The U.S. Department of Education announced plans to cut federal student loans for students pursuing degree plans that result in lower average post-graduation incomes. These plans are set to take effect in July 2027 and coincide with changes to student loan policies for degrees not considered “professional.”
Programs in fields such as music, social work and religious studies have raised concerns about how earnings-based standards could affect access to federal student aid. Although these programs will still be available across college campuses, lower-income students who cannot afford to attend university without federal loan assistance will find it harder to pursue these fields of study, thereby limiting access to them.
The idea behind these loan cuts is that the Department of Education believes colleges should face consequences when their programs leave graduates with poor financial outcomes.
However, evaluating programs primarily through graduates’ earnings risks overlooking the social and cultural value of professions that do not traditionally offer high salaries.
The cost of limiting access
Although careers in these fields, on average, offer lower incomes, their work is still in demand and necessary for society’s functioning.
Cutting off access to these programs could leave these fields, many of which already face worker shortages, severely understaffed, as students who would typically fill these jobs are drawn to other fields of study just to afford an education.
One concern is that reduced access to federal loans could make arts education increasingly difficult for students from lower-income backgrounds. As art programs become unaffordable for the majority of students to pursue — since three-fourths of students have taken out $20,000 or more in loans in the past 10 years to complete their schooling — students previously pursuing the arts are likely to move to more affordable fields of study.
If fewer students can afford formal arts education, universities could lose opportunities to develop emerging artists, while students without financial resources may face greater barriers to creative careers.
According to Case Western Reserve University, “the study of arts and culture builds skills in innovation, critical thinking and creativity, while also teaching and inspiring society to form values, evaluate opinions and share similar emotions.”
Education is more than a paycheck
Restricting access to arts education could have consequences beyond individual students, potentially limiting opportunities for creative expression, cultural participation and innovation. When we remove the pursuit of creativity and the good of community from our society, what remains is a corporate world devoid of emotion, vulnerability and deep thought.
Although graduates’ earnings are one way to measure the financial value of a degree, they do not fully capture the knowledge, creativity and contributions students bring to their communities. What truly matters is the knowledge students are gaining, their passion and drive for it and their ability to use their field of study to make the world a better place, regardless of how much they invest in it or how much they receive in return.
Social workers, educators and artists contribute to communities in ways that are not always reflected in their salaries. If federal student loans make these fields possible, then the government owes it to the people of the United States to keep these programs accessible to all and to allow university students to pursue what truly interests them, regardless of the rate of return.
opinion@thedailycougar.com
