Under a new federal rule titled “Do No Harm,” the government will conduct earnings tests on all degree programs to show whether their graduates’ earnings were higher or lower compared to high school diploma holders. Programs whose graduates earn less than the average high school graduate could lose federal funding, making access to loans restricted. They will implement the rule in July.
While Congress has worked on finalizing the details of the new rule, details emerge about cutting student loans and institutional support for failing programs.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni referenced the Secretary of Education, Nicholas Kent, stating that the Trump administration is working “to break the cycle of student debt and poor return on investment.”
Supporters of the new rule argue that taxpayers are carrying out the burden of misplaced workforce alignment from student debt. Others assert this protects students from accumulating debt that would suppress their futures.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, told The Washington Times, “The resources of the federal government should be spent supporting students who are preparing for the work that the nation needs.”
The effect of AI on new graduates raises questions about the sustainability of higher education.
“Additionally, AI-driven automation is reducing demand for some entry-level positions that traditionally justified a college degree,” said business Professor Nir Kshetri to The Washington Post.
If the speculation about AI shrinking entry-level wages, earning may not be an adequate reflection of program feasibility when labor markets are proving unstable. Thus, intellectual vigor may no longer be a measure of employability.
The follow-up question is: what fields are most vulnerable to the “Do No Harm” rule?
According to a 2024 Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce report, cited by Higher Ed Dive, arts and humanities majors earn a median income of $69,000 in their prime working years, compared to $98,000 for STEM graduates. These findings suggest a 42 percent higher income rate in historically valued programs.
Fields whose graduates enter public service, education, or nonprofit work may appear less predominant under the new earnings threshold.
The conversations about funding reflect the cultural legitimacy of higher education. Language like “return on investment” and “taxpayer burden” suggest college functions as a financial ladder instead of opening gates to civic and intellectual communities.
The emphasis on earnings as the primary metric of achievement might lead to a decline in the economic standing of disciplines that prioritize critical thinking, cultural literacy, historical awareness and community engagement.
Whether on the side of overdue accountability or opposing the diminishing of higher education’s mission, the earnings test rule displays workforce and economic anxiety in response to fluctuation. The core purpose of college is a rudimentary question universities are now addressing. Is it possible to benefit from college both financially and intellectually?
