Tuesday, May 20, 2025 - With higher education policy increasingly driven by executive action, Michael and Jeff explore why Congress has been largely absent from the conversation—and what that means for students and institutions. They’re joined by James Kvaal, former Under Secretary of Education under the Biden Administration, and Preston Cooper of the American Enterprise Institute, for a bipartisan discussion about stalled reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, cuts to the Department of Education, the future of international students at American colleges, and more. This episode is made with support from the Gates Foundation.
Get notified about special content and events.
0:00 - Intro
04:44 - The Cost of Congressional Inaction
13:28 - Unlocking Movement on Higher Ed
19:53 - Areas for Bipartisan Compromise
23:15 - The Big Change We Need
28:33 - The Impact of Cuts to the Department of Education
32:58 - Immigration and International Students
38:23 - Agreement Across the Aisle
43:55 - Changes Since the Last HEA Reauthorization
48:12 - Too Much Focus on the Elites?
Michael Horn
Jeff, as our regular listeners know, amidst the flurry of executive action since Trump took office, but also some of the actions over the Biden years as well, I keep sitting in my little corner of Massachusetts brooding about them and wondering, why won't Congress step up and legislate?
Jeff Selingo
Well, Michael, your brooding aside, it seems Congress has created a bit of a policy vacuum, because, get this, the last time they reauthorized the Higher Education Act was 2008, 17 years ago for a law that is supposed to be authorized every 10 years.
Sponsor
This episode of Future U. is sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, working to eliminate race, ethnicity and income as predictors of student educational success. Subscribe to Future U. wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoy the show, send it along to a friend so others can discover the conversations we're having about higher education.
Michael Horn
I'm Michael Horn.
Jeff Selingo
And I'm Jeff Selingo.
Michael Horn
So, as you know, Jeff, one of the things that I get excited about on our show is opportunities where we get to zig where others are zagging. And I think this might be one of those episodes because when President Trump got into office, I was quietly hoping that we'd see some quick movement on bills that had been stuck in Congress for a while. Things like the College Cost Reduction Act, which I had testified in favor of, and aims to lower college costs and make higher education more affordable by introducing a risk sharing system whereby institutions would actually be responsible for repaying a portion of the federal student loans of the graduates who can't afford to repay them, creating more transparency around college costs for students and reducing the availability of some federal student loans, such as Parent Plus and Grad Plus, loans that I personally think have helped incentivize some college costs to rise. But, Jeff, we haven't seen any of that at all. Instead, we've been greeted with. Well, you all know what, we've been greeted with a ton of executive measures, many of which are grounded in a questionable legal basis at best.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah, well, and so we wanted to learn more. Is is congressional in action something that's our perception, perhaps more than reality. Is there room for actual movement in the current climate? Michael, you mentioned the College Cost Reduction Act, but there's also the College Transparency Act. Yes, I know these bill names are kind of confusing once in a while. It's actually a bipartisan bill. It was passed in the House as part of the America Competes Act back in 2022. 2022, but not in the Senate. And it would establish far more data transparency for students around outcomes at a time, ironically enough, when the Department of Education's data infrastructure, as we've talked about on a previous show, has been all but dismantled. There's also the bipartisan Workforce Pell Act, which is kind of known as Short Term Pell because it would allow Pell grants to be used for career training programs that last just eight to 15 weeks.
Michael Horn
So a bunch of things that have been percolating, I guess, Jeff, in Congress. But to help us wade through this and more, we've recruited, as you mentioned up top, a pair of bipartisan experts, James Kvaal and Preston Cooper. James, now he served as the Undersecretary of Education at the Department of Education during the Biden administration, and he led the department's work on higher education, student financial aid and career and adult education. Before that, James also served under Presidents Clinton and Obama, and most immediately before he was in the Biden administration, he was president of the Institute for College Access and Success, which is a research and advocacy nonprofit that's dedicated to affordability and equity in higher ed. Preston is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, what we often call AEI, where his work focuses on higher education, ROI, student loans, higher ed reform. And before joining AEI in his current role, Preston was a Senior Fellow in Higher Education Policy at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and he was a policy analyst before that at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. James, Preston, welcome to Future U..
James Kvaal
Thanks for having me.
Preston Cooper
Hey, thanks for having us.
Jeff Selingo
So there's a lot of executive actions impacting higher ed right now, and they're impacting all segments of it in different ways. And as I said, it's kind of a lot for this conversation, though, we want to focus less on the executive role and more on the congressional role as it comes to higher ed. And our sense is that in the void of congressional action or the lack thereof, there's been kind of increased executive actions, and not just in this administration, although the sheer whirlwind right now is kind of taking things by storm. But obviously you've been up close to this as well, James, in a couple of administrations. And so the question I want to start with both of you is this. You know, the Higher Education Act was supposed to be renewed, you know, every 10 years. It was last renewed in, in 2008. So we're many years overdue. So why hasn't Congress been more involved legislatively and in setting a more predictable framework for higher ed, updated in for the ways in which higher ed has evolved in the context of our times? Clearly, higher ed today is very different than it was in 2008. So, James, let me start with you on, on that. Why is Congress just kind of, kind of almost given up, it seems, on higher ed in so many ways?
James Kvaal
Yeah, I mean, it's not quite the same to say that because there's no reauthorization, there are no legislation. So the, the biggest changes to the student aid programs tend to cost a lot of money and they're done through the budget process, usually on a party line or almost party line basis. And you know, we're expecting another, another one of those this year. So, you know, some of the biggest changes that get made to the student aid programs, you know, are continuing to happen. You know, I think what you don't have when you don't have reauthorizations, you know, you don't have the long term maintenance, you're not supposed to change the terms and conditions of the programs in the budget process. So the programs just kind of get out of date over time. And the budget process tends to be partisan. So too do executive actions. And so changes are less durable as well when Congress doesn't go through that process.
Jeff Selingo
Preston, how about you? Any thoughts on what has happened here in the lack of congressional action, especially around kind of these big bills like the Higher Education Act ?
Preston Cooper
Well, I think James is right that just because we haven't had a reauthorization doesn't mean that there hasn't been legislation or legislative proposals around higher education reform. So the budget reconciliation process, which we're going to go through this year, is basically a special case in which it allows legislation to get through the Senate with only 51 votes, as opposed to the 60 that are required normally. The catch is that items included in budget reconciliation have to directly affect tax and spending. They can't be policy changes. So, you know, we're talking about changes to student loan limits, changes to Pell grants, you know, potentially changes to the accountability system. But, but some other stuff that might be policy changes which don't involve, you know, increases or decreases in spending. That's a lot harder to get through that process. That being said, I do think that there are some, you know, bipartisan things that could get 60 votes in the Senate if they came up for a vote, such as the College Transparency Act. I mean, that's a, that's a great example, you know, trying to get more data out there about outcomes in colleges and universities. Workforce Pell grants. That's also something that has bipartisan support, basically expanding Pell grants to cover short term programs. I think that, you know, if those things did come up for a vote, there's a good chance that those could pass kind of piecemeal. It's just a question of whether Congress is going to prioritize those when there's a lot on the agenda.
Jeff Selingo
Okay, so it sounds like then, you know, at the, at the highest level, we have something like the Higher Education Act kind of at the middle level, we have kind of these piecemeal bills. And then, of course, at the bottom level, if I kind of put it on those levels, we have kind of the congressional action around the, around the budget. So what is the cost of not having these, you know, these big bills like the Higher Education Act? You know, what's, what's the price of, of, of those not moving and what's the price of even. Preston, you mentioned some of these piecemeal bills. You know, those haven't necessarily been moving yet either. You know, you said that there's a possibility of bipartisan action, but what is, what is the price that we're really paying by having policy done largely through budget reconciliation? Preston, why don't you start with that one?
Preston Cooper
Of course. So, I mean, the cost of that is really that you can sometimes have inconsistencies arise between, you know, different aspects of the federal role in higher education. For instance, you know, the College Transparency Act would mandate the collection of much better data on, you know, the outcomes that students are experiencing, such as completion rates, earnings after graduation. And we do have some of that data in a much kind of lower quality format right now. But without that data, it's kind of hard to make the other policies make sense. So, for instance, if you want to do something like accountability so, you know, cut off student loans to low quality programs, you need to kind of figure out, you know, which programs are low quality and so forth. And we can kind of get at that right now with the existing data, but, you know, having much better data infrastructure that the College Transparency Act would enable, more thoughtful design of that policy. You know, another kind of issue is that when you don't have a comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, when, when you don't have, you know, a Congress actually coming in and setting comprehensive rules, consistent rules about the federal role in higher education, that also opens up the door for the executive branch to kind of do things on higher education. As we saw both in the prior administration and in this administration right now, there's this feeling that, well, because Congress isn't doing, doing anything, you know, the White House has to take matters into its own hands. And that can lead to, you know, extremely polarizing policies, sometimes policies that don''t last across administrations. And so colleges and students will feel whiplash. And so that's why, you know, I really do think it's important for Congress to. To reassert its authority on higher education policy. And, you know, if not a comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I would certainly like to see, you know, more complete thinking from Congress about how the federal role in higher education is going to operate going forward.
Jeff Selingo
So, James, you were into prior administrations. Maybe it seems like if you're in the administration, it's kind of nice, kind of doing what you want to do without necessarily congressional action. Is that, is that necessarily the point of view?
James Kvaal
No, I don't think so. I think you'd prefer to have legislation because it is more durable. Executive actions are more of a second best solution when Congress doesn't appear fruitful. And, you know, I think in terms of what you lose, you know, a lot of the ideas Preston mentioned that there is bipartisan support for potential bipartisan support. You know, there's reluctance to move those piecemeal because the, the calculus, if you're a committee chair and, and your constituency for reauthorization, is if you take the popular ideas out and move them on their own, then there'll be no reason to do the big bill. So things kind of get bottled up. You know, I think reauthorizations are a process where there's quite a bit of transparency and participation. The ideas are publicly debated over the course of months or a year longer, and it's probably the way to get the most stakeholder input among the different federal policy tools. And then lastly, when you have a bill that hasn't been redone in 17 years, you know, we think about things quite differently than we did 17 years ago. You know, I think Michael's first book had come out, but we were still kind of getting our, our heads around the potential of technology and online education. The completion movement was nascent. We've talked a lot more about value. I think we understand a lot more now about the circumstances in which student loans are and are not a good investment. And none of that knowledge is embedded in the fabric of the federal programs.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah, it's kind of amazing when you think about it. Right. You've had an entire generation, somebody who was born right around the time the last Higher Education Act was put in place, right now, going to college, essentially. Right. So how much has changed in that amount of time?
Michael Horn
Yeah, I was going to say he also helped explain my receding hairline and gray hair. But let's, you know, look, both of you have noted that there have been bills that Congress has TR to move at different points. You know, the College Transparency act, there was the College Cost Reduction Act. Short term pell list goes on. Right? Reality, as you both have said, is none have fully moved. James, you started to point to some reasons that there's some wariness around moving things piecemeal. If the popular parts will go and then other parts that are critical to move will sort of get left behind. I'd love you to both play political prognosticator for a moment just to let those of us who are outside the beltway have a little bit of a hint of what's going on inside and just sort of, you know, what will it take to move legislation forward to get Congress to actually move again? And do you think that we'll actually see anything move in the next 12 months either, you know, a reauthorization of HEA or something short of that in these piecemeal moves? James, why don't you start us off?
James Kvaal
I mean, unfortunately, I'm a little pessimistic when it comes to Congress. And it's not just a higher education problem. You know, we haven't redone the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since 2015. And, you know, you could go down the list of other, of other bills just, you know, the, the idea of legislating and compromising and taking half a loaf and the muscles required to do that are just, you know, a little bit out of fashion, a little bit out of vogue right now. The other, you know, the other issue that is very challenging is just the number of controversies that overshadow the HEA. And, you know, I think members are going be tempted to use a debate over higher education to make a point about student loans or make a point about some of the Trump administration executive actions. And, and that may make it harder to reach bipartisan agreement, too. So, you know, I do think the reconciliation bill that can be passed on a party line vote seems to have a good head of steam. And, you know, there may be individual components in there that would be seen by both parties as productive steps forward, but I think the bill itself will be, you know, will be written and supported, you know, overwhelmingly by Republicans.
Michael Horn
Preston, before you get in there, James, just one more follow up on that. Is it your sense that the whirlwind of executive actions right now and different, you know, pulling of funding streams, etc. Etc. Does that take the oxygen out and sort of crowd out the opportunity for Congress to move on some of these things.
James Kvaal
Well, I think the challenge is that it creates it like injects a controversy into the process. And like if you're a Hill staffer working on one of these bills and, and I have done though was not, did not successfully enact an HEA reauthorization. But you know, you try and work with your partners on the other side to identify, you know, you each have your own deal breakers or challenges within the caucus to work around. And you know, the actions of the Trump administration, the Democrats are going to, are going to feel like they want to stop them, to have a vote on them and that's going to make it challenging to build a bill around that. And you know, and it would have been the same on the other foot under the Biden administration.
Michael Horn
Preston, let me go to you on this and if you agree with James about sort of the pessimism, although I want to hear your take on that. What do you think it takes to unlock movement from Congress on any of these pieces again?
Preston Cooper
Well, I think that the reconciliation bill which will probably be passed sometime this year is a potential vehicle for some higher education reforms to happen. Now that'll almost certainly be on a party, party line basis. This will be a Republican bill that will probably be passed with almost exclusively Republican votes. And of course, James is probably pessimistic about that. I'm a little bit more optimistic about, you know, what we might see in that. And I think we'll probably see, I think one kind of gimme is just is repealing the SAFE plan which was the Biden administration's kind of new income driven repayment plan which, which had a fairly significant cost. I think we'll probably see that a repeal of that as part of a pay for in the bill. What we might see beyond that, you know, we don't have a bill yet but you know, there are a lot of possibilities that have been hinted at by, by some of the reporting. So we could see some further changes to repayment plans. You know, right now we've got something like 11 different repayment plans. There's a lot of desire among Republicans to, to simplify the number of student loan repayment plans you have. There probably some form of accountability for colleges will go in terms of accountability is an open question. But probably some form of, you know, trying to hold lower quality colleges accountable for outcomes. We might see some cap on grad plus loans which are currently unlimited. That that's also something that a lot of Republicans have, have been in favor of. So you know, what the exact bill is remains to be seen. But I do think that a lot of those changes do stand a good chance of being passed into law.
Michael Horn
And some of those things are pretty significant that you just named. In terms of the substance, Preston, those things can go through on party line, vote through a budget reconciliation process. That's possible.
Preston Cooper
That's right. I mean, there's, there's always debate over what exactly is permissible. It'll all come down to the Senate parliamentarian who kind of decides the rules on this. But I think most of what I just named probably should survive the budget reconciliation process because it, it directly affects the budget, it has a direct tax and spending impact. If you were to try and add other things that don't have a direct tax and spending impact, for instance, like the College Transparency Act, which you mentioned earlier, you know, changes to accreditation, which have also been kind of a priority of Republicans, those probably would not survive the budget reconciliation process. And so even if, you know, Republicans try to stick them in there, they probably wouldn't make it into law. But if we're talking about changes to repayment plans, changes to loan limits, even policies to, you know, cut some institutions out of the federal student loan program, that is a direct spending impact. And that's something that I think probably would make it through the reconciliation process and if they can find the votes, would probably get into law.
Michael Horn
So let's stay with this and start to move into the substance then away from the politics of it all, from, again, someone not inside the Beltway. It seems like a lot of the things you just mentioned in terms of transparency, you know, could be real bipartisan compromise or agreement on some of these things. Preston, you know, where are the areas for bipartisan compromise, for real things to move forward with both Republican and Democratic support, in your view?
Preston Cooper
Yeah, well, I mean, it'll obviously depend on the, the political climate. I mean, if Republicans and Democrats are just at each other's throats, there might not be much of an appetite to work together on anything. But, you know, in a, in a more functional political world, I do think we could see some movement on data transparency. I mentioned the College Transparency Act a couple of times. Workforce Pell grants. I think that has some bipartisan appeal. You know, Republicans, you know, want to do something to create alternatives to, to four year college degrees or at least to make those more accessible. So Workforce Pell is there. I think Democrats have also realized that, you know, they have a problem with voters who don't have a four year college degree. And you know, providing more support for some of those non four year degree pathways is a way that, to potentially build support there. You know, we might, we might see something bipartisan around accountability too. You know, obviously it'll ma, we'll have to see what happens through budget reconciliation, but if that doesn't make it into budget reconciliation and you know, there might be some bipartisan agreement on, you know, we need to actually hold the absolute worst performers accountable for their outcomes. So I'm not projecting that any of that is probably going to pass in the near future because, you know, we do have a very hostile national political environment right now and there's not really much appetite for Democrats and Republicans to work together across the aisle on much of anything. But you know, you give it a few years, maybe the temperature comes down a little bit, those are some potential avenues for, for bipartisan cooperation.
Michael Horn
So, James, let's go to you on this. We talk about zones of proximal development for learners. What are zones of possible bipartisan compromise in a more conducive environment, perhaps?
James Kvaal
Yeah, I think Preston did a nice job laying out some of those ideas. I have a similar list. You know, I'd also note that at the state level, there's a lot of consensus across red, blue and purple states about what we want from our public colleges and universities and how to get it. And you know, blue states that may call it equity and red states that may call it workforce development. But you know, you see a lot of interest in enrolling students from the community, helping them graduate, helping them find careers in the local economy, and a lot of consensus around the proven ways to do that. So, you know, I hope that that will have an impact nationally. You know, I do, you know, I think again with the administration, you know, firing or pushing out half of the career staff in just a couple of weeks, talking about eliminating the department entirely, you know, probably illegally holding hostage some universities over their social policy goals. You know, it's, it's hard to see in that climate, members of Congress setting that aside and say, let's, you know, let's tinker with the Pell Grant eligibility rules.
Jeff Selingo
So before we jump into our, our final question, I wanted to ask, you know, James, you, you brought up a great point about the states. You know, I, I, I got my start covering higher education policy in the states and I always thought they were great laboratories for experimentation and states tend to be competitive with each other. So I like that framing. Blue states call it equity, red states call it workforce development. But at the end of the day, you know, the federal government is the biggest payer right now still of, of higher ed through, through student, through student aid. And so I want to kind of bring this down to the level of the learner, like, kind of like we've been talking a lot about, you know, reconciliation and Higher Education Act. We've been talking about the, the cost of all this and, and you know, different bills. Could you give me a sense maybe each of you. Is there one thing that if I'm sitting here listening to this as a, as a student or a parent or a high school teacher, like, is there something that you feel like if we only had, you know, if we only had a new HEA bill or something else, that there would be a real impact? Like I'm trying to get a sense of what, what again is the cost of inaction here. Is there something that like sticks in your mind that if we had a real debate right now on higher ed, if we had a real debate around the Higher Education Act and we're able to pass something, is there something that you see could have a real impact on a individual student level to kind of bring it down to that, to that level? James or Preston, any, anything that kind of sticks in your mind that, that you want to put out there?
Preston Cooper
Yeah, I think on the workforce development front, you know, I think when we saw the last higher education reauthorization back in 2008, I think kind of the zeitgeist was, oh, we need four year college for all. We need everybody to, you know, go the four year college route. And I just don't think that's what most people think anymore, either on the left or the right these days. I think that there's much more openness to alternative pathways beyond the four year college degree, apprenticeships, you know, short term form, short term workforce education and so forth, micro-credentials. You know, obviously there's, there's varying quality within that, but I think that, you know, there's a lot of openness to, to having those alternative pathways be available. But because the Higher Education Act has not been updated since 2008, a lot of the federal subsidies that are flowing into post secondary education really are tilting the playing field towards more of the four year, you know, traditional college pathway. So, so, you know, if we were to have some reform happen at the federal level that were to level the playing field a little bit with regard to federal funding for these different kind of post secondary education pathways, that could really open up opportunity for a lot of students who do want to do something after high school know they need to get some other kind of education, but might not necessarily think the four year degree is right for them. And a lot of states, all the stats states were mentioned, you know, are charging ahead of the federal government on this, you know, investing more into those alternative pathways, creating really creative policies to support non four year college pathways, workforce education and so forth. And if the federal government were to catch up with the states on this, that could be potentially transformative.
Jeff Selingo
James, let's bring this down to the student level. Is there something that you really think that this lack of action has really resulted in for an individual learner, for example?
James Kvaal
Yeah, well, I think the culture of higher education has changed a lot over the last 20 years. And 20 years ago we thought about the goal of higher education, certainly federal policy was access and let's make these opportunities available to everyone. And if the graduation rate was at 25% at a particular college, you say, well, maybe those students weren't college material or maybe they didn't even want a degree. And we didn't pay a lot of attention to how students move through the system. Most students go to two or three colleges. So, and we didn't know what we know now about the importance of using data to find where students get stuck, the importance of human connections to help guide people through the system. So, you know, so I think it's, it may be hard to see that if you're a student or a parent and you know, I think a student who doesn't complete tends to blame himself or herself. But from the perspective of those of us who are looking at it systemically, you know, we know that a lot of students don't reach the finish line and we know the things it will take to help them get there. And you know, I think if Congress updated these laws, it could change what we think about in terms of the purposes of these different funding streams, the activities that are allowed and that could have a real impact on, on students even, even if perhaps, you know, they don't say thank God that Congress reauthorized that HEA, but it might have an impact on the course of their lives nonetheless.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah, before I get to my, my last question, I just want to throw something out here because, you know, James mentioned it earlier, you know, kind of the elephant in the room here is the Education Department. So much of what, what higher education does, you know, happens in the states, happens in individual institutions, but a lot of it does come through the Department of Education. As James mentioned, it's still there, but it's a shadow of itself or will be a shadow of itself perhaps, once everything kind of goes through. So just quickly for each of you, like how critical, you know, I'm assuming we may have some disagreement on this, right? Like how critical is the Education Department to getting anything done that Congress wants done? James, I'll start with you, since you were in that department, and again, probably assume what you're going to say, but, you know, how critical of a piece is this to, to all that we're talking about here in actually enacting and seeing some of this stuff through?
James Kvaal
Well, you know, the federal role has really focused on the financial aid programs, and it does do some of these other things we've talked about in terms of student support or investing in HBCUs and tribal colleges. And those things are important, too. You know, the, the main event is clearly student loans and Pell Grants. You know, I haven't heard in the debate over the Department of Education sort of particular complaints about how the, about those programs or a sense that they'd be better done in the States. It seems like the desire to move them to other agencies is more about their goals within the K12 space. So in a sense, we're caught in the crossfire. You know, I am concerned you, if you lay off half the staff, that's, you know, that's going to have an impact. And, you know, I can tell you from my time at the department, it was already a struggle to keep, keep the trains running on time and the system's updated and, and get students the benefits they're entitled to. So, and, you know, it's happening at a, it's happening at a dangerous time now is when students are, are starting to face the consequences for missed student loan payments. And Preston has documented some of the risks of student loan default happening this fall. Potentially millions of students. So, yeah, so I am, I am concerned about these actions and the impact that they'll have on students and especially former students.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah, Preston, same question to you. And something I wonder about is institutions also depend on these dollars to flow. Their ledgers, which enable them to pay faculty, pay staff, and things like that. Even a delay of a couple weeks could be traumatic to some of these institutions that, you know, are operating on pretty thin margins. Any concern about the future of the department to, to actually enact or actually, you know, implement what Congress wants.
Preston Cooper
So I, I very much sympathize with the stated aim of the administration to return education to the states. You know, I'm, I'm A federalist. I do think that education should be mostly a state issue, but I do think that we're putting the cart before the horse. If, you know, we have. We still have all these federal programs in the education space, both K12 on higher ed, but we lay off half the staff who are charged with actually administering those programs and making them work. You know, I'm sure there's. There's dead weight at the Education Department that they should cut, but, you know, a 50% cut is pretty severe, and it's difficult for me to imagine that that won't have an impact on the department's capacity to actually administer these programs. You know, if the administration were to come with a plan, come up with a plan to say, okay, you know, we're going to block grant. The K12 programs, we're going to block grant Pell, we're going to block grant student loans, we're just going to let the states kind of deal with it. You know, I would. I would be much more sympathetic to their. Their aims of closing the Education Department. But if you want to keep having these programs, if you want the Education Department to keep operating the fifth largest consumer bank in America, which is the student loan program, you do have to have, you know, adequate administrative capacity to make that happen. And so I worry that, you know, if we kind of got the Education Department without actually reforming the programs to either return them to the states or make them much simpler to administer, we might. We might have a real problem on our hands.
Jeff Selingo
So one last question for both of you. That's a little bit outside of the core of what we've been talking about, but there's been a lot of questions and concerns about international students at US Colleges and universities. You know, international students, the Optional Practical Training, which is the federal program that lets foreign graduates of American college stay in the country and work. They're all part of this larger discussion right now around immigration policy. And immigration legislation has really been a lightning rod in D.C. going back decades, of course. But given the role that international students play in American higher ed, you know, should. Should colleges and universities have been. Should they be on the playing field to kind of push it along, perhaps with employers? Is there any room from where you sit for bipartisan support for international students? You know, as many people have noted in. In recent weeks, they. They are pumping tens of billions of dollars into the American economy. Preston, let me start with you on this and then. And go to James to close us out.
Preston Cooper
Yeah, I think that's right. You know, as you mentioned, you Know, international students do pump a lot of money into the economy. They're more likely than not to pay a full tuition, which means they can help cross subsidize other students. And, you know, if they stay here after graduation, that means that America, you know, has their talents to help us build, you know, the most advanced economy in the world. So I do believe that international students are a real asset. I do think the issue that we run into sometimes is for highly selective colleges in particular, which have not expanded their enrollment in decades. You know, especially, you know, Ivy League schools. Harvard basically enrolls the same number of students today as it does in 1975. On the undergraduate side, you know, people tend to see international students as a bit of a zero sum question. They say, okay, well if Harvard admits this international student, then there's one fewer spot available for a domestic student. And I think the solution there is not to ban international students is to get rid of the zero sum dynamic. Here is for some of these colleges, which are relatively elite, relatively selective, to become a little bit less so to start admitting more students, both on the international and the domestic side, so that there is kind of space for everybody. But I think as long as that zero sum dynamic is at play, that will make, make, you know, Americans, particularly Republicans, a bit more skeptical of international students because they'll see it not as international students, not as something that's benefiting everybody, but something that's, you know, taking a slot away from domestic students.
Jeff Selingo
James, any thoughts on how we kind of roll international higher ed into this conversation?
James Kvaal
Yeah, I mean, I agree with all Preston's points. I like the idea of increasing enrollments. You know, this also an export when we enroll international students. And that's a stated goal of this administration. And maybe that's a point to push on right now. I think it's a good example of a running theme of this conversation, which is that in a lot of ways the challenges we think about every day as people who care about colleges and universities, you know, we're being swept up in some of the larger forces around income inequality and political divisiveness in our country. And, you know, I think we should all think about whether there is something we can do in our day to day lives to try to bring back a seriousness, a purpose around governing and a sense of, of making forward progress, even if it's not ideal or it doesn't make the best TikTok video. And, you know, and I think, you know, college and university leaders, you know, that includes them. I think they need to take a hard look at why these harsh criticisms of higher education are resonating. I'm not saying I agree with them. I think they're, they're very parochial and small minded and very, very dangerous. But, you know, there is an element of elite higher education that is seen as self interested and out of touch and unwilling to listen. And, you know, I think that all of us who care about higher education should try to reach out into some of the communities that feel left behind economically, that feel left behind by our education system and see what we can do to build roots and bring everyone along with that.
Michael Horn
I think that's a good place to leave it and a good place for us to find action to move us forward, hopefully in the years ahead, if not months. James Preston, thank you so much for joining us on Future U. And we'll be right back.
Jeff Selingo
This episode is being brought to you by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Today's college students are more than just students. They are workers, parents and caregivers and neighbors. And colleges and universities need to change to meet their changing needs. Learn more about the foundation's efforts to transform institutions to be more student centered at usprogram.gatesfoundation.org.
Michael Horn
Welcome back to Future U. A lot to get in here, Jeff, after that conversation. And I actually realized that after we let them go, there were several more questions that I had for both of them. But our listeners will have to make do with the two of us. And I think I want to start, though, with a reflection and get your take as someone who actually lives inside the Beltway, a location that, if I'm being totally honest, is something I delighted in being away from once I got to college. But the reflection is this is I, I was really struck by how much agreement there was between James and Preston. Now, now I know that they have, you know, their areas probably of sharp disagreement, but in our conversation it was civil and, and there were big zones where they agreed and they even agreed that it's preferable to have congressional action over executive action that, you know, and James said it right, executive actions are more of a, a second best solution when Congress doesn't appear fruitful. And you know, look, they're coming from opposite sides of the political fence. And so it, it echoed for me anyway, a conversation that we actually hosted in 2021 with Alison Griffin and Julia Peller from the right and the left respectively. And we again heard there, I think, far more agreement than disagreement. And so I, I guess this just strikes me as noteworthy and, and perhaps unexpected Given all the headlines in the media, I might even credit AEI and Rick Hess a little bit for this. They're famous for bringing so many people right in D.C. together with disparate viewpoints for conversations in the education world over the years. But I would love your take because you're there. I assume you have policymaker friends on both the right and the left in D.C. were you surprised by how much agreement there was, or was it what you expected? And James talked about why there's this reluctance to move these bills in piecemeal fashion, because if you take popular ideas out and, and move them on their own, there'll be no reason to do the big bill. But I, I guess hearing all that agreement, I was like, well, why not just take the wins and leave the trickier stuff untouched? You know, maybe. Maybe I'm being naive there, and higher ed is just getting caught up in the larger political currents of our time. But given you covered the last reauthorization of HEA, you probably have a view on something around this. So I just love your thoughts about bipartisanship, agreement, HEA reauthorization, doing something simpler, wherever you want to go with that.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah. So, Michael, two. Two thoughts here. I guess it is not what I expected, and mainly because, you know, I know James and Preston, but, you know, James especially has been, you know, just got out of the Biden administration, and I thought maybe that hardened him in a way, especially given all that's happened in the first 100 days of the Trump administration to be more negative. But it did remind me not only of that Allison Griffin and Julie Peller conversation that we had, but, you know, as you pointed out, AI in particular. And when I tell people this, they hear AI and they think, oh, oh, the right, the right, the right. And I'm like, well, actually, I think on education, by the way, AI is definitely more bipartisan, and they bring together those working groups. In fact, I think we might have even met at one of those working groups years ago.
Michael Horn
That's probably right.
Jeff Selingo
Right. To bring together people on both sides of the aisle. And even at a recent dinner during the Trump administration that I had in Washington, there were a number of people who said that, especially on the staff side, they think there's a lot more agreement than their disagreement when it comes to higher ed policy. The problem right now is that given there's so many big issues and big bills, you know, tariffs, budget reconciliation, immigration reform, mucking up the process, you can't even get to these smaller piecemeal bills, which brings me to the piecemeal bills because I think if there was room perhaps in the congressional calendar, we'd be able to move them through. But Congress just doesn't get as much done as it used to. And this idea of kind of skipping out on the Higher Education Act to do these piecemeal bills. What I think is lost here when I was covering congressional actions and even a little bit of the Higher Education Act when I was at the Chronicle, is that you would have these like deep dives on big issues. So you mentioned, you know, testifying on Capitol Hill. So if you were going to reauthorize the Higher Education act, you, the staff would bring together experts on all different issues. They would testify in front of of Congress. The staff would perhaps do meetings around the country. They would talk to a lot of different people. And it's not that that stuff doesn't happen any. Obviously there's still congressional testimony, but there would be a big focus on some of the big issues that have changed in higher ed since the last reauthorization. And I think that's what we're missing. So we might get testimony on particular issues that have to deal with these bills. But what we're missing, in my opinion is kind of the forest for the trees. And what are the issues that we're not talking about? What are the issues that don't get into a bill? Those things would surface by having these congressional hearings on bigger issues in higher ed, bringing in the experts, having the staff talk to experts in the field, having perhaps even town halls around these issues with college leaders and others. And I feel like all of that is now missing when we do this piecemeal action.
Michael Horn
Yeah, that's interesting because I've done those for in the K12 world in the past, you know, leading up to the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015 in different states and so forth. But something else that struck me actually bounces off what you just said, Jeff, which was just how thing, you know, how different things were in 2008 when you last covered that HEA reauthorization. Preston named one thing and James named another. Preston's was the shifting zeitgeist from college for all in 2008 to the not everyone needs four year college now. And then James cited the shift from a focus on access at the time to value. Although I do feel you can disagree with this. But I feel like the Spellings Commission was around at the time and as I recall they were quite interested in the value question. But my recollection anyway was that there was zero appetite for it coming out of NCLB because I think people were afraid that they were going to think about accountability through a testing lens, which, which in my view would have been a really bad idea in higher ed. But I remember starting in like 2010, pushing the notion of value over access really, really hard. And I think those changes that we, you know, around those conversations would call for a very different bill focused on perhaps supporting multiple pathways, maybe opening up federal aid dollars flowing to unaccredited actors with ROI measures in place, like apprenticeships or at least reforming accreditation in some meaningful way rather than through executive action. We've seen floated out there, Jeff, lately.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah. And I think the, the measurement on value. I, I agree with James and Preston. We've, we've kind of moved from access, we've moved even from completion to student success. None of that now is really kind of measured or reflected in the, you know, in the old Higher Education Act . I think the other piece and, and James kind of made a joke about it, Michael, about you know, your first book coming out the last time the Higher Education Act was, was authorized, you know, but 2007, remember that that's like, you know what that's like year one or year two, if that of the iPhone. You know, we just, you know, social media is new. Just think about, you know, my kids weren't even born yet and now they're about to go to college. My oldest one is about to go to college in a couple of years. Just think about how much the learning environment has changed. We know for example, around data on students taking at least one online course now post pandemic undergraduates, traditional undergraduates taking at least one online course now has gone over the 50% mark. Right. This idea of hybrid education and how do we think about outcomes? We've talked a lot on the show about mastery based and competency based education. All of these things that I think were kind of maybe fringe ideas in 2007, 2008 are now much more into the, you know, the zeitgeist are much more into the mainstream. The other thing talking about short term Pell, talking about apprenticeships, as Preston said, talking about other pathways from college for all, is that even if you say, well, the college for all movement was successful, you know, in 2016, 2017, we hit 70% of high school graduates going right onto college. That's probably the, the, the highest number. We've hit the high water mark on that. And we've talked on the show a couple of times of how that number has dropped from 70% of high school graduates going right onto college three months after high school graduation to now to 62%. So the college for all movement seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Number one, you know, people keep asking me when I give them that number, well, where are those students going? What is that 8 percentage point drop? You know, where are the students going? We don't quite know. But we do know there needs to be more pathways. We know, for example, from our shows on apprenticeships, that this is a move that more institutions are doing, more parents and students want to do, but we need to have greater reform. And I just don't think we're going to get that by having these piecemeal bills. At some point we need some coherence to the system. And I think that's what's missing when we do not have a reauthorized Higher Education Act.
Michael Horn
You just taught me something because I had been thinking in my head, take the wins guys on, on, you know, college or student outcomes, right? Like, if you got real student, you know, value for their, for the dollars that they're putting in, I think it'd be a win on both sides, frankly, in the current skeptical climate around higher ed. But as I hear you talking through the set of issues you just did, I think you're right. A broader framework about how do we think about something untethered to the Carnegie Unit. It's a much bigger overhaul, right, of how the finance system, the accounting systems are all pinned right now in terms of student financial aid and so forth. That's just scratching the surface. Regular and substantive interaction would probably have to be really rethought in a higher ed bill. Like, I'm sure we could go down and come up with 20 things pretty quickly that would not get touched in these piecemeal bills that have really dramatically changed, or at least our understandings of them have really changed over the years. So it's a really good point, Jeff. And you, you sort of persuaded me, I think, on that last thought though, as we start to wrap up, the thing that James talked about in terms of executive action that's controversial can make it challenging to reach agreement in Congress. But I was also struck from your question around international talent as an area that higher ed should be much more involved in and working with the business community on that. The elite institutions, you know, the Ivy plus, they actually may be making that debate more challenging as well, given the zero sum nature of elite admissions. And I kind of thought maybe this is yet another example of elites distorting or messing up the higher ed conversation by us paying too much attention to them. And you know, Preston said they could be like Rice University and expand more. I don't personally know how much more, but, but certainly you could still have an elite selective institution that folks want to belong to, but that is much less selective than today's have become. But you're still sort of in that zero sum world of like less than 3% or whatever of college students really distorting the debate. Jeff, do you see it that way as well as maybe we're paying too much attention to the wrong sector of higher ed when we're talking about these questions?
Jeff Selingo
Well, it's funny, Michael, that you asked me this question because about a week ago I got a call from the House committee, a House committee that's looking into kind of antitrust issues at highly selective colleges. You know, this has been getting a lot of press lately. There was that lawsuit around kind of collusion on financial aid. That's been, some of those have been, you know, some of the colleges have solved those and settled those cases. But the, but the committee is looking into this and these committee staffers were asking me a bunch of questions, mostly around admissions and rankings and things like that. And then they asked about, particularly about why can't highly selective colleges expand? And I said, well, because they don't want to in many cases. Right. And I brought up a previous Future U. episode with your friend Rick Levin, and we talked about Yale. And Yale has expanded, so, so let's give them credit. But you know, they're not going to expand by hundreds and hundreds of students.
Michael Horn
Or really took them half a billion. Right? Half a billion dollars to expand a class by 200 students.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah, exactly. And we'll take, you know, it took a long time to do that. And they said, well, what about online education? I'm like, well, you know, again, that was a question I remember even asking Levin and he's like, you know, that's just not our style of education. And again, I think this goes back to something else that came up in, in Allison. The episode that we did with Allison and Julie is that many of the staffers, I didn't ask these two staffers where they went to school, but it continues to be the problem in Washington policymaking, that the people who are putting together policy in Washington tend to go to these highly selective places or more selective places, or at least have a traditional four year degree program, residential degree program in most cases, and they just can't kind of see beyond that. And I think the issue that we face now, especially again going back to that number, I keep putting that number out there, 62% of high school graduates going right on to college after high school graduation. What is happening to that 38 other percent of students? And by the way, that's just high school graduates. We're not even talking about non graduates yet. That's a lot of people to be leaving on the sidelines in this day and age when AI and automation is really changing the job market. And I think that again, if we've seen anything from recent elections, another issue we've talked about here is everything is now settled around the college degree. If you don't have a college degree, you think differently about this economy, you think differently about your chances in life. It all comes back to that, that Higher Education Act, what Congress can do for those Americans who don't want to go to college, can't afford to go to college. Just, it's just not the right fit for them because it's not what they want to do. I feel like we're leaving an increasingly large number of people on the sidelines at a time when it's not good, by the way, for either party or for the future of the country.
Michael Horn
Well, it'd be nice to have some data on that and research so you know, hey, federal government don't cut it completely because that, that look, this is broader than just higher education, Department of Labor combining these things that gets to the College Transparency Act to some degree. But even more to your point, Jeff, it would be really helpful to understand what those individuals are doing, where there are pathways that are working for them where there are not, and build a real narrative around that. That would help all of us, I think, build sounder options and policy and frankly, those on the ground building the actual programs to better serve those students.
Jeff Selingo
Yeah. And again, Michael, I think that's where if you did a deep dive, as James said, you know, it would take months, a year plus to really do a proper reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. But a lot of that stuff would be be surfaced, research would be done or research would be surfaced by our, you know, friends and colleagues in different institutions and different think tanks. You would have a debate, you would have hearings, you would have discussions, you would have articles. All this stuff, I think makes for better policy and it's not happening.
Michael Horn
Well, let's leave it there. Huge thanks to James and Preston for coming on future you and starting off with this conversation so that we can better understand the price of congressional inaction and we'll see you all next time. On the next episode of Future U.
