As a university president, I talk to countless students every day. Many of them are brilliant and possess skills you cannot teach in a lecture hall. These students often choose to pursue careers in less lucrative areas because they feel a calling to help others.
When the new federal loan caps take effect this July, dedicated students are going to be restricted and forced to choose careers that they do not feel passionate about.
I publicly supported the loan-cap reforms when they were first announced, and I still support them. The underlying principle is sound. For years, unchecked lending allowed higher education costs to spiral out of control, leaving countless young people trapped in a cycle of debt. Reining in that system was a necessary step to protect students and the taxpayers.
TWENTY-FIVE STATES SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER STUDENT LOAN CAP FOR GRADUATE PROGRAMS
The country desperately needed this honest conversation. However, a critical flaw in the regulation’s two-tier classification system must be repaired immediately.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon recently testified before the House of Education and Workforce Committee to defend these upcoming limits. The intense, bipartisan questioning she faced from lawmakers made it perfectly clear where the Department of Education must adjust its course.
As written, the policy establishes a glaring double standard. The higher-tier professional classification allows students in fields such as medicine, law, dentistry, optometry, and pharmacy to borrow up to $50,000 per year. Meanwhile, vital fields such as nursing, teaching, social work, mental health counseling, and ministry are relegated to the lower graduate tier, which caps borrowing at just $20,500 per year.
This dividing line ignores the rigorous, demanding nature of these public service degrees. Just as aspiring doctors and lawyers, graduate nursing students, and mental health counselors are required to complete hundreds of hours of intense clinical rotation. They must pass strict exams and earn state licensure. Relegating them to a lower financial tier implies their advanced training is somehow less rigorous or less important.
During the hearing, McMahon defended the lower cap, arguing that 95% of nurses in graduate programs do not exceed these new limits. This argument misses the point entirely because it focuses on the median rather than people at the top of their field. That remaining 5% represents the advanced nursing educators, specialized practitioners, and high-level public servants whom rural hospitals, public schools, and community clinics rely on most heavily.
When communities lose advanced practice nurses or school districts cannot find qualified mental health counselors, the area suffers greatly. We cannot afford to price these dedicated individuals out of their education.
There are already significant concerns about loan limits for graduate nursing degrees crippling the healthcare pipeline. The solution is not to abandon the cap, but to recognize these licensed, board-supervised vocational tracks as professional preparation in the exact same legal sense as law or medicine.
One of my beliefs as a university president is that universities have a responsibility to lower the cost of higher education so these students can actually afford to answer their calling.
A loan rule that creates a strict class system of careers is wrong. It rewards high-paying corporate jobs while punishing public service. It sends a devastating message to our future educators and caretakers that their government values wealth more than community well-being.
But putting a Band-Aid on this loan rule isn’t the real cure. Instead of just restricting loans and cutting off our students, the Department of Education should focus on dismantling the bureaucratic red tape that drives up college costs.
If the federal government truly wants to protect taxpayers and students, it needs to stop piling on expensive mandates that force schools to raise tuition. Current federal regulations actively block low-cost innovations. Outdated rules regarding seat time and credit hours force institutions to spend thousands of unnecessary dollars per student. In fact, research shows that removing these artificial barriers could reduce tuition by up to 40%.
QUALITY EDUCATION NEEDS AN ACT OF CONGRESS
Universities want to make these degrees as affordable as possible. We need the government to get out of our way so we can do exactly that, rather than just cutting off the financial lifeline for our students.
By shifting our focus to the real root of the problem, we keep the promise of accountability alive while protecting the careers our country desperately needs. We can finally lower the true cost of education, and we can do it without looking a generation of nurses, teachers, and pastors in the eye and telling them their calling is a second-class career.
Dr. Kent Ingle presently serves as the President of Southeastern University (SEU). He is also the author of several leadership books and the host of the Framework Leadership podcast. Find Kent Ingle on LinkedIn and X or on his website.