[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-426 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Duncan Hunter, California Virginia
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Jared Polis, Colorado
Luke Messer, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Northern Mariana Islands
David Brat, Virginia Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Elise Stefanik, New York Mark Takano, California
Rick W. Allen, Georgia Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Jason Lewis, Minnesota Mark DeSaulnier, California
Francis Rooney, Florida Donald Norcross, New Jersey
Paul Mitchell, Michigan Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia Adriano Espaillat, New York
Ron Estes, Kansas
Brandon Renz, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky, Chairman
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
Luke Messer, Indiana Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rick W. Allen, Georgia Jared Polis, Colorado
Jason Lewis, Minnesota Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Paul Mitchell, Michigan Northern Mariana Islands
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Mark Takano, California
Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
Ron Estes, Kansas Adriano Espaillat, New York
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
Mitchell, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan
Responses to questions submitted for the record:
Mr. Benton............................................... 101
Mr. Delisle.............................................104-105
Dr. Schneider............................................ 106
Ms. Voight..............................................111-114
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.
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
first-time, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 short-sighted.
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.
[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 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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 high-level 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 understand 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
restricted-use 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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?
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
Pepperdine-U-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.
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 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 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 not-for-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.
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 institution-level 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 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.
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 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 basically 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 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 well-positioned 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 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 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?
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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
follow-up 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?
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
particular 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.
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
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 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 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 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 consumer-facing. 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?
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 first-generation 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 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?
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 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 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 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mr. Schneider's responses to questions submitted for the
record follow;]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]