Make no mistake. The recent loan forgiveness program is an unabashed good. 

Striking between $10-20k of debt load off the backs of millions of college attendees, both graduated and not, will go a long way toward burdensome (and often usurious) debt. 

It’s not perfect–only Federal loans are included; those with private loans (altogether or in tandem with Federal loans) will be less benefited, or not benefited at all. 

Moreover, the amount of debt forgiveness, while not insignificant, and also which will completely wipe the debt for many, will prove to be inadequate for many more who have debt in excess of the caps. Most students do not get out of college only ten, or even twenty, thousands of dollars in the hole. The Biden Administration has taken pains to stress that this is a one time deal. 

In addition, the application process may prove onerous enough and frustrating enough for some to abort the process mid stream, or forgo even trying for relief (although you should definitely try–the Biden administration took similar pains to stress that this loan forgiveness program will not suffer from the same bureaucratic red tape, delays, and snafus as previous loan relief programs). 

However, it also, as was previously discussed here at Lace on Race, has left a wide swath of young (and not-so-young) Americans out in the cold. 

Even though college matriculation and graduation is considered normative to the point that it is assumed by many that most young people successfully complete, the statistics do not bear that out. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2010 was highest for Asian students (74 percent), followed by White students (64 percent), students of two or more races (60 percent), Hispanic students (54 percent), Pacific Islander students (51 percent), Black students (40 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (39 percent).” That’s lower than the percentage of students who begin their college journeys but who do not receive a degree.  (All figures cited are from 2016, the latest data available from the agency.)

Who gets grants and or loans is also important. Again, according to the NCES, Black and Native Americans are both overrepresented in grants at about the same rate, though Black students carry far more loan burden. The numbers are starker, and bleaker, for part time students–and again, a disproportionate number of Black and Native students were part time. Black students either full time or part time, financed their education through loans (along with grants).

Again, though a concerning statistic remains: even the group with the highest college graduation attainment (Asian, excluding Pacific Islander) was still only 74 percent–far higher than the national rate of 60 percent, but still concerning. This means that, despite conventional wisdom which holds that ‘most’ students go to college and that ‘most’ finish–fully 40 percent (not controlled for race) do not–and most of these carry debt burden from the attempt. And even for those who do finish ‘on time’ (6 years or earlier) the unemployment rate, unsurprisingly, is higher for almost every non-white group, and earnings (both short term and over time) are lower.

Thoughts: that college is no silver bullet–if that was debatable before, this current generation (and the two before) are laying bare the lie that a college education is a golden ticket. There are more unemployed, and underemployed college graduates than there ever were before. Distressingly more so for BIPOC.

And it is doubly difficult for non-college graduates. Jobs which once did not require a degree now do. Which means that openings once filled with no-college or some-college are now filled with college graduates–effectively displacing a person without a degree. The 2016 data by the NCES does not reflect this displacement, but one can be confident that the next published study likely will. In any case, earnings across the board were lower for BIPOC, even controlling for educational attainment for some-college and college graduates, making the debt burden incurred by these groups still more marked. 

So while I am heartened by the loan forgiveness program, still my head and heart turns to those left behind, and for those who will no doubt reap some benefit from the program, but still swim in the soup of discrimination and lower economic power, despite achievement. 

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

So. I have been thinking about ways to address the presenting problem(s). 

First, there is often a disparity in what students (and their parents) pay in the first place. The odds of paying ‘full sticker price’ is, counterintuitively, lower the more affluent you are, because the odds are higher that there is at least one person in a given household who has gone through the college admission process. First generation college students, disproportionately non white, do not have that advantage. They also don’t have the advantage of having admissions ‘coaches’ or advocates. Having a person dedicated to leveling this field, at no cost to the student or their family, would go a long way toward mitigating the harm incurred by the admissions game.

An awareness and acknowledgement that secondary schools are not at all equal is also crucial. A disproportionate number of BIPOC arrive on campus unprepared through no fault of their own–it’s the fault of the school systems that let them down, intentionally or not. 

Remediation should be offered, at no cost and with no stigma or humiliation–gratis. There should be counselors dedicated to leveling the playing field, and who align with the truth of the effects of disparities and who are true advocates acting in a sort of fiduciary role, not beholden to any given university. 

Poor secondary schooling is as much of a handicap as physical or mental/emotional/learning disabilities. Students on the verge of ‘washing out’ should be identified and assessed for issues which impact success: working 50 hours a week; home or food insecurity; transportation issues. All with a steadfast refusal to blame the incoming student for what we all know are bugs (which are sometimes actually features) of persistent segregation and unfair allocation of resources. As well, there should be ways to intentionally integrate these students into the campus. 

College is about socialization as much as it is for education. Feeling isolated, or detached from campus life affects success rates. A full time student also needs to have time built in to be a student; difficult with long hours on the job or long commutes. 

Another thought: student athletes, be it the ‘big sports’ which rake in millions for colleges, or smaller sports, which may not bring in revenue, but certainly up the prestige of a given institution, should be allowed a period of time where the sport is essentially all they do. After their time on the field, or in the pool, or on the court is over, they can become full time students with full support and full funding. They should be allowed to stay at the institution for as long as they need to earn a degree–with the aforementioned as-needed (and without stigma or humiliation) remediation as necessary. This can also be extended to the arts, or any program which benefits the institution. 

But the one phenomenon which caught my attention was the recent phenomenon of the ‘gap year’. 

The gap year is usually talked about in terms of middle class and upper middle class students, as they wait a year–or even longer sometimes–before they matriculate. Sometimes that time is taken to work and build a college fund, but often it’s to go abroad, or to take an unpaid internship–or simply to blow off steam and mature and become truly ready for the socialization and the discipline of college life. 

It should be normalized for all. 

We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that it would be catastrophic for a given student if they do not go directly to college before the ink on their high school diploma is dry. Some are not ready emotionally; some are not ready financially; some are not fully ready (even if only in some subjects) academically. 

Encouraging gap year(s), full or modified, for this cohort has the potential for great benefit. The advocate mentioned above can assist with acclimation (and for first year students, two days to two weeks may very well not be enough), and connection with the college. Remediation can be done with a light course load which can ease a first generation or otherwise marginalized student into college life. 

At the same time, the student should be allowed to work–and this is where I make my Modest Proposal.

 The working gap-year student would be allowed to work as much as they like, with the goal of attending–and finishing without undue burden–university in the future. They would have an account which functions like a 529–except that they would be responsible for it and have control over it. 

This, again, would serve to level the playing field. Most first year students do not have parents who take advantage of 529’s; they may even decline to complete the FAFSA.

 This student controlled fund would allow for payroll deductions that go directly into the plan, with no limits on contribution –and the Federal government would match dollar for dollar (ok, let’s be reasonable: caps that increase as income increases). This would completely take away the need for loans for a great deal of college students–and if the government is willing to subsidize loan servicers, they should be willing to actively and generously support students. 

Depending on how much is saved in 1-4 years, a student could conceivably enter college without incurring any debt at all, especially if one factors in Pell. There could even be a provision that allowed a student to work part time while going to school part time; a sort of pay-as-you-go feature.  

Parents who can take advantage of a 529 set their kid up well (especially when you consider that private primary and secondary schools are included) Like the mortgage interest deduction, it helps the most those who need it the least. (The concerning fact of ‘middle income’ creep–now up to 250k, when the national average for a family of four is just under 80k –is another conversation for another day, but we definitely need to have it.) And, in any case, the average amount currently saved in a 529 was a little under 26k in 2020, which is a good supplemental, but does not at all completely zero out the cost for most students and their parents. 

As noted above, the majority of young Americans do not finish in one go; some don’t finish a degree, and some never go at all. This plan would also include training, apprenticeships; union dues, or saving for entrepreneurship.

And this would not be limited to the young, fresh out of high school. The student who starts university (or starts again) is older, often over 30 or even 40 or more, and, again, over-represented by BIPOC. The goal is to get the paper. Never mind how long it might take. 

At the end of the day, it’s imperative that we give every young (and not so young) person the support they need, in the timeframe they need, in the way they need. Preparing the young person for full adulthood is important. Regardless of the path that they take. Allowing older students to reimagine and reinvent themselves–same.

Honoring only one subset of our youth privileges them at the expense of the rest, leaving that unseen and unsupported cohort farther and farther behind over time. 

Lifetime income, home ownership, even health outcomes are, if not ultimately determinative, then are definitely impacted and informed by how they are succored and held well right out of the gate. 

Whatever gate they choose. Whenever they choose to walk through it.