Federal higher education policy is increasingly focused on accountability, transparency, and return on investment. Those goals are reasonable. Students and families deserve clear information about costs, outcomes, and repayment options. But accountability tools that ignore where students start, how labor markets function, and what economic mobility actually looks like can do more harm than good. Two recent developments, the dismantling of the SAVE student loan repayment plan and the introduction of a new federal earnings indicator, show how well-intended policy can undermine access and equity when context is stripped away.
The Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan was designed to stabilize repayment for borrowers with modest or volatile incomes. It tied monthly payments more closely to earnings, raised the income threshold before payments were required, and prevented unpaid interest from compounding loan balances. For many borrowers, especially first-generation students and those entering public service or lower-wage regions, SAVE provided predictability. It allowed graduates to participate in the economy while building careers rather than defaulting early or delaying milestones such as housing, family formation, or entrepreneurship.
Legal challenges ultimately halted the plan, and recent announcements signal that SAVE will be formally ended and borrowers transitioned into older repayment structures. Supporters of this decision argue it restores statutory limits and protects taxpayers. Critics counter that removing SAVE increases financial risk at a time when wages remain uneven and unemployment pressures persist in many regions. Regardless of where one falls on the legal debate, the policy signal is clear: borrower protections that accounted for income volatility are being rolled back during an uncertain economic moment.
Transparency is important, but earnings alone are an incomplete measure of value. The indicator relies on raw median earnings and does not adjust for regional labor markets, cost of living, field of study, or students’ starting socioeconomic position. As a result, it systematically advantages institutions whose graduates enter high-wage metropolitan markets or immediately lucrative fields and disadvantages institutions whose graduates pursue public service, education, healthcare, nonprofit work, or regionally rooted careers.
This dynamic has particular consequences for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. HBCUs enroll a disproportionate share of first-generation, low-income, and working students. Their graduates are more likely to remain in the communities where they were educated, often in regions with lower wages but high social need. Judging these institutions by unadjusted earnings metrics ignores the fact that many of their students experience substantial upward mobility relative to where they began, even if their absolute earnings lag peers in wealthier labor markets.
When accountability tools fail to capture mobility, they reshape behavior in damaging ways. Students encountering earnings warnings on the FAFSA may interpret them as signals of institutional failure rather than reflections of labor market structure. Enrollment decisions can shift, tuition revenue can decline, and already resource-constrained institutions can lose competitiveness relative to larger Predominantly White Institutions with deeper endowments and stronger placement in high-wage regions. Over time, this reinforces stratification across higher education rather than expanding opportunity.
These effects are magnified by broader labor market realities. Black unemployment consistently exceeds the national average, even during periods of economic growth. In many Southern, rural, and post-industrial regions where HBCUs serve as anchor institutions, job recovery is slower and wage growth more modest. Graduates often enter education, public administration, healthcare support, and service sectors that are essential to local economies but undervalued in earnings data. Accountability systems that ignore these conditions penalize institutions for fulfilling missions that markets alone do not reward.
Taken together, the end of SAVE and the introduction of an unadjusted earnings indicator send a troubling message. Students are asked to shoulder more repayment risk while institutions serving those students are judged by metrics that overlook structural inequality. The result is a policy environment that confuses earnings with value and accountability with punishment.
This outcome is not inevitable. Federal accountability can be improved by incorporating measures of economic mobility, regional labor market adjustment, and program-level outcomes. Earnings data can be contextualized rather than weaponized. Repayment systems can balance borrower responsibility with economic reality.
If accountability ignores where students start, it will undermine the very economic resilience higher education is meant to strengthen.
Author Bio:
Adolph Brown IV, Ed.D., is an economist and higher education faculty member who has taught at multiple public and private institutions. His work focuses on economic mobility, workforce development, and equity in higher education, with particular attention to HBCUs and regional labor markets.
References
Urban Institute. (2023). College outcomes, regional labor markets, and student mobility.
U.S. Department of Education. (2025). U.S. Department of Education launches new earnings indicator to support students and families making informed college decisions.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Employment Situation Summary and Labor Force Statistics by Race and Ethnicity.
Brookings Institution. (2021). HBCUs punch above their weight in economic mobility.
Leave a Reply