House Hearing Focuses on Cost of College

The House Committee on Education and Workforce held a hearing this week to explore innovative ways to lower college costs and improve student outcomes. Members on both sides of the aisle agreed that the high cost of attendance must be addressed while also ensuring that students who attend college receive a positive return on their investment.  

Many lawmakers expressed the view that colleges need to better equip their students with the skills they need to thrive in a job market that is being rapidly changed by AI.  

Perspectives varied on how to address these issues. Democrats criticized cuts that have been made to student aid programs and research funding, stating that they only exacerbate the issue. They also argued that eliminating the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) will interfere with the federal government’s ability to study the efficacy of proposed solutions moving forward. Republicans felt that private sector technological innovation should be used to lower college costs. They emphasized the importance of colleges developing strong relationships with industry leaders to ensure that their curriculum effectively prepares students to enter the workforce.  

The witnesses also differed in their perspectives on how to lower the cost of college. For example, Jeffrey Docking, president of Adrian College, a NAICU member institution, provided information about Rize, an online course-sharing platform he co-founded that has increased student enrollment, and thus revenue, on his campus. Rize is a lower-cost way for colleges to create new majors by allowing them to share classes with other institutions. Tade Oyerinde, chancellor of Campus.edu, explained that harnessing technology to lower administrative costs has allowed his institution to invest the savings into student support services, leading to fewer dropouts, which in turn make the school more financially secure. Finally, Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president, Higher education at EdTrust argued that innovation alone cannot fix an inaccessible system and should not be used as a replacement for investment in programs with known efficacy.  

Other discussions centered on dual-enrollment and early intervention programs, the nuances of AI, and credit transfer challenges when students move from a 2-year to a 4-year institution.