The Rant Podcast
A bi-weekly podcast focused on pulling back the curtain on the American higher education system and breaking down the people, the policies and the politics. The podcast host, Eloy Ortiz Oakley, is a known innovator and leader in higher education. The podcast will not pull any punches as it delves into tough questions about the culture, politics and policies of our higher education system.
The Rant Podcast
Navigating the Next Four Years with Kelly McManus
The higher education landscape is undergoing a profound transformation, with a new focus on measuring value and ensuring economic mobility for students. In this revealing conversation with Kelly McManus, Vice President of Higher Education at Arnold Ventures, we explore the reconciliation bill currently moving through Congress and its far-reaching implications for colleges, universities, and most importantly, students.
At the heart of this policy shift lies a deceptively simple question: Are students better off for having attended a particular program? Both Democratic and Republican policymakers increasingly agree that programs receiving federal dollars should demonstrate their value through graduates' economic outcomes. The reconciliation bill represents this emerging bipartisan consensus, with provisions that would end Title IV funding eligibility for programs that leave more than half their students worse off than typical high school graduates.
Graduate education faces particularly significant changes, with the bill proposing to end the unlimited Grad PLUS loan program and institute caps of $100,000 for master's degrees and $200,000 for professional programs. This addresses growing concerns about the proliferation of expensive graduate degrees that fail to deliver proportionate economic returns.
McManus offers a compelling framework for low-income and first-generation student advocates: these vulnerable populations need protection from predatory programs that promise economic mobility but fail to deliver. True equity requires ensuring that all programs provide genuine value, not just access to debt.
Looking ahead, implementation will be crucial. Arnold Ventures is already working with states to develop credentials of value frameworks and scale evidence-based models like CUNY ASAP. As budgets tighten, institutions that truly center students rather than revenue will be those that thrive in this new accountability era.
Whether you're a policy professional, higher education leader, or concerned student, this episode provides essential context for understanding how the measurement of college value is fundamentally changing. Subscribe to the Rant Podcast for more insightful conversations on higher education's most pressing challenges.
https://www.arnoldventures.org/people?team=higher-education
eloy@4leggedmedia.com
Hi, this is Eloy Ortiz-Oakley and welcome back to the Rant Podcast, the podcast where we pull back the curtain and break down the people, the policies and the politics of our higher education system. And we're talking politics today. We're talking about President Trump's reconciliation bill that's before Congress as we speak. At the time of this recording, the Senate had just passed its version of the reconciliation budget proposal and sending it back to the House. We're going to focus on the portion of the budget that is specific to higher education. So, specifically, the proposal that came out of the HELP Committee and with me to talk about it is Kelly McManus, vice President of Higher Education from Arnold Ventures. Arnold Ventures is a philanthropy in Washington DC focused on a number of policy issues, including higher education. They've done quite a bit of work on higher education policy and are considered to be one of the more influential philanthropies on higher education in Washington DC today. So Kelly will sit down with me and we'll talk about the reconciliation budget, the differences between the House version and the Senate version and what we expect will be in that final package as it makes its way to the President's desk.
Speaker 1:Before we get into that, I just want to give my quick take. While there are a lot of pieces of this reconciliation budget that are hard to swallow, particularly when it comes to Medicaid and other programs for low-income Americans, plus numerous tax cuts that favor the more wealthy in this country, the reconciliation budget that is focused on higher education, I believe, actually has some very positive elements to it, particularly around accountability. Very positive elements to it, particularly around accountability. Accountability as it relates to thinking about earnings to debt ratios for graduate programs, ending the grad plus loan program and putting a greater focus on value, measuring value in higher education and ensuring that students are not left worse off than they would have been by enrolling in a program of study. There's been a lot of movement over the last few years to focus on measuring value, beginning in the Biden administration and now moving forward into the Trump administration. So we're going to focus on that element and I believe this will set the stage for measuring a new way, beyond completion, beyond access, and moving toward value. Moving toward ensuring that individuals who enter a program of study and who are sold a bill of goods for that program of study and that's typically a job at the other end of it, good earnings on the other end of it, improving your life and the life of your family on the other end of that program.
Speaker 1:Now we're going to have a system that begins to focus in on how to measure that, and while there are still some flaws in this bill and many of my colleagues throughout higher ed policy will point those out it does set the stage for a new way of measuring value in higher education. And the work then begins after this bill is signed into law, which I expect it will be by the time this podcast airs. The work begins on the implementation, to ensure that the implementation is done right and that we follow through with other pieces of cleanup legislation that continue to focus on improving the higher education ecosystem. And, of course, at the top of that list will be the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. So we'll have much more to say about that in future episodes, but for now, please enjoy my conversation with Kelly McManus, vice President, higher Education at Arnold Ventures. Kelly, welcome to the Rant podcast.
Speaker 2:Thank you for having me. I'm so excited to be here.
Speaker 1:Well, it's great to have you. It's about time we had you on the podcast. Thank you for all the work that you're doing there in DC, and let's talk about that work. So, for our listeners who are not very familiar with Arnold Ventures and they must be living under a rock, assuming that our listeners are familiar with your organization tell us a little bit about the history of AV and about your work and what your vision for the future of higher education is going forward.
Speaker 2:Absolutely Well and, before I jump in, I would be remiss if I didn't thank you for all of your leadership in the field. I was actually talking with one of my team members this morning who started her career at Cal State Long Beach this morning, who started her career at Cal State Long Beach, and she said that you are the leader that she often looks to when she needs a good moral compass and what good leadership is, and so I am just very grateful for all that you've done and thrilled to have you leading College Futures now I think you've got a fantastic team who I love partnering with, so I appreciate all that you do.
Speaker 1:Well, thank you.
Speaker 2:So Arnold Ventures is the philanthropy of Laura and John Arnold, and when the Arnolds set out on their philanthropic journey, they really wanted to understand what programs worked, what programs had evidence of rigorous impact, and then how could they deploy their resources to help those programs. What they found was that, very frankly, most programs don't have evidence of rigorous impact and we need significantly more research to understand what works. So Arnold Ventures has grown to be a philanthropy that primarily focuses on research and policy. We invest in really understanding the root cause of some of the most pressing problems facing our country, including work in education, which is where the higher education portfolio lives, but also in infrastructure, in public finance, healthcare, criminal justice. So our higher education portfolio here at Arnold Ventures really focuses on making sure that students are better off.
Speaker 2:Students who choose to go to higher ed are better off than they otherwise would have been if they hadn't gone to higher ed at all, and unfortunately, I think that's an aspiration that we could all share, but for too many students right now that isn't true.
Speaker 2:They aren't completing, or they are completing and are finding that the credential that they have worked so hard for doesn't have value in the labor market.
Speaker 2:So our focus is on making sure that when a student makes that investment in their future, that we're doing our part as the higher ed community to make sure that that student has the opportunity to attain the economic mobility that they are really going for. And so Arnold Ventures in higher education invests in research. We invest in policy development, invest in advocacy when necessary and litigation, and in scaling evidence-based programs to help ensure that more students are able to complete and are also really focused on recognizing that this is going to be even more true and I know we'll get into this but, as we're going to see tighter budgets coming forward making sure that every dollar that we spend in our public system is focused on student success and setting students up for the economic mobility that we collectively promised them. So that's our vision for higher education Every student is better off than they otherwise would have been and all of our public dollars are flowing in a way that can drive that outcome.
Speaker 1:Let me pull on that thread a little bit because, as I'm sure you well know, that is certainly a thread that we are pulling on here at College Futures for California, for all of our institutions in California, wanting to get the greatest value possible to the learner, to the consumer, who has every right to demand that they get as much as possible for the dream that they're investing in, the dream that we sold to them. Yes, so this whole notion of measuring higher education differently, thinking about economic mobility, how do you see the landscape shifting right now and do you see that this movement is picking up momentum? Do you see institutions starting to think differently about it?
Speaker 2:I am actually very excited about where we are seeing the conversation go and also where we're starting to see policy and practice evolve. Starting to see policy and practice evolve. And so one of the things that has emerged over the past decade or so, as you mentioned and that you have been an integral part of, is this focus on value. And I think what is most exciting for me is when you look at the policy conversation around value, it has truly become bipartisan. There is an emerging bipartisan consensus. There was.
Speaker 2:You know, we started two years ago, 2023. We had the Biden administration that was finalizing the gainful employment and financial value transparency rules. We're saying you know what? Like, if you actively leave students worse off, you don't get access to our public dollars anymore. Like, we have almost a do no harm principle and but that could only because of the way that the HEA is written, that could only apply to some colleges and programs. And what you saw at the same time, that same summer, 2023, you had Senators Cornyn and Cassidy introduce higher education package that in many ways, mirrored that same principle that was focusing on do no harm, if you actively leave students worse off, you don't get access to our public dollars. And what you're seeing now is that in reconciliation which just for a listener we are right in the middle of it. Who knows where things?
Speaker 1:go.
Speaker 2:But that principle is currently reflected in the Senate reconciliation package, and so I think that there is a really exciting coming together of that. I think there's still like policy is nuanced and there is going to be a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that whatever passes gets implemented in a way that actually delivers on the promise that we aren't going to make you worse off. I think at the same time, we're seeing in states in both red and blue states more state leaders thinking about credentials of value, thinking about how you can incentivize those. In Texas, the community college system has developed a really exciting new funding formula that is focused on how do you lead students to a self-sustaining wage in the state, and then you see other blue states that are exploring that exact same conversation. Governor Polis in Colorado is currently working on a way to think about economic mobility as a part of their finance formula, and so one of the things that I think that unites us all we're all going to have disagreements on the how is this the right bar?
Speaker 2:What metric works? Arnold Ventures? We have invested a lot in research to help answer some of those questions, but at least what we see as most exciting is that we know the history of reforms in this country. The most durable ones are ones that are bipartisan. And this is an area where there is an opportunity to really grow a bipartisan movement.
Speaker 1:Well, I certainly agree that there is bipartisanship around this issue, and I hope my colleagues who are leaders in higher education understand that that this is not an issue that's going away. This is an issue that's going to fundamentally lead into the way that we think about measuring higher education, just as we did with completion.
Speaker 1:Absolutely this is in my view, just the next step. Let's jump into what's happening right now. So let's jump into what's happening right now and, given that we are recording this interview, at the end of June, the Senate is wrestling with its version. Committee's reconciliation bill proposal for higher education looks like, and some of the things that you're keeping an eye on.
Speaker 2:Sure, and one thing again as a disclaimer I will say this is as of this. Second, what is in the bill? There is a chance that even within the time that we are recording this, it will have changed, so please don't hold me to any specifics. But essentially, what Senator Cassidy has put together for the HELP package and reconciliation is thinking about how do we spend our dollars in higher ed, and the biggest chunk of money that we spend through the HEA is in title work, and so it's thinking about how do we give out Pell Grants, how do we give out loans, how do we get, how do students repay? So what Senator Cassidy has put together is a package that we think advances the conversation about how we can best structure our dollars in higher ed. There are a couple big buckets here. First, it changes our student loan repayment system. This is the biggest bucket. This comprises a significant portion of the dollars that this bill is seeking to save, and it creates a new repayment plan, a new income driven repayment plan for students and then also a new standard plan for students. The original bill would have that apply to all current borrowers and new borrowers. As of 24 hours ago, the application to current borrowers got bounced out by the Senate parliamentarian and so there are some real questions here about what happens for current borrowers. But presumably, moving forward, the borrower will have two options for repayment. So that's one big bucket. That's in the bill. Second big bucket is changes to loan limits, and this is at the both undergrad or this is at the graduate level. At the house included changes to the undergrad limits. The Senate is focused on the graduate level, so the bill would end the Grad Plus program that was created in 2006, but would increase the amount of eligibility for graduate Stafford loans to $100,000 for master's programs and $200,000 for professional programs. So that's kind of another big bucket of change. And the third big bucket of change is around title war eligibility based on outcomes program leave your students, leave more than half of your students worse off than the typical high school graduates in your community. You don't get access to Title IV dollars anymore. Students are not going to go in debt for your program anymore and I think that that's again a really important sea change policy that we will need to continue working on in implementation.
Speaker 2:I think one of the things that I like to remind people is the last time the HEA was reauthorized in 2008,. That was on the back of a reconciliation bill in 2007. Give more nuance, give more cleanup. I think that there is going to be the need and the opportunity for us to have bipartisan conversations about how we make sure these new policies are implemented effectively. So those are the biggest buckets in there.
Speaker 2:There's also there are other policies in there. There was, until 24 hours ago, Workforce Pell an expansion of Pell to very short-term programs between eight and 15 weeks. That was bounced out. I know that there are efforts ongoing now to try to restructure that so that it can come back in. Restrictions on secretarial authority, including repeal of the borrower defense and closed school discharge rules that are still under consideration from the parliamentarian at this moment. So we don't know whether those are going to make it in and I think that those are areas.
Speaker 2:You know. Arnold Ventures has invested for a long time in making sure that students who have been defrauded have recourse and in our ideal world, those predatory institutions are held responsible for that. As an aside, on borrower defense, there has been so much regulatory ping pong here. It has changed with every administration, Every administration. I think we'd like to see a more durable legislative solution to give defrauded borrowers a path to being made whole, and so that's something we're going to be thinking about in this potential cleanup bill, should reconciliation pass. So those are kind of the big pieces that are in right now and again, there is a decent chance that, while we have been talking that has changed.
Speaker 1:I haven't looked at my social feed in the last few minutes, so I will wait until after this conversation. Let me dig in on a couple of things that you brought up. First of all, there is clearly, in my view, a bipartisan frustration with graduate programs Absolutely Graduate programs. I've been hearing this. I was hearing it when I did a drive-by in the Biden administration. I've heard this ever since. I hear it from my Republican colleagues, I hear it from Democratic colleagues, and so I'm not surprised that Congress is trying to do something about it. I do think it's time.
Speaker 1:There's a question in my mind and maybe you can answer it, and this is an in the weeds question because of my time on the UC Board of Regents and the time I've spent with some of our four university colleagues. What I have found is, over the last 10 years, there's been a rush to make every graduate program a professional program, for a variety of reasons. One is most universities charge differential fees for professional programs, so there's been a proliferation of professional programs. Is not just the MD, the JD and the MBA anymore Right? How, in the current write-up in the bill, how does Congress plan to deal with these two issues? Does it specify what a professional program is.
Speaker 2:So a professional program is specified in the HEA. I think this is one of the very interesting things that we have looked at internally as we've been trying to unpack these policy proposals. There's a whole category of professional programs that are in theology and one thing we know is theology degrees. You don't go into theology to make money, you go in for a different calling.
Speaker 1:Well, we've seen some variations of that.
Speaker 2:Yes, well, that is true, that is true, and so I do think that this is the type of policy nuance that I think reconciliation is not the right vehicle to address and why I really hope that there is a opportunity for a bipartisan cleanup. Hea reauthorization after this, because the House version the bill had one hundred and fifty thousand dollar cap for professional programs. There was a lot of pushback from medical schools in particular on that, and so the Senate version has a two hundred thousand dollar cap for professional programs. But what we have found in looking at the data, first of all from the Arnold Ventures perspective, we think that, setting a cap, we are having the right conversation the Senate and the House. They have identified the right issues that demonstrated that the uncapped nature of Grad Plus led to an increase in 50 cents on every dollar that was more available. So cost is going up.
Speaker 2:At the same time, access is not increasing, and that's what we want. We want people to be able to access graduate programs that they need, that pay off programs that they need, that pay off and grad plus isn't working to do, and so they are addressing the right issue and we are really excited that this conversation is happening, especially, as you know, we're now at 46 percent of all federal loans are graduate loans. So we need to be addressing this issue. Earnings ratio that would guide limitations, because there are some particularly medical programs and also some law programs where that it does cost more than $200,000. But those people pay off their loans. Those are good investments and so we don't want to limit access to those high paying, high value programs. At the same time, a $100,000 limit for some for master's degrees might be way too high for some master's degrees.
Speaker 2:We've seen the proliferation of master's degrees that don't pay off and I think that that's what worries me is that we are still setting up a system, potentially, where students are going to think that they're doing the right thing, they're going to get the signals I need to go to grad school, I need to get this master's Universities are still going to see that as a revenue growth opportunity.
Speaker 2:I think one of the more horrifying headlines I've seen recently around this is when Brown University, an Ivy League school, one of the best in the country came out and said in the headline that we so. I think that there is a very real need to address this issue. I think that, though a debt to earnings. Where it can go lower, it may be and we can really focus on turning the cost curve and making sure that programs are delivering meaningful value while also enabling access to the high value programs is potentially a better way to go, but again, that's not something that you can do. Have that nuance and reconciliation. That'll be something that we are working actively on exploring after we get through this little bit.
Speaker 1:Well, after we get through this little bit, there's still a lot of work to do. Yes, a lot of work to do, yes. So let me ask you another question that you brought up ending Title IV access for institutions that leave students worse off than they otherwise would. I think a lot of people agree with that notion certainly one of them but there's also a lot of people who doubt the execution of that penalty. Essentially, it's a penalty. I've had my experiences where I've had an institution that I oversaw in California, who was egregious, who was doing some horrible things in terms of quality, but given their relationship with the leadership in the House, there was going to be nothing I could do about it. I mean, there are a lot of people who doubt that we would actually end Title IV access to an institution. What do you think the sentiment is in Congress right now about that?
Speaker 2:I think that our history is not great in this regard. I think if you look back at the 1992 HEA reauthorization, in some ways I mean that was really a high mark for real accountability. It certainly had flaws, but had real accountability, had an impact. There is research showing that it drove down default rates, that it had an impact, and then by the late 90s there is a lot of political pressure to water it down, and I certainly think that there is. That is a shell of its former self. That one of the things that is incumbent upon those of us who have been thinking about policy and working on these policies for so long is we cannot walk away afterwards. Implementation is going to have to be as important as all of the research, the policy development, the advocacy, the community, everything that has led us to focus on value. If we drop the ball and we don't actually implement policies, we're still lying to people. We're still lying to students and saying, oh, don't worry, we've taken care of the issues, while students are still not being served well. So I think it is incumbent on us as funders, as people in the policy space, to keep an eye on that. But one thing I think that the Senate has done. That is really, really important and that is important for higher ed broadly to really know is that they are looking at programmatic accountability and so it is program by program.
Speaker 2:There are very few institutions where every single program is so. I think the fact that we are, it is much easier to tell an institution you need to stop enrolling students in that program. Then institutions can move things around, they can develop new programs, they can identify which programs have higher value. How do they shift that? There's still a lot of agency and there is less political pressure to shut down institutions. I think that has been one of the challenges that the accountability movement has faced over the past decade. Is this question of like, well, you're going to shut down institutions? No, we're saying that you know an institution needs to look at their programs, and we're seeing some of this at the state level too, where states are asking institutions look at your programs, look at the outcomes, where is their value? And how are we making sure we are sunsetting the programs that are consistently leaving students worse off while investing in those that offer real economic mobility?
Speaker 1:I think that's a great point. Going after program level outcomes, I think, would be a lot more realistic in the current environment. Now let's let's talk about some of the differences between the House and the Senate version. There are some specific differences in Pell eligibility. Absolutely, and given the appetite, particularly in the House, to reduce the cost, going forward as much as possible, how do you see the Senate reconciling the cost of Pell with the House?
Speaker 2:I think I wish that we were able to have this conversation and 24, 48, 72, some number of hours from now, because I think this is a really active conversation. I was very happy to see, I think, that what we saw in this so the Senate bill did not make any of the changes in Pell eligibility that the House did I think that's the result, very frankly, of some really strong storytelling and advocacy, particularly on the part of community colleges, who would have been disproportionately impacted, given the number of part-time students that they serve. There is a long-time bipartisan support for Pell as the foundation of our investment in economic mobility in this country, but the reality is that Pell is facing a shortfall If we go into, if we are headed into, a recession historically, when we have a recession, more people go back to school and that puts much more pressure on Pell and so I think that both the Senate and the House have included dollars that immediately plug the Pell shortfall for the short term. But what we have to have a bigger conversation about, and what the House tried to do, was try to address that fundamental long term sustainability of the program. At the same time, you know, both the Senate and the House proposed workforce Pell expansions and I think, seeing that, while seeing the shortfall that, yes, like both bills are addressing in the immediate term but not, you know we're going to be still having a shortfall conversation in two years, three years from now, I was flashing back to what we did with year-round Pell, where we gave it and then we took it back.
Speaker 2:Fortunately, we were able to then give it back again, but I think that when there is a Pell shortfall, things get cut, eligibility gets cut, and so we need to have a broader conversation about Pell sustainability over the long term. And I think it's also time for us to do more thinking about, like, what is the purpose of Pell versus what are there? Are there programs that are better served, especially some of the short term training programs, like could those be funded through WIOA, recognizing that WIOA is much, much less heavily funded than Pell? Like, I'm not suggesting there's a one-to-one answer there, but I do think we need to have conversations as a higher ed community about Pell, especially as its value and buying power has continued to erode.
Speaker 1:Agreed and I think there's a lot of support for a workforce Pell type program. But, as you mentioned, the challenge is always how do you fund it and do you take it out of Pell? Do you reduce eligibility on one end, increase eligibility on the other end? So it sounds like Arnold Venture's position is to find a different source of funding outside of Pell.
Speaker 2:I think that would be our preference, though I would say I think that largely comes back to the evidence. We know there are some short-term programs that do boost economic mobility. There are a lot that don't. This week or last week, there was a report that came out of AEI and the Burning Glass Institute that showed that under 20% of short-term certificates had that significant earning power boost. And so, especially if you are pitting students who are going to whether it's a non-degree credential but 15 to a year certificate, an AA, a BA, if you are pinning those against each other and fighting for the same funding, like we would prefer that the dollars follow the programs that have the greatest evidence of impact.
Speaker 2:In a world in which we live, which is a world of limited resources, In our perfect world, would everyone have every opportunity? I think that this is going to be especially true as we look at tighter budgets, unlike 2020, unlike 2008. Like, I don't see a big influx of new money kind of coming down the pike, and so institutions states they're going to have to make hard decisions. Institutions states they're going to have to make hard decisions, and our hope and one of the things that we are actively thinking about is how do you protect value in that time? How do you preserve the programs that have evidence of economic mobility, evidence of leaving students better off? And, when it comes to, how do we shift funding to those programs in a world in which we can't fund everything?
Speaker 1:Yeah, Now there is continued debate about where the federal role begins and ends and where the state role begins and ends On this question of workforce credentials. There's an argument out there that states are in the best position to figure out which credentials create the most value for their local and state economies. How do you see the balance between the federal and state role working itself out in this context?
Speaker 2:This is where I get into. I started my career doing state level policy work. I do believe that states are the laboratory of democracy. We at Arnold Ventures have been building out our engagement states and are doing some really exciting work in North Carolina and Texas, colorado, tennessee, some other places that where we see a lot of excitement, a lot of experimentation of how much we need to learn about short-term credentials, which ones pay off, what are the features? Is it you know how much work-based learning, what is the appropriate dosage Like? There's so much that we need to learn about what is an effective credential and it is such a localized thing that this is where I think states really need to be kind of in in the driver's seat.
Speaker 2:I think that states are, and so I think that you know.
Speaker 2:That is something where both the Senate and the House version of Workforce Pell in reconciliation included a role for governors.
Speaker 2:I think that in all of our conversations that we are having with governors, they are thinking about this and so I think that that's an appropriate role.
Speaker 2:But where I think that the federal government can't walk away is on the data and the research is going to be able to drive effective data collection, data analysis research at the scale we need than the federal government, and I know we fund at Arnold Ventures we fund a significant amount of research and it is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed and what the federal government can and should be doing. Our founder and co-chair, john Arnold, has talked extensively about how philanthropy can't fill the gap here. You know, and I think that that is one of the things I'm sure that you at College Futures y'all are trying to wrestle with too is like what is the role? And so this is where I think we need to be clear that the data collection, analysis, research on what works and then providing the support to help states make those decisions, I think is the right federal role of some of these changes to low-income learners, first-generation learners, communities of color.
Speaker 1:There's a lot of concern that the changes or the elimination of things like Grad Plus will impact the ability of diverse students to access programs. There's concern about some of the proposed changes to Pell, although less so now in the Senate version, but a number of advocates for low-income learners first-generation learners are concerned about the current reconciliation budget. What should advocates for those learners be focused on and what kind of advocacy would you recommend to them at this moment in time?
Speaker 2:I think that one of the things that I have found to be kind of most challenging in the higher education space is that we do when we are advocating for low-income students, when we are advocating for low-income students, students of color, first-generation students.
Speaker 2:Too often I'm in conversations where there isn't an acknowledgement that right now, too many of those students are upon by predatory schools that are selling a bill of goods that that are never going to pay off, that too many of them are are be I don't have the, the advising, the support that they need to navigate, like, what are the programs that are going to actually deliver value? To me? When I think about particularly the accountability side, that is like I come at that from a like how do we make sure that, at a bare minimum, particularly low-income students, first-generation students, are going to be worse off Like that? That to me is a fundamental and I think that sharing that, starting with that value, that like, we want to at a minimum make sure that what students are accessing, especially when they are the first in their families to do it, that they are accessing something that has value. And so I think advocates really need to start with that front and center. That front and center, I think that there is going to be an important role for institutions to rethink their practices and rethink their cost structures. I think we are going to see that there are going to be tighter budgets. One of the things I listened to your last podcast with Ted Mitchell, who I loved the way he said the schools that are going to survive are going to be the schools that are student-centered, that aren't adult-centered, and I just thought that was brilliant and I want to paint that everywhere, because I think that is what we need to be focused on right now is how do we then meet students where they are and help them, and so I think one of the things that we are doing at Arnold Ventures, we are investing heavily in scaling the CUNY ASAP model.
Speaker 1:The.
Speaker 2:ASAP model is really kind of the gold standard in terms of improving community college completion rates, and the beauty of it, the magic of it is it meets students where they are. It meets students where they are. It gives them the support that they need, and what we're doing it with our most recent replication effort in North Carolina is we are helping to give them those supports in programs that have high wage, high demand outcomes that are going to deliver. Like we are keeping our promise to you, you, as the students, are trusting us with your time, your money to come to this program. We're going to give you the supports that you need to complete a credential that is going to set you up for economic mobility long term. I think we need more focus on that. How are we meeting students where they are, giving them the tools that they need and then teeing them up for success, as opposed to hiding the ball about what their outcomes are going to?
Speaker 1:be long term Agreed and my colleagues at MDRC will be very happy to hear how enthusiastic you are about ASAP. So let me ask you this Is the whole conversation about debt forgiveness over for the time being.
Speaker 2:I do, yes, yes, I do think that it is. I am glad that it is very frankly, because I think that debt forgiveness was an important symptom. It was addressing a real need but it was going to put a Band-Aid on the root cause to the very, very real challenges that a lot of student borrowers are facing. I think that there was an opportunity I hope an opportunity reemerges where we can have kind of a grand bargain conversation where we recognize for some borrowers who have been in repayment for decades, who have seen huge negative amortization of their loan, their balance keeps growing that they are never going to be able to pay it off. I think that there is. We need to have some recognition that at some point it becomes not just like wrong but silly to try to keep getting that payment. But if you tackle that side of the equation without addressing the fact that we are continuing to put people in that situation, then I think that we wind up really missing an important opportunity. So I do hope that we are able to have a more holistic conversation.
Speaker 2:I think that for Arnold Ventures, our perspective has always been that we need to first address root cause issues, and that is, low-value programs that are leaving students in debt. They are never going to be able to repay. We believe in putting in place essentially a gainful employment for all standard where both an earnings threshold and making sure that there are that you have an appropriate debt to earnings ratio so that you can repay that debt. If we can cut that, if we can stop people on the front end from going into unmanageable debt, then we can. Also. We can walk and chew gum. At the same time, we can also think about how do we address those people who have been in repayment for so long, as well as those who have been defrauded by predatory institutions.
Speaker 1:Yes, well, I certainly agree. Let me ask you one last question as we begin to wrap up, kelly. Your organization has been working very hard over the last several years, focused on federal policy. I know you're in states as well, but I've had several guests on the show, particularly one who has questions about the influence of Arnold Ventures in DST, particularly in the Biden administration, and how do you see your role going forward at Arnold Ventures and what's the future for your organization and your shop look like going forward?
Speaker 2:Well, I wish that we had the influence that that guest ascribed to us.
Speaker 2:I would have been able to get a whole lot more done. I think that for Arnold Ventures, our focus is in the moment and again on June 27th, what is first and foremost is this reconciliation bill, but I think, as I mentioned earlier, implementation is going to be so key and there's going to be such an opportunity for the higher ed policy, community institutions and really people on both sides of the aisle to come together and figure out, ok, how do we implement this in a way that works? My biggest fear is that, because this is reconciliation, which is, by definition, a partisan exercise, that Democrats say you know, we want nothing to do with that. I get that instinct and I think that a lot of the higher ed accountability policy in particular, that has bipartisan roots and bipartisan interest and a bipartisan need to get it right, and so I am really hopeful that we are able to bring together a conversation about where we go from here, how we build on this, how we implement effectively and, similarly, I think there is going to be a lot of thinking that needs to be done. Given the shell that is now, what resources do they need? How do we make sure that this is able to be implemented effectively Because, as you know very well, getting the policy across the line, that's like 5% of the job. The 95% is how it is implemented. So that's where, from the federal lens, where we are thinking a lot about our work moving forward.
Speaker 2:And then, as you mentioned, we see a huge opportunity at the state level. We've been working and identifying best ways to partner with states to help them identify for their states what are the credentials of value, what are those credentials and programs that lead to real economic mobility and meet labor market needs, and then what are the policy levers that you can use to incentivize those. So, thinking about funding formulas and the things that I'm thinking a lot about right now is academic program approval and review, like how do we spin up new programs and how do we look at the programs that exist and say, especially in times of budget crises, like, why are we spending our dollars on programs that don't provide economic mobility? So I think that there's a lot of opportunity there and we're really excited to be partnering with some states to think about that and state advocates. Then, finally, a big chunk of our work and part for me as a North Carolina girl that has been very, very close to my heart, is thinking about our work on scaling effective practices, and so, you know, in February we launched the ASAP replication in North Carolina. That's going to serve 15 community colleges across the state. We are going to start they are going to start serving students in August. We are so excited to see kind of where that goes and we are very actively exploring.
Speaker 2:Are there other states? Are there other big metropolitan areas that might be ripe for that type of catalytic investment? And I think that one of the things that makes me most hopeful in this moment and I know I am chronically like, maybe naively always trying to find the opportunity and the optimism, but I think we are seeing so many pockets of excellence and improvement and growth and like real commitment to students and to economic mobility, and I think that that is going to. We are going to be tested on our commitment to that, I think, as budgets get tight, but I'm really hopeful that we are seeing the necessity of higher ed to evolve and change and truly embrace student success, as opposed to just saying it but then actually being more concerned about revenue but really embracing student success. And that's what I'm most excited about moving forward. And and that's what I'm most excited about moving forward.
Speaker 1:Well, on that very hopeful note, I want to say thank you, kelly, for taking the time to join us here on the Rant podcast. I know that this is a crazy busy time for you, so thank you for your leadership and for your team's work and thank you for being on the Rant podcast.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much. I really appreciate it and I'm excited to continue working with you.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. There'll be plenty of work to do so. Thanks for joining us everybody. You've been listening to my conversation with Kelly McManus, Vice President of Higher Education at Arnold Ventures. You've been listening to the RAND podcast. If you're watching us on YouTube, please hit subscribe, and if you're following us on audio, continue to find us on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for joining us, everybody, and we'll see you all soon. Thank you.
