NASFAA Grad Prof Borrowing Thought Force Develops Advocacy Principles
By Jill Desjean, Director of Policy Analysis
Lawmakers’ and policymakers’ priorities change along with shifting political tides. In this context, effective advocacy often means making difficult choices about which policies to pursue based on prevailing political realities. Notwithstanding those realities, NASFAA always seeks to have its public policies grounded in principles that are in the best interests of students.
With that in mind, NASFAA convened a community of graduate and professional (GP) financial aid administrators to engage in thoughtful conversations about graduate and professional student borrowing — and NASFAA’s policy positions in that area — in the context of the current political climate as well as what is in the long-term best interest for students.
The group developed a set of principles, detailed below, which NASFAA’s board acknowledged at its June meeting.
-
GP education benefits society, not just individuals:
-
Support for GP programs must account for the fact that GP programs vary significantly and that differences in ROI do not necessarily equate to differences in program quality or value.
-
There is inherent value in the many GP fields beyond return on investment and individuals should not be expected to shoulder the entire burden of going into low-paying but socially valuable fields.
-
There is value in having varied representation in all fields.
-
-
Responsibility for supporting GP education and GP graduates is shared among many stakeholders:
-
The federal government has a role to play in making GP education accessible and affordable.
-
Institutions have a responsibility to offer GP programs of value and should be transparent about outcomes.
-
States, local governments, accreditors, and employers can use different policy levers to ensure affordable access to GP education.
-
“What emerged from this Thought Force was a shared belief that graduate and professional education is a public good — not just a private benefit,” said Emily Osborn, FAAC®, director of the Chicago office of financial aid at Northwestern University Chicago Campus a who chaired the Thought Force. “It powers our public health system, our schools, our infrastructure, and more. And while the financial return varies widely by field, the societal value does not.”
Learn more about the Thought Force’s principles.
Publication Date: 7/16/2025
David S | 7/16/2025 5:21:31 PM
Thank you to Emily and the team for your work on this. These are challenging times; we will soon learn the hard way that cutting off a source of federal funding only to have it replaced - for some students but not all - by the private market will not reduce tuition at all (in fact it could lead to a faster rate of tuition inflation, as reduced enrollment = reduced needed revenue). Students will now be best served by financial aid professionals with vision, creativity and proactive communication skills, and I hope everyone is making sure everyone up the ladder on their campus, up to and including the President and trustees, know how this is going to impact graduate student enrollment and success. Many/most schools with both undergraduate and graduate populations devote the lion's share of institutional funding to the undergrads, and while I understand the rationale behind that, it's time to rethink it, otherwise graduate enrollment is likely to suffer.
Perry D | 7/16/2025 10:2:58 AM
For those who are talking about advocacy, I would like you to know there are those of us who have been advocating for the continuation of GradPLUS since there was a hint of it going away. But this was something that fell on deaf ears in Congress. I have talked with Congresspersons on both sides of the aisle, and I do not believe it could have been stopped. This was such a large bill and had so many other controversial items that the advocacy for GradPLUS got lost in the shuffle. The President and Congress seem so sure that cutting off funding will force the reduction price of college, which may well be true. But it won't happen overnight, and the current and near-future graduate students are going to be the ones who pay the price. I am very unhappy about this also, but it is done and probably would have been done no matter what financial aid officers had done. So, now we need to concentrate on what we need to do to help graduate students fund their education in the best and cheapest way possible under the new normal.
Theresa C | 7/16/2025 9:13:47 AM
Thank you James H - this is well said. Eliminating the Grad Plus, especially for Professional Students, will sure split the populations into the Haves and the Have Nots. Meaning the well off and rich will be able to achieve Professional Degrees while everyone else struggles or cannot even consider this as an option . Advocacy would have helped!
James H | 7/16/2025 9:7:07 AM
Would have been nice if financial aid organizations had been more vocal and fighting like hell before this was all passed and not so passive. I think we are all going to be stuck with figuring out the best way forward for our students.
Students are going to be saddled with private loans from the middle class down with higher interest rates, variable rates, and forced to get co-signers for these loans to get better terms. It is going to affect many Colleges/Universities that have large graduate programs.
Toni D | 7/16/2025 8:19:28 AM
I keep coming back to the same thought I had when I first heard it was part of the bill. This will make higher education at the highest level inaccessible to many low-income people who do not have the means to pay tuition to pay on their own.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.