mrs. Davis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development 

Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. And thank you to the witnesses for being here. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

The profile of our students attending college today looks much different than it 

did when the federal government first began collecting data on colleges and universities in the mid-1960s. Back then your typical student was a white 18-year old 

male going directly to college from high school in order to pursue intangible benefits. Today, our students are older, attending college part-time while balancing 

many priorities like childcare and work, and from more socioeconomically and racially diverse families than their peers of decades past. 

Many of them are first in their families to go to college and have 

attended more than one institution throughout their college education. 

And more and more, students are going to college to receive tangible benefits a 

decent chance of getting a job with a living wage and health benefits. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

But our current postsecondary data system doesn’t reflect today’s student. Our 

most comprehensive dataset, the federally mandated Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, more commonly referred to as IPEDS, leaves many students 

unaccounted for. 

Some students, for example, are unable to attend college in the fall right after 

high school due to financial setbacks or inability to line up child care. And schools, 

particularly community colleges, allow for that flexibility. However, many of the enrollment figures in IPEDS only account for students who first enrolled in the fall 

and leave out students who may have enrolled in the spring. 

What’s worse is the incomplete picture of graduation rates. 

Although nearly three out of five students attend more than one school 

and nearly two out of five attend school part-time, IPEDS outcome metrics only 

account for first-time, full-time students. This means that transfer and part-time 

students are largely invisible in our higher education system. And although the Department of Education has been working to include more students in these metrics, 

it is simply not enough. 

Given our significant investment in higher education, we have a vested interest 

in ensuring that colleges and universities are serving all their students well. But 

to do that, we need comprehensive information that accurately portrays today’s students. 

Additionally, many schools have signaled that the current system of data reporting duplicates efforts by the institution. Directly involving the Department of Education would decrease administrative burden placed on colleges. 

Students also need better data. When Isabella asks how long it usually takes students to gradate at her school of interest, there should be an answer for her. And 

when she specifically asks questions about the success of other students who look 

like her, the response should not lead to political excuses. 

In fact, our Committee should remember that providing better consumer information has been a bipartisan issue. Members have been pushing improvements to the 

postsecondary data infrastructure for years. 

Where there are concerns about the privacy of our students, our Committee can 

come together to have a solutions-based conversation about the best way to secure 

this data. To dismiss this critical lack of data for privacy reasons would be shortsighted. 

This type of data collection is what would allow us to uncover 

equity gaps in access, affordability, and completion for all students, and 

empower them to make better informed decisions about where to spend their time 

and hard-earned money. 

That’s why two of our Members on our Committee, Rep. Paul Mitchell and Rep. 

Jared Polis, introduced the College Transparency Act last week. This bill would repeal the student unit record ban currently in HEA and create a cohesive student 

unit record data system. I applaud my colleagues for taking a bold step forward. 

One thing is certain; our data infrastructure has not evolved with the changing 

student demographics and it is simply not equipped to do so. We need to improve 

our postsecondary data infrastructure system to move the needle on access, affordability, and completion. 

Thank you, Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), 

all members will be permitted to submit written statements to be 

included in the permanent hearing record. 

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. 

I now turn to the introduction of our witnesses. Dr. Mark Schneider is the vice president and an institute fellow at the American 

Institutes for Research. Mr. Jason Delisle is a resident fellow at 

American Enterprise Institute. Ms. Mamie Voight is the vice president of policy research at the Institute for Higher Education Policy. 

And Mr. Andrew Benton is the president and chief executive officer 

of Pepperdine University. 

I will now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. You each have 5 minutes to present 

your testimony. When you begin the light in front of you will turn 

green, when 1 minute is left the light will turn yellow, when your 

time is expired the light will turn red. At that point I will ask you 

that you wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. Members 

will each have 5 minutes to ask questions after your testimony. 

So, Dr. Schneider, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 

opening testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK SCHNEIDER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you so much for the invitation to testify 

here before the subcommittee, considering how to use and improve 

Federal data to increase transparency in higher education. 

Currently students face a dearth of clear, comparable information on the cost and outcomes of different higher education programs and credentials. In my written testimony I focused on a few 

areas in which the Federal Government could improve the flow of 

data to consumers. Here, I just summarize a few parts of that argument. 

So, as everybody else did, I will begin with IPEDS, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which, as was noted, 

is the primary data source for higher education in the United 

States, requires institutions that participate in the Federal Student 

Aid Program, Title IV, to fill out a dozen surveys. 

The topics covered, the questions asked, these are all the mixing 

regulatory and consumer information, but they are all the result of 

a long process of legislation in which questions are added, surveys 

are demanded, and never removed. 

So, as a result that is an accretion of information, some of which 

is no longer necessary, some of it is not of interest any longer, but 

NCS has documented has documented the legislative mandate behind each and every one of those surveys, which means that they 

cannot be changed significantly. They cannot be ended without legislative action. 

So, there are two perennial suggestions that come up all the 

time: one is to simplify the Human Resources survey, which is the 

most burdensome and probably the most hated survey in IPEDS; 

and the second one is to transfer the Academic Library survey to 

a not-for-profit organization. These are evergreen, these are perennial. We dealt with this when I was at NCS. TRPs have dealt with 

this, but we require legislative action to do this. 

Here is another issue that I suggest in my written testimony 

that could actually increase the efficiency of IPEDS, and that is to 

have NCS—Congress should ask NCS to decide which measures 

are needed at the institution level, and which we could actually use 

sample surveys to estimate the numbers. 

But more importantly, I think, is we need to improve the transparency of student outcomes and graduation rate we have been 

talking about for a long time, but I am much more concerned right 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

now with the issues of what happens to students after they graduate. 

So there is a growing recognition that the outcomes of the investment of time and money in higher education has to be measured 

better than IPEDS can currently do or the way it is structured to 

do. The most efficient way of doing this would be to merge different 

existing administrative data systems, especially wage data, to provide a fuller picture of how well colleges and universities are serving their students. 

This leads immediately to questions that Congress must decide 

upon. So, one is the extent of the coverage of these merged data 

systems. Is it sufficient to have a data system that concentrates on 

Title IV students, which is easily justified because of the extent of 

the Federal investment in Title IV student aid programs? 

FSA already has a very good database on aided students, and we 

have already merged those with IRS data to populate parts of the 

scorecard, so this has been done. The question is, is that sufficient? 

And that is a congressional decision about whether or not Title IV 

students alone are sufficient for national purposes, or do we need 

different mechanisms or different ways of covering the one-third of 

students that are not covered in Title IV? 

As we shift towards merging administrative data systems, action 

by Congress is fundamentally important to set the parameters and 

the guidelines for how those data will be merged and how they will 

be used. 

It is fundamental to remember that these administrative data 

systems were created for many different purposes and they are all 

governed by different laws. So at the current time when we start 

merging these data systems, it is an incredibly tedious process of 

negotiations, renegotiations, and negotiations yet again between 

many attorneys, many data owners, all of whom have different 

laws, different perspectives, and different cultures about sharing 

data and integrating. So we end up spending years, months, negotiating agreements because there is no unified framework for how 

these data systems can be merged and how they should be managed. 

The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking will report 

this summer a 2-year investigation, and I hope that provides some 

guidance to how the Congress needs to move forward in terms of 

making sure that we can merge these data and use them for the 

national interest. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schneider follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 25426.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 25426.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 25426.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 25426.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 25426.005
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 25426.006
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 25426.007
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 25426.008
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 25426.009
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 25426.010
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 25426.011
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 25426.012
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 25426.013
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 25426.014
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 25426.015
25 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize Mr. Delisle for 5 minutes for your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF JASON DELISLE, RESIDENT FELLOW, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Mr. DELISLE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Guthrie, 

Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 

today about data on our Higher Education System. 

I have been asked to focus my testimony on data about the Federal Student Loan Program. And I should note that my comments 

today are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 

American Enterprise Institute. 

As you know, the Federal Government’s Direct Loan Program 

dominates the student loan market today, issuing 90 percent of all 

loans made each year. So what started out in 1965 as a program 

for undergraduates from low-income families today makes loans to 

all undergraduates, parents of undergraduates, and even graduate 

students, regardless of their financial circumstances. 

The program even allows parents and graduate students to borrow effectively unlimited sums through the PLUS Loan Program. 

So now, around 1.3 trillion, this talk about standing loans under 

this entire program, rivals the Federal Housing Administration’s 

largest mortgage program. 

Options to repay or not repay these loans have exploded in number and in generosity in recent years. These include plans with 

fixed or graduated payments spread over 10 to 30 years, and a variety of plans with payments set to borrowers’ incomes, which I collectively refer to as income-based repayment, or IBR. 

Yet given the size and complexity of the program, the data that 

the Federal Government makes available about it to researchers or 

the public leaves much to be desired. Specifically the data often are 

not broken at the student level and, therefore, provide only highlevel summary statistics. 

The data also generally reflect only snapshots in time and are 

not longitudinal, meaning information about what happens to loans 

and borrowers after the money is disbursed is simply not observable. The best available data sources that the Federal Government 

already compiles, those that are student-level and track borrowers 

over time, are not available to anyone outside the government, not 

even researchers who hold restricted use licenses from the National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

So, many key questions about the program cannot be answered 

by entities outside the government. I believe this creates policy 

blind spots, and I will provide two cases to illustrate. 

I think the Student Loan Program today is in something of a 

nonrepayment crisis. Over 8 million people are in default on their 

Federal student loans. That number has grown year after year, 

even though the country is now many years into an economic expansion with low rates of unemployment. 

Other estimates suggest that over 40 percent of borrowers whose 

loans have come due are in default, are delinquent, or are in forbearance or hardship deferment. Without better data about these 

borrowers after they leave school, it really is difficult to fully unCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

derstand the situation or even to begin to develop solutions to the 

problem. 

My other example is the case of income-based repayment. When 

the Obama administration and Congress dramatically expanded 

this program starting in 2010, internal estimates suggested the 

added cost would be around $700 million a year. We are now learning that costs are substantially larger, running in the billions annually. 

It turns out the original estimates were based on indefensible assumptions that have only recently come to light, such as the Department of Education’s assumption that graduate students with 

PLUS loans, meaning the students who borrow the most, would not 

use income history payment at all or that enrollment in the program would not grow. 

If entities outside the Federal Government had access to better 

data about this program, researchers might have uncovered these 

faulty assumptions before lawmakers expanded the IBR program. 

But, fortunately, a readymade solution could help improve the 

availability of data. There are two data sources of Federal agencies 

use to study the loan program that are not currently available outside the government. 

These include a sample file extracted from the Department of 

Education’s National Student Loan Database System, NSLDS, a 

recordkeeping system that tracks the status of individual loans and 

borrowers. And another dataset developed by the Treasury Department that links NSLDS data to Internal Revenue Service tax 

records for a sample of borrowers, all the information is 

deidentified. 

So, while far from perfect, these datasets overcome many of the 

limitations of what is available to researchers otherwise. The Department of Education in cooperation with Treasury could make 

these datasets available in the same manner as other restricteduse datasets through the National Center for Education Statistics. 

This is where Congress could be helpful by making its interest 

known in such a project and ensuring that sufficient resources are 

provided to the agencies to make it happen. Far too much is at 

stake for lawmakers to be satisfied with the current state of affairs. 

Taxpayers and students deserve better than the policies that we 

have today that are often developed through anecdotes and assumptions for lack of available data. My recommendation provides 

one relatively simple way to address these blind spots in our student loan system. 

And that concludes my testimony today. I look forward to any of 

the questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Delisle follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 25426.016
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 25426.017
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 25426.018
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 25426.019
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 25426.020
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 25426.021
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 25426.022
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 25426.023
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 25426.024
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 25426.025
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 25426.026
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 25426.027
39 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you for your testimony. And I recognize Ms. Voight for 5 minutes for her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MAMIE VOIGHT, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY 

RESEARCH, INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY 

Ms. VOIGHT. Thank you. Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member 

Davis, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Mamie Voight, and I am vice president of policy research at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, or IHEP, a 

nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes college access 

and success, especially for underserved students. 

I help lead the Postsecondary Data Collaborative, a broad collection of organizations representing institutions, States, students, 

employers, and privacy and security experts, committed to the use 

of high-quality data to improve student success and close equity 

gaps. 

Distinguished members, the research is clear: investing in a college education pays off. But while college is often a worthwhile investment, students and families, policymakers and institutions 

can’t answer critical questions about which programs at which institutions provide an adequate return on this investment, and for 

which students. 

Before making other investments, like buying a home or a car, 

we shop around, we perform inspections, we lift the hood, and we 

kick the tires. In other words, we ask questions. The college marketplace should be no different, but we lack the high-quality information needed for the market to function. We cannot answer critical questions about colleges, like how many part-time and low-income students graduate? Do students transfer? How do students 

fair in the workforce? 

Students need these answers and so do policymakers, Federal 

and State, who are charged with enacting good policies and 

stewarding taxpayer dollars, and so do colleges which often cite 

data use as a driving factor in helping them better serve students, 

especially underrepresented students. But policy barriers prevent 

these stakeholders from accessing information even when the data 

already exists. 

Our data infrastructure consists of several databases and multiple players. It is duplicative efficient and cumbersome, and many 

students remain missing or invisible. We can and should do better. 

In recent years, institutions and States have recognized the insufficiency of Federal data, and created voluntary initiatives to collect 

better information, documented in my written testimony. 

These voluntary initiatives illuminate data gaps and prove it is 

possible to collect better data. But piecemeal voluntary reporting 

isn’t enough. We need a more complete solution. And a better solution exists, a secure privacy-protected postsecondary student data 

system, like the one proposed in the Bipartisan College Transparency Act and Student Right to Know Before You Go Act, would 

integrate existing Federal, State, and institutional data sources 

into a more coherent, nimble, secure, and privacy-protected network. It would create better information that counts all students 

while reducing reporting burden on institutions. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

More than 70 organizations representing students, institutions, 

veterans, college access providers, and employers have endorsed 

the College Transparency Act; recognizing that this system would 

create a more functional postsecondary marketplace. The Federal 

Government is uniquely positioned to compile better postsecondary 

information, even if non-Federal entities disseminate it. 

For example, consider how valuable your weather app is. Privately developed weather apps are primarily made possible by data 

from the National Weather Service. Just as the Federal Government is uniquely positioned to compile weather data because it has 

access to things like satellites, it also is the best option for compiling data on education and the workforce given the information 

it already holds. It is the only entity with comprehensive information on employment outcomes. In fact, the Departments of Treasury and Education have already linked education and workforce 

data to answer questions about students who receive Federal financial aid. But those answers will remain incomplete without a system that includes nonaided students, too. 

Student protection must be at the heart of any data system. It 

must protect their privacy, preserve their right to information, and 

secure their data. The data network should be limited to answer 

only questions of national interest, about college access, completion, 

cost, outcomes, and equity; and data should be secured using industry-leading protocols. Strong data governance should design the 

system to use data in compliance with the law, notify students, 

prohibit the sale of data or use of data for law enforcement, and 

issue penalties for misuse. We can protect student privacy while 

providing students with the information they deserve. It is not an 

either/or choice. 

Members, as you steward over 160 billion in taxpayer dollars to 

help students access and succeed in college, please consider the 

questions you cannot answer. A more coherent student-level data 

system would address substantial shortcomings, and before students decide where to invest their resources they deserve answers 

to these same questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Voight follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 25426.028
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 25426.029
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 25426.030
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 25426.031
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 25426.032
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 25426.033
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 25426.034
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 25426.035
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 25426.036
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 25426.037
51 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you for your testimony. And I will 

now recognize Mr. Benton for 5 minutes for testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW K. BENTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BENTON. Good morning, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Davis, members of the committee. I am privileged to serve on 

this panel. 

I am Andrew Benton, and I have the privilege of serving as the 

president of Pepperdine University located in Malibu, California. 

Succinctly stated, data analysis is important both in informing 

consumer decisions and in ensuring institutional accountability. 

The questions then become what information is to be collected? 

How much is to be collected? And for whom and for what purpose 

is it being collected? In this age of college pricing concerns, I must 

also express concerns about the cost burden of data collection. 

I want to use my time well, so I offer these limited points for 

your consideration. First, we live in a data-rich era, and calls for 

higher education data come from all quarters, especially from government. However, this data should be maintained, first and foremost, at the institutional level if our response to these requests is 

to be effective and respectful of student privacy. 

Second, we strongly value and support tools including data that 

prospective students and their families can use to find a right-fit 

institution which will enable and encourage their success. In fact, 

Pepperdine, along with 600 other colleges and universities, participates in the University and College Accountability Network, 

UCAN, which includes over 50 data elements that we believe are 

important to student success. It is not required of us; we do this 

because we care about our students. And by the way, this costs the 

Federal Government nothing. 

Third, universities like Pepperdine are accountable to regional 

and national accrediting agencies, to their home State, in our case 

California, and to the Federal Government. We take our responsibility to demonstrate transparently the quality of our educational 

programs and, importantly, our responsible stewardship of Federal 

funds. We provide all the data necessary to meet our responsibilities, and we do so in great detail. 

Fourth, in these various efforts it is important to remember that 

students are more than data points, and they come to our institutions with expectations of privacy, and we need to honor that. It 

is, in effect, a promise that we have made to them. 

It is for this reason that I specifically commend, and gratefully, 

Chairwoman Foxx for her work to protect student privacy by authoring language in the Higher Education Act that prohibits the establishment of a Federal student unit record data system. 

For over 40 years the Federal privacy laws have allowed schools 

to release student-specific confidential data only with the written 

approval of the student. The ban on the establishment of a Federal 

student unit record data system maintains these important protections. This ban is particularly important for students who do not 

receive any Federal aid, but would be included in the new comprehensive data system nevertheless. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

I want to say just a word, as I head toward my close, about privacy. The notions of privacy and security are often conflated. Certainly, they are related, but they are not the same things. In short, 

the privacy issue associated with the student unit record data system is that personal information about a student would be entered 

in a database without the student’s expressed consent. Standing 

alone, that is a violation of privacy. 

A security issue with such a system would include the unauthorized access to or use of the personal information, whether or not 

an individual had consented to having his or her information added 

to the system in the first place. 

Finally, the potential existence of a massive Federal registry, including presently about 20 million students, increasing by 3 million 

each year, will be very tempting for other governmental agencies 

and the private sector to mine, to the potential detriment of our 

students and alumni. 

For these reasons the focus needs to be at the individual institutional level, supporting the institution’s fiduciary sense of responsibility for seeing that students acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to enjoy a rich, intellectual life, also enabling them to provide for themselves and for their families. It is the responsibility 

that we take very seriously at Pepperdine University, and our commitment is shared by many. 

I thank you for your time to explore these important issues and 

for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. 

[The statement of Mr. Benton follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 25426.038
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 25426.039
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 25426.040
56 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Voight 

had a very proper analogy using the weather, and then we go to 

someone from Malibu next; it kind of works there. 

I would like to recognize the chairwoman for the full committee, 

Ms. Foxx, 5 minutes for questions. Dr. Foxx, I apologize. 

Mrs. FOXX. That is okay. Thank you very much, Chairman Guthrie. This has been a very enlightening set of presentations and I 

want to thank the panel members very much for being here. This 

is an important issue. Getting information to make good decisions 

at the policy level is critical to us, and I have always believed that. 

I noticed that, again, most of you used the term ‘‘data.’’ We had 

a hearing here a couple of years ago where we had stacks of reports and one person on the panel said, do you know what, we are 

drowning in data and we don’t have much information. 

And I think that is probably true based on what most of you 

have said today, is that we have a lot of data, but that data is not 

informing us well to make decisions. 

And I appreciated very much Dr. Schneider mentioning this 

Commission on Evidenced-Based Policymaking, which is going to 

bring forth its report later this year, and I am certainly looking forward to that. 

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has a pretty lousy record 

of keeping information private, and we had a hearing in the OGR 

Committee a couple of weeks ago, with IRS representatives and the 

Federal Student Aid Office, indicating what a lousy job the Federal 

Government does of keeping information private. 

Dr. Schneider, do you have another comment you could make on 

how we can protect actual privacy, not relying on the security 

mechanisms that we currently have? Do you have an expanded 

point you would like to make on that? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So, I actually think that the issue is more complicated than just the protection of the data because clearly any 

large data system is going to be subject to risk, right. And we 

should, in fact, do everything we can to protect those data. And 

Senator Wyden has just proposed a new bill for protecting privacy 

using, you know, heavy encryption. The real question, and the one, 

again, that I believe Congress has to weigh in on, is what is the 

balance between the risk of that data system and the rewards and 

the benefits of it? 

And that, to me, is again a fundamental issue for the Congress 

to decide about where we come down in the risk-reward ratio, because clearly there are risks to assembling these data, there are 

also benefits to having these data, we have heard some of them, 

and it is only Congress that has to decide where the inflexion point 

is with the risk and benefits of having those data. 

Mrs. FOXX. And I want to thank you very much for pointing out 

how we have gotten to the place that we have gotten, where I think 

we have a lot of wanted data without necessarily the needed data. 

Mr. Benton, thank you for your comments about the student unit 

record ban. I do feel very keenly about keeping privacy. Would you 

like to talk a little bit more about why you believe this is important 

to your students, and perhaps a little bit more about what you are 

doing with UCAN at Pepperdine and the other institutions that are 

a part of that effort? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

Mr. BENTON. Thank you. First, a word about UCAN, formed 

about a decade ago by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. It was in direct response to congressional 

concerns about getting the right level of information to students. 

And so UCAN, with its 50 different points of information, was created and about 600 of us have loaded it onto our websites. 

So if you want to look up Pepperdine some time, just PepperdineU–C-A–N, Pepperdine UCAN, and you can see about the graduation rates and indebtedness upon graduation, the majors that we 

offer, and the various programs that are ours. We think of it as 

being just right. 

I think there are some scorecards, maybe they are a little bit 

short on information, but then we think this one provides 50 points 

of information for parents and students. And today I think students and their parents are pretty deep into the research as to 

which college or university should be theirs maybe as early as the 

summer before their senior year, because they are going to be applying by November. It is very important they have good and accurate information. 

On my concern about privacy, just I will say this. It is a promise 

that we have made to our students. It is a promise that we have 

made to them in 1974, and it provides a candid relationship between the students and their alma mater. And for me, it is actually 

an ethical, even moral issue that the information they give to us 

is left in their academic files, and we are happy to share it in an 

aggregated basis, but to be asked to turn that over to the Federal 

Government causes me great concern. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. The chairwoman yields back. The ranking 

member of the full committee, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The challenge, of course, 

is to get as much information and still maintain the privacy. And 

let me ask Ms. Voight a question. How many different programs 

are we talking about and are they compatible? And what does the 

pending legislation do in terms of getting one set of data that people can use and rely on? 

Ms. VOIGHT. Right now our existing data infrastructure is incredibly complicated. It is duplicative; institutions have to report information to multiple different entities, to States, to regional initiatives, in some cases to voluntary initiatives like UCAN, to the Federal Government, and to multiple places within the Federal Government. They have to report data to IPEDS and NCES. They have 

to report data to FSA and to the data systems that Jason was talking about. 

So, institutions are reporting data to many different places, and 

that is highly burdensome on them. An improved system that 

would streamline that collection would help to alleviate the burden 

on those institutions, so that instead of focusing those efforts on reporting data for compliance purposes, they could, instead, use that 

data and focus their energies on educating students and using the 

information to help students succeed, and to help close equity gaps. 

And so a streamlined system would help us to get there. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

Mr. SCOTT. What does the bill do? 

Ms. VOIGHT. The bill creates that type of system, so it would 

overturn the ban on a student unit record system and create a student-level collection. 

Mr. SCOTT. We had a comment that nobody periodically reviews 

the questions. Would somebody review the questions and the data 

that would have to be collected? 

Ms. VOIGHT. That would be an important part of the governance 

policy, yes, to make sure that there were regular reviews of the 

data that were collected to make sure that data are minimized. 

That is a key principle of data privacy, to minimize the data that 

are collected, to only collect the information that is absolutely necessary to answer questions of national importance. So that would 

need to be reviewed regularly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is data collected after college, and how would that be 

collected? 

Ms. VOIGHT. So, the way that would work in the bill is that the 

education data that institutions would report would be linked to 

existing data that the Federal Government already holds. The Department of Treasury has information on wages and earnings 

through IRS records, and those could be linked to education records 

through this bill. 

Mr. SCOTT. Obviously that suggests some privacy concerns if you 

are connecting all that data. What does the bill do to guarantee 

privacy of that information? 

Ms. VOIGHT. The bill has a number of privacy provisions in it. 

For one, data are prohibited from being sold, ever. They cannot be 

sold. They cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. There are 

strict penalties for misuse of the data, and those should remain in 

place. There are disclosure limitations, so the data that we are 

talking about now at the student level would never be disclosed to 

the public. Aggregate data would be. 

So, in fact, the earnings information would be kept so privately 

that it would never even go back to the Department of Education; 

it would never go back to NCES. The Department of Education 

would send student records to Treasury, which would then aggregate results and send those aggregated results back to the Department of Education. So it really does take privacy and security very 

seriously. 

Mr. SCOTT. Who could get the data? 

Ms. VOIGHT. The aggregate results would be intended to be available to the public, to inform students and families, policymakers 

and institutions, but student-level data would be highly restricted 

and only the people who absolutely would need access to it to do 

those matches and run those calculations would have access. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you be able to get to the—I mean, you are 

talking about reports, then how would the information be published? 

Ms. VOIGHT. It could be published in a number of different ways. 

And I think that one thing that’s important is that the data be 

made available in ways that private industry can use the aggregate 

results, not the student-level data, but the aggregate results. Just 

like in the weather app example, we can have private industry pull 

in the aggregate institution-level or program-level data, and find 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

ways to make it most appealing and usable to consumers, to students, and families. So that would be incredibly important. 

You could also think about the types of things that this body has 

proposed around the college dashboard, and presenting some of the 

most important information to consumers in that type of dashboard 

format. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would this information be available on a college-level 

basis, so that you would be able to look at a particular college to 

determine how the Pell-eligible students are doing, and how certain 

minority groups and how everybody else is fairing? 

Ms. VOIGHT. Exactly. We would have institution-level data and 

program-level data in some cases. We know that is incredibly important for workforce outcomes, because student earnings depend 

not just on which institution they go to, but very much what they 

study, what they major in, so that program-level data would be 

very important as well. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And 

I recognize myself, 5 minutes for questions. 

First, President Benton, in your testimony you outlined a balancing act between data transparency and privacy. Dr. Schneider 

has testified about the need to access more data to better understand the taxpayers’ return on investment, and I know you have 

talked about it in your testimony. 

But, again, what are your thoughts on availability of data in 

your opinion? Who should lead the research that demonstrates success? Is that government, States, or institutions? 

Mr. BENTON. I know that at our university we have a very robust 

Office of Institutional Effectiveness, and we yield this information 

on a regular basis, so that we can make parents knowledgeable 

about the considerable investment they are about to make and so 

that students can think about the benefits of being a business 

major or comparative literature major, just two examples. 

And we are happy to share that, but we share it on an aggregate 

basis to respect privacy. We share that with the State, and, if 

asked, we share that with the Federal Government. And so we 

have no objection to that and we think that is a part of this age 

of consumers in which we need to provide information like that. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. Dr. Schneider, you mentioned in 

your testimony that one of the reasons the earnings information 

available for the college scoreboard does not adequately measure 

variation in earnings outcomes is because it is aggregated at the 

institution level rather than the program level. Why do you believe 

it is so important to provide this information on a programmatic 

level? And is it possible to report this information for federally 

aided students without creating a new Federal Unit Record System? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So, first of all, the variation in student wages 

varies much more by what someone studies and where they study 

it. So, there are a handful of institutions, most of them private, 

that are, you know, you go there and it doesn’t matter what you 

major in. You have the secret handshake, you know, the ring, and 

the social capital and the networks, and you do fine. 

But if you are attending a regional campus where most students 

go, if you major in many areas, you are going to be at the bottom 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

of the income distribution, and 10 years later you are still going to 

be at the bottom of the income distribution. We need to understand 

the outcomes at the program level, because that is what is driving 

so much of the wage outcomes that students will likely experience. 

So at that level it is fundamentally important. 

The question then becomes, and I think, again, this is an issue 

for the Congress to decide, what is the responsibility of States, for 

example, versus the Federal Government? So, I work with many 

States. They have information on all the students mostly in public 

institutions, but the State of Minnesota, Virginia, have data notfor-profit, some even have data for-profits on the outcomes of those 

data. 

So, right now, States like Texas report incredibly detailed information about the wage outcomes of all the public students attending public institutions, graduating from public institutions, and 

that is the State doing that. So, there is incredibly valuable information. I have worked with seven States liberating this information about outcomes at the program level. 

So we have proven without doubt that the program-level information is fundamentally important. The question, again as I posed 

earlier, was whether or not the Federal Government has a sufficiently compelling interest in the remaining one-third of the students to create a database that encompasses them as compared to 

FSA students. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Delisle, I am 

very concerned to hear from your testimony that nearly one in four 

Federal student loans issued to undergraduates this year is eventually expected to default. Do we have any sense from the currently 

available information about the most likely indicators of default or 

that could help us craft policies to guard against defaults? And 

what additional information would be most useful to have on defaulters? 

Mr. DELISLE. Yes. We have in some information that the agencies, the Department of Education decides to put out that we can 

use to look at predictors of default, they are just sort of not necessarily predictors, it is just sort of big, categorical averages. So we 

know lifetime expected default rate for students by type of institution, but, again, it is not information that is updated very regularly. 

So, really the issue is that the types of data and the statistics 

that the agencies are using to develop those kinds of reports, or 

summary statistics, I think should be made available so that researchers are able to update them and scrutinize them on a more 

regular basis. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. That concludes my questions. 

And I will recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. 

Davis, 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to 

turn to Ms. Voight. And I know that there are concerns about the 

student unit record data system, and I wonder if you could address 

the question of whether or not the Federal Government should 

have an interest in collecting data on students beyond those who 

receive Federal financial aid. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

Ms. VOIGHT. Yes. The Federal Government has a clear role to 

play here. The Federal Government is a huge investor in our higher education system investing over $160 billion in the system. And 

we need that information not only on aided students, but also on 

nonaided students for a number of reasons. 

For one, the data that will be made available to the public will 

be institution-level data or program-level data, like we have discussed. In order to have those data accurately reflect institutions, 

they need to include all students at the institution. About 30 percent of students don’t receive Title IV financial aid, and so if they 

are omitted from the aggregate calculations, then the institutionlevel data that will be out there will be misrepresenting the actual 

outcomes at the institution. 

We also really need information on Title IV and non-Title IV students if we are to address equity concerns and use these data to 

really address the equity imperative. Just like under ESSA we 

need information on economically disadvantaged and noneconomically disadvantaged students. We also need information in higher 

ed on aided students and nonaided students so that we can address 

equity concerns. And really, fundamentally underlying all of this is 

that all students deserve access to good information to inform their 

choices, regardless of whether they get aid or they don’t. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. I know we are familiar with this aggregating data, and that certainly was an important move a number 

of years ago, and still in ESSA, but at the higher education level 

there is a focus on reporting graduation rates, but we don’t 

disaggregate that data in terms of part-time, full-time, disadvantaged students from different geographic areas, et cetera. 

Why don’t we do that? I mean, you had mentioned that we really 

don’t get enough information out of the system as it exists today. 

So how important really is that? 

Ms. VOIGHT. It is very important. Right now our IPEDS graduation rates only reflect first-time and full-time students. That is less 

than half of students attending college today. In order to answer 

questions about who is graduating and give accurate information 

to students, we need better information on part-time students, on 

transfer students, and we need to disaggregate by income status, 

like you mentioned. So, using Pell, often is used as adisaggregate 

to understand those equity implications. 

So, we very much need that information. 

The reason that it is hard to get through our current infrastructure comes back to that burden question about institutions. Every 

institution has to write code on their individual campus and calculate all of the different metrics that are requested in IPEDS. In 

a simplified system, a student-level system, the institutions, instead, would report that student-level data and the NCES could 

run those calculations. 

Write one code across all institutions, it would build some efficiencies into the system. So that is a key benefit of creating this 

type of system. And the other thing to keep in mind when thinking 

about the first-time, full-time graduation rates, which we often 

complain about and hear complaints about because they are not 

representative of students, to get back to your earlier question 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

about why we need data on Title IV and non-Title IV students, is 

the exact analogy there. 

Several years from now we will be complaining that our earnings 

outcomes are only reflective of a portion of our student body, just 

like now we complain that our graduation rates are only representative of a portion of our student body. In order to provide accurate 

information we need to count all students and all outcomes. 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes. And part of it gets back to that whole issue of, 

you know, we have tons of data and not enough information. But 

thinking about our families, really, that are asking questions about 

what is best for their son or daughter, how does that make a difference? 

I think that, you know, you are talking about some of the benefits of doing that largely to an institution as well as to individuals. 

But I am just thinking how we communicate that better in a way 

that is, you know, easily digested, actually. Whether it is online, 

wherever that is. 

Ms. VOIGHT. Absolutely. Students care about outcomes. The vast 

majority of students, over 80 percent, say that they want to go to 

college to get a better job and to set themselves up for success after 

college. So they want that information about how college is going 

to help them achieve their life goals. 

So the information needs to be provided in digestible formats, in 

dashboard-type tools to help communicate it to students in usable 

ways. And it also can be made available to a variety of different 

stakeholders to use it to help communicate to college access providers, to counselors and to teachers, and families to help do that 

communication with students. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. The ranking member yields 

back. And I recognize Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for this important hearing, and thanks to the panel for being here. 

Chairman, I want to take a personal privilege, I am joined in the 

audience by Brittany Burlingham, a constituent from Union City, 

Erie County; an outstanding young woman who is a social worker 

major at the Edinburgh University, and a case aide for the Bair 

Foundation; and she is here with the Congressional Foster Youth 

Shadow Program today. So, I really appreciate you, Brittany, joining me here. 

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. Since you introduced your foster care, I would like to 

introduce mine. Christopher Mundy from Los Angeles is with us 

today. I appreciate it. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Excellent, excellent. Well, I know, with the ranking member, we are just real proud to be participating in that program today with these outstanding individuals. You know, my 

background was health care and when I worked health care, you 

know, we had to provide informed consent when people would come 

to us. And believe it or not, part of that is by law we are supposed 

to reveal what procedures cost. People are shocked to hear that actually is the law today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

And so my question, and I do appreciate this hearing, I think 

good transparent data helps point prospective students to preferred 

institutions according to their needs and whether it is the knowledge they are looking for, the eventual—hopefully, the outcome of 

a great career, certainly at an affordable rate that works for them. 

And our efforts at getting this data right will help those who 

choose to use it. 

I want to kind of separate away from the data just with my first 

question. You know, two of the most important relationships is this 

interaction between the prospective student and the institution of 

higher education, of learning. 

And so my question is, what do we require, or should we require, 

institutions of higher education to disclose regarding their performance? 

You put things like direct and indirect cost, graduate rate, average income earnings of graduates to prospective students, when 

they interact with those prospective students, whether it is a visit, 

whether it is a phone call, whatever contact. Do we require or 

should we require institutions to provide disclosure in those most 

important interactions? Dr. Schneider? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So we know that there are at least 40 disclosures that are required of schools at the current time. We also 

know that schools are very spotty on the extent to which they comply with those disclosure requirements. So, for example, Pell graduation rates have been a disclosure, not a reporting, but a disclosure requirement for a long time, and only about a third or a quarter of the schools have actually disclosed that required information. 

So, in my written testimony I talk about, you know, trying to 

straighten out the disclosure requirements, and try to figure out 

which ones are really required—I am sorry, which ones the Congress wants to be disclosed and how better to do that. 

I remember taking my daughters to visit colleges. It was always 

about, like, great food clubs and swimming pools and lazy rivers, 

and it was never about anything about the cost or the likely outcomes. 

I think part of what we are talking about is the distribution of 

responsibility to get that kind of information into the hands of consumers. Right? So, I work with Money magazine, which has a very 

well-regarded college ranking system, and when they asked me, 

well, should we weight cost versus this, versus this, versus this 

more heavily? I said, that is an editorial decision, not my decision. 

That is for the editors to decide. And you brand it as a Money magazine ranking system, not as a Federal ranking system, not as any 

other kind of official ranking system. 

If a consumer wants to buy your ranking system, buy your magazine, fine. And that is driven by editorial decisions. So, I think one 

of the—and Mamie was making this point earlier, one of the things 

that we need to keep in mind, is the Federal Government collecting 

data, and again there are many decisions about the data, and then 

the dissemination of the data. 

So, I believe that having good data and then having many people 

access that data, all privacy protected, all aggregated, and then developing different ways of accessing that data and communicating 

it to students is fundamental, but for the Federal Government to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

collect data, I mean, we work for years on the College Navigator, 

and like I look at it now and I say, well, god, that may have been 

good, you know, 15 years ago; it is long in the tooth and needs to 

be updated, and God knows if we will ever get around to doing 

that. 

So, we need to make the distinction between the dissemination 

of this information as well as compared to the collection of the 

data. And maybe the Federal Government has unique capacities for 

collecting information, but it certainly has not proven itself to be 

very good at disseminating. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Courtney is 

recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

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

hosting this hearing; and to the witnesses for a really thoughtful 

discussion. 

I would like to, again, just sort of make a comment that a lot of 

the testimony has been framed in terms of the benefit to the students and to the families, but I do think Mr. Delisle made an important point that the data gaps is creating blind spots in terms 

of public policy. 

And yesterday we had an absolutely perfect example of that. The 

Trump administration came out with their budget proposal which 

makes a pretty radical change to the Stafford Student Loan Program by eliminating the subsidized loan program. It is about a $39 

billion hit on students who have to pay in-school interest under 

this proposal. 

In the back of the budget explanation, the budget director, and 

I give him at least credit for his honesty, states very clearly that 

while the in-school interest subsidy has not been rigorously evaluated, lessons from behavioral economics indicate that the subsidy 

is less likely to increase postsecondary enrollment. 

That is not data-driven analysis, that is guesswork. That is basi- cally saying we are going to shift $39 billion of cost to students 

while they are in school, and again, with absolutely no analysis 

that I think the Congress or the public or certainly the ones who 

are going to pay the price here can really have any confidence that 

a good decision is being made. 

The other proposal in the budget: to cancel out the Public Service 

Student Loan Forgiveness Program, something that was a part of 

this committee’s work 10 years ago when we passed the College 

Cost Reduction Act. Again, just as that program was about to hit 

this year for the first 10-year cohort, that basically made career decisions and job decisions built around relying on that benefit, 

again, the administration, with the stroke of a pen, in its budget 

is wiping that out; again with no analysis that anyone I think can 

really possibly justify that kind of a change. 

So, again, the need to have data is important for students and 

families, particularly as they make choices about, you know, where 

they matriculate, but also obviously it is critical in terms of the 

role that the Federal Government has. 

And again, I would like to sort of go back to that point. And Ms. 

Voight, you talked about, again, the scope of the Title IV skin in 

the game, which is about $160 billion. But, in fact, the universe of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

benefits that the Federal Government provides extends beyond that 

in terms of the tax code, whether it is the 529 tax-deferred savings 

accounts, whether it is the American Opportunity Tax Credit, 

whether it is the student loan interest deductions. 

So, maybe you could talk a little bit about the fact that, you 

know, we are really talking about virtually almost every student 

who goes to college. Certainly my kids benefited from the 529 program. Maybe you could shed some light on that. 

Ms. VOIGHT. Absolutely. So, the Federal investment in higher 

education is very large in the student aid programs, but, as you 

said, that is not the only Federal investment. We have investments 

through the tax code, and we have investment in terms of research 

dollars that go to institutions of higher education. 

So, to properly steward all of the Federal investment we need information on all students attending institutions of higher education, not only those who are getting Title IV aid. Also the institution as a whole benefits from being a part of the Title IV Program. 

It is not only the students who are getting that aid, it is the institution as a whole that is able to operate because they have that 

funding. 

The tax example is a good one because the IRS does have information on students who attend institutions of higher education for 

purposes of claiming the tax credits and deduction. So that information very much is there, and the Federal Government is wellpositioned to compile that information and report on outcomes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Well, again, I think for all the reasons that you stated, the Transparency Act and Know Before You 

Go, I mean, it is time for us to do this and move forward and, 

again, hopefully defer any kind of drastic budget decisions like the 

ones proposed yesterday until I think Congress has better, you 

know, sources of information before making that kind of drastic 

change. 

And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I 

recognize Mr. Allen for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, panel, for 

being with us today. I come from the business community, so I am 

interested in the investment and return aspects of not only capital, 

but also education. 

In listening here today, I think if I were a university and I was 

just getting started out and I was trying to attract students, the 

first thing I would have is I would advertise that I give an efficient, 

low cost, you get an education at X-dollar. 

When you get here, because most students really don’t know 

what they want to do even when they get to college, I think I would 

test, I would say, we have a system where we can understand how 

you are wired and where your passion is, and we can kind of put 

you on that career track. And then the other thing is, this is what 

you can expect to earn when you get out. 

So, Mr. Schneider how—and then we have this privacy issue, so 

how do we accomplish—because education is very expensive and, 

you know, once you go through college, I don’t know what the facts 

say about once you get through college, folks would then have to 

go back to college to learn a different career track, and then maybe 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

a third term until they figure out, you know, maybe what they are 

set up for as far as a career. But how do we accomplish this in 

higher education? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, again, I think it comes down to the question of the responsibility of institutions, which I don’t think actually have the capacity to generate the kinds of post-graduation outcomes that are fundamental to the calculation of ROI or measuring 

success; States which have very good data systems and could get 

better with some help from Congress, for example, or the Federal 

Government. 

So, right now my partner States are doing an incredibly good job 

on exactly what you are talking about: measuring the return on investment at the program level for different students. We have 

learned many lessons that they are not incorporating into their 

messaging and into actually in performance budgeting systems, for 

example, about the importance of technical degrees, career and 

technical education, associate degrees. 

So, there is a whole radical change in the way in which colleges 

are thinking about their training programs, and there is an emphasis on skills rather than simply degrees. 

Mr. ALLEN. Right. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So, this is a fundamental message that the data 

that the States are collecting are enabling us to disseminate. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, is this a recent paradigm shift? Or is this something we have been talking about for a long time as far as trying 

to understand, okay, you have got to prepare yourself for a career; 

this is what the investment looks like? And then once you have 

reached that investment, I mean, when do we start looking at this? 

Because, you know, we have got 1.3 trillion in student loan debt 

out there today, and, as was mentioned, it is one out of four who 

may not be able to pay it back. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Right. 

Mr. ALLEN. So, I mean, is this recent or is it we have been talking about this for a long time? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, so I will take some credit for helping this 

thought process along. So, I think, you know, we started with an 

access agenda. This is all common, you know, in the higher ed research community. We started with an access agenda, and then we 

realized that access without success was not success. So then we 

had a completion agenda, and again, you know, success is not graduating without a good job; family-sustaining wages is not sufficient. 

And it really has been driven by States and governors who look 

at their investment in higher education’s human capital investment. 

Mr. ALLEN. Right. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And as soon as you start talking about education 

as human capital investment, the return on that investment becomes fundamentally important. 

Mr. ALLEN. Mister, is it Desile? 

Mr. DELISLE. Delisle. 

Mr. ALLEN. Delisle. Okay. Yes, your comments on this? 

Mr. DELISLE. Sure. I wanted to talk about the comment about 

the one-in-four default and how long. Has it always been like this? 

How long has it been going on? We don’t really know, which is sort 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

of the reason why we need to get some of the data on student loan 

performance out so that other people can look at it. 

The Department of Education, only a few years ago, began providing one statistic once a year, showing the lifetime expected default rate for undergraduate student loans— and that is where the 

one-in-four number comes from. But I don’t know if that was the 

case 20 years ago. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, yeah. Well, it is discouraging to know that default rate is probably going to grow when I am in a situation in 

my district where everywhere I go we need good qualified people 

in the workplace. So there is a big disconnect here, and we really 

need to get to the bottom of it. 

And I am out of time and I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I 

recognize Mr. Polis for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, I thank the chair for holding this very important hearing. Last week Mr. Mitchell and myself introduced the 

College Transparency Act, which would provide very important 

data about how our institutions of higher education are performing, 

which we should care about, of course, because it is our tax dollars 

that are going there. And where we go to college is one of the most 

important decisions we make. 

Mr. Mitchell and myself introduced the College Transparency Act 

because we both believe that we are making that decision students 

and families should have access to as much accurate information 

as possible. We wouldn’t expect someone to buy a home without researching it, and higher education shouldn’t be any different. 

At the same time, colleges and universities need better information about their own outcomes so they can improve. The College 

Transparency Act gives them the needed information about where 

they are performing well and where they can make improvements. 

Ms. Voight, you spoke about the disjointed and mismatched data 

systems we have now and the need for better data. The University 

of Colorado Boulder, which is located in my district, fully agrees, 

and what they said is, ‘‘In general, student-level submission will reduce reporting burden, improve data usability to track students 

from entry in the postsecondary education through employment, 

and eventually provide families with outcome information. Modernizing the U.S. Department of Education Student Data System to 

accept and utilize student-level submissions is a significant improvement.’’ 

That is from the University of Colorado. Members in both chambers introduced bipartisan bills that either create an exception to 

the student unit record ban or remove it. The Student Right to 

Know Before You Go Act, which was introduced last Congress, received bipartisan support, including from Speaker Ryan. 

Can you share more about the barriers to creating a more efficient higher ed data system? Despite all this bipartisan support 

from Democrats and Republicans, why isn’t it happening? And then 

can you address within that the privacy concerns that we address 

in the College Transparency Act, and if you have any suggestions 

for additional privacy concerns so we can, you know, completely 

make sure we address those? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

Ms. VOIGHT. Absolutely. So, as you mentioned, there is bipartisan support for this idea of creating a student-level data collection. And we have seen broad support grow in the field, representing institutions and States, and workforce agencies and student groups, and the privacy and security community who recognize the value of this type of system. 

So, there has been quite a bit of evolution over the past nearly 

a decade since the ban on this type of system was put into place. 

We have seen that agreement grow, and I think it is under recognition that we really need this type of information. The primary 

barrier right now is that it remains illegal to create this type of 

system. There is a statute that is preventing it. So that is the primary barrier. 

The College Transparency Act has a number of provisions around 

protecting privacy. I think that it very much takes seriously the 

need to protect privacy and secure data while also recognizing the 

importance of providing information to key constituents. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. You know, and Mr. Benton, you shared 

several concerns about student privacy in your testimony, and you 

may know that I am a strong privacy advocate. I have introduced 

a number of pieces of legislation to provide additional protections, 

including the Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act, the 

Email Privacy Act, the Protecting Data at the Border Act. 

In your testimony you said calls for higher education data comes 

from all quarters, especially from the government. I disagree. 

Frankly, I don’t think that the government is driving this conversation at all. It is actually organizations representing institutions of 

higher education, students, businesses, consumer groups, even donors, and privacy advocates. These are who I hear about in terms 

of supporting higher education data, not the government. 

Mr. Chair, I have a letter from 79 organizations supporting the 

College Transparency Act, and ask unanimous consent to insert it 

in the record. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 25426.044
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 25426.045
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 25426.046
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 25426.047
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 25426.048
74 

Mr. POLIS. And this sort of shows the broad nongovernmental 

support for data from a very broad coalition and I encourage my 

colleagues to look at it. It includes the Association of Public and 

Land-Grant Universities and Community Colleges, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce, veterans groups, so many other groups. 

And Mr. Benton, I wanted to see what your response would be 

to these universities, businesses, and students that kind of this demand is coming from and who support the College Transparency 

Act. In fact, some of these are privacy groups as well. Don’t you 

think that these privacy groups are taking privacy concerns seriously? Or is there any particular change you think we need to 

make to the bill to better protect privacy? 

Mr. BENTON. I just had a chance. Thank you, sir, I just had a 

chance to read the bill yesterday. I find it very well worded, easy 

to understand, and I probably would have suggestions, but I didn’t 

come prepared for that. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. No, and obviously, we encourage followup from the committee, so I will ask you in writing, have any suggestions about further strengthening the privacy positions of the 

bill. Certainly those of us who are in the forefront of the Student 

Data Privacy Movement, and privacy movement, I want to make 

sure that those concerns are addressed, and that the data can be 

used by many of the stakeholder organizations to actually improve 

the affordability and quality of the college education. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. The gentleman yields back. I recognize Mr. 

Mitchell for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You started this hearing 

today talking about what we don’t know, despite the fact that we 

do 12 separate surveys in IPEDS, spend a million hours gathering 

them. I ran an institution and for many years we did IPEDS. So 

I can best describe them as a circus with definitions that left a lot 

to be desired and the information that was provided to consumers 

limited, at best. 

And if we don’t know, consumers can’t know what the opportunity in education is, what their outcomes can be. They are the 

users. In all ways they also pay for it. They pay for it for tuition, 

they pay for it in time, and the taxpayers pay for it, $165 billion, 

and we don’t know, never mind them. Only 21 percent of the students are currently captured in the IPEDS, and somehow we have 

to sort of glean some useful information from that. 

One of the witnesses testified to say we are in a data rich era. 

Well, there may be a lot of data floating around, but the question 

is, is it relevant? Can they access it and can they understand it? 

A couple of questions I guess I want to pursue, maybe Mr. 

Schneider you could help me out with. In your opinion, what is the 

most key information that consumers’ families need in order to 

start making an assessment of a college or university? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, so in my mind, ultimately they need to 

know what they get in return for the time and the money that they 

spend 

Mr. MITCHELL. And that is assessed by what is the likelihood of 

graduating, to get a job, right? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And so it is, are you employed? So, ultimately, 

the goal of the university education and college education, there 

are multiple goals obviously, but we are in no position to measure 

what students have learned because that is a quagmire and we are 

not going there. But we can measure what they do earn, are they 

employed, what they are earning. And this is fundamentally important information. So, the question for me is twofold: how do we get 

that information? And then how do we disseminate it? 

Mr. MITCHELL. And the fundamental question is not ultimately 

at the end, it is a percentage of people that start a postsecondary 

education and fail to complete anything, yet have a massive student loan or growing student loans. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Right. Correct. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That they will have difficulty paying. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So, completion rates, actually the State of Texas, 

which I work with a lot, has information at the program level 

which is fundamentally important about debt at the program level, 

by the way. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Graduation rates, time to completion at the program level, because, again, there is incredible variation across programs in these fundamental inputs. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Exactly the issue is one of programmatic distinctions. The graduation rate, the employment rate, the earnings of 

the student graduating from the architecture program, I leave the 

university out, versus the nursing program are dramatically different. 

Mr. Benton, can you share with me, for example, the graduation 

rates and the employment rates from—name two programs from 

institutions, rather than do that for you. Can you share the distinctions for me? 

Mr. BENTON. The graduation rates for Pepperdine? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Employment rates; no, for the program, not overall. So that is a problem with UCAN. I have got a chance to look 

at it, UCAN gives overall information, but their outcome rates from 

one program to another, we all know, are dramatically different. 

How is that information shared with students that are looking at 

Pepperdine or any other university that is participating in UCAN? 

Mr. BENTON. I can only speak for mine. We maintain information 

on how many of our students are employed within 8 months of 

graduation in a field related to the major or how many have gone 

on to graduate school. And that is a pretty high rate, that is about 

85, 80 percent. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Sure it is. Sure it is. But the question is, I chose 

to attend the college or Michigan State University for one reason: 

they could tell me what happened with their students when they 

graduated. The Political Science Department couldn’t. They 

couldn’t give me data, they couldn’t give me outcomes information, 

and that was back in 1974. It wasn’t quite a data-rich environment 

then. 

That is the question I pose to the institutions using UCAN is 

how does the student get information about the architectural program or the nursing program or the mechanical engineering program? Because they are making an investment not in just a parCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

76 

ticular university, but, in fact, in a program that they can hopefully 

start their career in. How do they get that information in the current system? 

Mr. BENTON. For us, just ask. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Why is it not put out publicly so that everyone 

can see it, including taxpayers? 

Mr. BENTON. I am not sure that it isn’t, but I am just saying we 

have that information. If you are an accounting major, we can tell 

you what is probably going to happen to you. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Give me one second, Mr. Chair, I know I am on 

the time, one second, if you could be so kind. And one last comment 

which may not sit well, is that students seeking absolute privacy 

from the Federal Government have choices in institutions to attend. You can attend Hillsdale College, among others. They take no 

Federal and State money, and they do no reporting. 

If you want assurance against any involvement in terms of reporting your status in institution, you can make that choice. But 

otherwise, institutions do utilize those resources to offset the cost 

just to sustain their institution. And we need to share the information for return on investment to the taxpayers and the consumers 

that— 

Chairman GUTHRIE. And the time is up. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. I now recognize Ms. Blunt Rochester for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank the panel as well. I want to also speak to my colleague, 

Mr. Mitchell. You made some very, very important points. This 

really is about making sure that taxpayers, consumers, the institutions, or business community, we as legislators can make informed 

decisions and choices. And so I really appreciate the panel. I want 

to thank Dr. Schneider for your comments about how we got here 

because that was very informative as well. 

And my questions are for Ms. Voight, kind of along the lines of 

how we got here. In your remarks you mentioned the system being 

duplicative, inefficient, and cumbersome. So, from your perspective, 

if you could talk a little bit as well about how we got here. 

Ms. VOIGHT. We have been collecting information on higher education since the 1800s, and IPEDS is over 30 years old now. So, 

we developed these data systems at a different time when our higher education system looked different. And over time, as we have 

recognized different needs, new needs, and new things to measure, 

we have sort of added them in piecemeal and it has created this 

complexity of a system. 

But we have a lot of this data that exist at the institution level, 

the State level, or the Federal level that we are simply not using 

now. We have heard a lot about the difference between data and 

information today, and we are data rich, but we are information 

poor. We are not able to convert that data into information. 

And if I may follow up on the conversation about the earnings 

information in particular, because the Federal Government does 

have that information. When institutions are on the hook for providing it, they have no good way to get accurate information on 

workforce outcomes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

77 

So, if an institution is presenting that type of information they 

are doing it usually through surveys of students, which are inherently problematic and inaccurate. They are usually not fully representative of the outcomes of students, and so the quality of those 

results would be insufficient. 

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. That actually gets into some of my other 

questions. You actually said in your testimony as well that there 

are critical questions about access and completion that our current 

data information infrastructure can’t answer. Can you go into more 

depth about the specific questions that can’t be answered as it relates to access, success, and completion? 

Ms. VOIGHT. Absolutely. So, in terms of access we need to know 

who is going to college and where they are going, that is really an 

equity conversation. In terms of completion, we need better information on how part-time students are doing, how transfer students 

are doing, and whether students transfer from a 2-year to a 4-year 

institution in particular, because many students entering community colleges have those goals. 

We need better information on cost and student debts. So many 

of the things that Jason has discussed, we need better information 

to answer those questions and we need better information on workforce outcomes, how much students are earning, and whether they 

are able to repay those debts. And the Federal Government really 

is the best solution for compiling that information. 

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. And lastly, what are some of the most 

important metrics that can influence policy and practice that the 

Federal Government is currently unable to collect from colleges and 

universities? 

Ms. VOIGHT. The Federal Government really needs the underlying information in order to calculate some of these metrics. So, 

for example, to measure transfer, the Federal Government doesn’t 

currently have the underlying student-level data to be able to 

measure transfer across institutions or across States. 

The same for workforce outcomes, we can only answer those 

questions right now through linkages for Title IV students, not for 

non-Title IV students. And we have talked some today, Mark in 

particular has talked about the work that States have been doing 

to provide this information. 

States have done a lot to start providing consumer information 

on workforce outcomes. So metrics like median earnings or the percent of students earning over a certain amount, which is very valuable information, but the State data are limited as well. The State 

data are bounded by State boundaries. So, if a student moves 

across State lines they are lost in terms of both measuring whether 

they have transferred and graduated, and whether they have gotten a job. 

State systems also are missing Federal employees, military employees, and the self-employed, whereas the Federal Government 

has that information. 

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GUTHRIE. Thank you for yielding. I now recognize Mr. 

Garrett for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Benton, I 

apologize because I have a finite amount of time. But I want to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

start with you and ask you if you have any idea the number of employees that Pepperdine, a fine institution, has on the payroll in 

order to ensure the ability to comply with regulations as it relates 

to data submission to the State and Federal entity. 

Mr. BENTON. Insofar as financial aid? 

Mr. GARRETT. Anything. How many people do you have whose 

job essentially is to send data to the State and Feds that is required of you? 

Mr. BENTON. Ten to 15. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And I presume they are compensated well 

at a university like Pepperdine? 

Mr. BENTON. Not as well as they would like, but, yes, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, that is all, that is a universal theme. I will 

start briefly, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Benton, thank you. Anecdotally 

telling you a story about my father who was a real estate agent. 

When I went to college he asked what I wanted to major in and 

I told him history, and he said, oh, you are going to be a realtor, 

too. 

And I guess point is, and I ended up studying history and education because that was a pathway to a career, but the point is, I 

think that we all too often encourage young people to go out and 

find something they love and pursue it without regards to the return on investment. 

And I think that what we are talking about here today sort of 

dovetails with that. I would sort of echo some of the frustration expressed by my colleague, Mr. Mitchell, who has made a career in 

technical education, and acknowledging that there are two groups 

that we should be interested in here. 

Number one, the taxpayer; and number two, the student. The 

good news is that if we do right by one, we do right by the other. 

And so, I guess my frustration is Mr. Delisle talked about predictors of default and said it is sort of an ethereal thing, that we can’t 

be sure. But to the extent that, and I believe at Pepperdine for 

sure, that if you are a history major, you can say percentage of history majors are employed within 12 months or in graduate school 

within 12 months, that is not the case everywhere, right. 

The number one driver of capital investment is the probability of 

return on investment, and we do a bad job of telling young people 

that what they are studying or not studying may or may not lead 

to a fruitful career. 

Well, there are no guarantees in life, but all this data is out 

there, and if it is being amalgamated and if it’s being amalgamated 

for the satisfaction of the House Committee on Education and 

Workforce, then we miss the point. 

The questions about, not about data collection, about data dissemination: who gets it? And I want to tip my hat to a colleague, 

Mr. Polis, who is not in the room right now, but he spoke to his 

personal commitment over the years to privacy, and I will say that 

I admire his fight to that end. 

However, I want to differentiate between dissemination of your 

data, Dr. Schneider, and your data, everyone in the room, right? 

We have an interest in protecting the data of the individual. I 

think we have an interest in disseminating the data of the collective, so that the consumer can get that return on investment that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

79 

they deserve or at least enter into the equation with all the information. 

We know, for example, that history majors from Cal State Fullerton might not have the same outcome as history majors from 

Pepperdine. And I don’t say that to be pejorative to either institution, but the consumer should know that going in. 

So, Madam Chair, to the extent that we remove barriers to the 

collection of information, I guess this is an impassioned plea to ensure that information doesn’t come just to us or the universities, 

or the States, but to the consumers of the product that is higher 

education. 

And I take this opportunity, I will conclude, to hit again on the 

fact that I think we can help our Nation and our young people 

greatly if we can break the paradigm that success is a 4-year degree from a liberal arts university, in a corner lot in a subdivision, 

and encourage people to explore areas where we know those ROI 

and CTE fields where that might be appropriate to the individual. 

So I know I have sort of gotten off topic a little bit, but if we are 

here to do good and we are going to open the door to collection of 

more data, the way we do good is make sure the end users, the consumers, I am for looking north-south, I am getting some, get that 

data so that they can make informed decisions for themselves and 

their families. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. FOXX. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Adams, you are recognized. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Davis. And thank you for convening this hearing. And to those of 

you who testified, thank you very much for your comments. 

As the panel may know, North Carolina is one of the 37 States 

that have a State longitudinal data system, and our State created 

this in order to enhance our ability to track student and institutional performance, as well as to produce accountability reports in 

a more efficient manner. 

Ms. Voight, I keep hearing from my colleagues on the other side 

that collecting student-level data is Federal overreach. But I think 

that if the Federal Government is investing billions of dollars on 

students and in the institutions that they attend, then the Federal 

Government is well positioned to compile the information. 

In your opinion, why should the Federal Government create a 

student-level data collection like the one that has been introduced 

by my colleagues? If you can respond to that, I would appreciate 

it. 

Ms. VOIGHT. The Federal Government has a clear role to play 

given the Federal investment in higher education. In Title IV, you 

know, as we have discussed today, so I think that is a key point. 

But you bring up the important question about State longitudinal 

data systems as well, because as you mentioned, North Carolina 

has a strong one. And those systems have been really valuable in 

providing some information. But a lot of that information remains 

incomplete. 

The Federal Government has access to more complete information, particularly on workforce outcomes for students, information 

that is more complete than what States have. Some States have 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

80 

tried linking together their longitudinal data systems as well to try 

to deal with issues of students who cross State boundaries and try 

to get closer to what the Federal solution would do, but that is 

highly complex to link together all of those systems. In a pilot 

project they have linked together 4; getting to 50 would be a huge 

undertaking. 

So, the Federal Government can do this much more efficiently 

and much more effectively, and provide much more complete information than a State situation. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, ma’am. And Mr. Benton, in your testimony you called for data to be held at the institutional level rather 

than combine in a manner that would allow students to be tracked 

across institutions. Yet we know that about 60 percent of today’s 

students attend more than one institution. Additionally, institutions on their own have very limited information, as has been said 

on their students’ employment outcomes, and can only collect such 

information at great expense to the institution. 

I believe that students considering which institution to attend 

should have accurate information on graduation rates, including 

the results for students who transfer. So, do you agree, and how 

could institutions ever provide such information without sharing 

data? 

And if institutions hold on to their own data, as you propose, how 

would we be able to provide students comprehensive and reliable 

information on employment outcomes? 

Mr. BENTON. Thank you for the question. We do maintain data 

on the success rates of those who transfer to us. We do not follow 

them if they leave us. We assume that the gaining institution will 

have that information. But we maintain impeccable records at 

Pepperdine University, and we submit those in an aggregated basis 

to anybody with a legitimate need to know. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. All right, thank you, sir. Madam Chair, I am 

going to yield back. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Ms. Adams. Mr. Grothman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. We will go for Mr. Delisle. And I would 

like to thank you for having this hearing here today. I think one 

of the reasons why people feel so frustrated today compared to— 

in their ability to live the American dream compared to 30 years 

ago. 

So many people have been led down the path to believe that a 

4-year degree is worthwhile, so, it hurts them twice. First of all, 

they spend time not earning money when they should be earning 

money when they are young. Secondly, they wind up deeply in 

debt. 

In any event, a question for Mr. Delisle. A recent New York 

Times Editorial Board article titled, ‘‘Student Debt’s Grip on the 

Economy,’’ the argument I have been making for the last 2–1/2 

years, that our current financing of higher education 

disincentivizes young couples from getting married, having children, and buying homes. 

And I can personally say I recently talked to a young couple back 

in my district, because of the income-based repayment schedule, 

they feel they couldn’t afford to get married given the huge amount 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

of debt. They are in their early 30s. I don’t know how they are ever 

going to be able to buy a house and have kids. It is just horrible. 

But in any event, The New York Times article raised another important question we should be talking about, and that is, in general, the value of 4-year college degrees and whether they are 

worth it. I am going to ask you. Did you happen to see The New 

York Times article? 

Mr. DELISLE. I did, yeah. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Good. And do you agree with the premise that 

we are sending too many kids to 4-year colleges, in part kids who 

are underprepared for college, but also just kids who may be making more money with their brains and work ethic somewhere else? 

Mr. DELISLE. Well, yes, I read the article, and I am always surprised to hear that student debt is harming the economy because 

that means higher education is harming the economy. Right? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Right, right. 

Mr. DELISLE. And I don’t necessarily subscribe to that view. And 

to the extent that the examples that people have given here about 

students dropping out and having lots of debt, you know, I can tell 

you that we don’t know how common that is actually. Because of 

the data on how much debt students have when they drop out, is 

it common that they have a lot? Is it rare that they have a lot? 

There is really not good information on this. And the solutions 

that I have suggested, you know, aren’t even necessarily consumerfacing. They are essentially the Federal Government making available data about its own programs so people can check the numbers. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I will ask you this question and, I don’t know, 

you cannot know just from anecdotal evidence when you get out 

and about and talk to somebody. I mean, the number of people out 

there with huge student loans and a degree that does not lead to 

a job, you run into them all the time, like I said. A couple weekends ago, I ran into a couple, early 30s, one guy I don’t think ever 

graduated, and he is sitting there with tens of thousands of dollars 

of debt. The gal graduated with I believe about 50 grand in debt, 

I think, and a degree that is nowhere near related to the job she 

currently has. 

But what percentage of people currently going to a 4-year university—or of all the people currently getting 4-year degrees, what 

percent do you think should be getting 4-year degrees in a traditional liberal college sort of setting? Do you think they should peel 

back by 20 percent, 30 percent? What do you think? 

Mr. DELISLE. Yeah, I don’t know what the right number is, but 

I will point out your comment about by just looking at anecdotes, 

I will restate my testimony from this morning, which is I think 

with a $1.3 trillion program, taxpayers deserve policies that are 

better than those made by anecdote. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I will give the rest of you a question since 

you presumably have an interest this. Percentage-wise, compared 

to the number of students we currently have trying to work their 

way to a 4-year degree, percentage-wise how many should be choosing that path? 

Any one of the three of you, do you want to take a stab at that? 

Yes, Dr. Schneider? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, I am not going to give you the exact percentage, but I will— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Take a stab at it. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Okay. Well, we know that only about 60 percent 

of the students in 4-year schools graduate, and we know that not 

graduating has accumulated lots of debt and bad employment outcomes. But I think to flesh out your point, I would just give you 

not an anecdote, but a data point. 

In the State of Florida, the highest paid credential from all postsecondary institutions, 4-year, 2-year, district training centers, is 

elevator mechanic, $95,000 wage, 100 percent placement rates. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Good. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Career and technical education is one of the 

things that we need to emphasize, and we need to get away from 

the 4-year bachelor’s addiction, which I believe is part of your 

point. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Right. It would be nice if one of the panelists 

could at least take a stab at that. It is true, if you talk to technical 

colleges you will find out, people who go to technical college after 

they have a 4-year degree that didn’t lead to a job. 

The same thing with trade schools, okay. People rather than beginning to go to the trade school at age 18 or 19 where they could 

be off and running and making a family-supporting wage at age 22 

or 23, are going to the trade schools when they are 28 or 29. They 

have got a big student debt, and they finally get around to earning 

family-supporting wages when they are 30 or 31. 

Mrs. FOXX. Mr. Grothman, your time has expired. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Thank you much. 

Mrs. FOXX. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank 

you for allowing me to join you on this subcommittee. I want to 

take just a moment of my time to introduce Gregorio, who is a student Portland Community College. He is with me today as a foster 

youth, shadowing me. He attends Portland Community College, 

hopes to go to Oregon State University, and he works as a mentor 

in our very effective Future Connect Program, which helps firstgeneration students. So it is an honor to have him with me today. 

This has been a great discussion I have really enjoyed listening 

to it, and it is pretty clear from the testimony today that we have 

some work to do. Our data systems are providing an incomplete 

picture, and we on both sides of the aisle understand that we can 

work together to address that. 

And speaking of anecdotes, which Dr. Schneider just mentioned, 

remember in the last presidential campaign one of the candidates, 

Senator Rubio, said welders make more money than philosophers, 

we need more welders and less philosophers? And as a journalism 

major would have said, fewer philosophers. But the point is that 

we actually need both, and we have had some strong bipartisan 

support in this Committee for Career and Technical Education. 

But anecdotally, it is a problem because, number one, philosophy 

majors do make more than welders; that was fact-checked. Philosophy majors learn how to think, how to plan, how to communicate, 

and many of them have started businesses and are doing quite 

well. And, of course, liberal arts aren’t for everyone, and sometimes 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

graduates in this field do earn less than people in career and technical education, but that is not always the case. And we can’t rely 

on anecdotes and simplistic data systems that don’t adequately 

capture the real facts. And we really need to have this information 

available for students. 

I was speaking with Gregorio and another one of the foster shadows today about how they made their decisions about where to go 

to college. And I am curious about that because Dr. Schneider said 

his daughters didn’t really look at the data, they looked at a lot of 

other things as well. 

Ms. Voight, in my home State of Oregon, we have been developing a longitudinal data system that can give families comprehensive information. The State is working across a higher education 

sector, and not just with public institutions, but also private colleges and universities. 

We have, of course, Reed College which years ago decided to opt 

out of participating in the rankings that actually helped them. 

They are getting a lot more well-qualified students applying. 

But Ms. Voight, what key insights have we gained from investing 

in data systems at the State level, and can they help influence policy? And when some individuals are proposing linking State data 

systems together, will that solve our gaps? And can you address 

that? And then I do want to try to get in another question as well. 

Ms. VOIGHT. Sure. So we learned a lot from State data systems, 

and from the work that has been done in States to help to inform 

State policy decisions. And some States have tried to link those 

systems together as well, to answer questions about students who 

cross State lines. But there are challenges in doing that because it 

is highly complex to link together, especially if you were to think 

about linking together 50 different State data systems. 

Ms. BONAMICI. But do you think it would solve the problem if we 

could figure out how to do that? Or do we really need to do something at the Federal level? 

Ms. VOIGHT. I think the Federal solution would be far better 

than linking together State systems. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Mr. Delisle, I wanted to follow up on 

your comment about income-driven repayment plans because this 

is something that I have been working on, the bipartisan legislation to help get more students into income-driven repayment. And 

you cited the GAO study that calculated higher than expected cost. 

I am very familiar with that report. GAO points out the difference 

between the loan principal that is forgiven through IDR and the actual cost of those plans, recognizing that borrowers with forgiven 

debt pay interest. 

But the primary takeaway was that the model for estimating the 

cost is inadequate. So, I agree that we need better data, but, as you 

note, it seems inappropriate to base any hasty changes to IBR 

plans based on estimates that suffer from inadequate data, especially when borrowers who are struggling to pay back student loans 

need access to more affordable repayment options. 

So, can you talk about how improved data in student loan programs could lead to targeted interventions that actually prevent 

defaults and allow policymakers to evaluate the full cost benefits 

of IDR? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

Mr. DELISLE. You know, I will just reiterate that the suggestions 

I have around making data available to Federal Government already collects and actually compiles and submits to various agencies just getting that out. So it is not necessarily the same kind of 

privacy and consumer-related information. 

But, you know, I will point out that related to the GAO report, 

you know, this sort of making hasty changes, that is true. I think 

we want to have data out and know what those changes mean, but 

I would also point out that because we have the programs before 

we have had the data means we hastily enacted them. 

But I do think it is important to get this information out so that 

everybody—and to the point of Congressman Courtney earlier, 

scrutinizing the President’s budget numbers, you know, making the 

data available would allow a lot of other people to look at those and 

scrutinize them as well. 

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. Mr. Krishnamoorthi, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you folks 

know, this spring thousands of students made one of the most consequential investment decisions of their lifetime choosing which institutions of higher education to attend. Before making such a consequential investment, wouldn’t it make sense for students to have 

all available data so they can make the most informed decision as 

possible? We do this when buying a car or a house, so why not with 

an education? 

With that in mind, I would like to ask you a series of questions 

on ways Congress can help empower prospective students and families with the information they need to make better informed decisions. 

Ms. Voight, to help students and families make a more informed 

decision when choosing a college, in your opinion what data points 

would give students the information they need to help make the 

best informed decision about higher education? 

Ms. VOIGHT. Students need information about outcomes, in particular they need to know their chances of graduating, their 

chances of transferring, if that is what they want to do, and they 

need to know their likelihood of success in the workforce after they 

leave college, particularly as they are making decisions about how 

to pay for college, whether to take on student loans, and how much 

to work to pay for the tuition and the cost of education. 

I think underlying all of this in a lot of the conversations today, 

questions around student choice and allowing students to make 

really informed choices about the best institution and the best program for them. And they need that information, as you mentioned, 

to be able to make those informed decisions. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. By the way, do any colleges or universities 

currently provide that type of data? 

Ms. VOIGHT. Information on graduation rates are available 

through IPEDS, but they are limited to only first-time, full-time 

students, so they are missing large portions of the population. And 

information on earnings, institutions simply don’t have the capacity 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

to collect that information accurately and completely to provide it 

to students. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Got it. Ms. Voight, opponents of overturning the student unit record ban cite privacy concerns. In your 

opinion, how can we balance student privacy concerns with a growing interest in measuring these college outcomes as you just described? 

Ms. VOIGHT. Privacy needs to be a core component of the development of any data system. Whether it is student level or not, privacy needs to be a fundamental value held in the development of 

any system. And so we need to have in place the proper protections 

for student privacy while also protecting students’ right to information to make those difficult choices and decisions. 

So, we need protections like minimizing the data that are collected to only the information that is really necessary to answer 

questions about college access and success, and cost and outcomes. 

We need to have clear policies in place for any misuse of data, penalties for misuse of data, prohibitions against the wrongful use of 

data, selling data, or using it for law enforcement purposes. 

Kind of the underlying principle here should be that data should 

be used to help students and never to harm students. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Right. Thank you for your responses. You 

know, student debt is approaching $1.4 trillion, the largest it has 

ever been. We need to ensure families are making smarter investments with all readily available information in order for students 

to make smarter choices and help drive down student debt. 

I am a cosponsor of the Bipartisan College Transparency Act, introduced just last week by Representatives Mitchell and Polis. This 

bill calls for the creation of a secure data system within the U.S. 

Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, and would overturn the ban on collecting individual student 

data that track enrollment and graduate success. 

Most importantly, eliminating data barriers will inform students 

how others with their backgrounds have succeeded at an institution of higher education, and help point them towards schools best 

suited to their unique needs and desired outcomes. 

Thank you, again, for your testimony. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Ms. Davis, you are 

recognized for closing comments. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I also 

want to thank the witnesses here as well once again. I think that 

it was certainly a good learning experience for all of us, we got a 

lot of data, a lot of information both. And I know that there is no 

question that, you know, we have plenty of data, as we said, but 

trying to make it readily available to students and their families 

to make good decisions is what we are after. 

And I think, Madam Chair, I am glad that we have a bipartisan 

bill that is looking at risk, benefits, a number of issues, and that 

gives us really a way of responding and certainly working through 

and clarifying a number of issues that have been raised today. 

And I appreciate the fact that the authors were quite interested 

in feedback from those of you in the audience as well, who have 

been here and stayed with us. I think almost everybody here has 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

been here from the beginning of our hearing and that is very helpful to us and certainly to the witnesses as well. 

We welcome your feedback and would very much be pleased to 

have those reactions to at least the piece of legislation that we 

have been talking about today. It is certainly not the only piece 

that addresses these issues, but it is something important for us 

to use and to build on. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Congresswoman Davis. I want to, again, 

thank all of you for your testimony today. This has been a great 

conversation about what data is available, who should have access 

to it, and what we should do with it. A phrase we have used on 

the committee a lot today also is to ask accountability to whom and 

for what. That fits here. 

We have also heard about the need to balance risk versus reward 

when it comes to what data we determine is most helpful to students, families, and taxpayers in general. 

One note I think we need to add is a look at privacy. When does 

a person’s right to be left alone get waived for the need for better 

information? And once we decide that, we must have a conversation about securing the data that is collected. I also want to point 

out that Dr. Schneider and others have mentioned that some 

States have great information to be shared with parents and students. 

And I hope we will see more States develop such systems, because I frankly think a 50–State mechanism is better than the Federal Government being involved. Again, because we know the Federal Government has a lousy record of keeping information about 

individuals private, and that is, we don’t need to go more places 

when we aren’t doing a good job of keeping what we have. 

We have also sparked a conversation about what is the point of 

higher education? Societies long thought that it is about getting a 

job. And someone ordered a study, which I want to pursue looking 

at a little bit more, that 80 percent of students going on after high 

school say they want to get a job, a good-paying job. Is that something the Federal Government should look at or measure? 

Another issue we have touched on relates to giving students in 

the whole issue, and parents, information to make good decisions. 

However, our colleague just made the analogy that if you go out 

and buy a car, you have lots and lots of information before you buy 

that car. 

But, I suspect, if we did a study of people buying a car we would 

find out that many people make a decision on buying a car on emotion and personal preference, and it has nothing to do with making 

the best decision based on objective facts. And the same thing is 

true with choosing where to go to a college or university. Many people have lots of information, but they choose to go to a place based 

on where their father or mother went, where their brother or sister 

went, how nice the weather was that day. 

My understanding is that colleges have done this study, and if 

you have a great day when you go visit that school, you are much 

more likely to go there. If it is raining that day, you are much less 

likely to go there. So, the Federal Government can provide a lot of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

information, but we cannot control how people make decisions and 

should not control how people make decisions. 

So, while I think this has been a wonderful hearing today, I 

think we all agree, we are going to continue to have this debate. 

As we look at reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, we are 

going to be having continual debate about what is the information 

we need and what decisions and what should the Federal Government do in this regard. 

So, again, thank you all very much for being here and sharing 

your time and expertise. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Messer follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 25426.041
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 25426.042
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 25426.043
91 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 25426.049
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 25426.050
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 25426.051
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 25426.052
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 25426.053
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 25426.054
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 25426.055
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 25426.056
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 25426.057
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 25426.058
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 25426.059
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 25426.060
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 25426.061
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 25426.062
106 

[Mr. Schneider’s responses to questions submitted for the record 

follow;] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 25426.063
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 25426.064
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 25426.065
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 25426.066
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 25426.067
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 25426.068
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 25426.069
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 25426.070
114 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 25426.071