master's degree meaning in education

Master’s In Education Guide: Everything You Should Know

Updated: Jun 12, 2024, 1:55am

Key Takeaways

• A master’s degree in education can help practicing educators gain new skills, explore specializations and qualify for advanced roles in and out of the classroom.
• Career changers can also use this degree to get started in the education field.
• Master’s in education candidates can choose among many concentrations, including popular options such as curriculum and instruction, special education, early childhood education, education technology and educational policy.
• This degree offers a broader scope than a master’s in teaching.
• Career paths for master’s in education graduates include traditional or special education teacher, school administrator, school counselor and curriculum developer.

If you’ve ever dreamed of standing in front of a classroom, crafting course curriculums or conducting science experiments with a room of energized seventh-graders, a master’s in education might be right for you.

You can become an educator with just a bachelor’s degree, but a master’s degree in education opens up more career opportunities and can increase your earning potential. Education professionals with master’s degrees can specialize in particular areas of education, move into administrative roles, qualify for higher teaching salaries, or pivot to careers in the nonprofit or corporate sectors.

By providing you with the foundation for navigating and shaping the U.S. education system, a master’s in education can pave the way for a fulfilling, impactful career as an educator, both in and outside of the classroom. This advanced degree combines real-time teaching experience with traditional classroom learning to shape the next generation of educators.

Read on to learn everything you need to know about getting your master’s in education.

Why You Can Trust Forbes Advisor Education

Forbes Advisor’s education editors are committed to producing unbiased rankings and informative articles covering online colleges, tech bootcamps and career paths. Our ranking methodologies use data from the National Center for Education Statistics , education providers, and reputable educational and professional organizations. An advisory board of educators and other subject matter experts reviews and verifies our content to bring you trustworthy, up-to-date information. Advertisers do not influence our rankings or editorial content.

• Over 3,868 accredited, nonprofit colleges and universities analyzed nationwide
• 52 reputable tech bootcamp providers evaluated for our rankings
• All content is fact-checked and updated on an annual basis
• Rankings undergo five rounds of fact-checking
• Only 7.12% of all colleges, universities and bootcamp providers we consider are awarded

What Is a Master’s in Education?

A master’s degree in education is an advanced diploma that prepares students to become professional educators or advance their current careers in the field. Graduates may not necessarily work as teachers; individuals with master’s degrees in education can pursue diverse career paths as administrators, school counselors, and test and curriculum developers, among other professions.

A master’s in education program develops strong communication, leadership, critical thinking and collaboration skills for graduates to use in educational contexts.

A master’s degree in education generally takes two years to complete, but part-time enrollment may extend this timeline. Many programs offer evening classes to accommodate working educators, and online master’s in education programs may feature asynchronous course delivery for maximum schedule flexibility.

Program Structure

Credit requirements for graduate education degrees vary by institution. The online master of education program at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign , for example, comprises 32 credits. At Arizona State University (ASU), earning a master of arts in education requires just 30. And at Harvard University , students must earn at least 42 credits.

As an education master’s student, you may have to complete a final thesis, exam, project or research program. Even if you’re completing your degree online, your program may ask you to complete a final project; for example, ASU’s graduate program requires an inquiry study that involves participation from a student to complete coursework.

Licensure Considerations

Some master’s in education programs are designed for practicing educators and require applicants to have teaching experience, while others serve both current education professionals and those transitioning into the field from non-teaching backgrounds.

If you are not already working in education and want to become a classroom teacher—especially in public schools—ensure the programs you’re applying for are designed to prepare you for state teaching licensure or certification.

Many individuals seeking new careers in education or aiming to advance their current professional paths in the field find that obtaining a master’s degree is worth it.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics , teachers with master’s degrees outearn those with just a bachelor’s at all career stages. For example, among public school teachers with five years of experience, those with bachelor’s degrees earned a median annual salary of $47,800 as of 2021, while for those with master’s degrees the median wage was $56,030.

Specializations for a Master’s in Education

Though offerings vary, many programs feature specializations so learners can study particular areas within education. Common specializations include:

• Teaching pedagogy
• Autism spectrum conditions
• Early childhood education
• Educational leadership
• Curriculum and instruction
• Education Technology and instructional design
• Bilingual and bicultural education
• School psychology
• Educational policy and planning
• Language and literacy studies
• Special education
• Gifted education

Some institutions offer dedicated master’s degrees for education specializations, such as a master’s in early childhood education or a master’s in elementary education . Master’s in education candidates can also focus on academic subject areas such as mathematics, science or physical education.

Admission Requirements for a Master’s in Education

What does it take to gain admission to a master’s in education graduate program? Specific requirements vary by institution, but application requirements usually include the following:

• A minimum GPA. Many programs only consider applicants with a minimum 3.0 GPA, but there are exceptions. Some schools, like ASU, consider applicants with GPAs ranging from 2.5 to 2.99 for provisional admission.
• Transcripts. Every graduate program will ask for your transcripts from any previously completed higher education, including your bachelor’s program.
• A personal statement or statement of purpose. Your graduate school admissions essay should detail your motivations for pursuing a master’s in education, including how you’ll add value to the university’s program.
• Letters of recommendation. Most schools require two to three letters of recommendation from past professors, employers or other professional references.
• Résumé. Your master’s program may request details of your past employment and educational experiences.

Common Courses for Education Master’s Degrees

Though curricula vary among programs, consider these common courses you can expect to take when completing a master’s in education.

Foundations of Early Childhood Education

This course introduces students to the broader scope of early childhood education, including its history, current practices and models of teaching.

Designing Curriculum and Instruction

A curriculum and instruction design course explores how certain design principles and evaluation models impact a curriculum’s effectiveness. This course prepares students to identify what a curriculum needs, define the scope and sequence of a curriculum, and address gaps or redundant content.

Special Education Principles and Practices

Special education is a common concentration among education professionals. If you choose to specialize in this area, you may need to take a foundational course in special education principles and practices. This course teaches the key principles for meeting educational needs for students with disabilities.

Learning Design and Technologies

This course teaches graduate students about the history and evolution of technologies employed in teaching and learning.

Accreditation for Master’s in Education

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) provides programmatic accreditation for education preparation providers offering bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees. Attending a CAEP-accredited education program verifies that your degree program’s curriculum, faculty, partnerships and overall impact meet the council’s rigorous standards.

You might also see graduate programs accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) or the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). NCATE and TEAC merged with CAEP in 2014, but some programs still hold active accreditation from one of the former programs. You can use the Council for Higher Education Accreditation ’s directory to check a program’s accreditation status.

Some specialized education programs can pursue programmatic accreditation outside of CAEP. For example, school psychology programs may seek accreditation from the National Association of School Psychologists , and master’s in education programs in school counseling may hold accreditation from the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs .

Master’s in Education vs. Master’s in Teaching: What’s the Difference?

These two degrees are similar but not interchangeable. Both graduate education degrees equip students with specialized skills for developing curricula and effective teaching, covering topics like learning theory and pedagogy, child development and educational technology. And both a master’s in education and a master’s in teaching can qualify you for a teaching career.

However, a master’s in teaching is a more specialized degree that focuses on classroom management and teaching. A master’s in education covers those topics, but the degree is much broader, encompassing other aspects of the education ecosystem such as education policy, counseling, administration, and curriculum development.

What Can You Do With a Master’s in Education?

Many individuals pursue master’s degrees in education to enhance their pedagogy as teachers, but teaching in a standard classroom is far from the only job option for graduates. Consider these additional possibilities.

We sourced the below salary data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics .

School Psychologist

Median Annual Salary: $84,940 Minimum Required Education: Master’s degree Job Overview: School psychologists support students with learning and developmental disorders, as well as those with behavioral issues. They evaluate performance, coordinate with students’ families and teachers to discuss student progress, and consult with educators and advisors to improve student outcomes. To learn more, see our guide on how to become a school psychologist .

Postsecondary Education Administrator

Median Annual Salary: $102,610 Minimum Required Education: Master’s degree Job Overview: Postsecondary education administrators include all administrators who work in colleges or universities, including deans, academic provosts and admissions officers. Generally, administrators make institutional policy and admissions decisions and maintain student and course records.

School and Career Counselor

Median Annual Salary: $61,710 Minimum Required Education: Master’s degree Job Overview: School and career counselors help students make wise decisions throughout the course of their educational tenure. They also help students plan their career paths. Counselors may be involved in planning students’ academic, career and social goals, and they may work with learners to overcome educational and social challenges.

Curriculum Developer

Median Annual Salary: $74,620 Minimum Required Education: Master’s degree Job Overview: Curriculum developers, also called instructional coordinators, oversee the development and improvement of school curriculums and teaching standards. They craft educational materials and analyze their effectiveness once implemented in schools. They also train teachers and educational staff to implement new content or programs.

Special Education Teacher

Median Annual Salary: $65,910 Minimum Required Education: Bachelor’s degree Job Overview: Special education teachers work with students with disabilities to ensure their academic needs are met. They tailor lesson plans to each individual learner, often working one-on-one or in small groups with students. Special education teachers may work with students who have physical, emotional or sensory disabilities, as well as those with emotional disorders or who are on the autism spectrum.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Earning a Master's in Education

What is a master’s in education called.

An education master’s degree may be referred to as a master’s in education or a master of education. Master of Arts in education and Master of Science in education programs also fall under this umbrella. A master’s in teaching is similar to an education master’s, but not entirely interchangeable. A master’s in teaching focuses more on instructional skills and methodologies; a master’s in education has a broader scope.

Which master degree is most valuable in education?

This depends on your professional goals. What kind of educator do you hope to be? For example, a master’s in education with a concentration in special education may best suit aspiring special education instructors, while those planning to work in administration might benefit more from a master’s focusing on higher education and organizational change.

What is the difference between an MS and an M.Ed.?

Often, a master of science (M.S.) in teaching is a research-focused graduate degree that serves people seeking doctoral degrees or careers in curriculum development or other areas of education. A master of education (M.Ed.) prepares licensed educators to become better teachers or obtain leadership positions within the educational system. However, degree titles and curriculums vary by school and often overlap.

How much does a master’s in education cost?

According to the Education Data Initiative , the cost of a master’s degree in education averaged about $42,000 as of 2024. This aligns with grad school costs across all areas of study; NCES reports that graduate school tuition averaged $20,513 per year as of 2022, or just over $41,000 for a two-year diploma such as most master’s in education programs.

• Best Affordable Early Childhood Education Degrees Online
• Best Online Doctorate In Educational Leadership Programs
• Best Master’s In ESL Online Programs
• Where Can You Earn An Online Ph.D. In Special Education
• Best Master’s In Education Online
• The Best And Worst States For Teaching Jobs
• Early Childhood Education Degrees Online: Best
• Best Online Teaching Degrees
• Best Online Ed.D. Programs
• Best Online Elementary Education Degrees
• Best Online History Degrees
• Best Higher Education Online Master’s Programs
• Where To Earn An Online Physical Education Degree
• Best Online Secondary Education Degrees
• Guide To Early Childhood Education Careers
• Finding A Career In Educational Leadership
• Higher Education Career Guide
• How To Become A Professor
• Career Paths For Different Types Of Teachers
• Earning A Doctoral Degree In Education
• Earning A Bachelor’s Degree In Early Childhood Education
• Earning An Associate Degree In Education
• Your Guide To Earning A Master’s In Higher Education
• Earning An Associate In Early Childhood Education
• Earning A Master’s In Early Childhood Education
• What Can You Do With An English Degree?

Best Online Doctorates In Education Of 2024

The Best And Worst States For Teaching Jobs In 2024

Where Can You Earn A Ph.D. In Early Childhood Education Online In 2024?

Best Online Ph.D.s in Educational Leadership Of 2024

Best Early Childhood Education Associate Degrees Online Of 2024

Best Online Master’s In Educational Leadership Programs Of 2024

Cecilia is a freelance writer, content marketing strategist and author covering education, technology and energy. She is a current contributor to the Forbes Advisor education vertical and holds a summa cum laude journalism degree from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

• Request More Information
• Transfer Admissions
• Admitted? Enroll Now
• ADVANCEMENT
• FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
• MISSION & MINISTRY
• STUDENT LIFE
• MyNU Portal
• MAPS & DIRECTIONS
• ALUMNI & FRIENDS

NeuPerspectives

A FRESH LOOK AT THE ROI OF EARNING AN ADVANCED DEGREE

MS vs. MA in Education — What’s the Difference?

Topics: Education Programs

Published on: 11/24/22 8:57 AM

Teachers who hold a master’s degree are sought after in many school environments, and if you are considering giving yourself a competitive edge with a graduate education degree — you should know that there are different degrees to choose from. 

With different degrees come different abbreviations. Let’s break down the top two abbreviations you’ll encounter in your pursuit of a master's degree in education: 

MA = Master of Arts 

MS = Master of Science

There are differences between a Master of Science in Education and a Master of Arts in Education that are important to understand when planning your academic future. We’ve unpacked these differences so that you can make the best choice for your teaching goals. 

What does the MA stand for in an education program? 

A Master of Arts in Education will give you a deeper theoretical understanding of teaching and education. But it’s important to recognize that a Master of Arts in Education is specifically focused on the arts and humanities. 

An MA in Education is a valuable option to pursue if you’re interested in obtaining an advanced degree that is rooted in the humanities and if you think you may want to teach subjects related to the liberal arts. 

what is a master of science in education?

A Master of Science in Education will also give you a more technical understanding of the art of teaching. But a Master of Science in Education, compared to a Master of Arts in Education, is specifically focused on scientific and technical fields.

An MS in Education is an excellent choice for those interested in teaching subjects that are more technical in nature. And since this degree is rooted in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) ideology, many educators choose to obtain an MS in Education in order to jumpstart a teaching career that is specifically focused on STEM disciplines.

What is a STEM teacher?

The STEM fields are advancing more rapidly than ever, and for this reason, the need for competent and passionate STEM teachers has also increased at a rapid rate. Schools all over the country need data-minded educators who have specialized in one subject at the secondary level, such as biology or computer science.

With a Master of Science in Education , you can fill a significant talent gap by entering the classroom with the technical skills needed to teach the STEM disciplines that are so critical to the advancement of countless industries.

Your master's degree in education will equip you to work with the best in this impactful field and give you the tools to teach the next generation of STEM-focused professionals. 

Here's why you should consider obtaining more credits (even if you already have a master's degree in education).

Did you know that teachers who obtain additional credits (on top of holding a master's degree) are actually eligible for higher salaries?

Many teachers who have invested in a master's degree in education choose to continue their education by earning a certification or endorsement — giving them more graduate-level credits, which in turn, leads to a salary increase. So, even if you have a master's degree already, there is value in achieving more credits through a certification or endorsement program.

Neumann University offers a variety of Master of Science in Education programs, certifications, and endorsements for educators who wish to advance their skills and for teachers who want to obtain additional credits in order to facilitate a salary increase.

Neumann University: Your Next Step into the STEM education field.

At Neumann University, we know the value of getting ahead of the competition, so we developed several graduate education programs to choose from — depending on your specific area of interest. 

We offer a variety of Master of Science in Education programs (and certificates and endorsements) that are specifically designed for driven teachers looking to make a difference. The Master of Science in Education that you choose will sharpen your competitive edge and make you an excellent candidate for hire in diverse school environments. 

Want to know more about our programs? Request more information or read some stories about how education impacts the world . 

Ready to start your next steps into the graduate world? Apply now .

Explore our interactive education resource and take our quiz to find the master's program in education that's right for you.

WRITTEN BY: Bettsy McKlaine

About The Author: Bettsy McKlaine is the Executive Director of Enrollment Management, Degree Completion & Graduate Programs at Neumann University and a proud Alumna. The Neumann Community has become her second family and she loves to interact with students, both from the undergraduate and graduate population. Her favorite time of year is at the start of each semester as students begin classes!

RELATED STORIES

Why do Teachers Need a Master’s Degree in Education?

Which Master’s Degree in Education is Right for You?

Download our Guide to Neumann University’s MS in Education

Interested in receiving weekly advice and tips on earning an advanced degree, subscribe now, stay in the loop, we are excited to connect with you each week .

QUICK LINKS

• Academic Programs
• Accent Magazine
• Alumni & Friends
• Campus Ministry
• Campus Safety
• Career & Personal Development
• Center for Global Engagement
• Conferencing and Facilities
• Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
• Financial Assistance
• Giving to Neumann
• Guest Speakers
• Human Resources
• Incident Reporting
• ITR Help Desk
• Mission and Ministry
• News/Publications
• Request Information
• Student Health Services
• Student Life
• Study Abroad
• Sustainability at NU
• Job Opportunities
• Advancement
• Business Office
• Career & Professional Development
• Core Experience
• Digital Learning & Innovation
• International Student Support Services
• Live Stream
• #GradLife Podcast
• The Master It Series
• Student Success Center

One Neumann Drive Aston, PA 19014-1298

Phone: 610-459-0905

Neumann University participates in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements.

Neumann University © 2024. All Rights Reserved.

MA, MBA, BS, MS, MSW, PhD, PsyD: What Does it All Mean?

The benefits of college degrees, be it associate, B.A., M.A. or Ph.D level, have been touted and restated many times. Despite rising costs, the investment continues to be valuable one for a wide variety of people. That said, back it up a little bit: just what do all those different degree acronyms mean? Beyond that, what differentiates, say, a B.B.A. from a BSN?

To help answer those questions we put together the following list of definitions for what each degree acronym stands for as well as explanations of the meanings behind all the different terminology.

Associate Degrees

An associate degree is typically completed in two years of full-time study, but may take longer for part-time students. These undergraduate programs can be found at community colleges, vocational schools, technical colleges, and some universities. In general, associate degrees fall into three different categories: Associate of Arts (A.A.), Associate of Science (A.S.), or Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.).

Associate degrees are a great fit for career-oriented students who want to enter a technical or vocational trade that requires some post secondary education. Along with often being the quickest and cheapest route to a formal degree, an associate program can also be a stepping stone to a four-year degree. Many schools offer students the option to apply credits earned from an associate degree, which is generally 60 semester credits, towards a bachelor’s degree.

Purdue University Global

• Experience world-class education online with more than 175 programs at associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels.
• Apply eligible work experience and prior college credits toward up to 75% of your undergraduate degree.
• Competency-based ExcelTrack™ programs may allow you to earn your degree faster and for less money

Visit School

*Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018

A.A. Associate of Arts

The associate of arts is a basic-level undergraduate degree granted upon completion of a two-year program, usually at community or junior college, technical college or trade school. As such, these are typically a jumping off point towards pursuing a full bachelor’s degree.

A.S. Associate of Science

Similar to the A.A., the associate of science degree is the culmination of a two-year academic program. The A.S. is usually awarded to junior college students enrolled in science or tech-related programs.

Associate Degree Related Content

• Associate Degree Overview
• Associate Degree Programs in Medical Assisting
• Associate Degree Programs in Medical Billing & Coding

Bachelor’s Degrees

A bachelor’s degree is the most popular post-secondary degree option, and typically seen as the standard for employment in most professional fields. In most cases, a bachelor’s program takes four years of full-time study to complete. However, some majors may take longer, or schools may offer accelerated programs allowing students to finish their degree in less time.

The two most common types of bachelor’s degrees are the Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and the Bachelor of Science (B.S.). There are a number of other options, though, that coincide with more specific major fields, such as the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (B.S.N.). Generally, a bachelor’s degree consists of 120 semester credits, with half being made up of general education or liberal arts courses. The other half is typically filled with courses geared toward a student’s particular major.

B.A. Bachelor of Arts

The usual degree path for majors in liberal arts, humanities or social sciences such as English, creative writing, fine arts or political science. A B.A. is typically awarded upon completion of a four-year undergraduate program at a traditional school or university.

B.S. Bachelor of Science

The bachelor’s typically awarded to undergraduates in science and technical fields.

B.F.A. Bachelor of Fine Arts

Awarded to majors like art history, theater, film studies and photography.

B.B.A. Bachelor of Business Administration

A business-oriented bachelor’s path, typically associated with management, accounting, marketing, etc.

B.Arch Bachelor of Architecture

A bachelor’s degree geared towards the architecture field.

BSN Bachelor of Science in Nursing

A degree path oriented towards the technical and hands-on training necessary to obtain a nursing license.

B.E. Bachelor of Engineering

Concentrates on engineering fields like electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and computer engineering.

Bachelor’s Degree Related Content

• Bachelor’s Degree Overview
• Bachelor’s Degree Programs in Criminal Justice
• Bachelor’s Degree Programs in Education
• Bachelor’s Degree Programs in Nursing

Master’s Degrees

Master’s degrees are graduate-level programs that typically take two years of additional full-time study after completion of a bachelor’s degree. Because most graduate students are already working professionals, many colleges and universities offer part-time or flexible master’s degree programs. These allow students to maintain their career while completing the degree at their own pace, but generally take longer than two years of study.

In order to apply for a master’s program, students usually must already possess a bachelor’s degree. Most students choose to pursue a master’s degree in order to advance in their chosen profession or enter a field that requires a high level of education. Many programs fall into one of two categories: Master of Arts (M.A.) or Master of Science (M.S.). The Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) is another popular option.

M.A. Master of Arts

The basic graduate-level degree granted to grad students in fields in the humanities, social sciences or fine arts.

M.B.A. Master of Business Administration

The Master of Business Administration is the master-level degree granted upon completion of a business administration or management-oriented program. In contrast to an M.A., M.B.A. programs are typically oriented around subjects more narrowly tailored towards business operations like accounting, marketing and analysis.

M.S. Master of Science

Typically awarded to graduate students in scientific or technical fields.

M.S.W. Master of Social Work

Similar to the M.B.A., the Master of Social Work is narrowly defined master’s degree focused on social work. M.S.W. programs may adhere to either a clinical track or practice track. The clinical track is oriented towards working with patients, while the practice track focuses on politics and policy as well as management.

Master’s Degree Related Content

• Master’s Degree Overview
• Master’s Degree Programs in Business (MBA)
• Master’s Degree Programs in Education
• Master’s Degree Programs in Health Care

Doctoral Degrees

A doctorate is the highest level of academic degree awarded by universities, and can take anywhere from three to eight years (or more) to complete. Some doctoral programs require students to already have a master’s before enrolling, while others can be started directly after completion of undergraduate study.

There are many different types of doctoral degrees, but the most common is the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). Depending on the specific degree awarded, earning a doctorate can qualify graduates to teach at the university level, or work in a position that requires extensive training and education. Psychologists and medical doctors are two examples of professionals who must hold doctoral degrees in order to become licensed to practice in their field.

Ph.D Doctor of Philosophy

Despite what the name might suggest, this isn’t a degree for philosophers exclusively. A Ph.D is the doctorate-level degree granted in a variety of different disciplines. These are typically research-intensive programs pursued by those who’ve already acquired bachelor’s and master-level credentials in their field of study.

Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology

The Psy.D.is similar to a standard doctorate degree, but granted specifically for students pursuing psychology practice.

Doctoral Degree Related Content

• Doctoral Degree Overview
• Doctoral Degree in Psychology & Social Sciences

What do these letters stand for?

There are two parts; one can classify the educational level of the degree: “B” stands for bachelor’s degree; “M” stands for master’s degree; and “D” stands for doctoral degree. The second part denotes the discipline of the degree, like “S” for science, “A” for arts, or “Ph” for Philosophy.

What are the distinctions between arts and science degrees?

Depending on the school you attend and the kind of courses you take, you could earn an arts degree or a science degree. Typically, an “arts” degree means that you focused on a wide area of learning and discussion, while a “science” degree implies a deep, technical understanding of your subject.

What kinds of designations exist for doctoral students?

The highest degree you can earn in most liberal arts disciplines is a PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy. However, clinical and counseling psychologists earn a PsyD, Doctor of Psychology nomenclature; medical students earn M.D. degrees and law students can earn J.D. (Juris Doctor) degrees.

What about some of the other specialized degrees?

Distinctive nomenclature are named after applied disciplines, include Master of Social Work (MSW), Doctor of Social Work (DSW), Master of Education degree (MaEd), Master of Business Administration (MBA), or Doctor of Business Administration (DBA).

Now that you know some of the benefits of online learning, find a program that’s right for you. Browse our school listings below to get matched to an online school.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Disclosure: “What Determines Top/Best?”
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information (CA and NV)

Copyright © 2024 Worldwidelearn.com. All Rights Reserved.

The sources for school statistics and data is the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System unless otherwise noted.

Disclosure: EducationDynamics receives compensation for many of the featured schools on our websites (see “Sponsored School(s)” or “Sponsored Listings” or “Sponsored Results” or “Featured Graduate School(s)”. So what does this mean for you? Compensation may impact where the Sponsored Schools appear on our websites, including whether they appear as a match through our education matching services tool, the order in which they appear in a listing, and/or their ranking. Our websites do not provide, nor are they intended to provide, a comprehensive list of all schools (a) in the United States (b) located in a specific geographic area or (c) that offer a particular program of study. By providing information or agreeing to be contacted by a Sponsored School, you are in no way obligated to apply to or enroll with the school.

This site does not provide a comprehensive list of all schools that offer a particular program of study.

This is an offer for educational opportunities that may lead to employment and not an offer for nor a guarantee of employment. Students should consult with a representative from the school they select to learn more about career opportunities in that field. Program outcomes vary according to each institution’s specific program curriculum. Financial aid may be available to those who qualify. The information on this page is for informational and research purposes only and is not an assurance of financial aid.

One Year Combined Masters of Arts in Teaching & Residency

• Admissions Events
• Request Info

Master’s in Teaching vs. Master’s in Education: What’s the Difference?

In many ways, a master’s in teaching and a master’s in education are similar degrees. Both focus on learning theory and pedagogy, curriculum development, child development and psychology, classroom management, assessment and measurement, educational technology, and research. Both can lead to careers in front of a classroom.

So what’s the difference? The primary distinction is that the master’s in teaching focuses more directly on teaching and classroom management. In contrast, the master’s in education is a broader degree, applicable to a classroom career but also to jobs in administration, curriculum development, and education policy. That said, it’s possible to become an administrator, curriculum developer, or education policy specialist with a master’s in teaching. It’s also possible to become a teacher with a master’s in education. The differences are not cut-and-dried.

Who typically gets a master’s in teaching vs. a master’s in education?

Your career aspirations will likely impact your decision on whether to pursue a master’s in teaching or a master’s in education. If you know you want to spend your career teaching, you’re more likely to pursue the teaching degree. If you hope to work in administration, policy, or academic research, you may opt for the education degree.

If you’re an aspiring teacher with a bachelor’s degree in an area unrelated to education, you should consider enrolling in a teacher residency program like the one at New York University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. You’ll earn your master of arts in teaching (MAT) in a little over a year, plus you’ll accrue a full year of teaching experience as a resident teacher in. You’ll work under the supervision of an experienced mentor as you learn in your academic program. It’s an optimal opportunity to learn advanced teaching theory and practice and to put what you learn immediately into practice.

Career paths in education

A master’s degree qualifies you for a broad range of career opportunities in elementary and secondary education. Some are better suited to a master’s in teaching, others more appropriate for someone with a master’s in education. For many jobs, either degree is applicable. 

Careers with a master’s in teaching or a master’s in education

Education consultant.

Education consultants work with school systems, individual schools, teachers, and students to address learning, training, curriculum development, program implementation, and other education-related challenges. What an education consultant does depends on their area(s) of expertise. They may train teachers in new teaching methods, work with administrators to address specific safety issues, assist a school in launching online education programs, or consult with a district on curricular options. Most education consultants have previously worked as teachers or administrators. PayScale reports that education consultants earn, on average, $63,092 per year in base pay, with additional opportunities for bonuses, incentives, and commissions. The website sets the range of total annual compensation at $43,000 to $153,000.

Education policy analyst

Education policy analysts work with individual schools, districts, state school systems, and national education policy organizations to identify challenges impacting student and teacher performance. They work in government, think tanks, school boards, lobbying firms, and education consulting companies. Policy analysts might study how teacher compensation, class size, absentee rates, family income, and a raft of other factors affect student outcomes, then offer policy prescriptions to mitigate the problems they identify. According to PayScale , education policy analysts earn a base income of $63,129, with total annual income – including commissions, incentives, and bonuses – ranging from $44,000 to $96,000.

Instructional designer

Instructional designers work with faculty and other curriculum developers to create effective learning materials. They are experts in learning theory and the design and technology required to realize finished educational materials. The job once focused on hard-copy materials – textbooks, worksheets, and posters – but today, many instructional designers work in online learning, creating lessons adapted to the demands of distance education. They typically work in a design firm office or from home, either as freelancers or remote salaried employees. According to ZipRecruiter , instructional designers earn, on average, $80,182 per year.

Teachers lead classrooms and work with students individually in various subjects and specializations, depending on their training. They prepare lessons, create and grade assignments, track and assess student progress, and counsel students on academic and extracurricular matters. Elementary-level teachers typically teach across the curriculum, while those at the secondary level concentrate on an area of expertise, such as English language arts, mathematics, science, and history. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , the average annual income for an elementary-level teacher is $60,660; secondary-level teachers earn, on average, $62,870.

Careers with a master’s in teaching

Academic advisor.

Academic advisors consult with students at the secondary and college level to assist in education-related decisions. Advisors help students keep track of requirements they must meet, set and assess progress toward various academic goals, and choose among future education options. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , school and career counselors earn an average annual income of $58,120. 

Corporate trainer

Corporations need teachers to train employees in new policies, processes, and technologies. Corporate trainers design and lead corporate training sessions, monitor results, and adjust learning materials and teaching strategies accordingly. According to LinkedIn, corporate trainers earn between $36,600 and $80,000 per year.

Curriculum developer

Curriculum developers apply their teaching skills to the creation and development of new curricula. They write individual lesson plans, class activities, and learning objectives and track student outcomes, adjusting instructional strategies as appropriate. Curriculum developers may also take part in training teachers to use the curricula they have developed. They typically work for school districts, and most specialize in a grade level or subject area. According to Salary.com , curriculum developers earn an average salary of $77,100; the top 10 percent earn over $93,000 annually.

Gifted and talented program director

Gifted and talented programs serve students who “​​give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.” Gifted and talented program directors manage these programs to deliver excellent instruction, enrichment, and opportunities for students. Comparably reports that gifted and talented program coordinators earn an average salary of $70,000.

Literacy specialist

Literacy specialists work with teachers to train them in the latest advances in teaching reading, writing, and comprehension. Literacy specialists provide professional development and consultation. They travel among schools, meeting with teachers to discuss teaching strategies, assisting in creating lesson plans and assignments, watching teachers and providing feedback, and assessing data to find potential areas of improvement. According to Indeed , literacy specialists earn, on average, $62,197 annually.

Museum educator

Museums of all kinds – art, science, history, cultural, commercial, geographic – need teachers to optimize their museum experiences. Museum educators create programs utilizing museum assets so visitors can understand and learn from exhibits. They manage docents and teachers, deliver lectures and guided tours, conceive and organize events, and engage in community outreach. They often work with school groups and systems to coordinate field trips and other enrichment activities. Mint.Intuit reports that museum educators earn an annual income of $39,000, on average.

Private tutor

Private tutors work individually with students seeking assistance in one or more subjects. Many private tutors specialize in one subject; some focus primarily on a particular exam, such as the SAT or ACT. Private tutors tend to be independent contractors paid by the hour. Depending on where they live, whom they work with, and what they teach, private tutors can charge anywhere from $20 to over $200 per hour .

Standardized test developer

Creating standardized tests is a massive undertaking. Exam items must be written to exact specifications, then tested, and the results analyzed to ensure items measure what they purport to measure and that higher-achieving students are more likely to answer correctly. Tests must be balanced to cover the subject they test thoroughly and scrutinized for any unintended bias. It’s a rigorous process that requires extensive training and a background in learning theory and assessment. According to The Ladders , the average salary at Educational Testing Service (ETS), the company that develops the SAT, is $110,813.

Textbook editor

The US textbook industry generates over $8 billion in sales annually; elementary and secondary school systems purchase new textbooks regularly, ensuring steady business. Textbook editors must have excellent writing and teaching skills, obviously. They also need to know and understand the various learning standards required by each state to fashion texts that meet multiple states’ requirements. On top of all that, they must navigate the exacting and often contradictory standards of liberal and conservative states. ZipRecruiter reports that textbook editors earn, on average, $48,257 per year.

Careers with a master’s in education

Curriculum designer.

Curriculum designers create the blueprint for school curricula, which are then built by curriculum developers. The work of curriculum design focuses on the big picture, aligning content to learning objectives to ensure that they are taught thoroughly and effectively. Their jobs involve research and project management as well as creativity, and it requires a mastery of the latest educational technologies. According to ZipRecruiter , curriculum designers earn, on average, $64,457 per year. The top 10 percent earn over $105,000 annually.

Director of digital learning

Many institutions employ digital learning, including schools, corporations, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Whether used to teach public school curriculum, public policy, or corporate practices, digital learning technology requires management by someone well versed in education theory and the technical requirements of learning applications. According to Glassdoor , directors of digital learning earn, on average, $89,587 per year.

District administrator

School governance is divided into districts, with each district maintaining its own superintendent and administrative staff. District administrators oversee the management of all schools in their district, supervising budgets and monitoring academic performance. District administrators must see to a host of essential operations that are not strictly educational, such as building maintenance. Zippia reports that district administrators earn between $44,000 and $85,000 per year.

Guidance counselor

Guidance counselors work with students, primarily at the secondary-school level. They assist students in enrolling in classes and guide them in the college application process, assisting with standardized test enrollment and the selection of potential colleges. They can also provide therapeutic assistance, helping students bolster self-esteem, identify areas of growth and skill development, and manage challenges at home and in school. According to PayScale , school guidance counselors earn a base salary between $38,000 and $74,000.

Educational practices rest on a foundation of theory and data, all of which require research. A master of education trains you to become an expert researcher, positioning you for a career in education research. You’ll support school districts, policy analysts, policy advocates, government agencies, colleges, and universities. According to Comparably , education researchers earn between $30,400 and $45,600 per year.

School principal

A school principal is the chief executive officer of a school. They oversee the school staff, monitor education objectives and curricular standards, ensure assessment is administered regularly and effectively, approve extracurricular activities, manage the budget, arrange professional development for staff, and oversee daily operations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that school principals typically earn $98,490 annually. 

School psychologist

School psychologists work with students who have acute mental health, emotional, and behavioral issues. They typically work within a school or school district (larger schools may have their own school psychologist; smaller ones may share a psychologist with neighboring schools). Additionally, school psychologists develop policies to promote mental and emotional health and assist in supporting students with learning differences. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , school psychologists typically earn about $77,500 annually.

School superintendent

School superintendents oversee school districts, ensuring that each school in the district operates efficiently and effectively. They set and communicate policy, oversee curriculum implementation, manage instruction and assessment, supervise human resource management, and provide leadership for all schools in the district. Additionally, superintendents represent their districts at the county and state level, advocating for them when policy is formulated and budgets are determined. According to the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), school superintendents can earn a median salary between $140,172 and $180,500 per year, depending on the size of their district.

Training and development specialist

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , training and development specialists “plan and administer programs that improve the skills and knowledge of employees,” making this an excellent job for someone with an education background. Training and development specialists work in nearly every industry and field, “working with people, giving presentations, and leading training activities.” The BLS reports that these professionals earn an average annual income of $62,700.

Vice principal

A vice principal is second-in-command at a school, serving directly below the principal. A vice principal’s duties can vary depending on which tasks the principal wishes to delegate, but typically vice principals are actively involved in the day-to-day running of the school. If the principal is the school’s chief executive officer, the vice principal is its chief operating officer, enforcing rules, monitoring schedules and calendars, handling student discipline, supervising operations, and liaising between faculty and administration. According to Salary.com , vice principals earn an average annual salary of $90,381.

MAT vs. MEd: What do you learn?

Whether you earn a master of arts in teaching (MAT) or a master of education (MEd), you will likely complete a curriculum of approximately 30 credit hours. If you do not have a bachelor’s degree in education, you may be required to complete additional foundation courses.

In either master’s degree program, you’ll likely complete core course work in education theory, research, education technology, classroom management, curriculum development, and assessment and measurement. The focus of these classes may differ slightly – the teaching master’s will likely emphasize in-class applications while the education master’s will take a more academic approach – but the subject matter should be similar.

Most programs offer the opportunity to specialize in a specific subject or skill area. You will complete your graduate degree specialization by taking several elective courses in your discipline of choice and, in some programs, completing a thesis, capstone research project, or field placement/internship.

MAT vs. MED specializations

Specialization options in master’s teaching degree and education degree programs include the following.

Master of arts in teaching (MAT) specializations

Early childhood education.

A focus on early childhood education prepares teachers to instruct at the birth through grade 2 level. You’ll learn to recognize the different stages of childhood development and what interventions are appropriate for students demonstrating developmental issues.

Elementary education

An elementary education specialization provides the theory, pedagogy, and practice required to teach at the kindergarten through grade 6 level.

English as a second language (ESL)/teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL)

ESL and TESOL specializations prepare teachers to work with students whose native language is not English. Different programs use different distinctions, but ESL and TESOL are interchangeable terms. A third distinction, English as a Foreign Language (EFL), is used for teachers who plan to teach English overseas. Some programs offer ESL and TESOL as a certificate but not as a specialization track.

Language arts education

Learn to teach students to speak, read, write, and understand written and spoken English. English language arts (ELA) teachers teach grammar, spelling, phonics, reading comprehension, speaking, literature, and research skills. A language arts teaching master’s typically focuses on grades 7 through 12 content, the grades at which teachers specialize in a single subject.

Mathematics education

Mathematics encompasses everything from basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) to geometry, algebra, and trigonometry. An MAT in mathematics education typically focuses on grades 7 through 12 content.

Middle grades education

Middle school is a period of intense social and physical development. Middle school teachers require training in the pedagogy, psychology, and physiology of students in this age group. A specialization in middle grades education prepares teachers to lead grades 6 through 8 classes.

Science education

Science at the secondary level encompasses chemistry, physics, life sciences, and earth sciences. An MAT prepares you to teach science at the middle and high school levels.

Secondary education

A master of arts in Teaching with a specialization in secondary education prepares teachers to teach at the grades 7 through 12 levels. Not all schools use this distinction, and most that do require enrollees to specialize further in a single subject, such as language arts, mathematics, or science.

Social studies education

Social studies covers a substantial range of subjects, including ancient history, US history, world history, geography, world cultures, civics, economics, and sociology. An MAT in social studies education prepares teachers to lead grades 7 through 12 classrooms in these subjects.

Special education instruction

Special education training prepares teachers to work with students demonstrating autism spectrum disorders, cognitive impairment, emotional impairment, physical impairment, or learning disabilities. Course work focuses on diagnosis, pedagogy, possible interventions, education technology, classroom management, and diversity.

Master of education (MEd) specializations

Applied human development.

Applied human development concentrations focus on the physical, psychological, and emotional development patterns young people experience. This specialization typically leads to careers in academic research, youth program management, or work with NGOs and foundations.

Curriculum design

Curriculum design is how curricula are mapped against various learning standards and compiled into yearlong sequences of objectives and corresponding lessons. A curriculum design specialization typically leads to careers in federal, state, and district-level administration, textbook publishing, or research.

Curriculum and instruction

Curriculum and instruction is a broader specialization than curriculum design. Its scope includes instructional methods, education technology, cross-disciplinary learning, and fostering collaborative classrooms. A curriculum and instruction specialization may lead to a career in front of a classroom or in school administration. 

Education administration

Running a school requires expert management skills and knowledge. An MEd in education administration prepares you for the challenges of keeping a school operational and effective. Those who pursue this specialization typically aspire to be superintendents, principals, vice principals, or administrative specialists.

Educational leadership

As its name indicates, an educational leadership specialization focuses on leadership skills within education. It’s an appropriate degree for aspiring lead teachers, department heads, school administrators, and policy experts.

Educational psychology

Educational psychology focuses on child and adolescent development, cognition, and motivation in education. Careers include non-clinical roles in education, training, and research.

Educational technology

Computing permeates nearly all aspects of modern life, including education. As more and more learning activities migrate to apps and devices, the need for educational technology experts grows ever greater. Learn education web design, e-book publishing, app management, virtual reality learning, assistive technology, and social media. Careers include instructional designer, trainer, and technology coach.

Experiential learning for early childhood

Experiential learning for early childhood explores learning theory and pedagogical design for young learners. Careers include curriculum developer, policy advocate, and program director.

Higher education administration

College and university administration presents a unique set of challenges. An MEd in higher education administration trains you for a career in the front offices of a higher education institution. You’ll learn to anticipate developing problems, design and implement student support programs, and maintain the smooth operation of a large and complex institution. 

Instructional design and technology

Apply learning theory to the creation and implementation of learning materials, with a particular focus on technology-driven education. You’ll study learning theory and how to apply it to develop interactive tools that promote learning. This degree can lead to careers in public and private school systems, curriculum development and instructional design firms, and corporate training.

Global and comparative education

Teaching techniques and learning theories vary around the world. Global and comparative education specialists study these different approaches to determine whether they are effective and can be applied or adapted in American classrooms. This degree typically leads to careers in policy and academics.

Measurement and evaluation

Academic testing is a massive industry in the United States and around the world. MEd in measurement and evaluation specialists learn the science behind accurate and effective testing as well as the essential validation processes employed to ensure test validity. Graduates typically pursue careers in school administration, research, testing organizations and companies, or private business (companies also like to test their employees’ aptitude and skills).

School counseling

School counselors work one-on-one with students to promote personal, academic, and career development. Counselors assist students in managing institutional obstacles, coping with trauma and other challenges, and plotting their academic trajectory and college choices. Most counselors work within school systems, although some operate independently.

Master’s in teaching: curriculum 

The MAT degree is a graduate-level teaching credential focused on both theory and practical skills required to lead a classroom. MAT programs typically cover learning theory, curriculum design and development, classroom management, assessment and measurement methodology, and cultural and societal factors impacting student performance and achievement. Prospective teachers in these advanced degree programs typically specialize. If they seek to teach at the middle or high school level, they often specialize in the subject they plan to teach.

Residents in the NYU Teacher Residency program earn an online master of arts in teaching while completing a teaching residency, which is a form of apprenticeship. The program is designed for teacher candidates who aspire to develop a practice that is culturally responsive and equitable. It allows them to accrue the requisite classroom experience and training necessary to lead a classroom upon completion of their degree (which takes a little over one year).

The academic portion of the NYU Teacher Residency consists of 10 to 12 modules, commencing in the summer preceding your apprenticeship and concluding at the end of the following summer. The Secondary MAT is a 10-module, 30-credit master of arts in teaching (Grades 7-12) and the new Inclusive Childhood MAT is a 12-module, 35-credit master of arts in teaching (dual degree in Childhood Education and Childhood Special Education, Grades 1-6). Early modules focus on understanding the roles and identities of teachers and students and how they impact classroom dynamics. Prospective teachers also learn the importance of engaging parents and community in education, how to recognize their own blind spots concerning diversity and inclusion issues, and the importance of creating an environment of mutual respect.

Residents then concentrate on promoting student success and managing the classroom to optimize participation and learning. For the master of arts in teaching in Secondary Education, residents begin work in their content area, developing unique approaches and techniques to teach their chosen subject or skill area (e.g., special education). They also study curriculum planning and development, including methods for tailoring instruction to students’ individual needs and integrating their subject with content taught elsewhere in the curriculum. They learn to utilize tests, assignments, projects, and other assessments to measure progress and identify areas requiring further instruction and practice.

Later modules focus on teaching reading and writing in the context of other subjects, special education and disability education, low-incidence disabilities, and the professional and social responsibilities of teaching. Master’s students also engage in a participatory action research (PAR) project, a “collaborative process of inquiry and action for change in response to organizational or community problems.”

While earning their master’s degrees in the evening, residents complete a teaching residency under the supervision of an experienced teacher. Working alongside a mentor for a full school year, residents accumulate the experience and knowledge they’ll need to ultimately lead a classroom of their own. Full-time residents receive a stipend and tuition support in return for their work. 

Master’s in education: curriculum 

A master of education (sometimes called a master of science in education or a master of arts in education) covers a broader range of practices than a master of arts in teaching. The latter concentrates almost exclusively on classroom leadership. The master’s of education, in contrast, can explore everything from curriculum development to policy leadership roles to educational administration. Accordingly, curricula for MEd programs vary significantly, not only from school to school but also from one specialization to another. To get some idea of what you’ll study in an MEd curriculum, review the MEd specializations listed earlier in this article.

Why get an MAT from the NYU Teacher Residency Program?

Why launch your teaching career through the NYU Teacher Residency Program? If you have a bachelor’s degree in English, mathematics, social science, or natural science and you have a passion to teach, the residency program offers a fast and effective way to earn your master’s degree and licensure in a relatively short time. As you complete your degree and your residency, you’ll benefit from expert mentoring, coaching, and advising, and you’ll enjoy moral support from your site supervisors, program instructors, and peers. You will learn and develop in a safe, nurturing environment.

The NYU Teacher Residency curriculum focuses on state-of-the-art pedagogy alongside a commitment to social equity and restorative justice. You’ll work in an urban, high-needs school helping students who are traditionally underserved. You’ll also take part in a program that works to redress the demographic imbalance in teaching. In a profession in which only 20 percent of teachers are people of color, the NYU teacher residency has enrolled at least 60 percent of teachers of color each year. Your students will include emergent bilinguals and students with learning and physical disabilities, providing you with experience in teaching students of all backgrounds and abilities.

To be eligible , you’ll need a bachelor’s degree in English, mathematics, science, or social science (elementary-level residencies are available at select sites). Your application must include:

• A request form for an official transcript
• An unofficial undergraduate transcript
• Two letters of recommendation
• A 90-second video introduction
• English proficiency exams (if your native language is not English)

Back to Articles

Take the Next Step

Request Information

Yes! By submitting this form, I consent to be contacted on behalf of NYU Steinhardt to receive information regarding the Teacher Residency program. I agree that I may be contacted by email, text, or phone call and agree that if I am called, automated technology may be used to dial the number(s) I provided. I understand that this consent is not required to enroll in the program.

Master of Education (M.Ed.)

A Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree provides intermediate-level graduate training which enhances professional knowledge and prepares students for further graduate study, if desired. Each specialty option has specific requirements in terms of courses, credit hours, internships, etc. Working closely with a faculty advisor, every M.Ed. The student undertakes an individualized course of study, which culminates in a major project such as thesis, portfolio project, or an internship experience. Largely through valuable mentoring and networking, our graduates pursue careers in education administration, counseling, among other options.

Applied Behavior Analysis (On-campus)

Applied behavior analysis (online), culturally sustaining education, danforth educational leadership program, early childhood special education ( sped-tep ), edpol: early childhood policy specialization, educational foundations, leadership, and policy, high-incidence disabilities teacher education ( sped-tep ), instructional leadership, intercollegiate athletic leadership, islandwood graduate program, language, literacy and culture, learning sciences & human development, measurement and statistics, science or math education specialization.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• University of Michigan - Center for Research on Learning and Teaching - The Degree Qualifications Profile
• Education Resources Information Center - Degree Profile

degree , in education , any of several titles conferred by colleges and universities to indicate the completion of a course of study or the extent of academic achievement.

The hierarchy of degrees dates back to the universities of 13th-century Europe , which had faculties organized into guilds . Members of the faculties were licensed to teach, and degrees were in effect the professional certifications that they had attained the guild status of a “master.” There was originally only one degree in European higher education , that of master or doctor. The baccalaureate, or bachelor ’s degree, was originally simply a stage toward mastership and was awarded to a candidate who had studied the prescribed texts in the trivium (grammar, rhetoric , and logic) for three or four years and had successfully passed examinations held by his masters . The holder of the bachelor’s degree had thus completed the first stage of academic life and was enabled to proceed with a course of study for the degree of master or doctor . After completing those studies, he was examined by the chancellor’s board and by the faculty and, if successful, received a master’s or doctor’s degree, which admitted him into the teachers’ guild and was a certificate of fitness to teach at any university .

The terms master, doctor, and professor were all equivalent. The degree of doctor of civil law was first awarded at the University of Bologna in the second half of the 12th century, and similar degrees came to be awarded in canon law , medicine , grammar , logic , and philosophy. At the University of Paris , however, the term “master” was more commonly used, and the English universities of Oxford and Cambridge adopted the Parisian system. In many universities, the certified scholar in the faculties of arts or grammar was called a master, whereas in the faculties of philosophy, theology , medicine, and law he was called a doctor. Perhaps because it was necessary to become a master of arts before proceeding to the other studies, the doctorate came to be esteemed as the higher title. (The common Anglo-American degrees “master of arts” and “doctor of philosophy” stem from this usage.) In German universities, the titles master and doctor were also at first interchangeable, but the term doctor soon came to be applied to advanced degrees in all faculties, and the German usage was eventually adopted throughout the world.

In the United States and Great Britain , the modern gradation of academic degrees is usually bachelor (or baccalaureate), master, and doctor. The bachelor’s degree marks the completion of undergraduate study, usually amounting to four years. The master’s degree involves one to two years’ additional study, while the doctorate usually involves a lengthier period of work. British and American universities customarily grant the bachelor ’s as the first degree in arts or sciences. After one or two more years of coursework, the second degree, M.A . or M.S., may be obtained by examination or the completion of a piece of research. At the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, holders of a B.A. can receive an M.A. six or seven years after entering the university simply by paying certain fees. The degree of doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) is usually offered by all universities that admit advanced students and is granted after prolonged study and either examination or original research. A relatively new degree in the United States is that of associate , which is awarded by junior or community colleges after a two-year course of study; it has a relatively low status.

The rapid expansion of specialization produced a growing variety of specific academic degrees in American, British, and other English-speaking higher education systems in the 20th century. More than 1,500 different degrees are now awarded in the United States, for example, with the largest number in science , technology , engineering , medicine, and education. The commonest degrees, however, are still the B.A. and the B.S. , to which the signature of a special field may be added ( e.g., B.S.Pharm., or Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy). These special fields have their corresponding designations at the graduate levels.

With some exceptions, intermediate degrees, such as those of bachelor and master, have been abandoned in the universities of continental Europe. In the second half of the 20th century, the French degree system was undergoing change as part of a major university reform. The baccalauréat is conferred upon French students who have successfully completed secondary studies and admits the student to the university. Students who obtain the licence, which is awarded after three or four years of university study, are qualified to teach in secondary schools or to go on to higher-level studies. Currently, maîtrise (master’s) degrees are also being awarded. Maîtrise holders who pass a competitive examination receive a certification known as the agrégation and are permitted to teach university undergraduates. Doctorats are awarded in both arts and sciences.

In Germany the doctorate is the only degree granted, but there is a tendency to add signatures such as Dr.rer.nat. ( Doktor rerum naturalium ) in natural sciences and Dr.Ing. (Doktor-Ingenieur) in engineering. For students who do not wish to meet the doctoral requirements, diploma examinations are offered.

In Russia diplomas are awarded on completion of a four- or five-year university course. The candidate of science ( kandidat nauk ) degree is awarded after several years of practical and academic work and completion of a thesis and is comparable to the American Ph.D. Doctor of science ( doktor nauk ) degrees are awarded only by a special national commission, in recognition of original and important research.

In Japan the usual degrees are the gakushi (bachelor), granted after four years of study, and hakushi (doctor), requiring from two to five years of additional study. A master’s degree ( shushi ) may also be granted.

In addition to earned degrees, universities and colleges award honorary degrees, such as L.H.D. (Doctor of Humanities), Litt.D. (Doctor of Literature), and D.C.L. (Doctor of Civil Law), as a recognition of distinction without regard to academic attainment.

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

master's degree

Definition of master's degree, examples of master's degree in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'master's degree.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Dictionary Entries Near master's degree

master's deed

master's degree

master agreement

Cite this Entry

“Master's degree.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master%27s%20degree. Accessed 4 Sep. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on master's degree

Nglish: Translation of master's degree for Spanish Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, why does english have so many silent letters, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, birds say the darndest things, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), games & quizzes.

Master’s Degree in Science Education Guide: Salary & Requirements 2024

A master’s degree in science education provides an excellent way for current or aspiring high school teachers to find positions and increase their salaries. Today’s high school teachers are required to have a bachelor’s degree, but most schools prefer to hire candidates that have earned an advanced degree in education, particularly those that have a specialization, such as science.

What is a Master’s Degree in Science Education?

A master’s degree in science education is earned by attending classes and completing teaching requirements that are far more advanced than those earned through an undergraduate degree in education or a master’s degree in general education (MEd). This degree affirms that you an expert in the subject of science education.

Anyone interested in teaching science at high schools and potentially community colleges could greatly benefit from a science education degree.

10 Best Schools with Master’s in Science Education Degrees in U.S.

Students want to study at schools with excellent programs, so we’ve compiled a list of the  best colleges in the U.S.  that offer a master’s degree in science education to help you find a school that fits your needs. Each school’s ranking is  based on the compilation of our data  from reliable government sources, student surveys, college graduate interviews, and editorial reviews. 

This ranking is based on our standards and the perfect school for individuals varies based on personal needs:

• Western Governors University
• CUNY Queens College
• CUNY Hunter College
• Eastern Michigan University
• University of Georgia
• Western Michigan University
• CUNY Brooklyn College
• SUNY College at Potsdam
• Bridgewater State University
• Teachers College at Columbia University

If you’re looking for other schools that offer Master’s in Science Education degrees, check out the Find Your Perfect “U” tool. You can search over 6,000 colleges and universities with 11 different filters to find the  perfect school for you !

What Can I Do With a Degree in Science Education?

A master’s degree in science education leads to a wide variety of jobs available for new graduates and seasoned educators, and careers are not limited to just teaching. Graduates can enjoy new employment  teaching children in K-12 , teaching young adults in community college settings, or working in  administrative roles for educational institutions . A science education graduate degree also offers career opportunities beyond the classroom in the following:

• Curriculum development
• Professional writing and editing
• Various roles within local, state, and federal government agencies

Salaries for Online Science Education Graduates

According to the  Bureau of Labor Statistics  (BLS), an average high school teacher in the United States earns $62,870 per year. However, with a master’s degree in science education, the annual income potential can be as much as $15,000 higher. Most school districts and private schools heavily recruit and pay higher salaries to individuals that have advanced degrees and with a specialization in STEM education.

Each year the U.S. Department of Education (ED) identifies  teacher shortage areas . This report lists teacher needs by state and subject, and the report shows a consistent need for high school science teachers. According to ED predictions for this school year and next, there will be a significant need for biology, chemistry, and physics teachers in nearly 30% of the states across the country (USDE, 2021).

Master’s in Science Education Employment Outlook

According to the BLS, the employment projection for 2020-2030 shows a growth rate of 8% for this career path, which is equal to the average growth for all occupations within the United States. Projected increases in student enrollment could increase demand for high school teachers, but employment growth varies from state to state and is not guaranteed.

Many schools have reported difficulty filling teaching positions for certain subjects, including the sciences. Because of this, teachers who have specialized training in these subjects could have the best job prospects and a higher chance for sign-on bonuses. 

Master’s Degree in Science Education Career Paths

New graduates of science education programs may choose to teach high school students while those with years of previous teaching experience may look to advance their careers by moving into a community college professor or school administrator role. Teaching at a four-year college or university typically requires a PhD.

• Median Salary: $62,870 
• Career Outlook: +8% (2020-2030)

High school teachers prepare and deliver 9 th  to 12 th -grade academic lessons and teach numerous skills that students will need to attend college or to enter the job market after graduation.

• Median Salary: $85,600 
• Career Outlook: +13% (2020-2030)

Biological science professors provide students both classroom and laboratory biological instruction beyond the high school level. They may also conduct independent research and publish scholarly articles or books.

• Median Salary: $80,400 

Chemistry professors provide students with both classroom and laboratory chemistry instruction beyond the high school level. They may also conduct independent research and publish scholarly articles or books.

 Source: BLS 

Earning an Online Degree in Science Education

Most online master’s degree programs are designed for individuals pursuing an advanced degree while working. Therefore, they are designed to accommodate students who prefer or require flexible schedules. Online programs also match the quality of on-campus programs, and degrees earned online are no different from those earned on-campus.   

Courses in Science Education Graduate Programs

The specific course requirements for each master of science education degree program vary from school to school, but the following are some examples of what you might be expected to complete.

• Action research
• Chemistry for science educators
• Evolutionary biology
• Physics education for mechanics
• Design and data analysis for researchers

How Long Does a Master’s in Science Education Degree Take To Finish?

The course of study to obtain a master’s in science education varies by program requirements and length of time for completion. These different factors can include:

Choosing the Best Master’s Degree in Science Education

Deciding to continue educational endeavors can be a daunting process when trying to balance life’s activities and responsibilities. Just like any other big decision, it is best to be well informed about the options available. Each person has different needs to achieve their ultimate goal, but the educational program chosen must also meet specific requirements based on things like types of degrees offered, class format, budget, and financial assistance. 

Online vs. On Campus Science Degrees Programs

There are numerous online options for master’s degrees today. Online education programs offer students the flexibility and convenience to study where and when it is convenient for them. This format of asynchronous coursework makes studying online more appealing for working professionals or students making a career change.

However, on-campus programs offer face-to-face classes with greater opportunities for socializing and networking. This option may be more suitable for recent graduates who are interested in pursuing an advanced degree directly after completing their undergraduate studies.

Should I Complete Courses Online?

Online educational programs have become more common and offer an alternative option to campus-based programs. While online learning may have come with a stigma in the past, most large US-based colleges and universities now offer quality, accredited online courses and degree programs for both undergraduate and graduate specialties. Many of the online classes are taught by the same professors that teach on campus. 

How Long do Online Courses Take to Complete?

Each online science education master’s program requires on average 40 – 65 credit hours, and many follow the traditional semester/quarter format. However, some parts of the curriculum can be different based on how courses are delivered.

Accreditation

When comparing schools, always check for accreditation. Accreditation means that a school and/or program meets the minimum standards set by an accrediting institution. For graduate education programs, students should check for programmatic accreditation to verify that the degree meets industry standards.

Online Master’s in Science Education Degree Admission Requirements

All online graduate programs require basic forms completed, documents submitted, and fees paid. Potential requirements for admission include:

• Application form (usually completed online)
• Application fee (can vary)
• Minimum BS in education
• GRE (some schools have been waiving this requirement)
• Official college or university transcripts
• Letters of recommendation (usually at least three)
• Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)- for foreign students

Paying for Teaching and Education Programs

Paying for an advanced education can be costly and must fit within your budget. General information about the costs associated with earning a master’s degree (including online) is included below, along with some ways that students can get help paying for their degrees (scholarships, grants, etc.).

How Much Does an Online Master’s Degree in Science Cost?

Depending on the program and the school (private or public), tuition is typically charged per semester or per credit. Graduate courses also tend to cost more than undergraduate, but fewer are required for degree completion. In addition, schools usually offer a reduced cost for classes that are taken online.

Other things that you will need to consider when attending school will be room and board if living on campus, textbooks, and technology fees.

Scholarships for Science Education Students

Nearly every college or university offers various forms of financial aid for its students. These can be in the form of

• Grants (government and private)
• Scholarships that can be merit or need-based
• Payment plans

Many scholarships are available specifically for educators. Other options are available from employers (tuition reimbursement) and the government (loan forgiveness) to help with college expenses.

Science Education Career Resources

The following are several organizations that serve master’s in science education graduates. 

Master’s in Science Education FAQ

• There are a wide variety of jobs available for new graduates and seasoned educators, and these are not limited to just teaching. Graduates can enjoy new employment teaching children in K-12 and young adults in community college settings or working in administrative roles for educational institutes. A master’s degree in science education also offers career opportunities beyond the classroom in research, curriculum development, professional writing and editing, and roles within local, state, and federal government agencies.
• A master’s degree in science education is gained by attending classes and completing teaching requirements that are far more advanced than those that have been attained with an undergraduate degree in education or a master’s degree in general education (MEd). This degree is an affirmation, that designates you an expert in the subject of science (a subject matter expert).
• Yes, you can teach in secondary education and community college settings.
• A master of science degree focuses on practical skills and affords students to pursue careers outside the classroom while a master of arts degree focuses on theoretical research.

Get all the Universities.com's college news, advice, updates, financial aid, and more straight to your inbox.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2021)
• American Association of Chemistry Teachers. (2021)
• American Association of Physics Teachers (2021)
• Johns Hopkins University. (2021). Course Catalogue [Online]
• National Association of Biology Teachers. (2021)
• National Science Teachers Association. (2021)
• Stanford University. (2021). Course Catalogue [Online]
• University of Pennsylvania. (2021). Course Catalogue [Online]
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019).  Occupational Outlook Handbook, High School Teachers
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019).  Occupational Outlook Handbook, Postsecondary Teachers
• U.S. Department of Education. (2021).  Teacher Shortage Areas

How Long Does It Take to Get a Master’s Degree in Teaching?

A master’s degree in education can be the perfect means to advance your skillset or enter the teaching profession for the first time. If you’re considering an advanced education degree, you’re probably wondering about the time commitment. How long does it take to complete a master's in education, and what factors can influence that timeline? Keep reading to learn the answers to these questions and plan for your future. 

What Is a Master’s Degree in Education?

A master’s degree in education is a graduate-level degree (meaning one that comes after an undergraduate or bachelor’s degree program) designed to impart an in-depth understanding of educational principles and the practical skills needed to be a successful classroom teacher. Some master’s degree programs may also prepare you for other specialized roles in the field of education, such as an intervention specialist or school administrator.

Those drawn to the teaching profession tend to value lifelong learning, so it’s no wonder postgraduate programs are popular among current and aspiring teachers. In fact, just over half of public school teachers hold a master’s degree.

Education master’s degrees come in a variety of classifications, but one of the most common and well-respected is the Master of Arts in Education (M.A.Ed). MVNU Online offers three online M.A.Ed degrees to help you meet your career goals:

• Master of Arts in Education — Professional Educator's License
• Master of Arts in Education (Intervention Specialist — Initial License)
• Master of Arts in Education (Intervention Specialist — Advanced License)

If you’re new to teaching, you should explore the Professional Educator’s License (PEL) program. If you want to concentrate on serving students with special needs, look into the Intervention Specialist — Initial License program. Either of these degrees can help you get certified to become an Ohio teacher . If you’re already a teacher and looking to expand your capabilities with an Intervention Specialist license, then the Advanced License program is the way to go.

How Long Does It Take to Get a Master’s Degree in Education? 

Generally, education master’s degree programs take 1-3 years to complete. This timeline includes the coursework and classroom experience needed to fulfill the degree program requirements. It also assumes you have a bachelor’s degree, as this is a prerequisite for getting your master’s degree. 

MVNU Online students can complete the online M.A.Ed PEL program in approximately 22 months. That means, even without a background in teaching, you could be ready to apply for licensure and begin an exciting new career in just two years!

Factors Influencing the Length of an Education Master's Degree

There are great reasons to pursue a master’s degree in education , no matter how long it takes. That said, it’s smart to plan ahead and consider what sort of time commitment you’re looking at to earn your M.A.Ed. The time it takes to earn your degree can vary depending on several factors. Here are some key considerations that can influence the duration of your graduate education in this field.

Program Requirements

The master's program you choose can significantly impact the time to completion because program requirements vary across institutions and between specific programs. 

The typical number of credits needed for an education master’s degree is around 36 credit hours , but many programs will not fit that mold. For example, M.A.Ed programs at MVNU Online range from 30-43 credit hours. Keep in mind that if you have previously completed graduate-level coursework or have transferable credits, you may be able to apply these toward your master's degree, potentially reducing the time required for completion.

In addition to coursework, education programs may come with additional components such as a capstone project, student teaching, or an internship. These requirements can add to the duration of your degree program. As you compare programs, ensure you understand whether the time estimate given to complete the program includes these experiential components.

Course Load

The number of credit hours in a program isn’t enough to tell you how long the program will take to complete because that depends on the course load. Full-time students can complete their master's programs more quickly (typically in about 1-2 years), whereas a part-time master’s degree in education timeline is more like 2-3 years.

A part-time course load may be a smart choice for those who are planning a career move a few years down the road and looking to take baby steps toward achieving that goal. Earning a master’s degree in education little by little can also help working teachers meet continuing education requirements dictated by their school or state board of education.

A full-time course load is the best option if you’re looking to earn your degree quickly so you can enter the teaching profession or qualify for new positions in the field. You don’t need to dedicate the entirety of your focus to school to go full-time. With flexible online programs or night classes, many students continue to work and balance family obligations while taking a full course load. 

In-Person vs. Online

Some in-person and online programs may take the same time to complete. However, in many cases, you’ll find more flexibility and tailored options with an online degree program compared to an in-person one. 

Master’s degree programs with classes you attend on campus are a bit more standardized in most cases. Online programs, on the other hand—especially asynchronous ones—allow you to complete coursework when it works best for you, maximizing the amount of schooling you can fit into your schedule and accelerating your path to graduation. 

Online programs may also have more frequent start dates, allowing you to jump in as soon as you’re ready rather than waiting on the traditional semester schedule.

Prior Education

Your previous educational background can also affect the time required to finish your master’s degree in education. If you have a bachelor's degree in education or a related field, you may be eligible for more streamlined programs or advanced standing, which can shorten your master's degree timeline. 

However, if your undergraduate degree is in an unrelated field, you may need to complete additional prerequisite coursework, extending the time to earn your degree. For example, if you choose to concentrate on teaching a specific subject and don’t have a background in that subject, then you may need to complete additional coursework to prepare to get your license in this area.

Accelerated Options

Some universities offer accelerated programs, including summer or intensive sessions, which can help you complete your degree more quickly—sometimes in as little as 12-18 months. These options can be especially beneficial for those looking to expedite their degree to start the next chapter of their career.

Ready to Get Started? Learn More About Program Options to Find Your Fit!

How long does it take to earn a master’s degree in education? The time it takes can vary based on the program’s structure and your educational background. It's essential to research and choose a program that aligns with your goals and timeline and consider the various factors that can affect your progress toward earning your degree.

If you’re interested in getting your master’s in education but aren’t sure where to start, check out our e-book, Which Education Program Is Right for Me?

APPLY ONLINE

ONLINE PROGRAMS

CHECK OUT OUR ONLINE PROGRAMS

Learn more about mvnu, enjoy this blog here's more.

What Is Forensic Accounting?

What is forensic accounting? Discover what this exciting career offers and the education and certification options you...

What Can You Do with a Marketing Degree?

What can you do with a marketing degree? Discover the many career paths you can explore in...

Learn how long it takes to get a master’s degree in education and the factors that can...

• Next »

Start typing & press 'enter'

Site Designed and Developed by 5by5 - A Change Agency

• Skip to main content
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Apply Apply
•   Follow Us

Maximize Your Teaching Career: The Best Master's Degree for Teachers

As an educator, the commitment to teach and inspire demands a foundation built on knowledge and passion. Deciding that it is time to get a master’s degree or that you want to reinvigorate your teaching career takes thoughtful consideration and planning. For educators driven by a desire to enhance their teaching methods, deepen their subject expertise, or ascend to leadership positions, pursuing a master's degree can be a pivotal step. But with so many options in the master’s degree market, how do you know which master’s degree to pursue as a teacher? How do you evaluate the benefits and drawbacks? We’ll provide an overview of your options and explore how one stands out as the best master’s degree for teachers. 

Master’s Degrees for Teachers 

You first need to know your options to know where you're headed. Here’s a brief overview of the most typical master’s degrees teachers pursue. 

• Master of Education (M.Ed.): Ideal for educators focusing on educational leadership, special education, educational technology, and curriculum development, among other areas.
• Master of Science (M.S.) in Teaching: A research-focused degree aimed at those pursuing doctoral degrees or careers in education beyond the classroom, including curriculum development and educational policy.
• Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.): Designed primarily for those holding a bachelor's degree in a field other than education and seeking both a master's degree and initial teaching licensure. The M.A.T. focuses on practical teaching skills and fieldwork, making it an ideal pathway for new teachers or career changers aiming to enter the teaching profession. If you’re already a teacher, you would not consider this option. Choosing to pursue an MAT vs. M.Ed. is easier than you think. Check out our blog.  
• Specializations in Curriculum and Instruction: These programs prepare educators to design, analyze, and implement curricula and educational programs. Graduates often take roles in schools, corporations, and government, working on educational policy, training, and development.

Factors to Consider When Selecting a Master's Degree in Teaching

Personal Interest: Your passion is the best guide to choosing an area of interest . Whether it’s a love for literacy, a fascination with STEM, or a commitment to special education, your M.Ed. can focus on what inspires you most.

Career Goals: It is crucial to align your program choice with your career aspirations. Envision where you see yourself in the future and select a pathway that will help you achieve these goals.

Financial Considerations: Your goal is to balance the immediate costs of graduate school with the long-term benefits of higher earning potential and career opportunities. Advanced degrees are an investment but one that has the potential to pay off significantly. 

Benefits of an MEd

A Master of Education (M.Ed.) stands out as a highly valuable degree for educators looking to deepen their skill set and make a greater impact in their field. It blends the latest in teaching theory with the practical skills educators need to succeed in a variety of settings, helping them lead the way in developing new and innovative teaching methods.

Deepen Your Teaching Skills

An M.Ed. isn’t just about learning more teaching strategies; it’s about exploring the depths of how we teach and how students learn. This degree gives educators a chance to dig into the details of advanced teaching methods and learning theories, making the learning process more engaging for everyone. It turns teachers into lifelong learners themselves, constantly growing and adapting to meet their students' needs.

Step Into Leadership

For those looking to make a difference beyond their own classroom, an M.Ed. can open the door to new opportunities. It lays the groundwork for roles in school administration, instructional coordination, or even educational policy, providing the leadership tools needed to thrive in these positions. It’s a pathway not just to becoming a principal or an administrator but to becoming an educational leader who can inspire change.

Build Your Network

Starting an M.Ed. journey introduces educators to a community of peers who are just as passionate about teaching. This network is more than just a group of colleagues; it’s a source of inspiration, support, and collaboration throughout your career. These connections can lead to innovative classroom ideas, career opportunities, and lasting friendships. It’s a vibrant professional community that grows with you, offering resources and encouragement every step of the way.

Pursuing SMU’s M.Ed. in Teaching and Learning

Southern Methodist University's Master of Education in Teaching and Learning stands out for its dedicated faculty, innovative curriculum, and commitment to practical, research-based teaching methods. The program caters to those seeking to make a real difference in the classroom and beyond.

Our application process is straightforward. We require transcripts, letters of recommendation, and a personal statement. The admissions team reviews all materials and looks for passionate educators committed to their personal and professional growth.

From the moment you begin your journey at SMU, you receive support every step of the way. With access to resources such as career counseling and academic workshops, SMU ensures you have all you need to succeed.

Choose the Best Teaching Master’s Degree for You

Embarking on an M.Ed. is more than an academic endeavor; it’s a commitment to yourself and the future of education. Among the long list of personal benefits—enhanced teaching skills, increased earnings, and leadership opportunities—an M.Ed. reaffirms your dedication to making a meaningful impact on students' lives.

For current teachers with a bachelor's degree considering a master’s in teaching, SMU’s M.Ed in Teaching and Learning represents a strategic move towards maximizing your teaching career. We invite you to reach out, learn more , and potentially start a transformative journey that elevates your ability to inspire young minds. Take this step towards personal and professional growth and see where your passion for teaching will eventually take you.

Request more

Information.

Complete the form to reach out to us for more information

Published On

More articles, recommended articles for you, is a master's in education worth it for teachers.

If you’re considering returning to the student side of the classroom and pursuing a graduate degree...

Why an Organizational Psychology Master’s Pays Off

Understanding what motivates employees and how to create thriving workplaces is key for today's...

Is a Master’s in Economics Worth It?

If you’re contemplating a career in economics, you might be wondering if a master’s degree in the...

Browse articles by topic

Subscribe to.

• Admission & Aid
• Student Life

Mathematics Education Degrees Explained by the Numbers

Degrees in mathematics education provide the foundational knowledge and skills necessary for professionals to teach math at various educational levels. These programs combine in-depth mathematical coursework with training that ensures graduates are well-prepared to foster mathematical understanding in students. 

This article explores how—across education levels—a degree in math education presents future mathematics teachers with the tools to make complex concepts accessible and engaging.

Understanding Mathematics Education Degrees

A mathematics education degree equips students with both advanced mathematical knowledge and the instructional skills to teach these concepts effectively. These degrees are designed to prepare future educators for a range of educational settings, from elementary to high school and beyond.

What Is a Mathematics Education Degree?

Focused on the dual components of advanced mathematics and effective teaching methodologies, mathematics education degree programs typically include coursework in mathematical theories, calculus, algebra, and statistics, as well as education-focused classes like instructional strategies, classroom management, and educational psychology. Students also engage in practical teaching experiences, often through student teaching placements, which provide hands-on training in real classroom settings​.

Different Levels of Mathematics Education Degrees

Mathematics education degrees may be offered at various academic levels, each catering to different career goals and educational needs:

• Associate degree – Usually a two-year program, an associate degree in mathematics education introduces students to foundational mathematical concepts and basic teaching principles. Graduates often pursue math education jobs as teaching assistants or continue their education in a bachelor's program.
• Bachelor’s degree – This four-year program combines in-depth mathematics coursework with education theory and practice. Graduates are prepared for certification and licensure to teach mathematics at the middle and high school levels. Common courses include calculus, linear algebra, educational psychology, and methods for teaching mathematics​.
• Master’s degree – These programs are designed for both current teachers seeking advanced knowledge and those looking to enter the teaching profession. Master's degrees often include specializations in areas such as curriculum development or educational leadership. Programs may offer initial certification for new  mathematics teachers or advanced certification for experienced educators​.
• Doctoral degree – The highest level of education in the field, doctoral programs focus on research, advanced mathematical theories, and educational leadership. Graduates often pursue careers in academia, research, or high-level administrative roles within educational institutions.

The Core Curriculum of a Mathematics Education Degree

A mathematics education degree program is designed to provide a balanced mix of rigorous mathematical coursework and educational theory, ensuring that graduates are well-prepared to teach math. The core curriculum typically includes courses that build a strong foundation in mathematics, along with specialized courses that focus on pedagogical techniques and educational psychology. 

Essential Courses for Future Educators

Mathematics education degree programs generally require students to complete a series of core courses that cover both mathematical content and teaching methodologies. Several such courses may include:

• Calculus and analytical geometry – Students learn fundamental concepts of calculus—including limits, derivatives, integrals, differential equations, and their applications. Analytical geometry topics like conic sections and polar coordinates are also covered​.
• Linear algebra – This course focuses on vector spaces, linear transformations, matrices, and determinants. It explores applications of linear algebra in various fields, too, such as physics and engineering.
• Statistics and probability – Students are introduced to statistical methods, probability theory, and data analysis techniques. Topics include descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and probability distributions​.
• Educational psychology – This course covers theories of learning and development, motivation, classroom management, and assessment strategies. It helps future educators understand the psychological principles that underpin effective teaching and learning​.
• Mathematics learning and teaching – This course emphasizes instructional strategies for teaching mathematics, including lesson planning, curriculum development, and the use of technology in the classroom. It also addresses the challenges of teaching diverse learners​.
• Introduction to mathematical reasoning – Students learn the foundational principles of mathematical proof, logic, and set theory. This course is essential for developing critical thinking skills and a deep understanding of mathematical concepts​.

Specializations Within Mathematics Education

Mathematics education programs often offer specializations that allow students to focus on specific areas of interest within the field. These specializations can enhance a teacher’s expertise and open up additional career opportunities. Common specializations include:

• Elementary mathematics education – Focuses on teaching math at the elementary school level. Courses cover methods for teaching basic arithmetic, geometry, and introductory algebra as well as strategies for engaging young learners​.
• Secondary mathematics education – Prepares students to teach middle and high school mathematics. The curriculum includes advanced topics such as calculus, trigonometry, and discrete mathematics, along with secondary education teaching methods​.
• Mathematics curriculum and instruction – Designed for educators interested in developing and evaluating math curricula. Courses cover curriculum design, instructional materials, and assessment techniques​.
• Mathematics education research – Focuses on conducting research in mathematics education. This specialization is ideal for those interested in academic or research careers. Topics include research methodologies, data analysis, and the study of educational practices and outcomes​.
• Technology in mathematics education – Explores the integration of technology in teaching mathematics. Courses cover the use of educational software, online learning platforms, and other digital tools to enhance math instruction​.

Career Paths and Jobs With a Math Education Degree

A mathematics education degree can pave the way to a variety of math education jobs and career opportunities. And while many graduates pursue traditional teaching roles, there are numerous other paths available for those interested in applying their expertise beyond the classroom, too. 

Teaching Positions in Various Educational Settings

• Elementary school –  Math educators in elementary schools introduce young students to basic mathematical concepts, fostering a firm foundation for future learning. According to the United States  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) , elementary school teachers earn a median annual wage of $63,670 as of May 2023. 
• Middle school –  Mathematical teachers in middle schools build on students' foundational knowledge, introducing more complex topics such as algebra and geometry. They focus on developing critical thinking and analytical skills, preparing students for high school coursework. The  median annual wage for middle school teachers is $64,290. 
• High school – High school mathematics teachers delve into advanced topics, including calculus, trigonometry, and statistics. They prepare students for college-level math and various standardized tests like the SAT and ACT. The  median annual wage for high school teachers is $65,220, and employment in this field is projected to see about 67,100 openings each year due to the need to replace teachers who retire or leave the profession​.
• Higher education –  A mathematics education degree can lead to teaching positions at colleges and universities. These math education jobs typically require advanced degrees and involve teaching undergraduate or graduate students, conducting research, and contributing to academic publications. Postsecondary mathematical science teachers earn a  median annual wage of $81,020. 

Beyond Teaching: Alternative Jobs With a Math Education Degree

Mathematics education graduates have a variety of career options beyond teaching, including roles in curriculum development, educational consulting, and instructional coordination, where they design and implement educational programs and materials. They may also work in educational technology creating tools to enhance math instruction or pursue careers in business, finance, or government—using their analytical skills in data analysis, statistical research, and policy development. A few possible math education job titles for which this degree may be applicable include mathematician, statistician, data scientist, and management analyst.

Advancements and Continuing Education in Mathematics Education

Staying current with advancements and continuing education is crucial for mathematics educators to remain effective and innovative in their teaching practices.

Graduate Degrees and Professional Certifications

Graduate degrees in mathematics education, like a master’s or doctorate, offer educators the opportunity to deepen their knowledge of both mathematical content and educational theory. These advanced degrees often focus on specialized areas such as curriculum development, educational leadership, or mathematics education research. 

For instance, a master’s degree might include courses on advanced mathematical concepts, instructional technology, and educational psychology, while a doctorate could involve research methodologies and the study of educational policies and their impacts on mathematics instruction​.

Professional certifications also play a significant role in advancing an educator’s career. Those such as the National Board Certification for teachers or state-specific advanced teaching credentials demonstrate a commitment to professional growth and mastery of teaching skills. These certifications often require rigorous assessments and provide educators with recognition and opportunities for career advancement​.

Trends and Innovations in Mathematics Teaching Methods

Innovations and  modern teaching strategies are transforming mathematics education: 

• The integration of technology like interactive whiteboards and online platforms enables dynamic and personalized learning experiences. 
• Inquiry-based learning encourages students to explore concepts through problem-solving and critical thinking, fostering deeper understanding. 
• Collaborative learning promotes group activities that enhance understanding and communication skills. 
• Culturally responsive teaching incorporates students' cultural backgrounds into lessons, making math more relevant and improving engagement and learning outcomes.

Real-World Applications of Mathematics Education

Mathematics education extends far beyond the classroom, influencing various aspects of everyday life and professional fields. Not to mention, educators equipped with a foundation in mathematics education can shape future generations by instilling important skills and promoting analytical thinking.

How Mathematics Education Shapes Future Generations

Mathematics education plays a central role in developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills key to academic success and navigating modern life's complexities. By learning to approach problems methodically and think logically, students are better prepared to tackle challenges in various contexts, from personal finance to scientific research. 

A solid foundation in mathematics also opens up numerous career opportunities in STEM fields (like engineering, economics, technology, computer science, and the physical sciences), ensuring that students are well-equipped for high-demand careers that drive technological advancements and economic growth.

Furthermore, mathematics education fosters a deeper understanding of the world. Concepts such as geometry, algebra, and statistics are integral to everyday life, from understanding architectural designs to interpreting data in the news. Educators help students see the relevance of mathematics and cultivate a lifelong appreciation for the subject by making these connections clear. 

In addition to individual benefits, strong mathematical skills even help individuals contribute to informed decision-making in their communities and address societal issues—from voting on policies to managing budgets and understanding scientific reports.

Challenges Facing Mathematics Educators Today

Mathematics educators encounter a variety of challenges in their efforts to deliver engaging instruction. 

Addressing Common Misconceptions in Mathematics Learning

A major challenge in mathematics education is overcoming students' misconceptions that math is inherently difficult and requires natural talent. Educators can counter this by promoting a growth mindset, emphasizing that mathematical skills are developed through practice and persistence. Demonstrating math's relevance in daily life and careers can boost student motivation as well. 

Additionally, educators should focus on conceptual understanding rather than rote memorization, using real-world examples and problem-solving activities to show how mathematical concepts are interconnected and practically applied.

Strategies for Overcoming Classroom Challenges

Classroom challenges in mathematics education include managing diverse learning styles and addressing behavioral issues. The following can help overcome these obstacles: 

• Differentiated instruction tailors teaching methods to individual needs, helping all students succeed. 
• Incorporating technology, like interactive software and virtual manipulatives, makes concepts more tangible and allows for real-time feedback. 
• Effective classroom management with clear expectations and positive reinforcement minimizes disruptions. 
• Engaging students through collaborative activities and hands-on learning reduces behavioral issues. 
• Ongoing professional development and collaboration among educators are essential for sharing best practices and refining teaching strategies.

Level Up Your Mathematics Education Degree at UC

Ready to make a difference in the world of education? Interested in any of the aforementioned jobs with a math education degree? University of the Cumberlands’  Bachelor of Science in Mathematics Education offers the optimal blend of rigorous mathematical training and cutting-edge teaching methods, focused on secondary education. Prepare to inspire the next generation of learners and take the first step toward becoming an exceptional math educator: Apply to our mathematics education program today. 

Boise State Online

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share through Email
• Program Information

What is a Master of Social Work (MSW) degree?

Boise State’s online Master of Social Work (MSW) degree is designed for individuals passionate about making a difference in the lives of others. Unlike fields such as medicine or counseling, social work emphasizes a holistic view of individuals within their environments, addressing crucial issues like human rights, social and economic justice, equality and diversity.

What is an MSW degree?

An MSW degree, or Master of Social Work, is an advanced professional degree that equips you with the knowledge and skills needed to excel in social work. This degree focuses on specialized areas such as clinical practice, policy analysis and community organization, preparing you for leadership roles in various social service settings. Unlike a Bachelor of Social Work, which offers a foundational understanding of social work principles, the MSW degree allows for deeper exploration and application of advanced concepts. Additionally, it serves as a stepping stone for those interested in pursuing a Doctorate in Social Work, which focuses on academic research, teaching and high-level administrative roles.

Why pursue an MSW degree?

Pursuing an MSW degree opens the door to a wide range of rewarding career opportunities in social work. With an MSW, professionals can advance into specialized roles such as clinical social workers, mental health counselors, school social workers, or policy analysts. This degree not only broadens your career options but also significantly enhances your professional growth and earning potential. Graduates are often sought after for leadership positions and are eligible for licensure , leading to higher salaries and increased job security. The skills and expertise gained through the program empower you to make a meaningful impact in the lives of individuals, families, and communities, ultimately leading to a more fulfilling career.

Key features of the program include:

Community-Centric Learning : You will learn within your communities, fostering strong connections that enable you to address specific local needs effectively while earning your degree.

Distinguished Accreditation : The Master of Social Work Online program is accredited by the Council on Social Work Education’s Board of Accreditation, assuring students of superior quality and resources. This accreditation reflects our commitment to meeting and exceeding educational standards, providing you with a reputable and high-quality learning experience.

Field Coordination : A distinguishing feature of the program is the comprehensive field coordination services . Our faculty and staff guide you to secure a practicum placement, a feature not universally available across programs. This unique support benefits both you and agencies, equipping you to contribute meaningfully to your placements while empowering agencies with prepared and competent professionals.

Supportive Network : We feature a dedicated support network that will help guide you from the moment of interest. Our student success team assists with your applications, course selection, and navigating life’s challenges. Field coordinators secure enriching work experiences, while faculty provide expertise both in and out of the classroom, ensuring a seamless academic journey.

Moving ahead with the Master of Social Work Online

Earning a MSW degree is a significant step toward a rewarding career in social work. Whether you’re passionate about advocacy, helping vulnerable populations, or leading and innovating in the field, this program gives you the advanced education and training to reach your goals. Boise State’s MSW degree not only opens the door to diverse career opportunities but also empowers you to make a real difference in society as a social work professional.

Contact a Student Success Coach

Attend a Live, Virtual Information Session

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Instagram
• Follow us on Youtube
• Follow us on Linkedin

• Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writingm, Distance Education (MFA)
• Graduate School
• Prospective Students
• Graduate Degree Programs

Go to programs search

Creative Writers are at the heart of our cultural industries. Poets, novelists, screenwriters, playwrights, graphic novelists, magazine writers: they entertain, inform and inspire. For more than 15 years, UBC's Creative Writing program has been educating writers through distance education in a program which complements our long-standing on-campus MFA program.

A studio program with the writing workshop at its heart, the distance MFA focuses on the work created by students as the primary text. Through intensive peer critique and craft discussion, faculty and students work together with the same goal: literary excellence.

The MFA granted to distance students is the same degree as granted to on-campus students, and the same criteria of excellence in multiple genres of study apply.

For specific program requirements, please refer to the departmental program website

What makes the program unique?

UBC's Optional-Residency (Distance) MFA was the first distance education MFA program in Canada and remains the only full MFA which can be taken completely online. It is designed to be uniquely flexible, allowing students across Canada and around the world to study writing at the graduate level while still living in their local communities and fulfilling career and family obligations.

The program is unique globally for its multi-genre approach to writing instruction: students are required to work in multiple genres during the course of the degree. As a fine arts program rather than an English program, students focus on the practice of writing rather than the study of literature. Students may work on a part-time basis, taking up to five years to complete the degree.

My time in the Creative writing grad program at UBC has given me the discipline and focus I need to complete long-form writing pieces and larger poetry projects.

Kwaku Darko-Mensah Jnr.

Quick Facts

Program enquiries, admission information & requirements, program instructions.

The optional residency MFA (distance) program only has a July intake.

1) Check Eligibility

Minimum academic requirements.

The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies establishes the minimum admission requirements common to all applicants, usually a minimum overall average in the B+ range (76% at UBC). The graduate program that you are applying to may have additional requirements. Please review the specific requirements for applicants with credentials from institutions in:

• Canada or the United States
• International countries other than the United States

Each program may set higher academic minimum requirements. Please review the program website carefully to understand the program requirements. Meeting the minimum requirements does not guarantee admission as it is a competitive process.

English Language Test

Applicants from a university outside Canada in which English is not the primary language of instruction must provide results of an English language proficiency examination as part of their application. Tests must have been taken within the last 24 months at the time of submission of your application.

Minimum requirements for the two most common English language proficiency tests to apply to this program are listed below:

TOEFL: Test of English as a Foreign Language - internet-based

Overall score requirement : 90

IELTS: International English Language Testing System

Overall score requirement : 6.5

Other Test Scores

Some programs require additional test scores such as the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or the Graduate Management Test (GMAT). The requirements for this program are:

The GRE is not required.

2) Meet Deadlines

3) prepare application, transcripts.

All applicants have to submit transcripts from all past post-secondary study. Document submission requirements depend on whether your institution of study is within Canada or outside of Canada.

Letters of Reference

A minimum of three references are required for application to graduate programs at UBC. References should be requested from individuals who are prepared to provide a report on your academic ability and qualifications.

Statement of Interest

Many programs require a statement of interest , sometimes called a "statement of intent", "description of research interests" or something similar.

• Supervision

Students in research-based programs usually require a faculty member to function as their thesis supervisor. Please follow the instructions provided by each program whether applicants should contact faculty members.

Instructions regarding thesis supervisor contact for Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writingm, Distance Education (MFA)

Citizenship verification.

Permanent Residents of Canada must provide a clear photocopy of both sides of the Permanent Resident card.

4) Apply Online

All applicants must complete an online application form and pay the application fee to be considered for admission to UBC.

Tuition & Financial Support

Financial Support

Applicants to UBC have access to a variety of funding options, including merit-based (i.e. based on your academic performance) and need-based (i.e. based on your financial situation) opportunities.

Scholarships & awards (merit-based funding)

All applicants are encouraged to review the awards listing to identify potential opportunities to fund their graduate education. The database lists merit-based scholarships and awards and allows for filtering by various criteria, such as domestic vs. international or degree level.

Graduate Research Assistantships (GRA)

Many professors are able to provide Research Assistantships (GRA) from their research grants to support full-time graduate students studying under their supervision. The duties constitute part of the student's graduate degree requirements. A Graduate Research Assistantship is considered a form of fellowship for a period of graduate study and is therefore not covered by a collective agreement. Stipends vary widely, and are dependent on the field of study and the type of research grant from which the assistantship is being funded.

Graduate Teaching Assistantships (GTA)

Graduate programs may have Teaching Assistantships available for registered full-time graduate students. Full teaching assistantships involve 12 hours work per week in preparation, lecturing, or laboratory instruction although many graduate programs offer partial TA appointments at less than 12 hours per week. Teaching assistantship rates are set by collective bargaining between the University and the Teaching Assistants' Union .

Graduate Academic Assistantships (GAA)

Academic Assistantships are employment opportunities to perform work that is relevant to the university or to an individual faculty member, but not to support the student’s graduate research and thesis. Wages are considered regular earnings and when paid monthly, include vacation pay.

Financial aid (need-based funding)

Canadian and US applicants may qualify for governmental loans to finance their studies. Please review eligibility and types of loans .

All students may be able to access private sector or bank loans.

Foreign government scholarships

Many foreign governments provide support to their citizens in pursuing education abroad. International applicants should check the various governmental resources in their home country, such as the Department of Education, for available scholarships.

Working while studying

The possibility to pursue work to supplement income may depend on the demands the program has on students. It should be carefully weighed if work leads to prolonged program durations or whether work placements can be meaningfully embedded into a program.

International students enrolled as full-time students with a valid study permit can work on campus for unlimited hours and work off-campus for no more than 20 hours a week.

A good starting point to explore student jobs is the UBC Work Learn program or a Co-Op placement .

Tax credits and RRSP withdrawals

Students with taxable income in Canada may be able to claim federal or provincial tax credits.

Canadian residents with RRSP accounts may be able to use the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) which allows students to withdraw amounts from their registered retirement savings plan (RRSPs) to finance full-time training or education for themselves or their partner.

Please review Filing taxes in Canada on the student services website for more information.

Cost Estimator

Applicants have access to the cost estimator to develop a financial plan that takes into account various income sources and expenses.

Career Options

Graduates of the MFA program have found success in varied fields related to writing and communication. The MFA qualifies graduates for teaching at the university level and many graduates have gone on to teach at colleges and universities in Canada, the United States and overseas as well as holding writing residencies. Many publish books and win literary awards. Others go on to work in publishing, and graduates have become book and magazine editors.

Although the MFA is a terminal degree, some graduates go on to further study in PhD programs in the US, UK and Australia.

The Optional-Residency MFA is particularly well suited to teachers: our teacher-students have been able to gain an advanced degree while continuing their careers.

• Research Supervisors

This list shows faculty members with full supervisory privileges who are affiliated with this program. It is not a comprehensive list of all potential supervisors as faculty from other programs or faculty members without full supervisory privileges can request approvals to supervise graduate students in this program.

• Belcourt, Billy-Ray (Fiction; Nonfiction; Poetry)
• French, Whitney (memory, loss, technology, and nature)
• Hopkinson, Nalo (Creative writing, n.e.c.; Humanities and the arts; Creative Writing: Speculative Ficton, Fantasy, Science Fiction, especially Other Voices)
• Irani, Anosh
• Koncan, Frances
• Leavitt, Sarah (Autobiographical comics; Formal experimentation in comics; Comics pedagogy)
• Lee, Nancy (Fiction; Creative Writing)
• Lyon, Annabel (Novels, stories and news)
• Maillard, Keith (Fiction, poetry)
• Marzano-Lesnevich, Alex (Nonfiction)
• McGowan, Sharon (Planning of film productions from concept to completion)
• Medved, Maureen (Fiction, writing for screen)
• Nicholson, Cecily (Languages and literature; Poetry)
• Ohlin, Alix (Fiction; Screenwriting; Environmental writing)
• Pohl-Weary, Emily (Fiction; Writing for Youth)
• Svendsen, Linda (Script development; Novels, stories and news; Writing for Television; Fiction)
• Taylor, Timothy (fiction and nonfiction)
• Vigna, John (Novels, stories and news; Fiction, Literary Non-Fiction, Creative Writing)

Related Programs

Same specialization.

• Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing (MFA)

Same Academic Unit

• Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing and Theatre (MFA)
• Master of Fine Arts in Film Production and Creative Writing (MFA)

At the UBC Okanagan Campus

• Master of Fine Arts (MFA)

Further Information

Specialization.

Creative Writing combines the best of traditional workshop and leading-edge pedagogy. Literary cross-training offers opportunities in a broad range of genres including fiction, poetry, screenplay, podcasting, video game writing and graphic novel.

UBC Calendar

Program website, faculty overview, academic unit, program identifier, classification, social media channels, supervisor search.

Departments/Programs may update graduate degree program details through the Faculty & Staff portal. To update contact details for application inquiries, please use this form .

Experience the colours of Vancouver

Great academic programs, great location: the distinct seasons and mild climate are among the reasons why graduate students choose to study here -- from the autumn leaves to cherry blossoms, witness the many colours Vancouver has to offer.

• Why Grad School at UBC?
• Application & Admission
• Info Sessions
• Research Projects
• Indigenous Students
• International Students
• Tuition, Fees & Cost of Living
• Newly Admitted
• Student Status & Classification
• Student Responsibilities
• Managing your Program
• Health, Wellbeing and Safety
• Professional Development
• Dissertation & Thesis Preparation
• Final Doctoral Exam
• Final Dissertation & Thesis Submission
• Life in Vancouver
• Vancouver Campus
• Graduate Student Spaces
• Graduate Life Centre
• Life as a Grad Student
• Graduate Student Ambassadors
• Meet our Students
• Award Opportunities
• Award Guidelines
• Minimum Funding Policy for PhD Students
• Killam Awards & Fellowships
• Dean's Message
• Leadership Team
• Strategic Plan & Priorities
• Vision & Mission
• Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
• Initiatives, Plans & Reports
• Graduate Education Analysis & Research
• Media Enquiries
• Newsletters
• Giving to Graduate Studies

Strategic Priorities

• Strategic Plan 2019-2024
• Improving Student Funding
• Promoting Excellence in Graduate Programs
• Enhancing Graduate Supervision
• Advancing Indigenous Inclusion
• Supporting Student Development and Success
• Reimagining Graduate Education
• Enriching the Student Experience

Initiatives

• Public Scholars Initiative
• 3 Minute Thesis (3MT)
• PhD Career Outcomes

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Proposed Rule

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Student Debt Relief for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loans), the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins) Program, and the Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program

A Proposed Rule by the Education Department on 04/17/2024

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

• Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agency Department of Education Agency/Docket Number Docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0123 CFR 34 CFR 30 34 CFR 682 Document Citation 89 FR 27564 Document Number 2024-07726 Document Type Proposed Rule Pages 27564-27617 (54 pages) Publication Date 04/17/2024 RIN 1840-AD93 Published Content - Document Details
• View printed version (PDF)
• Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Comments Close 05/17/2024 Dates Text We must receive your comments on or before May 17, 2024. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, executive summary, summary of select provisions of this regulatory action, public participation, negotiated rulemaking, summary of proposed changes, significant proposed regulations, 34 part 30—debt collection, subparts a, c, e, and f (§§ 30.1(c), 30.62(a), 30.70(a)(1), 30.70(c)(1) and 30.70(e)(1)), part 682—federal family education loan (ffel) program, subpart d—administration of the federal family education loan programs by a guaranty agency waiver of ffel program loan debt (§ 682.403), executive orders 12866 (as modified by 14094) and 13563, regulatory impact analysis, 1. congressional review act designation, 2. need for regulatory action, summary of proposed key provisions, 3. discussion of costs, benefits and transfers, data used in this ria, analysis of costs, benefits, and transfers for each proposed regulatory section, subpart d—administration of the federal family education loan programs by a guaranty agency, administrative costs, unduplicated estimate of the number of borrowers receiving waivers because of §§ 30.81 through 30.88 and part 682, subpart d, 4. net budget impact, methodology for budget impact, gainful employment, budget impact sensitivities, 5. accounting statement, 6. alternatives considered, 7. regulatory flexibility act, 8. paperwork reduction act, burden calculations, 9. intergovernmental review, 10. assessment of education impact, 11. federalism, list of subjects, 34 cfr part 30, 34 cfr part 682, part 30—debt collection, subpart g—waiver of federal student loan debts, part 682—federal family education loan (ffel) program.

Comments are no longer being accepted. See DATES for details.

148567 comments have been received at Regulations.gov.

Agencies review all submissions and may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof). Submitted comments may not be available to be read until the agency has approved them.

FederalRegister.gov retrieves relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov to provide users with additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearing

• Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-07726 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
• Print this document

Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 04/16/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 339 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

• the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
• the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
• the agency docket number / agency internal file number
• the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Department of Education

• 34 CFR Parts 30 and 682
• [Docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0123]
• RIN 1840-AD93

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations related to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) to provide for the waiver of certain student loan debts.

In this NPRM, the Department proposes regulations, in accordance with the Secretary's authority to waive repayment of a loan provided by the HEA, to provide targeted debt relief as part of efforts to address the burden of student loan debt. The proposed regulations would modify the Department's existing debt collection regulations to provide greater specificity regarding certain non-exhaustive situations in which the Secretary may exercise discretion to waive all or part of any debts owed to the Department.

We must receive your comments on or before May 17, 2024.

For more information regarding submittal of comments, please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via Regulations.gov, please contact Rene Tiongquico at (202) 453-7513 or by email at [email protected] .

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for finding a rule on the site and submitting comments, is available on the site under “FAQ.” In accordance with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 ( Pub. L. 118-9 ), a summary of not more than 100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, is posted on Regulations.gov in the rulemaking docket: https://www.regulations.gov/​docket/​ED-2023-OPE-0123 .

Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to generally make comments received from members of the public available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should include in their comments only information about themselves that they wish to make publicly available. Commenters should not include in their comments any information that identifies other individuals or that permits readers to identify other individuals. If, for example, your comment describes an experience of someone other than yourself, please do not identify that individual or include information that would allow readers to identify that individual. The Department may not make comments that contain personally identifiable information (PII) about someone other than the commenter publicly available on Regulations.gov for privacy reasons. This may include comments where the commenter refers to a third-party individual without using their name if the Department determines that the comment provides enough detail that could allow one or more readers to link the information to the third-party individual. If your comment refers to a third-party individual, please refer to the third-party individual anonymously to reduce the chance that information in your comment could be linked to the third party. For example, “a former student with a graduate level degree” does not provide information that identifies a third-party individual as opposed to “my sister, Jane Doe, had this experience while attending University X,” which does provide enough information to identify a specific third-party individual. For privacy reasons, the Department reserves the right to not make available on Regulations.gov any information in comments that identifies other individuals, includes information that would allow readers to identify other individuals, or includes threats of harm to another person or to oneself.

For further information related to general waivers and length of time in repayment, contact Richard Blasen at (202) 987-0315 or by email at [email protected] . For further information related to current balances that exceed original amounts borrowed, contact Bruce Honer at (202) 987-0750 or by email at [email protected] . For further information related to waiver eligibility based on repayment plan and targeted debt relief, contact Vanessa Freeman at (202) 987-1336 or by email at [email protected] . For further information related to secretarial actions and Gainful Employment programs with low financial value, contact Rene Tiongquico at (202) 453-7513 or by email at [email protected] . For further information related to FFEL Program loans, contact Brian Smith at (202) 987-0385 or by email at [email protected] .

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

Since 1980, the total cost to receive a four-year postsecondary credential has nearly tripled, even after accounting for inflation. [ 1 ] Pell Grants once covered nearly 80 percent of the cost of a four-year public college degree for students from low- and middle-income families, but now they only cover a third of those costs. [ 2 ] This price growth has dramatically increased the need for students to secure student loans, particularly Federal student loans from the Department, to cover their educational costs. The gap between prices and income means that many students from low- and middle-income families have to borrow Federal student loans in addition to grants and out-of-pocket spending so they can earn a postsecondary credential. These trends have resulted in cumulative Federal loan debt of $1.6 trillion and rising for more than 43 million borrowers, which has placed a significant financial burden upon middle-income borrowers and has had an even more devastating impact on vulnerable low-income borrowers. [ 3 ]

After convening the Student Loan Debt Relief negotiated rulemaking committee (Committee) and reaching consensus on various issues discussed in this NPRM, the Department proposes regulations, in accordance with the Secretary's authority to waive repayment of a loan provided by section 432(a) of the HEA, to provide debt relief targeted to address certain specific circumstances as part of a ( print page 27565) comprehensive effort to address the burden of Federal student loan debt. The proposed regulations would modify the Department's existing debt collection regulations to provide greater specificity regarding the Secretary's discretion to waive Federal student loan debt and specify the Secretary's authority to waive all or part of any debts owed to the Department based on a number of different circumstances, such as growth in a borrower's loan balance beyond what was owed upon entering repayment, the amount of time since the loan first entered repayment, whether the borrower meets certain criteria for loan forgiveness or discharge under existing authority, and whether a loan was obtained to attend an institution or program that was subject to secretarial actions, that closed prior to secretarial actions, or was associated with closed Gainful Employment programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings.

The Department proposes to amend subparts A, C, E, and F of 34 CFR part 30 and to add a new subpart G. The Department also proposes to amend part 682 by adding a new § 682.403.

These proposed regulations, in accordance with the HEA, would specify the Secretary's discretionary authority to waive repayment of the following amounts:

• The full amount by which the current outstanding balance on a loan exceeds the amount owed when the loan entered repayment for loans being repaid on any Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plan if the borrower's income is at or below $120,000 if the borrower's filing status is single or married filing separately, $180,000 if a borrower files as head of household, or $240,000 if the borrower is married and files a joint Federal tax return or the borrower files as a qualifying surviving spouse (§ 30.81).
• Up to $20,000 or the amount by which the current outstanding balance on a borrower's loan exceeds the balance owed upon entering repayment (§ 30.82).
• The outstanding balance of a loan taken out to pay for the borrower's undergraduate education, or a Federal Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan that only repaid loans received for a borrower's undergraduate education, that first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2005 (§ 30.83).
• The outstanding balance of loans that first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000, if the borrower has any loans obtained for study other than undergraduate study (§ 30.83).
• The outstanding balance of a loan for borrowers who would be otherwise eligible for forgiveness under an IDR plan or an alternative repayment plan but who are not currently enrolled in such a plan (§ 30.84).
• The outstanding balance of a loan for borrowers determined to be otherwise eligible for loan discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness, but who did not successfully apply (§ 30.85).
• The outstanding balance of a loan obtained to pay the cost of attending an institution or program where the Secretary or other authorized Department official has issued a final decision, denial of recertification, or determination that terminates or otherwise ends the institution's or program's title IV eligibility due at least in part to the institution's or program's failure to meet required accountability standards based on student outcomes or to its failure to provide sufficient financial value to students (§ 30.86).
• The outstanding balance of a loan obtained to pay the cost of attending an institution or program that closed and the Secretary or other Department official has determined the institution or program failed, for at least one year, to meet an accountability standard based on student outcomes, or failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students and there was a pending program review, investigation, or other Department action at the time of closure (§ 30.87).
• The outstanding balance of a loan that is associated with enrollment in a Gainful Employment (GE) program that has closed and prior to closure had high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings rates (§ 30.88).
• In the case of FFEL Program loans held by a private loan holder or a guaranty agency, the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan when a loan first entered into repayment on or before July 1, 2000; when the borrower is otherwise eligible for, but has not successfully applied for, a closed school discharge; or when the borrower attended an institution that lost its title IV eligibility due to a high cohort default rate (CDR), if the borrower was included in the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the CDR or rates that were the basis for the institution's loss of eligibility (§ 682.403).

Costs and Benefits: As further detailed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), the proposed regulations would specify the Secretary's authority to grant waivers that would have significant effects on borrowers, the Department, and taxpayers. For borrowers for whom the Secretary chooses to exercise his authority, the draft rules would provide significant benefits by waiving all or a portion of their repayment obligations. In cases where the Secretary decides to waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan, borrowers receiving such waivers would benefit from no longer having to repay their debt and no longer being at risk of delinquency or default. The debts that could be waived in their entirety under this proposed NPRM have the following characteristics: they are generally older; otherwise eligible for forgiveness, but the borrower has not currently enrolled in or successfully applied to receive relief; or were taken out to attend programs or institutions that failed to provide sufficient financial value as indicated by certain outcomes and conditions. Borrowers who may receive a waiver of some of their loan balances would benefit by seeing their total outstanding balance reduced, which would help with their ability to repay their loans in full in a reasonable period of time.

The Department would also benefit if the Secretary chose to exercise his discretion to issue waivers proposed in these draft rules. These benefits would largely come from no longer incurring costs to service or collect on loans that are unlikely to be otherwise repaid in full in a reasonable period.

The costs in this rule would largely come from the transfers between the Department and borrowers that would occur if the Secretary chose to use his discretion to issue waivers. There would also be some administrative costs borne by the Department to implement the proposed regulations. As detailed in Table 4.1 of the RIA, the net budget impacts across all loan cohorts through 2034 for each of the proposed changes are estimated to be as follows:

• $13.8 billion for the provision related to time since the loan first entered repayment (§ 30.83).
• $8.6 billion for the provision related to borrowers who are eligible for forgiveness based upon a repayment plan (§ 30.84).
• $15 million for the provision related to borrowers who took out loans during cohorts that caused a school to lose access to aid due to high cohort default rates (CDRs) as described in § 30.86.
• $7.6 billion for the provision related to borrowers who are eligible for a closed school loan discharge but have not successfully applied (§ 30.85).
• $27.2 billion for the provision related to borrowers who attended a gainful employment program that lost access to aid or closed (§§ 30.86 through 30.88). ( print page 27566)
• $11.0 billion for the provision related to borrowers whose current balance exceeds the amount owed upon entering repayment and are on IDR plan with income below certain thresholds (§ 30.81).
• $62.1 billion for the provision related to borrowers whose current balance exceeds the amount owed upon entering repayment (§ 30.82).
• $17.1 billion for the provisions related to borrowers with commercial FFEL loans that first entered repayment 25 years ago; who are eligible for a closed school discharge but have not applied; or who received loans to attend a school that lost access to aid due to high CDRs (682.403).

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. For your comments to have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. The Department will not accept comments submitted after the comment period closes. Please submit your comments only once so that we do not receive duplicate copies.

The following tips are meant to help you prepare your comments and provide a basis for the Department to respond to issues raised in your comments in the notice of final regulations (NFR):

• Be concise but support your claims.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible and avoid using profanity.
• Refer to specific sections and subsections of the proposed regulations throughout your comments, particularly in any headings that are used to organize your submission.
• Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed regulatory text and support these reasons with data-driven evidence, including the depth and breadth of your personal or professional experiences.
• Where you disagree with the proposed regulatory text, suggest alternatives, including regulatory language, and your rationale for the alternative suggestion.
• Do not include personally identifiable information (PII) such as Social Security numbers or loan account numbers for yourself or for others in your submission. Should you include any PII in your comment, such information may be posted publicly.
• Do not include any information that directly identifies or could identify other individuals or that permits readers to identify other individuals. Your comment may not be posted publicly if it includes PII about other individuals.

Mass Writing Campaigns: In instances where individual submissions appear to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part of a writing campaign, the Department will post one representative sample comment along with the total comment count for that campaign to Regulations.gov. The Department will consider these comments along with all other comments received.

In instances where individual submissions are bundled together (submitted as a single document or packaged together), the Department will post all of the substantive comments included in the submissions along with the total comment count for that document or package to Regulations.gov. A well-supported comment is often more informative to the agency than multiple form letters.

Public Comments: The Department invites you to submit comments on all aspects of the proposed regulatory language specified in this NPRM in §§ 30.1, 30.9, 30.20, 30.23, 30.25, 30.27, 30.29, 30.30, 30.33, 30.62, 30.70, 30.80-30.89, and 682.403, the Regulatory Impact Analysis, and Paperwork Reduction Act sections.

The Department may, at its discretion, decide not to post or to withdraw certain comments and other materials that are computer-generated. Comments containing the promotion of commercial services or products and spam will be removed.

We may not address comments outside of the scope of these proposed regulations in the NFR. Generally, comments that are outside of the scope of these proposed regulations are comments that do not discuss the content or impact of the proposed regulations or the Department's evidence or reasons for the proposed regulations, which includes any comments related to the Department's negotiated rulemaking for borrowers experiencing hardship.

Comments that are submitted after the comment period closes will not be posted to Regulations.gov or addressed in the NFR.

Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to Regulations.gov and may be referred to the appropriate authorities.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the Information Technology Accessibility Program Help Desk at [email protected] to help facilitate.

Section 432(a) of the HEA describes the legal powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of Education that are relevant to this rulemaking. In particular, section 432(a)(6) provides that, “in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.” These provisions apply to the FFEL, Direct Loan  [ 4 ] and HEAL programs. [ 5 ]

The Department's statutory waiver authority dates back to the enactment of ( print page 27567) the Higher Education Act in 1965. [ 6 ] The Department has historically viewed its waiver authority as permitting the Secretary to waive the Department's right to require repayment of a debt  [ 7 ] when doing so advances the goals of the title IV programs and functions, while also aligning with the HEA's overall statutory parameters and principles. Having such bounded flexibility is critical for the Department's administration of the comprehensive and complex student loan programs wherein there are unforeseen challenges that arise and, absent waiver, such challenges could interfere with the Secretary's ability to effectively and efficiently administer the title IV programs.

The Department's waiver authority operates within the context of the HEA's goals and also the principles that govern waiver more broadly. Some agencies that exercise waiver authority consider whether collection of debts would be against equity and good conscience or the best interest of the United States, thereby implicating general principles of government debt collection. Agencies have also articulated numerous factors that may weigh in favor of waiving an individual's debt, including when collection would defeat the purpose of the benefit program or impose financial hardship, among other considerations.

On June 30, 2023, the Department announced that it would conduct a negotiated rulemaking process to specify the Secretary's use of the authority to waive loan debts under section 432(a) of the HEA. This NPRM reflects regulations discussed during that process and would allow the Secretary to address significant challenges identified with student loan repayment that implicate considerations of equity and fairness, as well as a borrower's inability to repay their loans in full within a reasonable period or circumstances where the costs of enforcing the debt exceed the expected benefits of continued collection. In particular, this NPRM focuses on issues related to circumstances—

• When borrowers' balances have grown beyond what they originally owed at the start of repayment.
• When loans first entered repayment at least two decades ago.
• When a borrower is eligible for forgiveness or a discharge opportunity but has not successfully applied for such relief or enrolled in the repayment plan that would provide that forgiveness or discharge opportunity.
• When a borrower received loans for attendance in a program or at an institution that has since lost access to Federal aid because it failed to meet required student outcomes standards, was subject to an action by the Secretary due to failing to provide sufficient financial value or closed after failing required student outcomes metrics or the initiation of a Secretarial action process.

These proposed provisions account for particular challenges facing individual borrowers, while also recognizing that many borrowers are similarly situated in experiencing such circumstances. The Department has a longstanding view and practice of providing appropriate relief when it identifies specific circumstances that warrant relief and those circumstances affect multiple borrowers. Such relief, on an automated or individual basis, is appropriate when such individuals' circumstances share the features relevant for determining relief. This approach comports with the HEA's statutory requirements and can also help to improve administrative efficiency and provide consistency across borrowers.

On July 6, 2023, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register ( 88 FR 43069 ) announcing our intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations pertaining to the Secretary's authority under section 432(a) of the HEA, which relates to the modification, waiver, or compromise of loans.

On July 18, 2023, the Department held a virtual public hearing at which individuals and representatives of interested organizations provided advice and recommendations relating to the topic of proposed regulations on the modification, waiver, or compromise of loans. The Department has significantly engaged the public in developing this NPRM, including through review of oral comments made by the public during the public hearing and written comments submitted between July 6, 2023, and July 20, 2023. You may view the written comments submitted in response to the July 6, 2023, Federal Register notice on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov, within docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0123. Instructions for finding comments are also available on the site under “FAQ.” Transcripts of the public hearings may be accessed at https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

The Department also held three negotiated rulemaking sessions of two days each. During each daily negotiated rulemaking session, we provided an opportunity for public comment and expanded that time to one hour for the second and third sessions. The Department held a fourth two-day session in February 2024 to discuss the separate issue of possible hardship criteria for discharge and the public had an opportunity to comment on the first day of that session. Additionally, non-Federal negotiators shared feedback from their stakeholders with the negotiating committee.

Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1098a , requires the Secretary to obtain public involvement in the development of proposed regulations affecting programs authorized by title IV of the HEA. After obtaining extensive input and recommendations from the public, including individuals and representatives of groups involved in the title IV, HEA programs, the Secretary, in most cases, must engage in the negotiated rulemaking process before publishing proposed regulations in the Federal Register . If negotiators reach consensus on the proposed regulations, the Department agrees to publish without substantive alteration a defined group of regulations on which the negotiators reached consensus—unless the Secretary reopens the process or provides a written explanation to the participants stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the agreement reached during negotiations. Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process can be found at: https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

On August 31, 2023, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register   [ 8 ] announcing its intention to establish the Committee to prepare proposed regulations for the title IV, HEA programs. The notice set forth a schedule for Committee meetings and requested nominations for individual negotiators to serve on the negotiating committee. In the notice, we announced the topics that the Committee would address.

The Committee included the following members, representing their respective constituencies:

• Civil Rights Organizations: Wisdom Cole, NAACP, and India Heckstall (alternate), Center for Law and Social Policy. ( print page 27568)
• Legal Assistance Organizations that Represent Students or Borrowers: Kyra Taylor, National Consumer Law Center, and Scott Waterman (alternate), Student Loan Committee of the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees.
• State Officials, including State higher education executive officers, State authorizing agencies, and State regulators of institutions of higher education: Lane Thompson, Oregon DCBS—Division of Financial Regulation, and Amber Gallup (alternate), New Mexico Higher Education Department.
• State Attorneys General: Yael Shavit, Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, and Josh Divine (alternate), Missouri Attorney General's Office who withdrew from the committee during the third session.
• Public Institutions of Higher Education, Including Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions: Melissa Kunes, The Pennsylvania State University, and J.D. LaRock (alternate), North Shore Community College.
• Private Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education: Angelika Williams, University of San Francisco, and Susan Teerink (alternate), Marquette University.
• Proprietary Institutions: Kathleen Dwyer, Galen College of Nursing, and Belen Gonzalez (alternate), Mech-Tech College.
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Minority Serving Institutions (institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A and F, and title V of the HEA): Sandra Boham, Salish Kootenai College, and Carol Peterson (alternate), Langston University.
• Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Lenders, Servicers, or Guaranty Agencies: Scott Buchanan, Student Loan Servicing Alliance, and Benjamin Lee (alternate), Ascendium Education Solutions, Inc.
• Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Programs of Two Years or Less: Ashley Pizzuti, San Joaquin Delta College, and David Ramirez (alternate), Pasadena City College.
• Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Four-Year Programs: Sherrie Gammage, The University of New Orleans, and Sarah Christa Butts (alternate), University of Maryland.
• Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Graduate Programs: Richard Haase, State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Dr. Jalil Bishop (alternate), University of California, Los Angeles.
• Currently Enrolled Postsecondary Education Students: Jada Sanford, Stephen F. Austin University, and Jordan Nellums (alternate), University of Texas.
• Consumer Advocacy Organizations: Jessica Ranucci, New York Legal Assistance Group, and Ed Boltz (alternate), Law Offices of John T. Orcutt, P.C.
• Individuals with Disabilities or Organizations Representing Them: John Whitelaw, Community Legal Aid Society Inc., and Waukecha Wilkerson (alternate), Sacramento State University.
• U.S. Military Service Members, Veterans, or Groups Representing Them: Vincent Andrews, Veteran. Originally the alternate, Mr. Andrews became the primary negotiator for this constituency group after Michael Jones withdrew from the Committee.
• Federal Negotiator: Tamy Abernathy, U.S. Department of Education.

At its first meeting, the Committee reached agreement on its protocols and proposed agenda. The protocols provided, among other things, that the Committee would operate by consensus. The protocols defined consensus as no dissent by any negotiator of the Committee for the committee to be considered to have reached agreement and noted that consensus votes would be taken on each separate part of the proposed rules.

The Committee reviewed and discussed the Department's drafts of regulatory language and alternative language and suggestions proposed by negotiators.

At its third meeting in December 2023, the Committee reached consensus on proposed regulations addressing the Secretary's authority to waive loan debts—when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon repayment plan but the borrower is not currently enrolled in such plan; based upon Secretarial actions; following a closure prior to Secretarial actions; or obtained for attendance in closed GE programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings. In addition, the Committee reached consensus on two provisions for waivers that would apply only to FFEL Program loans held by a loan holder or guaranty agency: Those based on a determination that a borrower has not successfully applied for a closed school discharge but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for such a discharge, and cases where a borrower received a loan for attendance at an institution that lost title IV eligibility due to high CDRs.

This NPRM includes proposed regulations on these consensus items, identified in the summary of proposed regulations section, as well as the remaining items on the Committee's agenda, summarized generally above. The Department convened a fourth session of the negotiating committee on February 22 and 23, 2024, focused on discussing proposed regulations related to possible waivers for borrowers facing hardship. Proposed regulations for waivers for hardship are not included in this NPRM.

For more information on the negotiated rulemaking sessions, including the work of the Subcommittee, please visit: https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

These proposed regulations would—

• Modify §§ 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) to specify that, when compromising a debt or when terminating or suspending collection of a debt, the Secretary may use the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS).
• Add § 30.80 specifying the Secretary's authority to waive all or part of any debts owed to the Department, including, but not limited to, waivers under §§ 30.81 through 30.88.
• Add § 30.81 specifying the Secretary's authority to provide a one-time waiver of the amount by which the borrower's current loan has an outstanding principal balance exceeding the amount owed when the loan first entered repayment if they are enrolled in an IDR plan and their income is less than or equal to $120,000 if the borrower's filing status is single or married filing separately; $180,000 if the borrower's filing status is head of household; or $240,000 if their tax filing status is married filing jointly or qualifying surviving spouse.
• Add § 30.82 specifying the Secretary's authority to provide a one-time waiver of the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which a borrower's current loan balance exceeds the balance owed when the borrower entered repayment.
• Add § 30.83 specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance when a borrower who only has student loans for the borrower's undergraduate studies first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2005 (20 years) or on or before July 1, 2000 (25 years) when a borrower has student loans other than loans for the borrower's undergraduate studies.
• Add § 30.84 specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a loan when a borrower is not currently enrolled in an ( print page 27569) IDR plan, but otherwise meets the criteria for forgiveness under an IDR plan.
• Add § 30.85 specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a loan when a borrower has not applied for, or not successfully applied for, any loan discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness opportunity under parts 682 or 685, but otherwise meets the eligibility criteria for discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness.
• Add § 30.86 specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a loan obtained to attend an institution or program where the Secretary or other authorized Department official has issued a final decision, denial of recertification, or determination that terminates or otherwise ends its title IV eligibility due at least in part to the institution's or program's failure to meet required accountability standards based on student outcomes or to its failure to provide sufficient financial value to students.
• Add § 30.87 specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a loan obtained to attend a program or an institution that closed and the Secretary has determined the institution or program has not met for at least one year an accountability standard based on student outcomes; or failed to provide sufficient financial value to students and was subject to a program review, investigation, or any other Department action that remained unresolved at the time of closure.
• Add § 30.88 specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a loan received by a borrower associated with enrollment in a GE program that has closed and prior to closure either had a high debt-to-earning rate or low median earnings, or was at a GE program where the Department did not produce debt-to-earnings and earnings premium measures but the institution closed and prior to the closure received a majority of funds from programs with high debt-to-earnings or low median earnings.
• Add § 682.403(a) outlining the procedures under which the Secretary determines that a FFEL Program loan held by a lender or guaranty agency qualifies for a waiver, the waiver claim is processed, and the Secretary grants the waiver.
• Add § 682.403(b)(1) specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan if the loan first entered repayment in 2000 or earlier.
• Add § 682.403(b)(2) specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan if the borrower has not applied for, or not successfully applied for, but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for a closed school discharge.
• Add § 682.403(b)(3) specifying the Secretary's authority to waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan if the loan was received for attendance at an institution that lost its eligibility to participate in a title IV, HEA program because of its high CDRs.
• Add §§ 682.403(c), 682.403(d), and 682.403(e) describing the waiver claim filing process for a lender, guaranty agency, and the Department.
• Add § 682.403(f) specifying that if the conditions for a waiver are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such a loan once the loan has been assigned to the Secretary.
• Make conforming changes to §§ 30.1(c), 30.62(a), and 30.70(e)(1) based on revisions to the sections noted above.

We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect. For each section of the regulations discussed, we include the statutory citation, the current regulations being revised (if applicable), the new proposed regulatory text, and the reasons for why we proposed to add new regulatory text or revise the existing regulatory text.

Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA ( 20 U.S.C. 1082(a) ) provides that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.

Current Regulations: Section 30.1(c) contains the procedures that the Secretary may use in collecting on a debt owed to the United States.

Section 30.62(a) provides that for a debt based on a loan, the Secretary may refrain from collecting interest or charging administrative costs or penalties to the extent that compromise of these amounts is appropriate under the standards for compromise of a debt contained in 31 CFR part 902 , which were formerly contained in 4 CFR part 103 .

Sections 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) specify that the Secretary uses the standards in the FCCS to determine whether compromise of a debt, or suspension or termination of a debt, is appropriate.

Section 30.70(e)(1) provides that the Secretary may compromise a debt in any amount or suspend or terminate collection of a debt in any amount, if the debt arises under the FFEL Program authorized under title IV, part B, of the HEA, the Direct Loan Program authorized under title IV, part D of the HEA, or the Perkins Loan Program authorized under title IV, part E, of the HEA.

Proposed Regulations: These proposed regulations would identify certain conditions under which the Secretary may waive debt, identify the loan programs eligible for such waivers, clarify the existing compromise provisions, correct outdated references, and remove obsolete references. These regulations do not alter the scope of the Secretary's authority under Section 432(a) of the HEA. Relatedly, the non-exhaustive waiver provisions neither limit the Secretary's discretion to waive debt in other circumstances permitted under Section 432(a) nor do they require the Secretary to undergo rulemaking before taking any action authorized under Section 432(a). Nevertheless, by providing greater clarity regarding the Secretary's waiver authority, these regulations are beneficial to inform the public about how the Secretary may exercise waiver in a consistent manner to provide appropriate relief to borrowers in accordance with the provisions and purposes of the HEA.

Proposed § 30.1(c)(7) would provide that the Secretary may waive repayment of a debt under subpart G of 34 CFR part 30 . Proposed § 30.62(a) would add to the current compromise provisions language that would allow the Secretary to waive the collection of interest or charging administrative costs or penalties on a loan in accordance with § 30.80. Proposed §§ 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) would specify that, when compromising a debt or when suspending or terminating a debt, the Secretary “may” use the FCCS. Proposed § 30.70(e)(1) would add HEAL Program loans to the list of loan types for which the Secretary may compromise a debt or suspend or terminate collection of a debt. ( print page 27570)

Technical corrections updating and clarifying various references and provisions contained in subparts A, C, E, and F of part 30 would also be made. In addition, severability provisions would be added to these subparts as new §§ 30.9, 30.39, 30.69, and 30.79. The severability provisions would specify that if any provision of a part is held to be invalid, the remaining provisions would not be affected.

Reasons: The current regulations in part 30 describe the policies and procedures that the Secretary uses to collect on a debt owed to the Department. The Department is proposing a new subpart G to part 30 which would provide greater specificity regarding the Secretary's discretion to waive Federal student loan debt. This greater specificity will allow the Department to take more transparent steps that help to consistently alleviate the significant financial burden Federal student loans have become for struggling or vulnerable borrowers by waiving some or all of their outstanding loan balances. Such waivers would either reduce monthly payments, total amounts owed, or both. The proposed new language in subpart G would require conforming changes to some of the existing regulatory language in part 30.

The proposed revision to § 30.1(c)(7) is necessary to provide a cross-reference to proposed subpart G and the proposed revision to § 30.62(a) is necessary to provide a cross-reference to proposed § 30.80.

In 2016, the Department revised § 30.70 to reflect a series of statutory changes that expanded the Secretary's authority to compromise, or suspend or terminate the collection of, debts. [ 9 ] In particular, the Department wanted to highlight the ability of the agency to resolve debts of less than $100,000 without needing to obtain approval from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and to include the ability of DOJ to seek review of resolving claims of more than $1 million. But the inclusion of this provision has created questions around whether the Department's compromise, suspension, and termination authority is strictly bound by FCCS standards. The Department's view is that it is not. To begin, The Federal Claims Collection Act (FCCA) and the FCCS regulations do not, by their own terms, apply to the Department's student loan programs. [ 10 ] In addition, the Department's own regulations also do not strictly bind the Secretary to the FCCS. The history of revisions to 34 CFR 30.70 reflects that it has been revised over time to reflect new requirements and authorities but has consistently recognized the Secretary's broad authority to compromise student loan debts “in any amount.” Reading § 30.70 as subjecting the Secretary's authority to the FCCS requirements would be contrary to the stated purpose of the 2016 amendments, which were intended to “reflect a series of statutory changes that have expanded the Secretary's authority to compromise, or suspend or terminate the collection of, debts” (emphasis added). [ 11 ] The proposed changes to §§ 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) would clarify that the Secretary's compromise, termination, and suspension authority remain broad and are not restricted by the FCCA and FCCS.

The addition of HEAL Program loans to § 30.70(e)(1) would clarify that the Secretary has the same authority to compromise, suspend, or terminate a HEAL loan debt as in the Direct Loan, FFEL, and Perkins loan programs. The negotiating committee agreed to add HEAL Program loans to § 30.70(e)(1) and raised no specific objections to the proposed conforming changes or technical corrections. Although there were no specific objections to the proposed revisions to the regulations in subparts A, C, E, and F of part 30, the Committee did not reach consensus on these proposed changes.

The severability provisions we propose to add as new §§ 30.9, 30.39, 30.69, 30.79, and 30.89 are intended to clarify that each regulatory provision in these subparts stands on its own. For the severability sections in subparts A through F of part 30, these additions reflect that the subcomponents of each section, as well as the sections themselves, are distinct. For instance, subpart C lays out the provisions related to administrative offset. The process in § 30.21 that addresses when the Secretary may offset a debt and the provisions regarding borrower notice in § 30.22 are separate, and those, in turn, are separate from the provisions in § 30.25 related to how an oral hearing may occur.

The severability provision in § 30.89 reflects that the different waivers proposed in subpart G each address a different set of circumstances in which the Department is concerned that borrowers may not be able to repay their loans within a reasonable period. This severability language also acknowledges that each of these proposed waivers have their own distinct rationale for their inclusion, and the effects would vary. For instance, some sections in subpart G would result in a complete waiver of a borrower's full remaining balance, while others would only result in a partial waiver. Moreover, as discussed elsewhere in this rule, there are also provisions within sections where if either element of this provision were invalidated by a reviewing court, the element that stayed in effect would continue to provide important relief to borrowers. This, for instance, can be seen in proposed §§ 30.81 and 30.82. Proposed § 682.403 is already covered by an existing severability provision in § 682.424.

These provisions were not subject to a consensus check on the part of the negotiators, although none of the negotiators raised objections to adding these provisions.

§ 30.80 Waiver of Federal Student Loan debts.

Current Regulations: None.

Proposed Regulations: Proposed § 30.80 would specify the Secretary's authority to waive all or part of any Department-held FFEL Program loan, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, Federal Perkins Loan, and HEAL Loan debts owed to the Department under the conditions included in, but not limited to, §§ 30.81 through 30.88.

Reasons: Proposed new subpart G to part 30, which includes sections §§ 30.80-30.89, would provide greater specificity regarding the Secretary's discretion to waive Federal student loan debt to alleviate the significant financial burden of student loans on borrowers and their families. The regulations in part 30 pertain to debts owed to the Department, therefore proposed § 30.80 ( print page 27571) would only apply to student loans held by the Department. This includes FFEL Program loans that have been assigned to the Department, as well as Perkins loans and HEAL loans in default. It also includes consolidation loans that repaid a FFEL, Perkins, or HEAL loan. Waivers specific to FFEL Program loans held by private lenders or managed by guaranty agencies would be provided under proposed § 682.403 of the FFEL Program regulations. The proposed regulations for § 682.403 are discussed later in this NPRM.

Proposed § 30.80 provides an introduction to subpart G and explains the types of loans covered by this subpart. The Department proposes to include all the types of Federal student loans held by the Department, including Direct Loans, FFEL Loans, Perkins Loans, and HEAL Loans because we believe it is appropriate to consider waivers for all the loan types managed by the Secretary and organizationally consider similar subject matter under one subpart. As discussed in other sections, not all these provisions will apply equally to all loan types because there are certain benefits that are not otherwise available on all types of loans. For example, only Direct and FFEL Loans are eligible to be repaid under IDR plans.

The Department believes adding subpart G in these proposed regulations better clarifies some circumstances in which the Secretary may use his existing and longstanding authority under section 432(a) of the HEA. Current regulations do not describe how the Secretary uses this waiver authority. Clarifying how this authority would be used through these regulations would better inform the public about how the Secretary may exercise his waiver authority in a consistent and equitable manner.

Providing such specificity would also allow the Department to highlight circumstances where we are particularly concerned about borrowers' ability to successfully repay their debt in full in a reasonable period or where the costs of collection are anticipated to exceed the amount recoverable. Each of these proposed waivers are intended to address a variety of conditions that borrowers may encounter where a waiver may be appropriate. They can and would operate independently of each other.

The Committee reached consensus on proposed § 30.80.

§ 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan.

Proposed Regulations: Proposed § 30.81 would provide that the Secretary may waive the amount by which each of a borrower's loans has a total outstanding balance that exceeds the amount owed upon entering repayment if the borrower is enrolled in an IDR plan and meets certain additional criteria. The original balance would be measured based upon the original amount disbursed for loans disbursed before January 1, 2005, and the balance of the loans on the day after the grace period for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005. Waiver of repayment of consolidation loans would be based upon the original balances of the loans repaid by the consolidation loan.

A borrower would be eligible to receive this waiver once on their loans if they enrolled in an IDR plan under §§ 682.215, 685.209, or 685.221 as of a date determined by the Secretary; and the borrower's adjusted gross income, or other calculation of income as shown on acceptable documentation, demonstrates that the borrower's annual income is equal to or less than $120,000 if their tax filing status is single or married filing separately; $180,000 if their tax filing status is head of household; or $240,000 if they are married filing jointly or a qualifying surviving spouse.

Reasons: Over the past several years, the Department has taken several significant steps to address the negative effects of interest accrual and capitalization on borrowers. Effective July 1, 2023, the Department ceased capitalizing interest in all situations where it is not required by statute ( 87 FR 65904 ). This includes when a borrower enters repayment, exits a forbearance, leaves any IDR plan besides Income-Based Repayment (IBR), and enters default. In August 2023, the Department also implemented a provision in the SAVE plan regulations under which the Department does not charge any amount of accrued interest that is not otherwise covered by a borrower's required payment ( 88 FR 43820 ). These changes provide significant benefits that may help borrowers avoid situations where they find themselves struggling to repay their debts because their balance has grown far beyond what they originally borrowed.

The intent of the Department is to take action on a one-time basis on a borrower's loans to address excessive interest accrual on Federal student loans. The primary drivers of this accumulation are when borrowers make payments on an IDR plan that do not cover the full amount of accumulating interest; periods of non-payment, such as deferments, forbearances, delinquency, and default; and interest capitalization. Because prior to the establishment of the Saving on A Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan IDR plans were the only repayment plans where payments do not have to at least cover accumulating monthly interest, the Department is concerned that borrowers owe large balances that are higher than what they were at repayment entry from prior enrollment in IDR. Owing such large balances can result in borrowers needing to repay far more than would have been reasonably expected by the Department, and the borrower themselves, at the time that the borrower entered repayment. It can also significantly extend the amount of time a borrower needs to repay their loans in full. Prior to SAVE, interest balances climbed even though borrowers made monthly required payments on IDR plans. Echoing concerns and statements the Department heard in public comments prior to the formation of the negotiated rulemaking committee and during the public comment periods held on most days the negotiated rulemaking committee met, borrowers have reported that growing balances while in repayment can lead to negative psychological impacts on borrowers who are attempting to repay their debt but are unable to, including that they lose hope and motivation to repay their debt. [ 12 ]

Additionally, while the Department has eliminated all non-statutorily required instances of interest capitalization, borrowers today owe higher balances from previous instances of interest capitalization. Interest capitalization can significantly increase what a borrower owes and extend the time it takes to repay their loans. The Department is concerned that such instances are harmful to the borrower and should therefore be corrected retroactively by waiving the borrower's obligation to pay such interest accrual after a borrower has entered repayment. ( print page 27572)

While the Department has addressed the issue of balance growth for those in IDR going forward, there are borrowers who have spent time in repayment prior to the implementation of these changes who have experienced the balance of their loans grow such that their loan balances are now greater than what they originally borrowed. The persistence of those situations is a problem the Department seeks to address. Recent focus group reports and extensive borrower testimony have shown that growing loan balances lead to both financial and psychological challenges to successful repayment by borrowers. [ 13 ] While borrowers who experienced balance growth have a way to prevent balance growth in the future, they still must overcome the consequences of this past balance growth.

Because the Department has taken steps to address the problem of excess interest accrual and capitalization going forward, this provision would only be applied once per a borrower's loans to eliminate balance growth for all but the highest income borrowers enrolled in an IDR plan, allowing those who experienced this situation to successfully make progress on repaying their debts. Providing targeted relief in this manner would be consistent with the general principles of Federal debt collection, which permit agencies to provide relief to borrowers when there is evidence the agency would not otherwise be able to collect the debt in full within a reasonable time. [ 14 ]

The Department proposes to provide the benefits in § 30.81 only to borrowers enrolled in IDR plans for both operational and administrative reasons. First, borrowers in IDR plans have demonstrated their concern that they cannot repay their loans on the standard repayment timeline, making them an important group for the Department to consider for relief. Second, until the creation of the SAVE plan, borrowers on IDR plans frequently experienced balance growth from accruing interest, which this policy seeks to address. Specifically, the nature of the IDR plans' lower monthly payments meant borrowers' payments often did not cover monthly interest. Borrowers in the past who did not recertify their income could also be removed from an IDR plan at which point any unpaid interest would be capitalized. For both reasons, it is reasonable for the Department to focus its resources on providing relief to borrowers on IDR plans to address the current negative effects of prior interest accumulation and potentially capitalization. In addition, administrative considerations weigh in favor of limiting the policy to borrowers in IDR because the Department has data that will allow it to verify that borrowers fall below the income cap.

The Department proposes to limit this benefit to borrowers with income below certain levels to benefit only borrowers for whom their past instances of balance growth may have a greater possible negative effect on their ability to repay their debts in the future. The SAVE plan's interest benefit works in a similar manner. As a borrower's income rises, their payment covers a greater amount of accumulating monthly interest. Eventually, for any given debt level there is an income amount at which a borrower's payment will equal or exceed accumulating monthly interest. At that point, the borrower does not derive any assistance from the SAVE plan's interest benefit.

The Department proposes to limit the benefit in this section to borrowers whose incomes are at or below a certain threshold. To determine this threshold, the Department looked at the income level at which a borrower in a single-person household would have a calculated payment on the SAVE plan that is sufficient to pay off all the interest accumulating on a monthly basis if their debt level was equal to $138,000 which is the maximum amount of Federal loans a borrower can take out for undergraduate and graduate education without taking out any PLUS loans. We exclude amounts related to PLUS loans because they do not have an absolute dollar loan limit, as they can be obtained for up to the total cost of attendance, less other aid received.

Because of the lack of an absolute dollar loan limit, there are some borrowers who have debts that are much higher than the debt loads of the overwhelming majority of borrowers. We do not think it was reasonable to anchor to such outlier amounts, and we therefore take the conservative approach of not including these dollar amounts. However, typical balances for Parent PLUS and Graduate PLUS loans are well below the amounts contemplated here. [ 15 ] Using a value of $138,500 is inclusive of over 95 percent of loan balances in repayment. Furthermore, Parent PLUS borrowers are only eligible for an IDR plan if the borrower has repaid those Parent PLUS loans through consolidation.

We calculated income thresholds for waiver eligibility in the following way: First, we assumed that a borrower had a total balance equal to the maximum non-PLUS amount that a borrower can receive for undergraduate and graduate education, which is $138,500. We then assumed that a borrower received the maximum amount of loans for an undergraduate dependent student ($31,000) and the remainder for graduate school ($107,500). We did this calculation off a dependent undergraduate maximum because those are the more common types of student loan borrowers, and it allows undergraduate loans to make up a smaller share of the total amount borrowed. If the independent undergraduate limit were used, the SAVE payment amount would decrease due to the increased share of undergraduate loans. Using independent limits would produce an unfair income amount for dependent borrowers, while independent students are not harmed by using the dependent limit. In order to determine the interest rate to use for this analysis we assigned the unweighted average interest rate charged on undergraduate loans from the 2013-14 award year through the 2023-24 award year to the undergraduate loans and the equivalent graduate loan rate for the non-PLUS graduate loans. We used this period to generate an average interest rate because prior to 2013-14 there were different rates charged on subsidized versus unsubsidized loans. This produced averages of 4.3 percent for undergraduate loans and 5.87 percent for graduate loans. We then weighted these interest rates by the share of the balance owed for undergraduate and graduate school. This resulted in an interest rate of 5.52 percent. Next, we used the balance amount and the interest rate to calculate the amount of interest that would accumulate on $138,500 at a 5.52 percent interest rate in one month. That amount is $637.10.

We then calculated the income that a single person would need to earn to have a monthly payment on SAVE equal to $637.10. In doing this, we used the ( print page 27573) 2024 Federal Poverty Guideline (FPL) amount of $15,060. Using those data, we calculated that a single person who owes the maximum non-PLUS amount would have to make more than $119,971 to cease receiving an interest benefit on SAVE. We then rounded that amount to the nearest $1,000, which yields a threshold of $120,000.

The Department proposes to use a threshold of $120,000 for borrowers whose tax filing status is single. We propose to adopt the same threshold for married-filing-separately taxpayers, mimicking many rules in the Internal Revenue Code that treat the two filing statuses similarly. For example, the basic standard deduction for single and married-filing-separate filers is the same. We propose to use $180,000 for a borrower whose filing status is head of household, which mimics the treatment under the Internal Revenue Code, in which the standard deduction is one-and-a-half times what is used for a single-person household (subject to rounding rules). We propose to use two times the amount for a single-person household—$240,000 for borrowers whose status is married filing jointly or qualifying surviving spouse. This too mirrors how the Internal Revenue Code handles the standard deduction for these filing statuses relative to someone whose filing status is single.

The Department acknowledges that this approach to establishing income thresholds for filing statuses besides single or married filing separately is different from how we calculate payments on IDR plans. For IDR plans, we adjust payments for larger households by using some multiplier of the Federal Poverty Guidelines based upon the size of the household. The result is that a two-person household does not have double the amount of income protected that a single-person household has. We think taking a different approach here is warranted for several reasons. The consideration under IDR plans is about ensuring borrowers have enough money set aside to cover their monthly key obligations, such as food and housing. Those items have economies of scale, which can be reflected in the household size adjustment. For instance, a two-person household may be sharing one bedroom, meaning the per-person household cost is not simply double that for a single person. By contrast, this waiver is an action that would occur once per borrower and is not focused on their monthly payment amount. Moreover, because this waiver is concerned with balance growth borrowers have experienced during their time since entering repayment, it is possible that some of this growth would have occurred before borrowers married, had children, or otherwise grew their household size. For instance, the median age at repayment entry for borrowers is about 25, while the typical age of first marriage is about 30 for men and 29 for women. [ 16 ]

The Department is not proposing to amend the regulations for SAVE in this NPRM and will not consider comments related to adjusting the payment calculations on SAVE in response to this NPRM.

Borrowers whose income exceeds these thresholds would not receive a waiver under this provision but could have the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which their balance upon entering repayment exceeds their current outstanding balance waived under § 30.82.

The Department's overall goal with this provision is to only address balance growth that occurred after a borrower entered repayment. We do not propose to address interest that accumulated before a borrower first entered repayment, which, prior to July 1, 2023, was capitalized on their balance at the end of the grace period. The accumulation of interest while a borrower is in school is a statutory component of Federal Student Loans. [ 17 ] However, the Department faces certain data limitations that make it impossible to accurately ascertain the balance upon entering repayment for loans disbursed before January 1, 2005. For those loans, data regarding the balance upon the end of the grace period is not stored in the Department's records. We are concerned that attempts to approximate that amount may not be accurate and could result in either providing too much or too little assistance to borrowers. Accordingly, this provision would provide differential treatment for loans based upon whether they were disbursed before or after the date by which the Department can accurately assess the balance owed upon repayment entry. For loans disbursed after January 1, 2005, we would measure the original balance based upon the last day of a borrower's grace period, so that no interest that accumulated prior to entering repayment is included. For loans disbursed before that date, the Department would use the original disbursed balance of the loan due to operational limitations. Because the Department does not have a valid and reliable data point for balance at repayment entry for borrowers with these older loans, we think the balance at disbursement is the best available data to use for loans disbursed before January 1, 2005. This would be used only for borrowers whose loans are 20 or more years old, which also means that the vast majority of loans that are that old and are still outstanding belong to borrowers who have had long-term struggles repaying. For instance, Department data in the RIA that accompanies this NPRM show that 83 percent of borrowers whose loans are at least 20 (undergraduate debt) or 25 (graduate debt) years old have previously experienced a default. Moreover, to the extent borrowers with these older loans had subsidized loans, they would not have seen interest accumulate before entering repayment on those loans. These dates properly balance the policy goals of not waiving interest prior to repayment entry with the operational reality of using the best available data. Because the January 1, 2005, disbursement date creates a clear dividing line that establishes two groups of borrowers, one with loans disbursed before January 1, 2005, and another with loans disbursed after that date, if either element of this provision were invalidated by a reviewing court, the element that stayed in effect would continue to provide important relief to borrowers.

The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed § 30.81.

§ 30.82 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment.

Proposed Regulations: Proposed § 30.82 would provide that the Secretary may waive the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which a borrower's loans have a total outstanding balance that exceeds the balance owed upon entering repayment, for loans disbursed before January 1, 2005, the balance of the loans on the day after the grace period for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005, or the total original principal balance of all loans repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan. A borrower who has received a waiver under § 30.81 would not be eligible for a waiver under this provision. ( print page 27574)

Reasons: Proposed § 30.82 would provide one-time relief to borrowers who experienced balance growth. While the Department has taken steps to address the harms of balance growth and interest capitalization going forward, the recent changes do not address past instances of balance growth that have resulted in some borrowers owing more than they originally did when they entered repayment. As explained, this balance growth adversely affects a borrower's ability to pay off their loans in full within a reasonable period. We are also concerned that growing balances while in repayment may lead to negative psychological impacts on borrowers who are attempting to repay their debt but are unable to do so.

There are several reasons why a borrower may have seen their loan balance grow beyond what it was when they entered repayment. They may have spent time in deferments and forbearances during which interest accumulated on their loans. This includes both deferments for unemployment or economic hardship, as well as deferments and forbearances related to military service. Borrowers may also have seen their balances grow if they previously spent time on an IDR plan during which their income-based payment amounts were not sufficient to repay all the monthly accumulating interest. Borrowers may also have spent time in which they were not repaying their loans, including periods of delinquency and in default.

Borrowers who accumulated outstanding unpaid interest also may have experienced interest capitalization events, such as after a forbearance ends or after they left an IDR plan, in which outstanding interest was added onto the loan's principal balance. Once capitalization occurs, borrowers then pay interest that is calculated off that higher principal balance, increasing the total amount of interest they need to repay.

The Department took steps in recent years to avoid balance growth and in particular to decrease the instances in which borrowers see their unpaid interest capitalize. Specifically, the Department has recently taken action to end interest capitalization where it is not required by statute as well as to create an interest benefit under the SAVE plan wherein the borrower is not charged for the remaining interest after a payment is applied. Providing relief through § 30.82 allows the Department to address the current and ongoing issues for borrowers caused by this past balance growth.

The Department proposes to make the benefits of § 30.82 available to all borrowers because we are concerned about the negative effects of balance growth regardless of borrowers' past repayment history or circumstances. While we have proposed a separate provision in § 30.81 that would provide relief for borrowers who are on an IDR plan and have incomes below certain levels, the Department sees §§ 30.81 and 30.82 as provisions that can operate in a separate and distinct manner from each other. Therefore, in developing the parameters for this provision, the Department considered the optimal structure for this provision as a standalone benefit. The only interplay between this provision and § 30.81 is the proposed limitation in § 30.82(b) that a borrower may not receive relief to address balance growth under both provisions because the Department intends to provide one-time relief from balance growth for a borrower if the Secretary exercises his discretion to grant such relief through this provision.

The Department believes it is important to provide a benefit under § 30.82 that is available to all borrowers. An automatic and universal approach is the simplest to administer and also avoids problems commonly seen by the Department with application-based benefits in which the borrowers who would most benefit from the relief fail to apply. The JP Morgan Chase Institute found in 2022 that there are two borrowers who could benefit from IDR for every one that is enrolled. [ 18 ] Similarly, the U.S. Department of the Treasury found that 70 percent of borrowers who were in default in 2012 would have benefitted from a reduced payment of an IDR plan at the time. [ 19 ] Providing this benefit on a broadly applicable, automatic basis would allow us to reach all borrowers who face the adverse effects of balance growth and would create a streamlined process.

However, because the Department would provide a universal benefit, we do not believe it would be appropriate to provide uncapped relief. In particular, there are borrowers who have experienced amounts of balance growth significantly higher than all other borrowers who have seen their balances grow. The Department is concerned that waiving those excessive amounts of balance growth would provide unnecessary windfall benefits in which there would be significant costs incurred to help a relatively small number of borrowers.

We propose capping the amount of relief at $20,000 for a borrower which would strike the balance between granting a level of benefits that would provide assistance to borrowers while not granting windfall amounts of relief. This $20,000 amount represents the 90th percentile of the amount by which balances exceed what borrowers originally owed upon entering repayment. This amount is informed by using a statistical approach to identify excess balance values that are dissimilar to most other values. There are several common ways of defining outliers in a distribution, and we use a process here that uses multiples of the interquartile range, referred to as a “fence.”  [ 20 ] The upper inner fence is commonly defined as the 75th percentile value plus the interquartile range multiplied by 1.5. In Department data, the inner fence is about $18,500, which we round up to $20,000 to create a simpler value to understand.

A cap on relief under this provision also acknowledges that generally borrowers must have larger loan balances in order to experience greater amounts of balance growth, and that typically borrowers with larger loan balances have greater earnings potential than those with lower loan balances.

Examples highlight the connection between loan balance amounts and the potential for balance growth. Consider a borrower who owes $9,500 at an interest rate of 4.32 percent, the maximum amount of debt an undergraduate student can take out in a single year and the average interest rate for undergraduate loans over the last 11 years. If they did not make a single payment for 10 years their balance would grow by $4,104. By contrast, a borrower who owes $150,000 all in graduate loans at an interest rate of 5.87 percent (the average graduate rate over the last 11 years), would see their balance grow by $88,050 if they did not make a payment over 10 years. Therefore, among two otherwise similarly situated borrowers, the borrowers who owe more, particularly in graduate loans, will see their balance grow faster.

Borrowers with very high balances tend to have higher incomes than do lower-balance borrowers. That may be because many higher-balance borrowers ( print page 27575) accumulated some or most of their debt from graduate school, and among college-educated individuals, those with a graduate degree generally have higher wages than those with only an undergraduate credential or without any credential at all. [ 21 ] A higher earning borrower may not only have a greater ability to pay off their debt in full in a reasonable period, there is also a greater likelihood that they may be on an earnings trajectory in which their initial earnings start out lower and then increase over time. For instance, many health care professions start with lower wages until the individual completes their residency. This earnings growth phenomenon is something the Department has acknowledged in other contexts, such as in the Financial Value Transparency and GE final regulations in which the Department proposes to assess the earnings of graduates from certain programs from the period six or seven years after completion instead of the standard three or four years used for most other program types. Based upon the proposed cap of $20,000 on balance growth, we looked at data on borrowers who experienced balance growth to try to understand any points where borrowers who would receive relief beyond that cap amount appear to have a greater likelihood of showing their ability to repay their debt. This analysis included looking at factors such as the share of borrowers with loans from graduate school, the rate at which borrowers received Pell Grants, and whether students had past evidence of default. While the Department does not have data on borrower incomes, we imputed income for borrowers based on individuals with similar demographic and educational characteristics from Census data. This procedure is imperfect, but we believe it provides a reasonable approximation of income. We found that borrowers who had less than $20,000 of excess balance were less likely to have gone to graduate school and have a lower imputed income. They were also more likely to have received a Pell Grant or to have experienced student loan default. This further confirmed our belief that preventing windfall amounts of relief also helped make this provision better targeted.

The Department specifically invites feedback from the public on the approaches considered here. In particular, we are interested in comments on whether to consider a higher or lower cap on the amount of balance growth that could be waived and on the rationales for choosing such caps. We also welcome feedback on whether there should be separate waiver policies to consider unique circumstances of different groups of borrowers and how they might be affected by balance growth. Such groups, for example, could recognize the effect of balance growth as being different for parent borrowers versus student borrowers because the former have less access to IDR plans and as a result have less of an ability to have balances forgiven after a certain period in repayment.

The different dates for measuring the original balance in § 30.82(a) reflect data limitations the Department faces in accurately calculating the right balance to use as a baseline. These data limitations are explained in the discussion of reasons for § 30.81.

During the third negotiated rulemaking session, the Department proposed two regulatory sections that are similar to proposed § 30.82. The Committee did not reach consensus on these proposed sections.

§ 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first entered repayment.

Proposed Regulations: Proposed § 30.83(a)(1) specifies the conditions under which the Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of Federal student loans received for the borrower's undergraduate study.

Under this proposed rule, borrowers would have their outstanding balances waived only for loans that were received for undergraduate study or Direct Consolidation Loans that repaid only loans that were obtained for undergraduate study, and which first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2005. Proposed § 30.83(a)(2) describes the conditions under which the Secretary may grant waivers on outstanding balances of Federal student loans other than those loans that were received for undergraduate study, and first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000.

Proposed § 30.83(b) specifies how the Department would calculate the date when a loan originally entered repayment. For a loan that is not a PLUS loan or a consolidation loan, the Department would use the day after the loan's initial grace period ends. For PLUS loans made to either a parent or a graduate or professional student, the Department would use the date the loan is fully disbursed. For a Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan made prior to July 1, 2023, the Department would consider the earliest date a loan repaid by the consolidation loan had the following occur:

• For a non-PLUS, non-consolidation loan, the day after its initial grace period ended,
• For a PLUS loan to a graduate or professional student or a parent, the date the loan was disbursed.

For a Direct Consolidation Loan made on or after July 1, 2023, the date for measuring repayment entry would be based upon the latest day a loan repaid by the consolidation loan had its initial grace period end or was fully disbursed.

Reasons: The standard repayment plan that acts as the default option for borrowers provides a repayment schedule of 120 monthly installments of fixed amounts, the equivalent of 10 years. [ 22 ] Similarly, the income contingent repayment authority provides that borrowers repay over an extended period, but such repayment period is not to exceed 25 years. [ 23 ] More recently, the IBR plan provides that a borrower's repayment term ends when they reach the equivalent of 20 or 25 years of monthly payments, depending on when they first took out loans. [ 24 ]

The Department is concerned that despite the presence of ways for repayment to end, too many borrowers end up owing loans for years, if not decades, longer than the repayment plans generally require. In estimates presented later in the RIA, millions of borrowers have been in repayment for over 20 or 25 years. [ 25 ] The Department ( print page 27576) is particularly concerned that when loans persist for this long, they are unlikely to be repaid in a reasonable period of time. In recognition of this problem, Congress and the Department have made several statutory and regulatory changes to the student loan program so that borrowers can fully repay their debt within a reasonable time. However, borrowers who took out loans prior to the creation of these changes spent years or decades without the generous benefits that exist today and, as a result, may have faced more repayment challenges and be less likely to retire their debts within a reasonable time. The Department has already taken some steps to address this concern through the payment count adjustment. In that situation, the Department was concerned that because of inaccurate recordkeeping, borrowers may not have received appropriate credit toward forgiveness on IDR plans that they had earned. We were also worried about incorrect application of policies designed to limit repeated use of forbearances or properly tracking which deferments are supposed to count toward forgiveness. To that end, we credit all months a borrower spent in a repayment status, plus any months during which a borrower spent 12 consecutive or 36 cumulative months in a forbearance, and any deferments besides being in-school prior to 2013. We also do not reset progress toward forgiveness based upon loan consolidation. While the payment count adjustment provides important assistance, it does not capture the full set of circumstances in which a borrower may struggle to accrue time to forgiveness. This includes time spent in default and time spent in forbearance that does not meet the criteria of the payment count adjustment.

The Department views proposed § 30.83 as providing a waiver to borrowers who have had their loans for such an extended period that they are unlikely to fully repay within a reasonable period.

In drafting § 30.83, the Department has proposed to adopt several parameters to mirror the existing IDR plans. For instance, we would use debt relief thresholds of 20 or 25 years because those are the same periods available on IDR plans. We propose applying this provision to loans that entered repayment on or before July 1, 2005 for borrowers who do not have any graduate loans because these borrowers will have been in repayment for all or part of 20 calendar years or more when the regulation is implemented; and we propose applying this provision to loans that entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000 for borrowers who have any graduate loans because these borrowers will have been in repayment for all or part of 25 calendar years when this provision is implemented. We also elected to use the differential treatment of undergraduate and graduate borrowers that exists in SAVE and was carried over from the since-replaced Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) plan. The Department further believes after reviewing information identified in FSA's Enterprise Data Warehouse, that the differential treatment for undergraduate versus graduate loans is reasonable because Department data show that undergraduate borrowers go into delinquency or default at significantly higher rates than graduate borrowers. According to these data, 90 percent of borrowers who are in default on their loans had only taken out loans for their undergraduate education. By contrast, only 1 percent of borrowers who are in default only had graduate loans.

In proposing this treatment of loans that entered repayment a long time ago, the Department would not adopt the terms for a shortened period until forgiveness that is included in SAVE. That provision allows borrowers to receive forgiveness after as few as 120 payments if their original principal balance was $12,000 or less. The Department does not think it is appropriate to adopt that threshold here because this timeline is only available under the SAVE plan. By contrast, the goal of § 30.83 is to address situations where borrowers have been unable to fully repay in a reasonable time and have not even been able to repay in full over an extended period. This extended period is consistent with the forgiveness timelines on other IDR plans, which provide repayment terms of up to 20 or 25 years.

The Department also proposes to include language in § 30.83(b) explaining how we would determine the date of repayment entry in several different situations. For loans that are not PLUS loans or consolidation loans, we propose to use the date after the final day of a loan's grace period. That is the most intuitive date associated with what it means to enter repayment. For PLUS loans made to either a parent or a graduate or professional student we propose using the day the loan is fully disbursed. This recognizes that PLUS loans have multiple options for when borrowers enter repayment. Since 2008, parent borrowers have had the option to defer repayment entry until after the dependent undergraduate leaves school. But not all choose to do this, and some parents choose to enter repayment right away, in which case their repayment entry date is the same as the disbursement date. Similarly, graduate borrowers have the option to decline their in-school deferment. Using the date of disbursement is therefore a consistent treatment of PLUS loans regardless of whether the borrower elected to go into repayment right away.

The Department proposes a simpler solution for picking the date to assign for repayment entry for a consolidation loan. We are concerned that simply counting the date of the consolidation loan's disbursement would be unfair to borrowers because it could result in erasing years of time since repayment entry for borrowers, unwittingly. The Department has addressed concerns about a full reset of forgiveness clocks through consolidation in recent regulations on IDR and PSLF and maintains that concern here. In those circumstances we have addressed that issue through using a weighted average of the underlying loans. [ 26 ] Instead, for this regulation we propose an approach that is simpler to administer and clearer to understand. For consolidation loans made before July 1, 2023, we propose using the earliest date that any loan that was repaid by a consolidation loan ended its initial grace period or was disbursed in the case of a PLUS loan. We propose this date of July 1, 2023, because it was the day after the Department announced this rulemaking in a press release and there was no way a borrower could have known to consolidate and receive this benefit. [ 27 ] As such, borrowers could not have engaged in any strategic consolidation to receive this benefit before July 1, 2023. For consolidation loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2023, we propose to instead use the latest date that any loan repaid by the consolidation ended its initial grace period, or in the case of a PLUS loan was disbursed. By establishing these different thresholds, a borrower's repayment progress will not fully reset when a borrower consolidates loans on which a borrower had previously made payments. In addition, ( print page 27577) this also makes certain that a borrower could not consolidate after the Department announced this proposal in order to receive a waiver of newer loans alongside older ones. We have determined that this approach is more operationally feasible and carries a lower risk of errors.

During negotiated rulemaking, the Department proposed only waiving loans that first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago at the time we would implement this section. Negotiators and public commenters raised significant concerns about how such an approach would create a “cliff effect” in which a borrower who falls just a month or two short of 20 or 25 years would not be eligible for a waiver, despite facing significant financial burden of student loan debt over time and facing many of the same repayment challenges as those borrowers eligible for relief under this provision.

The Department understands the concerns raised by negotiators and members of the public about the challenges with operating this policy only once. At the same time, however, the Department is concerned that an ongoing policy would not recognize how the Department has taken steps to address many repayment challenges on a going-forward basis by introducing several IDR plans, including the new SAVE plan, which should make it substantially easier going forward for borrowers to make payments that qualify for forgiveness. We have not yet identified a solution to this issue that would still encourage borrowers who have not yet reached forgiveness to continue making required payments until they reach the 20- or 25-year mark. And for any solution for this cliff, we would need a way to appropriately model the likelihood that a borrower does take necessary steps in the future to be eligible for relief under this approach so that we can assign it the proper estimated cost in the net budget impact.

Given the considerations outlined above and in light of the changes the Department has made under recent IDR plans, we invite feedback from the public about how to acknowledge and address the repayment challenges of borrowers who entered repayment a long time ago, but not long enough to immediately qualify under this provision, and who are unlikely to repay their loan in full in a reasonable period. We also invite feedback on how to determine the likelihood that any borrower who does not yet reach forgiveness under the proposed policy would qualify for forgiveness under any suggested alternative one. For example, if the Department were to award credit toward forgiveness timelines for all months since entering repayment up until July 2024 (when all of SAVE's provisions become effective), and a borrower first entered repayment at least 15 years ago, what standards are appropriate for determining whether the borrower reaches the 20- or 25-year threshold in light of the Department's recent steps to fix repayment challenges through SAVE? In addition, how would the Department determine the likelihood that such borrower ultimately takes necessary steps to reach a 20 or 25-year forgiveness threshold under the proposed standard?

The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed § 30.83.

§ 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon repayment plan.

Proposed Regulations: Proposed § 30.84 would specify that the Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan for borrowers who are otherwise eligible for forgiveness under an IBR plan, Income-contingent Repayment (ICR) plan, or an alternative repayment plan but are not currently enrolled in the plan where they could receive forgiveness. The amount of the waiver would be the same as what the borrower would receive under the applicable IDR plan. Currently borrowers who are repaying their loans under an IDR plan must meet the eligibility requirements to enroll and qualify for forgiveness of their Federal student debt. Under all IDR plans, any remaining loan balance is forgiven if their loans are not fully repaid at the end of the repayment period.

Reasons: Congress and the Department have provided borrowers with various income-based repayment plan options over time. The Department currently offers four IDR plans: the IBR plan, ICR plan, Pay as You Earn Repayment (PAYE) plan, and the new SAVE plan that replaced the former REPAYE plan. For purposes of this NPRM we refer to IBR, ICR, PAYE, SAVE, and REPAYE collectively as IDR plans.

The HEA sets forth the requirements for borrowers to receive relief under the terms of the various IDR plans. For both ICR and IBR, a borrower may receive relief as long as they have accumulated the requisite amount of time making qualified payments or being in a qualified deferment. [ 28 ] The HEA does not require these qualifying payments or deferments to occur while the borrower is enrolled in an ICR plan to receive relief under ICR, [ 29 ] nor must they occur while a borrower is on an IBR plan to receive relief under IBR. [ 30 ] Rather, the HEA permits borrowers to receive relief under these plans so long as the borrower participates in them at some point after such qualifying payments or deferments have occurred. [ 31 ] While the HEA's ICR and IBR provisions do specify steps and procedures for obtaining a borrower's income information to calculate reduced payments under these plans, there is no requirement that borrowers provide such information as a condition of receiving relief. Instead, the HEA leaves the specific details of how to operationalize the procedures for enrolling in IDR plans up to the Secretary. Under this proposed provision, the Secretary would use information within the Department's possession to identify borrowers already eligible for relief and provide them with the opportunity to enroll in the IDR plan by choosing not to opt-out of receiving a waiver.

Such waivers would benefit many borrowers because the Department's current IDR regulations require borrowers to apply to enroll in IDR plans. [ 32 ] Unfortunately, Department experience and independent research shows that there have been persistent challenges getting borrowers who would benefit from IDR plans to enroll in them. [ 33 ] And when borrowers do enroll, large shares of them fail to successfully recertify and stay enrolled. For example, one study by the JP Morgan Chase Institute found that for every borrower enrolled in IDR there are two others who would benefit from such a plan but ( print page 27578) are not enrolled. [ 34 ] Similarly, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that many borrowers were unaware of the new SAVE plan, especially among borrower groups who were most likely to benefit from it, and potential beneficiaries remained uncertain even after learning about plan features and benefits. [ 35 ]

The Department is concerned that its past practices of administering IDR plans have made it too challenging for borrowers to successfully navigate these processes. The result has been borrowers struggling to figure out which IDR plan is best, determine whether they are eligible, and then submit an application. [ 36 ]

Under the Department's current regulations, borrowers must also re-enroll in the IDR plan each year and risk being removed from the plan if they fail to recertify their participation in a timely basis. The Department has taken many steps in recent years to address this problem. We created the SAVE plan, which addresses many of the issues that borrowers experienced in other IDR plans. We also are implementing a regulatory change  [ 37 ] that makes it possible for borrowers to automatically recertify their IDR enrollment by providing approval for the disclosure of their Federal tax information.

The Department is also concerned about how past challenges with administering IDR plans may have exacerbated these issues for borrowers with older loans. In April 2022, the Department announced it was taking executive action to address concerns about a lack of consistent tracking of borrower progress toward forgiveness and improper implementation of policies designed to limit the use of extended time in forbearances. [ 38 ] Through that process we have identified and provided relief to hundreds of thousands of borrowers who were eligible for IDR forgiveness but had not enrolled. Simultaneously, the Department put in place processes to fix these issues going forward, including giving borrowers a clear count of their progress toward forgiveness and addressing the use of forbearances. However, we are concerned that there is still a group of borrowers who did not reach forgiveness through the payment count adjustment and who are not so new to borrowing that all their time in repayment would be covered by these improvements. In particular, these would be borrowers who are eligible for the forgiveness benefits under the SAVE plan, which provides forgiveness after as few as 120 months (10 years) in repayment for borrowers who originally took out $12,000 or less. Keeping borrowers such as these in the repayment system when they could receive a discharge immediately creates costs for the Department because we have to continue to pay servicers to manage these loans.

The Department proposes applying this section to borrowers repaying under all types of IDR plans, including those created under the income-contingent repayment authority and IBR, and the alternative plan. We include the alternative plan as well because that plan contains an option to provide borrowers forgiveness after a set period of time, even if they have not paid off the full balance. In that regard it is similar to IDR plans. By contrast, other payment plans do not provide forgiveness and so are not appropriate to include in this section.

In applying this waiver, the Secretary would provide borrowers with relief identical to what they would have otherwise received on the relevant IDR plan. They are not receiving benefits any larger than they otherwise would have if they successfully navigated the enrollment or re-enrollment process.

The non-Federal negotiators supported the Department's proposal to waive the outstanding balance of loans and encouraged the Department to automate the process and expedite the approval and debt relief as much as possible.

The Committee reached consensus on proposed § 30.84.

§ 30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness opportunity.

Proposed Regulations: Proposed § 30.85 would provide that the Secretary may waive up to the entire outstanding balance of a loan where the Secretary determines that a borrower has not successfully applied for, but otherwise meets, the eligibility requirements for any other loan discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness program under 34 CFR parts 682 or 685 . This includes opportunities such as false certification discharge, closed school loan discharges, and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).

The proposed regulations also specify that if a borrower has a Direct Consolidation Loan or a Federal Consolidation Loan where only part of it would meet the criteria of this section that the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan.

Reasons: The HEA outlines several opportunities for borrowers in the Direct or FFEL Programs to receive Federal student loan forgiveness in certain situations if the borrower meets the eligibility requirements. For both loan types, this includes forgiveness when a borrower is enrolled at a school that closes, if they have a total and permanent disability, or have a loan that has been falsely certified. Direct Loan borrowers are also eligible for PSLF.

The Department has historically seen many situations where borrowers do not successfully apply for available relief when they are eligible. For example, in August 2021, the Department issued a final rule that provided automatic forgiveness for borrowers who were identified as eligible for a total and permanent disability discharge through a data match with the Social Security Administration. [ 39 ] The Department had been using such a match for years to identify eligible borrowers but required them to opt in to receive relief. After switching to an opt out model, we have provided relief to more than 350,000 borrowers, showing that a default of inclusion helps these programs to reach the people who need them. Absent this action it is possible many of these borrowers would still have loans today. Similarly, GAO studies of closed school loan discharges have found that many borrowers eligible for a closed school loan discharge fail to apply, and that those who in the past received automatic closed school loan discharges after a three-year waiting period were ( print page 27579) highly likely to default during the waiting period. [ 40 ]

The waivers proposed in this section would build on efforts made by the Department over the past several years to improve regulations for existing discharge programs to allow the Secretary to award borrowers relief under different programs if we determine that they otherwise meet the criteria. Beyond the regulatory programs to automatically provide discharges to eligible borrowers, the Secretary may have or obtain information showing that additional borrowers are or should be eligible for relief on their loans. For example, borrowers whose schools closed while they were enrolled outside of the time periods that the Department provided automatic relief would nonetheless be eligible for this relief if they applied. By giving these borrowers an opportunity to obtain the relief intended for them by choosing not to opt out, this rule would make that relief available in a fairer manner that lessens the burdens on borrowers. Although schools can be liable for relief provided based on the closed school discharge regulation, schools would not face a liability for waivers granted under this section. Because the Secretary would have waived the amounts owed by the borrower there is no liability that could then be established against the institution and then pursued through administrative proceedings.

It is possible that a borrower whose loans have been consolidated could have some of the loans repaid by the consolidation that are eligible for a waiver and some that would not be. For example, a borrower could have loans from one school that are eligible for a closed school loan discharge and other loans that are not. In such situations the Department would waive repayment of the portion of the consolidation loan attributable to that loan repaid by the consolidation loan that is eligible for the waiver.

Overall, the Department believes that this waiver will provide additional flexibility and help get relief to more borrowers who are eligible for Federal student loan forgiveness.

One non-Federal negotiator opposed this proposed regulation. The negotiator stated concerns for other borrowers who are already eligible for Federal student loan discharges who would be treated differently under the waiver authority and may lose other benefits currently provided by existing Federal student loan discharge programs. This same negotiator provided an example of a borrower who may face tax consequences if they receive this benefit under the waiver instead of utilizing other discharge programs where such a discharge would be statutorily excluded from being considered taxable income. By law, there is no Federal taxation on Federal student loans forgiven by the Department through the end of 2025. [ 41 ] Before any usage of this authority the Department would also consider whether a borrower is already eligible for a discharge under the existing forgiveness opportunity.

The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed § 30.85.

§ 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions.

Proposed Regulations: Under proposed § 30.86(a), the Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with attending an institution or a program at an institution if the Secretary or other authorized Department official took certain final agency actions. These final agency actions are: termination of the institution or academic program's participation in the title IV, HEA programs; a denial of the institution's request for recertification; or determination that the institution or program loses title IV eligibility. To qualify under this section, the final agency action must have been taken in whole or in part due to the institution or academic program failing to meet an accountability standard based on student outcomes for determining eligibility in the title IV, HEA programs or the Department determining that the institution or program failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students. Such situations that are evidence of failure to provide sufficient financial value include when the institution or program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities. Currently, proposed 30.86(a)(2) also includes the following language: “this paragraph applies to circumstances when the institution or program has lost accreditation at least in part due to such activities.” The intent of the consensus language was to clarify that the underlying finding that supports the Department's determination that an institution or program failed to deliver financial value under proposed § 30.86(a)(2) could be a finding made by the Department or it could be a finding made by an accreditor that terminated accreditation based at least in part on that finding. Since the Committee reached consensus on the language included in 30.86, the Department included it in these proposed regulations. However, the Department believes that this intent could be stated more clearly as: “The institution or program has failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students, including in situations where either (i) the Department has determined that the institution or program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities; or (ii) the Department has determined that the accrediting agency has terminated its accreditation based at least in part upon a finding that the institution or program has engaged in the activities described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.” The Department invites comments on this possible change.

Proposed § 30.86(b) would specify that the waiver applies to a borrower's loans received for attending that program or school during the period that corresponds with the findings or outcomes data unless the Department believes the use of a different period is appropriate. In the case of a Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, under proposed § 30.86(c) the Secretary would waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan received for attending that program or school during the period that corresponds with the findings or outcomes data.

Reasons: Conducting rigorous oversight and enforcing accountability measures are key functions for the Department. [ 42 ] Identifying situations in which institutions or programs are failing to meet requirements of the HEA and taking action to prevent the flow of future title IV aid dollars is an important way to solidify that taxpayer funds are well spent and to protect future borrowers and aid recipients from harm. ( print page 27580) However, while we take aggressive action to protect future borrowers and aid recipients, we often do not address loans held by borrowers who attended programs or institutions at the very time we observed the issues that led to the termination of future aid receipt. For example, a borrower who attended an institution that lost access to aid because of high CDRs, is still left to repay their loans, even as the Department takes steps to protect future borrowers from going into debt at those institutions.

This waiver would provide relief to borrowers who received loans to attend programs or institutions that lost access to title IV aid for specific agency actions if they took out loans during the period that generated the outcomes data that led to the aid termination or who attended during the period covered by evidence that was used to justify cutting off title IV aid into the future.

The Department believes waivers in this situation are appropriate because we think it is unfair to expect borrowers to continue repaying loans from a time when we know the issues at the institution or program were so significant that they warranted adverse Secretarial action. These are loans where we know the borrower is not getting the benefit of the bargain one should expect when they take out loans for postsecondary education or, in cases such as substantial misrepresentation, that the loans should not have been made in the first place.

Waivers of Federal student loan debt under proposed § 30.86 would only apply after a final agency action. That means the institution would have exhausted its administrative appeals for that final action. For example, if the Secretary denies an institution's request for recertification, that institution would still be afforded the opportunity to appeal that denial in accordance with 34 CFR part 668, subpart G and only until the institution exhausts its appeals options for the denial of the recertification—or indicates that it does not intend to appeal the decision—would the Department consider waiving affected borrowers' loan balances in accordance with this regulation. If an institution does not appeal a liability in a specific finding in a Final Program Review Determination (FPRD), the finding in that FPRD would be considered final. Relying only on final agency actions also means that instances in which the Secretary initiates an action and then does not finalize it due to a successful appeal would not be included. For example, if an institution successfully appeals a failing CDR and does not lose aid eligibility, borrowers who attended the institution would not be eligible for a waiver under this section.

The Department also recognizes that sometimes agency actions are ultimately resolved through settlements. We propose that settlements where there is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing would qualify as a final agency action under this section, while settlements that lack such an acknowledgment of wrongdoing would not. We believe this approach is appropriate because the proposed regulation applies if the Department determines the program or institution failed an accountability measure related to student outcomes or failed to provide sufficient financial value.

Institutions would also not be liable for the costs associated with any waivers granted under this section. Because this is an exercise of the Secretary's waiver authority there would not be a liability to seek against an institution. The one exception is for liabilities related to certain loans issued while an institution appeals or requests for an adjustment to its CDR. Liabilities for those amounts are discussed in § 668.206(f).

This waiver would be used only when the termination of the institution's title IV participation occurred for specific reasons. These fall into two categories. The first is the institution's failure of accountability standards based on student outcomes, namely those related to CDRs and Gainful Employment. This includes failures of those measures that occurred in the past when they resulted in loss of title IV eligibility. [ 43 ] The Department chose these types of measures because those are situations in which the Department directly measured the outcomes of borrowers in a specific cohort and found the results so lacking that aid could not continue.

An institution would have to fail its CDR or GE metrics enough times to warrant a final action from the Department and that failure would have to be sustained following any appeal options available to the institution or program.

This waiver would not apply to the failure of other metrics that are not directly tied to student outcomes. This includes the calculation of an institution's financial responsibility composite score prescribed in 34 CFR part 668, subpart L or f or proprietary institutions, their 90/10 non-Federal revenue calculation prescribed in 34 CFR 668.28 . These other performance standards are important but do not directly measure student outcomes.

The Department is not concerned that granting a waiver based upon student outcomes would create an incentive for future borrowers to willfully default on their loans or take other actions that could cause the program to fail the debt-to-earnings or earnings premium measures used in Gainful Employment. First, all these measures operate on the observed outcomes across either all borrowers who entered repayment or all those who received title IV aid and graduated. They also generally require measuring performance across multiple years. The lone exception to this being a one-year CDR in excess of 40 percent, which leads to a loss of loan eligibility. Intentionally failing the measure would require extremely coordinated activity across likely multiple years of students. Making such a situation further unlikely is the fact that the consequences of intentionally failing a measure with uncertain odds of success could be significant. Defaulting on a student loan has significant consequences. Borrowers can see their credit scores plummet and tax refunds seized. Regarding Gainful Employment metrics, borrowers would be having to settle for lower earnings, which has additional effects on their ability to afford basic necessities.

The second type of actions relate to situations where there is a determination that the institution or program failed to deliver sufficient financial value. We propose defining this as findings that an institution engaged in substantial misrepresentations or omissions of fact, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities. We chose these situations because those would be cases in which the institution engaged in behavior that affected the value of what a borrower received for their loans. For instance, if the Department terminates aid on a prospective basis because it finds that an institution had been consistently lying to borrowers about their ability to get jobs when in fact internal statistics showed that fewer than half of students obtained employment in the field in which they were being prepared then that is a sign that the borrower did not receive what they were promised. We would also waive repayment of the loans of borrowers who were included in those periods used to determine that the actual employment rates were far lower than what was promised. Waivers ( print page 27581) granted because of this section could also include circumstances where the Secretary terminates aid because an institution or program loses accreditation at least in part for the same type of reasons.

The Department recognizes that borrowers eligible for relief under this provision may also be eligible for relief under the Department's other discharge programs, such as borrower defense. As a general matter, the Department does not see a problem with providing overlapping pathways to relief. Such overlaps are not uncommon in the student loan system. For example, there have been many borrowers who have been eligible for both a closed school loan discharge and a borrower defense discharge. In such instances, the Department has opted to proceed with the most operationally efficient discharge since the borrower receives the same benefits under either option. Where possible, the Department intends to provide eligible borrowers relief through other existing discharge programs, such as borrower defense or closed school discharge. But the Department's experience is that there are some circumstances where a borrower may not receive relief under these discharges but meets the conditions of § 30.86(a)(2).

Waivers in this section would not be granted in response to every action the Department takes to terminate aid access at an institution. For instance, an institution that loses access to aid because of financial problems, solely because it closed, or other situations that do not speak to the returns received by students would not be captured here. Because those aid loss circumstances do not relate to the benefit received by borrowers, we do not think it is appropriate to include them here as a waiver. The Department would make the determination as to whether an action meets this requirement for each institution or program.

Final actions under proposed § 30.86 would include those sanctions in 34 CFR part 668, subparts G and H , other final actions stemming from an institution's loss of eligibility under 34 CFR part 600, subpart D , as well as other final action by the Department. As the Department explained during negotiated rulemaking sessions, these final actions are situations where the Secretary or other Departmental official has taken formal action to cease an institution or program's participation in the title IV, HEA programs on a prospective basis.

A non-Federal negotiator encouraged us to include an institution's loss of accreditation as a condition under which the Department could waive repayment of Federal student loan debt and another negotiator believed a more expansive general loss of title IV eligibility should be used as a basis for waiving repayment. The Department concurred and incorporated in § 30.86(a)(2), circumstances when the institution or program loses accreditation as a basis for waiving Federal student loan debt under this proposed section.

Under proposed § 30.86(b), the Department would apply this provision to a borrower's loans received for attending that institution or program during the period that corresponds with the findings or outcomes data that forms the basis for the final action for this waiver. For example, if an institution lost access to title IV aid due to CDRs in excess of the statutory limits for borrowers who entered repayment in 2016, 2017, and 2018, then we would waive repayment of the loans from that institution of borrowers who borrowed during that period. Similarly, if an institution lost access to aid because of substantial misrepresentations in a nursing program in 2023, then we would waive repayment of the loans of borrowers who took out loans for that program in that period of the final action.

Limiting this waiver only to borrowers whose enrollment overlaps during the corresponding period enables the scope of the findings or outcomes data to apply to similarly situated borrowers and provides consistent treatment to all affected borrowers. At the same time, the Department recognizes that there could be unique circumstances in which the period used for the Secretarial action does not fully capture the period during which the Department believes the actions covered by this section otherwise occurred. In such circumstances, proposed § 30.86(b), allows for the Secretary to designate an alternative period for determining a borrower's eligibility for a waiver. Examples of such considerations could be capturing additional years related to CDR failures where the Department has reason to believe an institution would have failed except for efforts to manipulate rates to keep them artificially low. Another instance might also be years that took place after an investigation that led to a Secretarial action and a school action started but the institution later closed making it infeasible for the Department to add the years after its investigation finished to be included in the period of identified conduct. For example, if the Department investigated an institution from 2020 to 2022 and finished the process of a Secretarial action in 2024, after which the school closed, the Secretary may choose to consider whether loans disbursed from 2023 and 2024 should also be considered under this provision.

Finally, the Department also concurred with a non-Federal negotiator who suggested we include an additional paragraph which states that if the conditions of the waiver are met and the loan was repaid by a consolidation loan that has an outstanding balance, the Department would waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan. We believe that it is logical to waive only the underlying loan that was part of a consolidation loan associated with the final action associated for this waiver. Borrowers who otherwise consolidated their loans would have a pathway toward this waiver and would not lose their opportunities for this waiver because of the consolidation.

The Committee reached consensus on proposed § 30.86.

§ 30.87 Waiver following a closure prior to Secretarial actions.

Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA ( 20 U.S.C. 1082(a) ) provides that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.

Proposed Regulations: Under proposed § 30.87(a)(1), the Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with attending an institution or a program at an institution if the institution or program closes and the Secretary or other authorized Department official has determined that, based on the most recent reliable data for an institution or program, the institution or program has not satisfied, for at least a year, an accountability standard based on student's outcomes for determining that institution or program's eligibility for title IV funds. Under proposed §§ 30.87(a)(2)(i) and (ii) the Secretary may also waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with attending a closed institution or a closed program at an institution if the institution or program failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students and is the subject of a Departmental action that remains unresolved at the time of that institution or program's closure, in whole or in part, on certain conduct specified in regulation.

Currently, proposed § 30.87(a)(2)(i) also includes the following language: “this paragraph applies to ( print page 27582) circumstances when the institution or program has lost accreditation at least in part due to such activities.” The intent of the consensus language was to clarify that the underlying finding that supports the Department's determination that an institution or program failed to deliver sufficient financial value under proposed § 30.87(a)(2)(i) could be a finding made by the Department or it could be a finding made by an accreditor that terminated accreditation based at least in part on that finding. Since the committee reached consensus on the language included in 30.87, the Department has included it in these proposed regulations. However, the Department believes that the intent could be stated more clearly as: “The institution or program has failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students, including in situations where either (A) the Department has determined that the institution or program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities; or (B) the Department has determined that the accrediting agency has terminated its accreditation based at least in part upon a finding that the institution or program has engaged in the activities described in (A).” The Department invites comments on this possible change.

Under proposed § 30.87(b), a waiver under this section would apply to a borrower's loans received for attending that institution or program during the period that corresponds with the findings or outcomes data. Proposed § 30.87(c) would provide that in the case of Federal Consolidation Loans and Direct Consolidation Loans, the Secretary would waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan received for attending that institution or program during the period that corresponds with the findings or outcomes data.

Institutions or programs that close where the Secretary determined that the institution or program has not satisfied an accountability standard based on student outcomes would include institutions that fail or failed to meet the CDR standards prescribed in 34 CFR part 668, subpart N and programs that do not lead to Gainful Employment prescribed in 34 CFR part 668, subpart S . An institution or program that failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students would include an institution or program that engaged in: substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or circumstances around loss of accreditation associated with such activities. The Department would predicate this determination through a program review, investigation, or any other action that remains unresolved at the time of closure and that action as based in whole or in part to the aforementioned misconduct.

Waivers of Federal student loan debt under proposed § 30.87 would apply to actions the Department has taken as soon as one year after the institution or program has not satisfied an accountability standard based on student outcomes. This provision would also apply to an institution or program failing to deliver sufficient financial value to students and was the subject to a program review, investigation, or any other Department action that remains unresolved at the time of closure and that action was based, in whole or in part, on such conduct.

Under these proposed regulations, we would not assess liabilities against the institution as a result of the Secretary waiving a borrower's Federal student loan debt. As such, institutions would not be subject to any request to repay funds waived under this provision.

Reasons: Similar to proposed § 30.86, the Department seeks to capture circumstances where an institution or program failed accountability standards based on student outcomes. The main difference between this provision and § 30.86 is that § 30.87 captures situations in which an institution or program chooses to close before the action becomes final and could be considered under § 30.86. The Department is proposing a separate section to address situations where an institution or program has closed because we have seen past situations where programs or institutions fail accountability measures and voluntarily close, and the closure leaves the Department with insufficient data to conduct a final agency action. The same is true of situations in which the Department begins an investigation or program review related to whether the institution or program is providing sufficient financial value, but the institution or program chooses to close before that investigation or program review is finished. When that occurs, the Department may not finish those processes. In the circumstances described above, the Department believes that it would be reasonable for the Secretary to infer that in the absence of additional data or completion of program review or investigation that the Department would have terminated aid access going forward and the borrower would be eligible for a waiver. In other words, we do not hold borrowers responsible for the Department's inability to obtain necessary additional information. Institutions and programs, meanwhile, are not affected by this inference because they have ceased participation in the title IV programs and would not face any liabilities from these waivers.

While § 30.87 is designed to provide parity with the waivers in § 30.86 so that a borrower is not made worse off because a school decided to close, this provision would not cover all borrowers enrolled at the school at the time of closure. Because the institution closed, borrowers who did not complete and were enrolled at or just before the date of closure would be eligible for a closed school discharge.

Some examples highlight the differences between § 30.86 and § 30.87 that necessitate a separate section. In general, institutions are subject to loss of eligibility to participate in the Direct Loan  [ 44 ] and Pell Grant  [ 45 ] programs if that institution's CDR is equal to or greater than 30 percent for each of its three most recent cohort fiscal years. An institution that voluntarily closes to avoid loss of eligibility due to a high CDR would not face sanctions, but those students could still be repaying loans incurred for attendance in what would otherwise be an ineligible institution. Proposed § 30.87 would cover such instances if an institution or program voluntarily closes.

The Department has encountered situations in the past during oversight and compliance measures over institutions and programs where those institutions or programs choose to close before further reviews can be completed. During program reviews, investigations, or other actions, institutions would voluntarily close the institution or program rather than face the consequences of sanctions. Borrowers enrolled at those institutions or programs who did not continue their postsecondary education would be eligible for a closed school loan discharge if the institution closed. But a borrower who completed their program during this period would not be eligible for a closed school discharge. A borrower who graduated, meanwhile, may also not be able to raise a successful defense to repayment claim based on the specific factual circumstances. This provision would provide an alternative path to relief where the Department has sufficient evidence to determine the institution or ( print page 27583) program did not provide sufficient financial value.

This waiver would operate in a manner separate and distinct from closed school loan discharges. The idea behind closed school loan discharges is to provide relief to borrowers who are left with loan debt and are unable to complete their programs. That is why closed school loan discharges are unavailable to borrowers who graduated. By contrast, the purpose of this waiver is to provide relief to borrowers who did not get the benefit of the bargain of postsecondary education in the sense that their institution or program did not meet required student outcomes standards or failed to provide sufficient financial value, but it closed prior to the final agency action that would have made that determination. The underlying reason for the waiver and for why relief would be appropriate are different from the reason for closed school discharges. Negotiators expressed support for this provision during negotiated rulemaking sessions.

One negotiator encouraged us to also include an institution or program's loss of accreditation as a condition of waiving Federal student loan debt under this section. In response, the Department concurred and incorporated in proposed § 30.87(a)(2)(i) circumstances when the institution or program loses accreditation as a basis for waiving Federal student loan debt.

Similar to § 30.86, this provision would only provide waivers to borrowers who took out loans during the period used to measure student outcomes or for the program review or investigation. For example, if an institution had a high CDR for borrowers who entered repayment in 2019 and then closed, the Department would waive loans taken to attend that institution for borrowers in that repayment cohort. Borrowers whose loans are not included in those periods would not receive a waiver.

The Committee reached consensus on proposed § 30.87.

§ 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment (GE) programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings.

Proposed Regulations: Under proposed § 30.88(a), the Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan received by a borrower associated with enrollment in a GE program if the following conditions are met: the program or institution closed; the GE program was not a professional medical or dental program; and, for a period in which the borrower received loans for enrollment in the GE program, the Secretary has reliable and available data demonstrating that title IV recipients in the GE program failed the debt-to-earnings rates or earnings premium measure described in § 30.88(a)(3).

For purposes of a waiver under § 30.88(a)(3)(i), the GE program would be considered failing if that program had a debt-to-earnings rate greater than 8 percent of their median annual earnings and 20 percent of their median discretionary income. Discretionary earnings would be calculated as median annual earnings minus 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Guideline for a single individual for the measurement year. Denominators of either measures that are zero or negative would be considered a failure if the numerator is a non-zero number. A GE program would also be considered failing if it fails the earnings premium measure described in § 30.88(a)(3)(ii). For the earnings premiums measure, a GE program would be considered failing if the median annual earnings of GE program graduates are equal to or less than the median annual earnings for typical high school graduates in the labor force ( i.e., either working or unemployed) between the ages of 25-34. The median annual earnings would be compared to the high school graduates in the State in which the institution is located, or nationally in the case of a GE program at a foreign school, or if fewer than 50 percent of the students in the GE program are from the State where the institution is located.

Under proposed § 30.88(b), a GE program would be identified by its six-digit Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code, the institution's six-digit Office of Postsecondary Education ID (OPEID) number and the program's credential level. If the Department does not have reliable and available data at the GE program's six-digit CIP code, it would use the four-digit CIP code. The Department would calculate the annual loan payment by determining the median loan debt of students who completed the GE program during the applicable cohort and amortizing that debt based upon the average of the Direct Unsubsidized Loan interest rates based on the applicable credential level and the years preceding the completion year.

Additionally, under proposed § 30.88(c), the Secretary may waive loans received for enrollment in a GE program if the institution closed, and the institution received a majority of its title IV funds for GE programs for which the Department could calculate debt-to-earnings rates and earnings premium measures, and the Department was unable to calculate measures for that program.

Proposed § 30.88(d) would provide that in the case of Federal Consolidation Loans and Direct Consolidation Loans, the Secretary waives the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan received for attending that GE program in the corresponding period for which the Secretary is waiving those borrowers' Federal student loan debt.

Reasons: The Department published final regulations related to GE to address ongoing concerns about educational programs that are supposed to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation but that instead leave them with unaffordable amounts of student loan debt in relation to their earnings, or with no gain in earnings compared to others with no more than a high school education. [ 46 ] Going forward, if a program fails to meet the standards required of the GE rates, borrowers may be eligible for waivers under either § 30.86 or § 30.87. However, the Department is also concerned about circumstances in which it has evidence that a program is failing to meet the GE standards and the program closes. Such situations may not result in a waiver under § 30.87 even though the Department knows that the borrowers included in the metrics are facing challenges similar to those where programs formally fail the measures once and then close.

The provisions in § 30.88 particularly would address situations where there have been data showing failures of GE metrics, but they are not necessarily official rates, and the program has closed. For example, during rulemaking processes to establish GE regulations, the Department released debt-to-earnings rates about programs across the country. In January 2017, [ 47 ] the Department also produced a round of official rates under the 2014 GE final rule  [ 48 ] but did not publish subsequent GE rates under those rules. In response to these rates some institutions preemptively closed programs that did ( print page 27584) not meet the standards. The Department believes it is important to provide a waiver in these situations because these metrics show similar concerns about the potential that a borrower may be unable to successfully repay their loans. We believe it is reasonable to draw an inference in favor of the borrower since the program closed and there will not be other data available showing the longer-term performance of the program.

While the proposed waiver in § 30.88 would only be available when an institution or program closes, it is distinct from closed school discharge. The purpose of a closed school discharge is to provide relief to a borrower who is unable to complete their program. That is why it excludes graduates from eligibility. By contrast, this proposed waiver would provide relief to borrowers where data shows that the typical borrower who took out loans is not getting the benefit of the bargain. The purpose of the closure requirement is to address how the Department would handle situations where it does not have, and has no way to obtain, additional data that would otherwise be needed to take a final agency action and deny continued title IV participation if the institution or program were to continue to fail the metrics. This section establishes how the Department would go about drawing an inference in favor of the borrower to determine that they did not receive the benefit of the bargain.

Because the circumstances addressed in proposed § 30.88 are not ones where the Department would calculate official GE rates, we have crafted a framework to explain how the Secretary would otherwise assess a GE program's debt-to-earnings rates and earnings premium measure for purposes of this section.

In § 30.88(a)(2) the Department explains that we would not apply this section to GE medical or dental programs. These are GE programs identified as Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO), or Doctor of Dental Science (DDS) based upon their level and CIP code. We propose to not include those programs here because in past versions of the GE regulations we have said that students in these programs would have had their earnings evaluated after a longer time following graduation than other types of programs. The Department does not have data for this longer measurement period so we cannot accurately assess these GE programs.

Section 30.88(a)(3) describes how the Department would calculate whether a program fails to meet GE standards. These definitions for debt-to-earnings and earnings premium are all modeled on how the Department proposes to calculate these measures in the recently finalized GE regulation. [ 49 ] The definitions for debt-to-earnings rates are also similar to what was used in the GE regulations finalized in 2014. [ 50 ]

The provisions in § 30.88(b) provide greater detail related to how the Department would identify programs as well as how we would calculate typical earnings and debt payments. In § 30.88(b)(1), we propose identifying GE programs by the six-digit CIP code level, or at the four-digit CIP code if we did not have data available. We propose this to mirror the definition of a GE program defined in 34 CFR 668.2 . We more fully explain in the 2023 GE final rule  [ 51 ] our analysis of data coverage and our basis for assessing GE programs at the six-digit CIP code and, where appropriate, the four-digit CIP code to meet the minimum n-size requirements for GE metrics. This approach also recognizes the data limitations that exist related to past data used to assess GE programs.

Other provisions of § 30.88(b) similarly reflect choices made and explained in greater detail in the 2023 GE final rule. This includes how we would calculate the annual loan payment and calculate median annual earnings.

The language in proposed § 30.88(c) addresses circumstances where borrowers attended programs that did not have GE results calculated at an institution that has since closed. It proposes to provide relief to students who borrowed to enroll in a program at an institution that closed in which, prior to the closure, the institution received a majority of its title IV, HEA funds from programs that met the conditions under proposed § 30.88(a)(3) and there were no metrics calculated for that program. Because the majority of the title IV, HEA funds received by the institution went to failing programs, the Secretary could reasonably infer that the title IV, HEA funds that went to other programs for which there were insufficient data would have likely failed, as well, and such borrowers should be granted relief. Loans from programs at such an institution where we did have data showing the program did not fail the GE metrics would not result in a waiver.

Finally, § 30.88(d) clarifies that if the conditions of the waiver are met and the loan was repaid by a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the Department would waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan. We believe that it is logical to waive the only underlying loan associated with this waiver that was part of a consolidation loan. Borrowers who otherwise consolidated their loans would have a pathway toward this waiver and would not have their chances at a waiver foreclosed because of the consolidation.

The Committee reached consensus on proposed § 30.88. The Department has made one clarifying technical change to this language in paragraph (a)(2) to change the word “this” to “the program.”

Proposed Regulations: Proposed § 682.403(a) would outline the procedures under which the Secretary may determine that a FFEL Program loan held by a guaranty agency or a lender qualifies for a waiver of all or a portion of the outstanding balance and the steps for providing a waiver. Under proposed § 682.403(a)(1), the Secretary would notify the lender that a loan qualifies for a waiver and the lender would submit a claim to the guaranty agency. The guaranty agency would pay the claim, be reimbursed by the Secretary, and assign the loan to the Secretary. After the loan is assigned, the Secretary would grant the waiver. Proposed § 682.403(a)(2) would define the terms “the lender” and “the guaranty agency” for the purposes of waiver claims under proposed § 682.403.

Proposed § 682.403(b) would specify the conditions under which the Secretary waives FFEL Program loans held by a guaranty agency or a lender. A FFEL Program loan would qualify for a waiver under one of the following conditions—

• The loan first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000;
• The borrower has not applied for, or not successfully applied for, a closed ( print page 27585) school discharge but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for the discharge; or
• The loan was received for attendance at an institution that lost its eligibility to participate in any title IV, HEA program because of its CDR and the borrower was included in the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the CDR or rates that were the basis for the loss of eligibility.

Proposed § 682.403(c) would provide that if the Secretary determines that a loan qualifies for a waiver, the Secretary notifies the lender and directs the lender to submit a waiver claim to the applicable guaranty agency and to suspend collection activity, or maintain a suspension of collection activity, on the loan.

Proposed § 682.403(d) would describe the waiver claim procedures. Under proposed § 682.403(d)(1), the guaranty agency would be required to establish and enforce standards and procedures for the timely filing of waiver claims by lenders.

Proposed § 682.403(d)(2) would require the lender to submit a claim for the full outstanding balance of the loan to the guaranty agency within 75 days of the date the lender received the notification from the Secretary. Under proposed § 682.403(d)(3), the lender would be required to provide the guaranty agency with an original or a true and exact copy of the promissory note and the notification from the Secretary when filing a waiver claim. Proposed § 682.403(d)(4) would allow a lender to provide alternative documentation deemed acceptable to the Secretary if the lender is not in possession of an original or true and exact copy of the promissory note.

Proposed §§ 682.403(d)(5) and (d)(6) would require the guaranty agency to review the waiver claim and determine whether it meets the applicable requirements. If the guaranty agency determines that the claim meets the requirements specified in proposed §§ 682.403(d)(3) and 682.403(d)(4) the guaranty agency would be required to pay the claim within 30 days of the date the claim was received.

Under proposed § 682.403(d)(7) the lender would be required to return any payments received on the loan during the suspension of collection activity or after receiving the claim payment to the sender.

Under proposed § 682.403(d)(8) the Secretary would reimburse the guaranty agency for the full amount of a claim paid to the lender after the agency pays the claim to the lender. Proposed § 682.403(d)(9)(i) would require the guaranty agency to assign the loan to the Secretary within 75 days of the date the guaranty agency pays the claim and receives the reimbursement payment. If the guaranty agency is the loan holder, under proposed § 682.403(d)(9)(ii) the guaranty agency would be required to assign the loan on the date that the guaranty agency receives the notice from the Secretary.

After the guaranty agency assigns the loan, the Secretary may waive the borrower's obligation to repay up to the entire outstanding balance of the loan, as provided under proposed § 682.403(d)(10). After the Secretary grants the waiver, under proposed § 682.403(d)(11) the Secretary would notify the borrower, the lender, and the guaranty agency that the borrower's obligation to repay the debt or a portion of the debt, has been waived.

Proposed § 682.403(e)(1) would require a guaranty agency to return any payments received on the loan during the suspension of collection activity or after the guaranty agency assigned the loan to the Secretary. The guaranty agency would also be required to notify the borrower that there is no obligation to make payments on the loan unless the borrower received a partial waiver or unless the Secretary directs otherwise. Under proposed § 682.403(e)(2), the guaranty agency would remit to the Secretary any payments received after it has notified the borrower. Under proposed § 682.403(e)(3), if the Secretary receives any payments on the loan after waiving the entire outstanding balance on the loan, the Secretary would return these payments to the sender.

Proposed § 682.403(f) would provide that if the conditions for a waiver specified in proposed § 682.403(b) are met on a loan that has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan with an outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to the loan that qualifies for waiver once the loan has been assigned to the Secretary.

Reasons: The proposed regulations applicable to FFEL Program loans held by a guaranty agency or lender are intended to mirror some of the proposed regulations in 34 CFR part 30 that would apply to FFEL Program loans held by the Department. Since no new FFEL Program loans have been made on or after July 1, 2010, some of the provisions in part 30 that would apply to Direct Loans are not applicable to FFEL Program loans. Therefore, the proposed FFEL-only regulations are more limited than the proposed regulations that would apply to all student loans held by the Department.

In proposed § 682.403(b)(1) the Department proposes to provide a waiver for a FFEL loan that first entered repayment at least 25 years ago. The Department proposes a different time in repayment requirement for FFEL loans from what is in proposed § 30.83 because the version of IBR that is available in the FFEL program only provides forgiveness after 25 years of payments. There is no forgiveness option after 20 years the way there is for Department-held loans.

The Department proposes to include § 682.403(b)(1) because we are concerned that borrowers who first entered repayment a long time ago may not be able to repay their loans in a reasonable period. It would come with full compensation for the outstanding balance to lenders. The existence of repayment plans that provide forgiveness after an extended period in repayment indicates Congress's concern with borrowers being stuck in repayment for an unreasonable period of time and reflects Congress's intent that borrowers have paths to relief, so they are not stuck with their loans forever. We are concerned that many borrowers with older loans have spent years, if not decades, in repayment before being able to benefit from those options and might otherwise be trapped by their debts until they pass away. We have proposed applying this provision to loans that entered repayment on or before the July 1, 2000, because these borrowers will have been in repayment for all or part of 25 calendar years or more when the regulation is implemented. This approach reflects the more limited data the Department has in its possession about commercial FFEL borrowers. We are proposing 25 years because FFEL borrowers have access to an income driven repayment plan that provides forgiveness after 25 years. Similar to proposed § 30.83, this provision would only be exercised once per borrower.

The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed § 682.403(b)(1).

The Committee did reach consensus on proposed §§ 682.403(b)(2) and 682.403(b)(3), which would provide waivers for FFEL borrowers who qualify for, but have not received, a closed school discharge and for borrowers who attended an institution that lost its title IV eligibility due to high CDRs, if the borrower was included in the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the CDRs that were the basis for the loss of eligibility. Regarding waivers based on a school's loss of title IV eligibility, the Department modified proposed §§ 682.403(b)(3) by adding clarifying language specifying that the borrower's loan must have been in the cohort of ( print page 27586) loans that resulted in the school losing title IV eligibility for a borrower to qualify for a waiver under this provision.

The Department proposes waivers for closed school discharges because that is a forgiveness opportunity that is available to FFEL borrowers which we are concerned that many eligible borrowers do not appear to be aware of and, as a result, may be unnecessarily struggling with unaffordable loans. For example, a 2021 study by the Government Accountability Office found that at least 42 percent of discharges from 2013 to 2021 were automatic discharges, indicating that a substantial share of borrowers may not have been aware of the potential for discharge or may have struggled with the application. [ 52 ] Further, more than half of borrowers who received an automatic discharge were in default on their loans, and an additional 21 percent had experienced at least one delinquency spell that lasted 90 days or longer. [ 53 ] Exercising waivers in these situations would help borrowers who have a high likelihood of being in default for loans that they should not have to repay.

The Department proposes to include waivers for borrowers who took out loans that are captured in CDRs that led to institutional ineligibility because we are concerned that when the Secretary cuts off aid to an institution for this reason it is a sign that a borrower is not getting the benefit of the bargain. This provision provides equitable treatment for the borrowers whose results showed their loans were not faring well with those who were protected after that point because the institution was no longer eligible to participate in the Federal student loan programs. One of the non-Federal negotiators urged the Department to provide FFEL regulations that were robust, clear, and detailed. The Department responded by providing detailed proposed FFEL regulations outlining the waiver claims filing process for waivers granted to FFEL borrowers whose loans are held by a private lender or a guaranty agency. These proposed regulations are modeled on the regulations in § 682.402 governing other loan discharges in FFEL, specifically the regulations governing total and permanent disability (TPD) discharges. As with TPD discharges, the Department would make the determination of eligibility, rather than the lender or the guaranty agency before a claim is filed. The Department would then direct the lender to file a claim with the guaranty agency. The claim would be for the outstanding balance of the loan less any unpaid late fees and unpaid collection costs. The process for filing and paying the claim and assigning the loan to the Department would be essentially the same process used for TPD discharge claims. In the case of a consolidation loan, the claim would be for the outstanding principal and interest of the consolidation loan, even if only a portion of the consolidation loan qualifies for a waiver. After the guaranty agency pays the claim and the Department reimburses the guaranty agency, the guaranty agency assigns the consolidation loan to the Department. The Department would then waive repayment on the portion of the consolidation loan attributable to loans eligible for a waiver. This is consistent with proposed § 682.403(f) and several other provisions in these proposed regulations that allow the Secretary to waive a portion of a Federal Consolidation Loan (or, for Direct Loans, a Direct Consolidation Loan) if one or more of the underlying loans qualifies for a waiver. The Department would then resume collection on the portion of the consolidation loan that was not waived.

The suspension of collection activity, which is generally authorized for brief periods during which an application is submitted, or a claim is filed, would be deemed to be a forbearance in cases where payment resumes on the loan after it has been assigned to the Secretary.

Once a FFEL Program loan is assigned to the Department, the Department would be responsible for furnishing information about the loan to consumer reporting agencies and would report the reduction or elimination of the outstanding balance to consumer reporting agencies after granting the waiver. Guaranty agencies and lenders would only be responsible for reporting that the loan has been assigned to the Department, as they currently do for TPD discharges.

During negotiated rulemaking, the Department proposed providing more time for the claims process, giving 75 days for a lender to submit a claim, and 75 days for the guaranty agency to pay the claim. The Department believes that the timeframes are appropriate, since the Department will have already determined that the borrower qualifies for a waiver before notifying the lender. There would be no requirement that the lender or guaranty agency conduct an additional review of borrower eligibility. Therefore, the claims process would be entirely administrative on the part of the lender and the guaranty agency. There would be no need for a guaranty agency or lender to review an application or to request additional information from a borrower, which is sometimes the case with other loan discharges. However, the Department acknowledges that initially there may be a large volume of FFEL borrowers qualifying for the waivers specified in § 682.403. Therefore, we would work with guaranty agencies and lenders who may have difficulty meeting these timeframes and be flexible in enforcing the requirements in proposed §§ 682.403(d)(2) and 682.403(d)(9).

The Committee did not reach consensus on the proposed regulations in §§ 682.403(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) that would establish the procedures for processing a waiver claim and stipulate that if the conditions for a waiver are met on a loan that has been consolidated, the Secretary would waive repayment of the portion of the consolidation loan attributable to the loan that qualifies for waiver.

After the third negotiating session, the Department determined that it would be appropriate to specify in regulation that, when filing a waiver claim, a lender may provide alternative documentation in the event that the lender does not possess the original promissory note or a true and exact copy of the promissory note. This is consistent with the Department's practice with regard to accepting alternative documentation for loan assignments.

The Department also noted that the proposed regulations did not address the treatment of payments received after the Department has notified the lender that the loan qualifies for a waiver and before the payment of a waiver claim. Therefore, the Department added proposed language specifying that payments on the loan received during the suspension of collection activity—which would occur at the start of the waiver claim process—would be returned to the sender by either the lender or by the guaranty agency, as applicable. The Department believes that returning payments at this stage of the process is appropriate, because the Department has already determined that the borrower's loan qualifies for a waiver. Accepting payments inadvertently submitted on a loan that may have its entire outstanding balance waived would unnecessarily deprive the borrower of the payment amounts submitted. ( print page 27587)

Under Executive Order 12866 , the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 , as amended by Executive Order 14094 , defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in gross domestic product), or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive Order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

This proposed regulatory action will have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. Table 4.1 in this RIA provides an estimate of the net budget effects of each provision of this proposed rule. We also provide estimates of the administrative costs for these provisions. Because the net budget effect is larger than $200 million a year, this proposed regulatory action is subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094 ). Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this proposed regulatory action and have determined that the benefits will justify the costs.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563 , which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866 . To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these proposed regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that in the Department's estimation best balance the size of the estimated transfer and qualitative benefits and costs. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these proposed regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563 .

We have also determined that this regulatory action will not unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

As required by OMB Circular A-4, we compare the proposed regulations to the current regulations. In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for regulatory action, the summary of key proposed provisions, potential costs and benefits, net budget impacts, and the regulatory alternatives we considered.

Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information collection requirements.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act ( 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated that this rule is covered under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and (3).

Postsecondary education is a critical pathway for entering and succeeding in the middle class. Generally, earning a postsecondary credential provides individuals with a range of personal benefits in the labor market, including higher income and lower unemployment risk. [ 54 ] In addition to individual benefits related to earnings and employment, additional education provides a host of individual benefits including greater access to benefits like health insurance, increased job satisfaction and overall happiness. [ 55 ] Increasing levels of postsecondary attainment also have spillover benefits for communities and society that benefit those who never attended or completed postsecondary education. For example, researchers have documented that wages of non-college graduates rise when the supply of college graduates increases. [ 56 ] Increases in education is also linked to higher civic participation, reduced crime, and improved health of future generations. [ 57 ]

The high price of postsecondary education, however, means that large ( print page 27588) shares of Americans seeking postsecondary credentials rely on Federal student loans to pay for college. [ 58 ] Though the rate of student borrowing has declined slightly in recent years, there have been appreciable changes in who borrows for college and how much debt they have taken on over the last several decades. [ 59 ] For instance, in the early 1990s, approximately one-third of full-time undergraduates received Federal student loans. [ 60 ] Following the Great Recession, the total dollar amount of annual student loan borrowing increased, reaching a peak in the 2010-11 school year. [ 61 ] These trends are shown in Table 2.1.

Federal student loans allow students and families who lack the necessary funds to pay for postsecondary education with their current resources to borrow money to pay for that education that can be repaid using the earnings gains that come from obtaining a credential. While this works out for many borrowers, too often Federal loans do not have the intended result.

Student loan debt can add to the risk of going to college, because students who experienced an income shock, had bad luck in the job market, or went to a school that misled them about benefits can be burdened by their loan debt obligations. For some borrowers, the extent of debt needed to finance a credential is more than they can sustain from the earnings gains they obtained. These borrowers may see some returns from their education, but they aren't sufficient to repay their debt in a reasonable timeframe.

Many borrowers with lower incomes or who are otherwise financially vulnerable, such as retirees and those who have reported challenges making ends meet, have struggled to meet their student loan payments. [ 62 ] Student loan payment challenges are also commonly faced by borrowers who do not complete their credentials. An estimated 40 percent of borrowers who began postsecondary education in 2012 had student debt, but did not have a degree five years later. [ 63 ] Individuals with greater educational attainment tend to have higher earnings, and borrowers who do not complete their educational programs are particularly likely to have poor labor market outcomes. [ 64 ] Borrowers with debt but no degree can be in a situation where they borrowed in anticipation of degree-boosted earnings, but instead need to manage loan payments without such wage gains.

Through other actions, the Department is working to make certain that students gain value from their postsecondary education. For instance, the Department published final Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment rules in 2023 that aim to protect borrowers from career-training programs that do not provide sufficient financial value for their graduates and to better inform all families about the financial returns they could expect from programs. [ 65 ] Those actions are forward looking, however, and do not address some of the challenges faced by students in the past. For example, once fully implemented, the 2023 Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment rules will rely on outcomes data from previous students to prevent future students from using federal aid for programs where students are unlikely to be able to afford their debt payments. However, while future students will gain protection, past students whose experiences were documented have limited avenues for relief.

The potential debt relief contemplated in this proposed rule could help some borrowers who receive relief to better afford necessities, prepare for retirement, invest in other assets, and safeguard against financial shocks. This relief may also help guard against a “chilling effect” on postsecondary attainment, as prospective students may avoid higher education due to the negative consequences of debt experienced by many middle-income and low-income borrowers. And if students decide not to attend higher education because they are worried about the risk related to student loans, then communities, and the country clearly will miss out on the aforementioned benefits that increasing levels of postsecondary education brings, including higher economic growth, higher civic participation, reduced crime, and improved health.

Challenges with repaying Federal student loans manifest in several ways in broader trends within the portfolio. Prior to the start of the national pause on student loan interest, repayment, and collections in 2020, about one million borrowers a year defaulted on their Federal student loans for the first ( print page 27589) time. [ 66 ] While some of these borrowers will successfully exit default, many others will likely remain in default for years if not decades. According to analysis of the Department's internal data, as of the end of 2020, there were about 1.5 million borrowers with ED-held loans in default who had been in that status for at least nine years.

The proposed regulations would permit the Secretary to provide relief to borrowers in the form of waiving some or all of the outstanding balance of a loan. The Secretary could provide this relief to borrowers where collection is not in the interest of the Department because certain borrowers would not otherwise have access to relief that is appropriate under the circumstances. In some cases, the proposed relief aligns to changes in the student loan programs that have recognized the necessity of relief, but where such changes took effect after the point at which many borrowers obtained their loans. These subsequent changes implicate considerations of equity and fairness, as well as the low likelihood of a borrower repaying the loan in a reasonable time period, and the costs of enforcing the debt which are not justified by the expected benefits of continued collection.

The proposed rules address several distinct situations where the Department believes the use of waiver is appropriate. Though a borrower may qualify for a waiver under multiple provisions, each of these proposed regulatory sections is distinct and separate from the other.

One section of the proposed rule would address situations where borrowers have loan balances that exceed what they originally borrowed. This provision would address the problem of prior excess interest accrual and capitalization, which the Department has considered at length. [ 67 ] The Department has addressed these problems going forward through the SAVE repayment plan that limits the accrual of unpaid interest when borrowers make their required payments, as well as separate regulatory changes that eliminated all non-statutory capitalization events starting July 1, 2023. [ 68 ] But these new policies do not provide relief to borrowers with years or even decades of accrued interest, and such borrowers continue to experience the harms of excess interest as described below.

Any loan subject to interest requires a borrower to repay more than the original balance of the loan. For example, a $10,000 loan with a five percent interest that is repaid over 10 years would result in total payments of just over $12,700. However, when a borrower's outstanding balance exceeds what they originally borrowed, they will need to pay significantly more to retire their debts than they would have under the repayment schedule they had at the start of repayment. This can extend the borrower's time in repayment, including the possibility that a loan is never repaid. As the Department has noted in prior regulatory actions that address interest accrual and capitalization going forward, borrowers whose balances have grown excessively may experience additional psychological and financial barriers to repayment and be more likely to fall into delinquency or default. [ 69 ] Since the new policies reflected in the SAVE plan do not address prior balance growth, many borrowers with years of accrued interest face the negative effects of excess interest accrual. Indeed, many comments that the Department received in July 2023 when the Department solicited input from the public at the start of the student debt relief negotiated rulemaking process, similarly shared that balance growth has negative psychological effects on repayment. Many borrowers expressed that they felt that having unanticipated balances that far exceeded what they had originally borrowed made it impossible to ever repay their loans and indicated that they would be better able to afford their debts if balances could be brought down to the amount they originally borrowed and expected to repay. Borrowers who spoke during the public comment periods provided during negotiated rulemaking sessions reiterated these concerns.

The proposed rules contain a separate section that focuses on loans that first entered repayment a long time ago and are still outstanding. Under the standard repayment plan borrowers repay their debt over 10 years by making equal monthly installments. More recently, borrowers have increasingly turned to IDR plans that provide forgiveness after either 20 or 25 years when the borrower makes payments that are largely driven by their income and family size. As a result, essentially every borrower has access to a repayment option that allows them to be debt-free by some point between 10 and 25 years of repayment.

Unfortunately, many borrowers see their loans persist long past these points. Many of these borrowers have spent considerable time in default where they are already subject to powerful collection tools that can result in the garnishment of wages, seizure of tax refunds, negative credit reporting, and even litigation. Analysis of Department data reveals that among borrowers who entered repayment over 25 years ago and whose loans are still outstanding, 74 percent have been in default at some point, while among borrowers whose loans matured over 20 years ago, 64 percent have been in default at some point. Analysis by the Urban Institute suggested that of borrowers who took out loans before 1990 and who still had debt recorded on their consumer report in 2018, 16 percent were in default on some or all of their student debt as of 2018. [ 70 ]

Borrowers with older loans also would not have initially been eligible for the significant number of additional benefits created for borrowers over the last several years. The presence of these benefits, such as reduced payments and shorter timelines to forgiveness, may have helped many of these borrowers better manage their debt and retire it sooner.

Furthermore, loans that have been in repayment for a long time tend to be held by older borrowers who are closer to or beyond retirement age, at which point their income may decline. Analysis of Department data reveals that among borrowers who entered repayment 20 years ago and whose loans are still outstanding, the median borrower age was 54 years, and 64 percent are older than the age of 50.

A different provision of the proposed rule addresses the challenge where borrowers continue to repay loans even though, if they applied, they would be eligible to have their debts forgiven, either through one of the IDR plans or targeted forgiveness opportunities authorized by the HEA, such as PSLF. Historically, the Department has seen that borrowers frequently are not aware of the steps they need to take to get relief and end up making payments or put themselves at avoidable risk of default and delinquency. For example, for years, the Department had a data match with the Social Security Administration that identified borrowers who were eligible for a total and permanent disability discharge. Despite being told they were eligible, hundreds of thousands of borrowers did not apply.

In 2021, the Department changed its regulations to automatically provide a discharge to borrowers identified as eligible for this benefit through this match. This included an option for borrowers to opt out. As a result, 323,000 borrowers received discharges for the first time when the Department re-ran this match with the new policy and thousands more continue to be approved for automatic relief each quarter. [ 71 ] Policies like the automatic discharges based upon the SSA match show the importance of using approaches that grant forgiveness to borrowers without requiring them to find out about benefits and apply, one of the key goals behind this proposed provision.

Similarly, a substantial share of borrowers fail to or delay recertifying their income for purposes of an IDR plan after their first year in the plan, even when it appears that remaining on IDR would benefit them financially. [ 72 ] Transaction costs and lack of information, among other factors, can negatively impact take-up of public and social programs. This is not unique to student loans, as evidenced from a wide variety of programs such as those related to food and income supports also demonstrate that not all who can benefit actually sign up. [ 73 ] However, take-up of social programs can be increased by reducing administrative costs and burdens, including by having automatic enrollment. [ 74 ]

Finally, there are many borrowers who received loans to attend programs or institutions that lost access to the title IV, HEA programs after those programs or institutions failed to meet required accountability standards, failed to deliver sufficient financial value, or closed during the process to determine whether the institution or program should lose access to title IV aid for those reasons. In these situations, the Department or other entities took action to protect borrowers and taxpayers from the harms caused by these programs or institutions. However, students who borrowed to enroll in programs or institutions that later lost access to the title IV, HEA programs and whose experiences were captured in the outcomes measures that lead to such protection, are still left to repay the debt.

The Department is concerned that requiring such borrowers to continue to repay their debts puts them at increased risk of default and delinquency due to the identified flaws at the program or institution. For example, the recent Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment regulations ( 88 FR 70004 ) (2023 GE rule) protect students from financial harm that can come about if they attend a Gainful Employment program that consistently produces graduates with very low earnings or earnings that are too low to repay typical debt. If the experience of borrowers upon which those failing outcome measures are based are used to support cutting off future title IV aid to the institution, then those borrowers who attended these failing programs should also receive similar protections.

The Department believes that these proposed regulations would appropriately address the challenging situations outlined above that can affect the likelihood that a borrower repays their loan in a reasonable timeframe. Through these targeted and distinct exercises of waiver the Department would deliver relief to borrowers who need the assistance, while continuing to collect from borrowers who are able to repay.

Table 2.2 below summarizes the proposed provisions in the NPRM. It does not include technical changes.

Table 2.2—Summary of Proposed Key Provisions

Provision Regulatory section Description of proposed provision Use of Federal Claims Collections Standards (FCCS) § 30.70(a)(1)(c)(1) Indicate the Secretary may use the FCCS standards to determine whether to compromise a debt. Creation of a new subpart related to waiver § 30.80 Create a new section identifying when the Secretary may waive Federal student loan debt owed to the Department. Waiver when current balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers on an income-driven repayment plan § 30.81 The Secretary may waive the amount by which a loan's current outstanding balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers in an income-driven repayment plan whose income falls at or below certain thresholds. Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment § 30.82 The Secretary may waive the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which a loan's current outstanding balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers who do not meet the requirements of § 30.81. Waiver when a loan first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago § 30.83 The Secretary may waive outstanding loan balances for a loan that first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000 or July 1, 2005, depending on whether a borrower has loans for graduate study. Waiver when a borrower is eligible for forgiveness based upon repayment plan § 30.84 The Secretary may waive outstanding loan balances if a borrower is not enrolled in but is otherwise eligible for forgiveness under certain repayment plans. ( print page 27591) Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness opportunity § 30.85 The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan when the Secretary determines that a borrower has not successfully applied for, but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for, any loan discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness opportunity under part 682 or 685. Waiver based upon Secretarial actions § 30.86 The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan if the institution or program has lost access to title IV, HEA programs for reasons stemming entirely or in part to failing accountability standards related to student outcomes or failing to deliver sufficient financial value. Waiver following closures prior to Secretarial actions § 30.87 The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan used to enroll in a program or institution that failed to meet required student outcome measures or which was subject to an unresolved Department action related to failing to provide sufficient financial value, and the program or institution closed prior to the finalization of such actions. Waiver for programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings § 30.88 The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan used to enroll in a program or institution that closed and prior to the closure had unacceptably high debt-to-earnings rates or median earnings that failed to exceed those of a high school graduate. Waiver of commercial FFEL debts § 682.403 Lays out procedures for paying claims to FFEL loan holders so the Secretary may waive commercial FFEL loans that first entered repayment at least 25 years ago, that are eligible for a closed school loan discharge where a borrower has not successfully applied, or owed by a borrower in the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the institution's failing cohort default rates that resulted in ineligibility for title IV, HEA programs.

Overall, the proposed rules would result in costs in the form of transfers from the Federal Government to student loan borrowers. The size of these transfers would vary based upon the regulatory provision in question. The Department believes that these transfers provide significant benefits to borrowers in the form of waiving their obligation to repay some or all of their Federal student loan debt. The Department would also see benefits from waivers granted as a result of the provisions in these draft rules by preventing or reducing costly collection on loans that are unlikely to be repaid in a reasonable period. Similar benefits would accrue to private holders of loans from the FFEL Program. Finally, the proposed rules would result in some costs in the form of administrative expenses for the Department to implement these provisions. When considering all these factors, the Department believes that the benefits from these proposed rules outweigh the costs. What follows is a discussion of costs, benefits, and transfers for each of the distinct regulatory provisions.

This section describes the data used in the regulatory impact analysis. To generate information about the expected number of borrowers who would receive relief under these proposed rules, the Department relied upon non-public records contained in the administrative data the Department uses to administer the title IV, HEA programs.

The primary data used in the RIA is a five percent random sample of the Federal student loan portfolio with at least one open title IV, HEA student loan as of December 31, 2023. We are using a random sample including over two million borrowers, but we present all estimates in the analyses below in terms of the full portfolio. The data we use for modeling in the RIA are stored in the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), maintained by the Department's Office of Federal Student Aid. The Department determined that a sample of this size was appropriate to provide reasonable estimates of the impact of the proposed regulation. A sample of this size is also similar to what the Department uses in budgeting modeling and the modeling of net budget impacts of its rules.

To provide context for data on which borrowers would be affected by different provisions, Table 3.1 describes the characteristics of the sample, which is representative of the student loan portfolio overall. [ 75 ] This sample is different from the one used to produce the net budget impact described elsewhere in this RIA. A further description of the sample used for cost modeling can be found in the net budget impact section of this RIA.

Table 3.1—Characteristics of Borrowers in the Sample Used To Estimate the Effects of This Proposed Rule

	Percent
Share of Federal Student Loan Borrowers Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	9
Ever Received a Pell Grant *	62
Ever Had a Default	27
Age <30	31
Age 30-50	49
Age 50+	20
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	44
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	35
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	19
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	47
( print page 27592)
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	33
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	11
Based on five percent random sample of Federal student loan borrowers. All numbers are rounded. Highest level enrolled is sourced from loan data for the academic level for which the student borrowed; unless otherwise specified, this could include borrowers who have exited school, and also students in school.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.

To understand repayment outcomes for a constant set of borrowers over time, we also use a random sample of borrowers who had their last Federal student loan mature in 2012 and follow these borrowers for 10 years to understand repayment trends. [ 76 ] By 2023, some borrowers in this sample have paid down their loans, but a substantial share still have a loan balance. These data provide a perspective of repayment progress for the length of the standard repayment plan, which is 10 years. These data also come from the NSLDS maintained by the Department's Federal Student Aid office.

Because it uses an income limit, for analyses of eligibility related to §§ 30.81, these data were supplemented with publicly available data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which we used to impute information about borrower incomes based on individuals with similar demographic and educational characteristics from Census data. [ 77 ] For analyses related to § 30.85, data from NSLDS was supplemented with publicly available data on closed schools from Federal Student Aid's website. [ 78 ] For analyses related to §§ 30.86, 30.87, and 30.88, data from NSLDS was supplemented with publicly available data from the “2022 Program Performance Data” that was released by the Department with the 2023 GE rule and historical cohort default rate (CDR) data. [ 79 ]

The sections that follow contain a discussion of the costs, benefits, and transfers for the different proposed regulatory provisions if the Secretary chooses to grant waivers under such provisions. Each of these provisions would include administrative costs for the Department to implement these changes. Because these administrative costs generally represent baseline expenses that would occur in order to implement any one of these provisions, we provide a separate discussion of administrative costs at the end of this part of the RIA.

The proposed rules would result in costs in the form of transfers from the Department to IDR borrowers in the form of waiving the amount of accrued interest and capitalized interest on an outstanding loan. Waiving these amounts would reduce future payments by borrowers to the Department. They would also create administrative costs for the Department to implement, which are discussed at the very end of this subsection of the RIA.

The extent of transfers and their associated cost would vary significantly depending on the borrower and their repayment experience. The cost of such transfers for borrowers enrolled in an IDR plan would be small in many cases. IDR plans offer forgiveness for borrowers after a set number of monthly payments (typically either 240 or 300 payments, though the SAVE plan can provide forgiveness after as few as 120 payments). Prior to the creation of the SAVE plan, a borrower whose IDR payment was insufficient to cover all the accumulating interest was likely to see their outstanding balance grow beyond what they originally borrowed. That is because borrowers were responsible for all unpaid interest, except for what accumulated on a subsidized loan for the first three consecutive years in repayment; or if they were on REPAYE, they would be responsible for 50 percent of interest not covered on the monthly payment for the first three years of repayment for unsubsidized loans and all periods beyond the first three years of repayment for all loan types.

In the final rule that created the SAVE plan, the Department estimated that 70 percent of borrowers on IDR had monthly payments that did not cover the full amount of accumulating interest. [ 80 ] For example, a borrower who originally took out $30,000 in unsubsidized loans at a five percent interest rate could see as much as $30,000 in accumulated interest forgiven at the end of 20 years if they had a $0 monthly payment for that whole period. That means significant portions of the amounts being waived under these regulations are likely to be forgiven later in repayment anyway. The remaining portion that was likely to be repaid would represent a transfer from the Department to borrowers. That said, borrowers still receive a benefit from having these amounts waived now instead of being forgiven later. The Department received numerous public comments from borrowers about the negative effects they experience from seeing their balances grow even while making payments. Those comments evidence the significant psychological effects felt by borrowers in trying to manage their payments. Providing relief from growing balances would address those concerns highlighted by borrowers.

Borrowers seeking PSLF may see similar benefits. For these public service workers, waiving accrued or capitalized interest will generally represent the expense of waiving amounts now that would otherwise be forgiven when the borrower hits the ten-year forgiveness period. Like IDR forgiveness, the cost of ( print page 27593) this transfer will depend on how much the waived amounts would have been repaid.

We estimate that about 6.4 million borrowers will receive relief under § 30.81. [ 81 ] Under our estimate for § 30.81, for modeling purposes, we do not assume that borrowers will switch into an IDR plan in order to receive a waiver under this provision; these borrowers are captured under § 30.82. Table 3.2 shows the demographic characteristics of borrowers who would be eligible to receive a waiver under this proposal. Among those who would be eligible for relief under this provision, 76 percent received a Pell Grant at some point during their postsecondary career, 68 percent are women, and around one-third spent two years or less in higher education. Over half of these borrowers have been in repayment for at least 10 years. In addition, nearly one-quarter had been in default at some point.

Table 3.2—Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for a Waiver Under § 30.81

Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness under this provision	6.4 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	4%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *	76%
Ever Had a Default	24%
Age <30	20%
Age 30-50	64%
Age 50+	15%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	35%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	38%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	27%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	45%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	47%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	8%
Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers are considered on IDR if the loan is in repayment on any IDR plan, including plans where the borrower no longer has a partial financial hardship.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.

Borrowers on IDR plans are particularly likely to see their balances grow over time. We examined a sample panel of borrowers who were enrolled in any IDR plan for at least three years from 2012 to 2022 and compared them to borrowers who were enrolled in a standard ten-year repayment plan for at least three years. As shown in Table 3.3, borrowers who were enrolled in any IDR plan for at least three years were more likely than borrowers with at least three years in a standard repayment plan to have their balance grow. By 2022, borrowers who spent a substantial amount of time repaying under IDR were 12 percentage points more likely to have seen their balance grow than borrowers repaying on a standard plan.

Table 3.3—Share of Borrowers With Balances Greater Than What They Owed Upon Entering Repayment

Year At least 3 years in standard repayment (percent) At least 3 years in IDR (percent) 2013 65 81 2014 59 79 2015 52 75 2016 46 71 2017 42 67 2018 38 64 2019 34 60 2020 32 58 2021 31 56 2022 29 54 Based on a sample of borrowers who last entered repayment on a non-consolidated loan in 2012. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers who were both on IDR for more than three years and on a standard ten-year repayment plan for more than three years are excluded from the analysis.

Borrowers who would be eligible for this provision include some IDR borrowers whose incomes are too high to qualify for relief under § 30.81 and also non-IDR borrowers. A substantial portion of IDR borrowers experience balance growth because their income-based payments do not fully cover the accruing interest on their loans. For non-IDR borrowers, the extent of transfers will be dependent upon their repayment history. All of the standard, ( print page 27594) extended, and graduated repayment plans require borrowers to at least cover monthly accruing interest with their monthly payment. However, if borrowers spend time in deferment, forbearances, delinquency, or default, they will accrue interest that can be capitalized into principal. For borrowers in a deferment, interest that accrues on their unsubsidized Stafford or PLUS loans will be added to their principal balance when they exit the deferment. The same is true for borrowers who left a forbearance prior to the payment pause. However, regulations that went into effect on July 1, 2023, ended the practice of capitalizing interest for borrowers when they leave a forbearance going forward.

Many of the borrowers who would be eligible to receive a waiver under this proposed regulation spent time in statuses that have broader societal value. For instance, some borrowers were in deferment or forbearance because they served in active-duty military or the national guard. Thirty-six percent of borrowers who first entered postsecondary education in 2003-04 and received at least one military or law enforcement loan deferment had owed more than they did upon entering repayment twelve years later. [ 82 ] Borrowers who used a forbearance or deferment to avoid default because of unemployment or economic hardship, and now find themselves with loan balances they will struggle to retire in a reasonable period, would also benefit from this proposal. Sixty-three percent of borrowers who started their education in 2003-04 and received at least one economic hardship deferment owed more than they did upon entering repayment 12 years later. [ 83 ]

We estimate that 19.1 million borrowers would be eligible for relief under § 30.82. This number does not include borrowers currently on IDR who would be eligible for a waiver under § 30.81. However, it does include some borrowers who are on IDR but whose incomes are too high to qualify for a waiver under § 30.81. [ 84 ] To get a sense of the effect of this policy, Table 3.4 below models the characteristics of borrowers who have experienced balance growth in excess of their balance at repayment entry. Among those whose balance is at least $1 above what they owed upon entering repayment, 68 percent ever received a Pell Grant, and 38 percent ever defaulted. Almost half of these borrowers only enrolled for the first year or two of their undergraduate education and around 80 percent only enrolled for undergraduate education.

Table 3.4—Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under § 30.82

Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision	19.0 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	12%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *	68%
Ever Had a Default	38%
Age <30	26%
Age 30-50	51%
Age 50+	23%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	49%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	30%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	19%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	52%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	37%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	11%
Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers are considered to have experienced balance growth if they owe at least $1 above their balance at the start of repayment. Commercial FFEL loans and borrowers who are currently in school or have loans that have not yet entered repayment are excluded.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.

One way of contextualizing the experience of borrowers who have experienced balance growth is to follow a cohort of borrowers over time. For this analysis, the Department examined data over a 10-year period for a group of borrowers who last entered repayment in 2012, to the end of 2022. Borrowers are grouped by either: having paid off their loans by the end of 2022, owing less than their balance at repayment, or owing more than their balance at repayment. Table 3.5 shows the time spent in statuses (expressed in months) where borrowers are not actively paying or may be paying less than covered interest in an IDR plan.

In the sample, among borrowers who are still in repayment, borrowers who still owe more than they owed at the start of repayment 10 years later spent much longer in forbearance or deferment than borrowers whose loan balance has not grown. The average and median amounts of time a borrower who experienced balance growth spent in forbearance were 30 and 23 months, respectively. This is more than twice the amount of time spent in forbearance for borrowers who did not have balance growth. Similarly, borrowers in the sample who experienced balance growth were in deferment for longer periods than those who did not experience balance growth. Borrowers in the sample with balance growth also had longer average periods of default than borrowers still in repayment, but without balance growth, and were more likely to be using an IDR plan to repay their debt. ( print page 27595)

Table 3.5—Months in Certain Statuses Among Borrowers Who Entered Repayment in 2012

	2012 Borrowers with no balance growth by end of 2022		2012 Borrowers with balance growth by end of 2022
	Average	Median	Average	Median
Forbearance	13	5	30	23
Deferment	7	0	11	0
Default	15	0	30	0
IDR	12	0	27	0
Based on a random sample of approximately 150,000 borrowers who last entered repayment on a non-consolidated loan in 2012. All numbers are rounded. A borrower is considered to have spent a year in IDR if they are in an IDR plan as of the end of a given year (including non-partial financial hardship) and did not spend all of their previous year in a non-payment status (forbearance, deferment, or default). Months are rounded to the nearest month.

This section would provide the Secretary with discretionary waiver authority that could create costs for the Department due to the transfers that arise from waiving some loan amounts. However, because the waivers in this proposal would not result in forgiving any of the original principal, the government would still be in a position to collect the full amount originally disbursed.

While the proposed regulations would create costs in the form of transfers for the Federal Government, it would also provide benefits. As previously described, recent borrower reports suggest that growing loan balances can lead to both financial and psychological challenges to successful repayment by borrowers. [ 85 ] The Department also must pay for either the ongoing servicing of loans in repayment or the costs of collecting on defaulted loans, even if those loans are not expected to lead to large amounts of revenue in the future.

Other borrowers may benefit from reduced loan payments. Borrowers on payment plans other than IDR would see their monthly payments decrease if the Department waives any capitalized interest. Borrowers on non-IDR plans may also see their time to repayment reduced, as the total amount of payments needed to retire their debt decreases. The extent of these effects on borrowers repaying under an IDR plan are more challenging to assess, as they would be affected by whether borrowers are close to reaching certain caps on payments that exist in plans such as IBR and PAYE. In such situations, it could result in either a reduced payment, repaying the loan before reaching forgiveness, or both.

Beyond transfers, the Department estimates that there would be administrative costs for the implementation of this benefit. These costs are discussed at the very end of this subsection of the RIA.

The proposal to permit the Secretary to waive loans that first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago, if exercised, would create costs in the form of transfers between the Federal Government and borrowers. Borrowers would receive significant benefits from no longer having to repay old loans, and the Federal Government would also see benefits from no longer servicing or collecting on loans that are largely not expected to be repaid in full. Finally, this proposal would have administrative costs for the Department to implement. Each is discussed in more detail below, except for the administrative costs, which are discussed at the end of this subsection of the RIA.

The size of the transfers between the Federal Government and borrowers would depend on the borrower's repayment history and the likelihood that an older loan would otherwise have been repaid. Under the default repayment plan created by Congress (the standard repayment plan), borrowers repay their loans over 120 equal installments—the equivalent of 10 years of monthly payments. From 1965-2010, most student loan borrowers made fixed monthly payments over a set period of time. Starting in 1994, borrowers with Direct Loans had an option to make payments based upon their income through the ICR plan. It provides forgiveness after 25 years of monthly payment but was not used extensively. In 2007, Congress created the IBR plan, which gave all Direct and FFEL student borrowers access to a more generous repayment plan tied to borrowers' income. Legislation in 2010 followed by regulations in 2012 and 2015 further improved the terms of IDR plans and expanded the options for Direct Loan borrowers. From 2010 to 2018 the share of undergraduate borrowers in IDR plans grew from 11 percent to 24 percent. [ 86 ] Currently, about one-third of federally managed loan recipients are in IDR plans. [ 87 ]

With one exception, all other Federal loan repayment options result in the debt being repaid or forgiven after no more than 25 years. For instance, all IDR plans provide forgiveness after 20 or 25 years. The one exception is for higher-balance consolidation loans—typically those with starting balances of at least $60,000—which can be repaid over 30 years. [ 88 ] The idea then, is that most student loans will be repaid over roughly a decade, with nearly all others being paid off within 25 years at the latest.

The size of transfers that would be generated by this policy depends on how many loans that would be eligible for waiver under this policy are set to be repaid or, alternatively, are likely to simply linger and eventually be forgiven through discharges due to a borrower's death or total and permanent disability. For instance, based on analysis of Department data, in 2022, there were more than 1 million borrowers with loans that have been in default for at least 20 years. During this period these borrowers could have been subject to negative credit reporting, wage garnishment, tax refund offset, and even litigation. If these loans are still outstanding after all this time notwithstanding the availability of those powerful collection tools, the odds that they would be fully repaid in a reasonable period are unlikely. For instance, among borrowers who started college in 2004 and ever defaulted on a ( print page 27596) Federal loan, only about one-third paid off that loan in full within 12 years. [ 89 ]

Even loans not in default may not be fully repaid in a reasonable period. For instance, a borrower may have spent extended periods in forbearance because they could not afford their payments. While doing so will allow them to avoid default, it will put them further away from successful repayment due to the accumulation of interest.

Older loans are also going to be held by older borrowers. The older the borrower, the greater the likelihood that they will stop working prior to successful repayment. Forty-one percent of non-Parent PLUS borrowers 62 years of age and older with an open loan have held their student loans for more than 20 years, and 30 percent of borrowers 62 years of age and older with an open loan have held their student loans for more than 25 years. [ 90 ] Waiving such loans would not create significant costs in the form of transfers for the Government because it is unlikely to get significant additional payments from a retired borrower.

The costs of these transfers would be greater for loans where the Government was expecting to see significant repayments. Some of these situations are impossible to anticipate at any given scale, such as borrowers who suddenly come into money from an inheritance or divorce settlement and are either able to repay their loans voluntarily or see a large increase in amounts obtained from enforced collections. Another situation would relate to borrowers who are on a 30-year repayment plan. For student borrowers, the Government would be forgoing the final five years of payments, while for a borrower with a consolidation loan that repaid a Parent PLUS loan and did not have any graduate loans, it would be forgoing 10 years of payments. The Department projects that it would be five years of foregone payments instead of 10 for student borrowers because in order to qualify for a plan with a 30-year amortization period, the borrower must have a level of debt above what a borrower can take out in principal for their own undergraduate education. These would be borrowers who would be eligible to receive a waiver 25 years after entering repayment. Parent borrowers, meanwhile, would be eligible to receive a waiver 20 years after entering repayment, assuming they had no graduate debt of their own.

Table 3.6 provides estimates of the number of borrowers who would be eligible to receive benefits under this provision and their characteristics. About 2.6 million borrowers are expected to be eligible for relief because they first entered repayment on or before either July 1, 2000, or July 1, 2005, depending on whether they have loans for graduate study. Forgiveness of debt among borrowers who entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago particularly helps older borrowers, with over 60 percent aged over 50. Additionally, over 80 percent of borrowers had previously had a default.

Table 3.6—Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under § 30.83

	Borrowers at 20/25 years of forgiveness
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision	2.6 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	10%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *	36%
Ever Had a Default	83%
Age <30	0%
Age 30-50	37%
Age 50+	63%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	49%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	30%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	14%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20-25 Years	41%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 25-30 Years	30%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 30+ Years	29%
Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness in 2024 is based on having at least one non-commercial FFEL loan enter repayment 20 years ago (if no graduate debt) or 25 years ago (any graduate debt).
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.

Waiving old loans would significantly benefit borrowers. For older borrowers, ending required loan payments would reduce one source of financial obligations for their final years in the workforce, putting them in better shape for retirement and reducing their need to rely on other sources of funds in their final years. It also could give some borrowers who currently have to work to repay their loans the ability to retire. Of the borrowers with loans 20 or 25 years old, 63 percent are over 50 years old.

The Government would also see benefits from waiving older loans. Continuing to pay the cost of collecting or servicing older debts that are unlikely to be repaid generates costs for taxpayers that may never be recouped. If a borrower defaults on their debt, a portion of their Social Security benefit may be offset to repay the student loan; for some borrowers, this reduction moves their benefits income below the Federal poverty line. [ 91 ]

§ 30.84  Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon repayment plan.

This provision would provide the Secretary with discretionary waiver authority that could create costs in the ( print page 27597) form of transfers from the Federal Government to student loan borrowers. These waivers would apply in situations where borrowers would be eligible to receive relief if they otherwise meet the eligibility requirements for forgiveness under existing repayment plans, but they have not applied. Waiver is appropriate because borrowers often struggle to navigate the myriad loan repayment plans available to them. As a result, the Department frequently observes that borrowers who could receive immediate forgiveness are unaware of, or are unable to take, the steps needed to receive relief. The cost of the transfers that would occur from providing relief under this section therefore represent the expense associated with providing relief to borrowers who could not or did not know how to opt into already existing benefits.

This provision is separate and distinct from § 30.85. This section only applies to borrowers who would be eligible for a discharge based upon one of the repayment plans that result in forgiveness after a set period. This includes all IDR plans, as well as the alternative repayment plan. By contrast, § 30.85 is focused on possible relief for borrowers who otherwise qualify for forgiveness opportunities. There is no guarantee that a borrower eligible for a waiver under § 30.84 would be eligible for one under § 30.85 or vice versa.

Providing waivers for borrowers who are eligible for relief but who have not successfully applied for certain repayment plans provides significant benefits for borrowers and the Department. For borrowers, they would receive the benefit of no longer needing to repay their student loan. This removes the risk of delinquency and default and also means that they no longer need to devote a portion of their income to the student loans being forgiven. They also derive benefits by receiving relief automatically and not needing to spend the time to navigate the repayment system. The Department, meanwhile, benefits by no longer paying for the cost of servicing a loan that is otherwise eligible for a discharge. Continuing to cover such costs is an unnecessary expenditure of Federal funds. It can also create added costs and work for the Department if the borrower applies later and is then eligible for refunds of payments that they made after the point when they were eligible for forgiveness. The Department also benefits by providing relief automatically instead of needing to pay to process individual borrower applications.

Table 3.7 reports estimates of the number of borrowers who would be eligible for forgiveness under the SAVE plan, but who are not currently enrolled in that plan. We estimate that about 1.7 million borrowers will receive partial or complete forgiveness (with over half receiving full forgiveness) as of December 31, 2023. Nearly 70 percent of these borrowers received a Pell Grant and over one-third had a prior default.

Table 3.7—Estimated Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under § 30.84

Number of borrowers receiving any forgiveness	1.7 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	5%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *	66%
Ever Had a Default	45%
Age <30	0%
Age 30-50	72%
Age 50+	27%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	65%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	26%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	7%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	0%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	75%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	24%
Results are from analysis of a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers whose original loan disbursement was less than $12,000 and who have made 120 payments were classified as eligible, as were borrowers who had an additional 12 payments for each $1,000 borrowed above that amount. Eligibility ends at 19 years of payments on $21,000 or original principal balance for borrowers who only have undergraduate loans or 24 years for borrowers who originally took out $24,000 and have any graduate loans. Borrowers above that point would receive the typical forgiveness on SAVE at 20 or 25 years. Parent PLUS loans and FFEL loans were excluded from this analysis, but borrowers with these types of loans may still be eligible for forgiveness on other Federal loans they hold.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.

Waivers under this provision would generate two types of costs. One is costs in the form of transfers from the Department to the borrower. However, as discussed, these would be transfers borrowers could already receive if they were to take the necessary steps to apply for the specific repayment plan. While these do show up as costs in this proposed rule, we believe the benefits of providing this relief automatically and the savings generated from such an approach are better than incurring the costs to provide this relief on an individual basis.

Action under these provisions would come with costs for the Department in the form of administrative expenses to implement this change. These costs are discussed at the end of this subsection of the RIA.

§  30.85 When a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness opportunity.

This provision provides the Secretary with discretionary waiver authority that, if exercised, would create costs in the form of transfers between the Department and borrowers who see some or all of their outstanding loan balances waived. It would also provide benefits to borrowers by granting them relief for which they would otherwise have to apply. This automatic relief would also provide benefits to the Department because it would no longer need to pay to service loans that could otherwise be forgiven and could apply relief automatically instead of on an individual basis. This provision would also create some administrative costs for the Department to implement this provision. Administrative costs are discussed in a separate section at the end of this subsection of the RIA.

For borrowers, the benefits would be most felt by the individuals who are least likely to apply for relief, because we anticipate that borrowers who are aware of the targeted forgiveness opportunities will successfully apply for them. The Department anticipates that ( print page 27598) the benefits of this provision will be most felt by borrowers who are at the greatest risk of default and delinquency because those are the borrowers who are the least engaged with the student loan system. Comparisons of borrowers who successfully applied for relief versus those who received it through automatic action highlight the extent to which more at-risk borrowers get left behind by a process that requires borrowers to apply. For instance, past studies of closed school loan discharges by GAO found that the borrowers who did not apply for this relief and instead received an automatic discharge were far more likely to be in default than those who successfully applied. [ 92 ]

Table 3.8 reports estimates of the number of and characteristics of borrowers who would be eligible for a waiver under § 30.85. To estimate the potential effect of § 30.85 we looked at borrowers who are eligible but have not applied for a closed school loan discharge. This is the forgiveness opportunity where the Department has information in its systems necessary to determine eligibility and provides a strong source for estimating the number of potential waivers that the Secretary may grant under this provision. The Secretary may grant waivers based on eligibility for other forgiveness programs, but such waivers would depend on the Department obtaining additional information, such as fact-specific indicators of misconduct of colleges or data matches with States or other Federal entities to determine eligibility for PSLF.

Table 3.8—Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under § 30.85

Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision	0.26 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	6%
Ever Received a Pell grant *	73%
Ever Had a Default	39%
Age <30	25%
Age 30-50	48%
Age 50+	27%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	66%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	21%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	9%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	57%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	24%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	13%
Results are from analysis of a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrower is counted if their loan maturity date was within one year after the school's closure date or their loan's disbursement was within one year before the closure date. Borrower's loans are included if they are Direct or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.

The Department would also benefit from providing discharges under § 30.85, which would stop the Department from paying for the costs of servicing or collecting loans that are otherwise eligible to be forgiven. In addition, some targeted forgiveness opportunities, such as closed school discharges, include provisions that refund payments for borrowers. Processing refunds is costly and time-consuming for the Department, so providing relief sooner and reducing the number of future unnecessary payments that must be refunded is also more efficient for the Department. Finally, the Department would benefit from providing automatic relief instead of processing individual applications because the more streamlined process reduces administrative burden and costs.

Waivers granted under this section would create some costs. The Department believes the costs associated with the discharges themselves are outweighed by the benefits because this is relief that a borrower would otherwise receive anyway if they submitted the right paperwork at the right time. To that end, the cost is essentially capturing revenue the Department receives because borrowers are either unaware of certain discharge programs or do not successfully apply.

§  30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions.

This section provides the Secretary with discretionary waiver authority that, if exercised, would create costs in the form of transfers between the Department and borrowers by providing loan discharges. It would not create any transfers between institutions of higher education and the Department. Relief provided to borrowers under this section would be done as a waiver, which means there would be no liability to seek against an institution.

The waivers granted under this section would provide significant benefits to borrowers. Through this provision, borrowers would no longer have to repay loans they took out to attend programs or institutions that have lost access to Federal student financial aid based on Secretarial actions that determined their program or institution failed to provide sufficient financial value or failed a student outcomes accountability measure, provided that the borrowers attended the program during the corresponding time period. For instance, the Department would waive outstanding loans taken out by borrowers who were part of cohorts whose data showed their institution or program did not meet required title IV accountability standards because of unacceptably high rates of student loan default, had poor levels of debt compared to the earnings of graduates, or failed to provide graduates a financial return equal to or greater than the earnings of a high school graduate who never pursued postsecondary education. These are loans where at least some significant share of the borrowers are exhibiting either direct signs of struggle or experiencing circumstances, such as excessive debt burdens, that suggest that there is a strong likelihood of inability to repay.

The other waivers that may be provided under this section would similarly benefit borrowers. The ( print page 27599) Department has seen in the past that borrowers who take out loans to attend programs or institutions that engaged in substantial misrepresentations such as lying about crucial issues like expected earnings or job placement rates of graduates or similar indicia often also had high rates of delinquency and default.

These waivers would significantly benefit borrowers by no longer making them repay loans where there is either existing evidence of high rates of default or factors that strongly correlate with challenges in repayment. These waivers would particularly benefit borrowers who are in default, as they would no longer face negative credit reporting, wage garnishment, the seizure of tax refunds, or other forms of enforced collections. Removing these loans from their consumer reports would also likely improve their credit scores since more than 80 percent of these borrowers have had a default, which could have downstream benefits in terms of securing other forms of credit other than Federal student loans, as well as in other contexts like tenant or employment screening. If this waiver results in the waiver of all of a borrower's defaulted Federal student loans, the borrower may also be able to obtain new loans or Federal grant aid to attend a program or institution that would provide them with better value.

The Department would also benefit from this provision. It would no longer need to pay for the costs of servicing or collecting on loans where borrowers have already demonstrated they are part of cohorts that had high rates of default or are burdened by excessive debt compared to their earnings or have extremely low earnings. The Department is unlikely to fully collect such loans or to do so in a reasonable period. The costs of providing such discharges may not be as significant as the Department may not be likely to receive significant repayments or collection from these loans. For these reasons, we believe that the costs of these discharges would be outweighed by the benefits.

Table 3.9 below shows the estimated number of borrowers who would be eligible for relief because they attended institutions that failed the cohort default rate metrics between 1992-2020 and subsequently lost eligibility to disburse Federal financial aid. [ 93 ] In total, we estimate that less than 0.01 million borrowers who attended schools that failed CDR metrics and then subsequently lost eligibility to disburse title IV aid would be eligible for waivers under this provision. About 30 percent of the borrowers who would experience relief under this provision received a Pell Grant.

Table 3.9—Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under § 30.86

Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision:	0.01 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	6%
Ever Received a Pell Grant	31%
Ever Had a Default	83%
Age <30	2%
Age 30-50	29%
Age 50+	69%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	83%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	10%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	2%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	9%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	21%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	70%
Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness in 2024 is based on having at least one loan with a positive outstanding balance from an institution that failed the CDR metrics since 1998 and was closed or not providing title IV aid to students as of 2002, having a loan from an institution that lost eligibility for Title IV between 1999 and 2014 due to CDR sanctions, or having a loan from an institution that failed the CDR metrics from 2015-2020 and was closed or not providing Title IV aid to students as of 2022. Borrower's loans are included if they are Direct or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999.

The above estimates in Table 3.9 also do not include borrowers who would be eligible to receive relief because they attend a program that fails GE metrics and loses access to Federal aid. Under the GE accountability framework from the 2023 GE Rule, all certificate and diploma programs at public and private nonprofit institutions and educational programs at for-profit institutions of higher education with a sufficient number of completers will be assessed annually on whether they meet debt-to-earnings and earnings premium standards. Under those regulations, the Department will hold career training programs accountable for keeping debt affordable and producing economic mobility by revoking eligibility for Federal student aid programs if programs fail metrics in two of three consecutive years. [ 94 ] Such actions will protect future students against unaffordable loan burdens; however, the borrowers whose experiences were captured in the failing debt-to-earnings or earnings premium standards also merit relief. For example, the first two official GE metrics will be published in 2025 and 2026, based on the experiences of students who attended years earlier. [ 95 ] If a program fails the same metric in both years, students will ( print page 27600) no longer be able to borrow Federal loans or receive Pell Grants to attend that program, but students who attended during the years on which the failing metrics are based would be eligible for relief on their Federal loans under these proposed regulations.

The RIA that accompanied the 2023 GE final regulations estimated that approximately 700,000 students annually are in programs that could fail the standards in the GE rule. After the GE accountability framework goes into effect in 2024, and after programs may start to become ineligible to participate in the title IV, HEA aid programs in 2026, the GE RIA estimates that the number of students in failing programs will gradually decline, reducing the number of students eligible for relief under this provision in the future.

This RIA does not include a separate analysis of the potential effect on borrowers from § 30.86(a)(2). The Department anticipates that waivers that could be granted in these situations would occur on a case-by-case basis. For past cohorts, the number of institutions that lost access to aid under these provisions is generally small. And some of those institutions, such as Marinello Schools of Beauty, have since been covered by actions to discharge groups of loans based upon borrower defense to repayment findings. For future borrowers, the Department cannot predict administrative actions that have yet to occur, so it is not possible to assign a likely cost to future loan cohorts.

Finally, this provision would create small administrative costs for the Department to implement. Administrative costs are discussed separately at the end of this subsection of the RIA.

The waivers granted under this section would have transfers, benefits, and costs that are similar to those under § 30.86. However, these elements would affect a distinct group of borrowers who would not be eligible for a waiver under § 30.86 and would only have some overlap with borrowers eligible under § 30.88. These borrowers are in a different situation than borrowers eligible for relief under § 30.86 because they borrowed to attend an institution or program that failed to meet certain outcomes standards or was in the middle of a Secretarial action related to not providing sufficient financial value, but the institution or program closed before the Department completed the action to remove aid eligibility. Similar to § 30.86, this provision would not create any transfers between institutions and the Department because amounts that are waived could not be recouped from the school.

Borrowers would benefit from this provision because they would no longer have to repay loans taken out to attend programs or institutions that had been exhibiting evidence of excessively poor student loan outcomes or otherwise failing to provide sufficient financial value. Loans taken out in these situations are likely to result in higher rates of delinquency and default, meaning that the waivers under this section would provide added benefits such as protecting borrowers from negative credit reporting, the possibility of wage garnishment, tax refund or Social Security benefit seizure, and other forms of enforced collections.

The Department would also benefit from waivers granted under this section. As discussed, these loans are owed by borrowers who are more likely to struggle to repay their debts and the Department may need to incur greater costs to provide the borrowers with more targeted outreach and more help to navigate repayment. If these loans are older, it is also less likely that the Department would be collecting significant sums from the borrowers, reducing the likelihood that the loans will be fully repaid.

As noted above, the costs of this provision would largely come from the transfers granted to borrowers when a loan is discharged. We are not including specific modeling of these transfers because we believe the potential effect of this section would be much smaller than what is captured in § 30.86. We believe the largest effect is likely to be related to borrowers who attended institutions that preemptively closed when cohort default rates were first created, as we have seen few to no schools close in recent years due to impending loss of Federal aid from high default rates. While there are closures that occur before other Secretarial actions are finalized, this occurs more on a case-by-case basis and typically does not occur in large numbers. This provision provides critical benefits to the borrowers who would be eligible for relief, but we do not think it operates on a large enough scale to model.

For example, borrowers who attended programs that failed the previously published GE rates released in 2017, based on the 2015 debt measure year, would be eligible for a waiver under this provision. However, current data limitations related to program information in NSLDS for the cohorts included in those 2017 rates prevent us from estimating the number of borrowers who would be eligible for waivers under this provision. [ 96 ]

Finally, this provision would create administrative costs to implement. Administrative costs are discussed separately at the end of this subsection of the RIA.

Waivers granted under this section would provide transfers, benefits, and costs that are similar to a portion of those that could occur under § 30.87. However, these benefits would affect a distinct group including those that are not otherwise captured under any other provision. The reasons for waivers under this section are also narrower than those in §§ 30.86 and 30.87.

Table 3.10 below shows the estimated number of borrowers who would be eligible for waivers because they attended a program that failed the GE metric for any reason based on the data from the 2015, 2016, and 2017 Award Years released in 2023 along with the GE Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis and also did not have any students who received Title IV aid from 2018 onwards. [ 97 ]

Table 3.10—Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under § 30.88

Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision:	0.01 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	6%
Ever Received a Pell Grant	78%
Ever Had a Default	33%
Age <30	15%
Age 30-50	70%
Age 50+	15%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	60%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	13%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	27%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	86%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	14%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	0%
Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrower's loans are included if they are Direct or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.

The number of students who attended such programs is likely higher than this estimate, but data limitations prevent us from including in this estimate borrowers who attended programs that failed the 2011 Gainful Employment Informational Metrics. [ 98 ]

The waivers under this provision would create costs in the form of transfers. Such transfers would go to borrowers who have loans used to enroll in programs that produced results that according to data from the Department show that they had high debt-to-earnings or low earnings premium measures that did not meet basic standards of financial value, but the program closed prior to the issuance of formal GE rates under the new GE rule. While these programs did not have the formal failures that would qualify for a discharge under §§ 30.86 or 30.87, the outcomes are so poor that, when paired with closure, the Department's concerns about borrowers' ability to repay loans from these programs are similar.

The Department would also benefit by waiving these loans. As discussed, these loans are from borrowers who attended programs with data showing that graduates take on more debt than is reasonable or whose earnings are worse than what a high school graduate earns. Borrowers in such situations are more likely to struggle to repay their debts and may incur greater costs for the Department in the form of more targeted outreach and more help to navigate repayment. If these loans are older, it is also less likely that the Department may be collecting significant sums from them, reducing the likelihood they will be repaid. Beyond costs in the form of transfers, implementing this provision will come with small administrative costs for the Department. Administrative costs are discussed separately at the end of this subsection of the RIA.

§ 682.403 Waiver of FFEL Program Loan Debt.

The costs, benefits, and transfers under proposed § 682.403 would differ slightly depending on whether the loan is currently in repayment or in default at a guaranty agency. For loans in repayment, proposed § 682.403 would result in transfers between the guaranty agency using Federal funds to pay the FFEL loan holder and then assigning that loan to the Department for eventual waiver. The size of this transfer would be equal to the full outstanding balance of the loan owed to private loan holders, plus unpaid interest and fees, as applicable. Such a transfer would not occur for loans in default at a guaranty agency. For these loans, the former private loan holder had already been paid a default claim payment by the guaranty agency using Federal funds. The costs from a transfer would be more directly from the Department to the borrower, as the guaranty agency would assign the loan to the Department, which would then waive the remaining balance.

These waivers would provide significant benefits to borrowers, who would be relieved of their obligation to make further payments on their loans. For § 682.403(b)(1) the benefits are similar to those provided in § 30.83 for borrowers whose loans are managed by the Department and are at least 25 years old. Such waivers would benefit borrowers who have been unable to fully repay their loans over a reasonable period of time. Such borrowers tend to be older and many of these borrowers have spent time in default. Waiving such loans provides relief to borrowers who have shown persistent challenges with repayment and, in the case of older borrowers, would likely improve their financial stability in their final years.

The benefits of § 682.403(b)(2) are similar to some of those of § 30.85, which provides a waiver for borrowers eligible for a targeted forgiveness opportunity. In this case, only borrowers who would otherwise be eligible for a closed school loan discharge but have not applied would be covered. These borrowers would receive a discharge were they to apply. However, as research from GAO has shown, many borrowers eligible for closed school loan discharges in the past have not successfully applied for this relief, and many of these borrowers end up in default. [ 99 ] This provision would benefit such borrowers by granting them relief and ensuring they do not unnecessarily experience default.

The benefits of § 682.403(b)(3), meanwhile, are similar to the benefits that would be available under § 30.86 for borrowers who attend institutions that become ineligible for Federal aid because of high cohort default rates. These waivers would apply to borrowers who are part of cohorts that produced the high rates of default ( print page 27602) resulting in title IV ineligibility, meaning many such borrowers are likely either currently in default or have spent time in default in the past. These waivers would significantly benefit borrowers by no longer making them repay loans where there is existing evidence of borrowers struggling to repay their loans at high rates that exceed the Department's accountability standards. Table 3.11 below shows the number and characteristics of borrowers who would be eligible for waivers under § 682.403. Of note is the fact that 45 percent of these borrowers ever experienced a default, and we estimate about 30 percent are currently in default.

Table 3.11—Estimate of the Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under § 682.403

Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision	0.9 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans	14%
Ever Received a Pell grant *	19%
Ever Had a Default	45%
Age <30	0%
Age 30-50	27%
Age 50+	73%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad	24%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad	34%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School	36%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years	0%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years	0%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years	99%
Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness is for borrowers with any commercial FFEL loans that entered repayment on July 1, 2000 or earlier, borrowers with at least one commercial FFEL loan with a positive outstanding balance to attend an institution that failed CDR metrics between 1992 and 1998 or 2015 to 2020, and was closed or not providing title IV aid to students as of 2002 or 2022 respectively, or having a loan to attend an institution that lost eligibility for title IV between 1999 and 2014 due to CDR sanctions, or from a school that closed just after, or during, the student's enrollment.
* Pell status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999.

The Department would benefit from the provisions in § 682.403, as well. Some of these loans have already been in default in the past and may not be repaid. In those cases, taxpayers have already compensated the lender for the default and the debt may not be collected. In addition, and as noted earlier, these provisions are similar to several of the waiver provisions for Department-held loans. The Department benefits from treating borrowers with commercially held FFEL loans in a similar manner as borrowers with ED-held loans because it streamlines providing relief to borrowers who could consolidate into the Direct Loan program and it reduces the Department's need to respond to borrower confusion.

The waivers may also provide some benefits for holders of FFEL loans by fully paying off loans that are either unlikely to ever be repaid or that may not be repaid in a reasonable period. In the years before the FFEL program stopped issuing new loans, many lenders chose to securitize their outstanding loans by issuing asset-backed securities. This approach creates long-term bond obligations that must be repaid using the payments made by borrowers and any subsidies received from the Department. However, the growth in the number of borrowers using the IBR plan to repay these privately held FFEL loans may be resulting in fewer incoming payments than expected. In 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported how some student loan asset-backed securities were extending the anticipated pay off date of the bond by decades, including as much as 54 years to avoid potential write-downs by credit rating agencies. [ 100 ] Compensating a lender for outstanding amounts of loans that are not on track to be repaid even after 20 or 25 years since entering repayment may provide a benefit to lenders and bond holders that are otherwise struggling to receive sufficient repayments.

The bulk of the costs from this provision would accrue to the Department by paying guaranty agencies to compensate loan holders for the outstanding value of loans that the Secretary chooses to waive. The Department believes these costs are justified because the benefits to the Department and the borrower to address loans that are unlikely to be fully repaid are significant. In some cases, such as loans owed by borrowers who attended closed schools, these are also debts that could be forgiven otherwise as soon as the borrower submits certain paperwork.

We anticipate administrative expenses associated with the provisions in proposed § 682.403. We think these costs would be reasonable because the provisions in this section largely mirror existing regulations for processing certain discharges in the FFEL program, which have been used for some time. To that end, loan servicers and guaranty agencies would not need to stand up a whole new process. That means any costs would likely relate to producing the necessary paperwork for a lender to submit a claim to the guaranty agency and for the guaranty agency to process that claim and assign the loan to the Department. The Department would also incur administrative costs to receive and then waive an assigned loan, which are discussed in the separate section on administrative costs at the end of this subsection of the RIA. But this assignment and waiver process would also leverage existing channels. Finally, it is possible that some lenders could face costs from no longer receiving the quarterly special allowance payments (SAP) that are payable to FFEL loan holders on certain loans. These amounts vary based upon when a loan was disbursed and other factors. [ 101 ] The extent to which forgoing future SAP payments on a loan represents a cost will depend significantly on whether the loan was otherwise being repaid as expected or not. For example, a loan holder that was receiving lower than anticipated payments due to a borrower being on IBR may be financially better off to have the loan paid off and forgo the SAP ( print page 27603) payment. A loan that is otherwise being paid down might see some costs due to forgoing SAP. But this would also require factoring in the value of receiving payments today instead of hypothetical future ones.

These proposed rules would create administrative costs for the Department if the Secretary were to exercise his discretion to provide waivers under any of these sections. These costs are reported as a separate section because they generally represent a set of baseline expenses that the Department would incur. The marginal costs of implementing one change but not another would vary depending on the proposed regulatory section in question. For instance, the marginal cost of implementing § 30.82 on top of § 30.81 is smaller than it would be if the Department were to implement § 30.82 on top of § 30.83. Accordingly, we are presenting an overall estimate, the cost of which would be lower for solely the provisions related to §§ 30.83 through 30.85. The Department does include a separate discussion for § 682.403, which is a different process that would involve granting a waiver after taking assignment of a loan. We estimate these cumulative costs would be largely split across the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years.

Overall, the Department estimates that the waivers in §§ 30.81 through 30.88 would require one-time administrative expenses of approximately $13.0 million. These costs are associated with changes to Department systems and contractors. In addition, we estimate an additional cost of $18.0 million for waivers associated with § 682.403. This is due to the assumption of a per-borrower cost for processing the waiver on an assigned loan.

The estimates in the above discussion showed the projected effect of each waiver as a distinct action. An exception to this is the estimate for § 30.82, which does not include borrowers who are eligible in § 30.81. Doing so reflects the separate and independent nature of the provisions and how the rationale behind each is unique. However, it is possible that a given borrower could end up in multiple categories. Therefore, to assist readers in understanding the combined total of these potential waivers, we present Table 3.12 below. This table shows the estimated effect of these provisions in terms of the number of borrowers affected. The total for each provision is included independently, and matches the numbers provided in the tables above. In the last row, we display that 27.6 million unique borrowers, de-duplicated across all provisions, that would receive a waiver. This number removes duplication from the tables that are found elsewhere in this subsection of the RIA.

Table 3.12—Estimated Number of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under Various Provisions

	Number of borrowers (millions)
§ 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan	6.4
§ 30.82 Any balance growth Up to $20K	19.0
§ 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first entered repayment	2.6
§ 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon repayment plan	1.7
§ 30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness opportunity.	0.3
§ 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions	<0.1
§ 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment (GE) programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings	<0.1
Part 682 Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program Subpart D—Administration of the Federal Family Education Loan Programs by a Guaranty Agency	0.9
Unique Borrowers across §§ 30.81 through 30.88 and Part 682, Subpart D	27.6
All numbers are rounded.

Table 4.1 provides an estimate of the net Federal budget impact of these proposed regulations that are summarized in Table 2.2 of this RIA. This includes both costs of a modification to existing loan cohorts and costs for loan cohorts from 2025 to 2034. A cohort reflects all loans originated in a given fiscal year. Consistent with the requirements of the Credit Reform Act of 1990, budget cost estimates for the student loan programs reflect the estimated net present value of all future non-administrative Federal costs associated with a cohort of loans. The baseline for estimating the cost of these final regulations is the President's Budget for 2025 (PB2025).

Table 4.1—Estimated Budget Impact of the NPRM

[$ in millions]

Section	Description	Modification score (1994-2024)	Outyear score (2025-2034)	Total (1994-2034)
§ 30.83	Loans that first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago as of FY2025	13,762		13,762
§ 30.84	Eligible for forgiveness on an IDR plan but not currently enrolled in an IDR plan	8,663		8,663
§ 30.86	Took out loans during cohorts that caused school to lose access to aid due to high CDRs	15		15
§ 30.85	Eligible for a closed school loan discharge but has not successfully applied	7,565		7,565
( print page 27604)
§ 30.86-§ 30.88	Borrowed to attend a gainful employment program that lost access to aid or closed	11,927	15,274	27,201
§ 30.81	Current balance exceeds amount owed upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan with income below certain thresholds	10,966		10,966
§ 30.82	Current balance exceeds amount owed upon entering repayment for borrowers not on an IDR plan or who are on an IDR plan but have incomes above the thresholds in 30.81	62,094		62,094
§ 682.403	Commercial FFEL loans that first entered repayment 25 years ago; eligible for a closed school discharge, but have not applied; or loans to attend a school that lost access to aid due to high CDRs, for applicable cohort	17,053		17,053

It is possible that borrowers may qualify for more than one provision, but they can only receive one waiver of the full outstanding balance of a loan. Accordingly, the primary budget estimate stacks the scores in the order shown with waivers resulting in the full relief of a loan's outstanding balance evaluated prior to considering waivers related to partial forgiveness of amounts related to balance growth. However, all the relief available to borrowers of FFEL loans is reflected in one estimate after the estimates for the other provisions. The Department believes this stacked estimation is appropriate for the primary estimates of the proposed regulations.

The Department estimated the budget impact of the provisions in this draft rule that permits the Secretary to waive some or all of the outstanding balance of loans through changes to the Department's Death, Disability, and Bankruptcy (DDB) assumption that handles a broad range of loan discharges or adjustments, the collections assumption to reflect balance changes on loans that ever defaulted, and the IDR assumption for effects on borrowers in those repayment plans. The projected amount of forgiveness is estimated based on administrative data about the loan portfolio that allows us to identify loans eligible for the various waivers. The DDB assumption is used in the Student Loan Model (SLM) to determine the rate and timing of loan discharges due to the death, disability, bankruptcy, or other discharge of the borrowers. The SLM is designed to calculate cash flow estimates for the Department's Federal postsecondary student loan programs in compliance with the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA) and all relevant federal guidance. The SLM calculates student loan net cost estimates for loan cohorts where a cohort consists of the loans originated in a given budget (fiscal) year. The model operates with input data obtained from historical experience and other relevant data sources. The SLM cash flow components range from origination fees through scheduled principal and interest payments, defaults, collections, recoveries, and fees. The cash flow time period begins with the fiscal year of first disbursement and ends with the fiscal year of the events at the end of the life of the loan: repayment, discharge, or forgiveness.

For each loan cohort, the SLM contains separate DDB rates by loan program, population (Non-Consolidated, Consolidated Not From Default, and Consolidated From Default), loan type, and budget risk group (Two-Year Public and Not-for-Profit, Two-Year Proprietary, Four-Year Freshman and Sophomore, Four-Year Junior and Senior, and Graduate Student). The DDB rate is the sum of several component rates that reflect underlying claims data and assumptions about the effect of policy changes and updated data on future claims activity. In general, DDB claims are aggregated as the numerator by fiscal year of origination and population, program, loan type, risk group, and years from origination until the DDB claims. Zeros are used for any missing categories in the numerator. Net loan amounts are aggregated as the denominator by fiscal year of origination and population, program loan type, and risk group. The DDB rate is simply the ratio of the numerator to the denominator. Because the SLM only allows for DDB rates to be specified up to 30 years from origination, DDB claims occurring more than 30 years after origination are included in the year 30 rate. DDB rates for future cohorts are forecasted using weighted averages of prior year rates and have a number of additions and adjustment factors built into it to capture policies or anticipated discharges that are not reflected in the processed discharge data yet including adjustments for anticipated increased borrower defense and closed school activity.

For estimates related to waivers granted to borrowers enrolled in IDR repayment plans, the Department has a borrower and loan type level submodel that generates representative cashflows for use in the SLM. This IDR submodel contains information about borrowers' time in repayment, the use of deferments and forbearances, estimated incomes and filing statuses, and annual balances. For these estimates, we also imputed whether the borrower would be eligible for the waivers related to CDR or GE in proposed §§ 30.86 through 30.88. Therefore, we are able to identify the borrowers in the IDR submodel who would be eligible for one of the proposed waivers and incorporate that effect either by ending the payment cycle for borrowers who receive a total balance waiver or eliminating the excess balance for borrowers who would be eligible for waivers under either §§ 30.81 or 30.82.

Partial forgiveness of balances for borrowers already modeled to be on an IDR plan can have three different effects depending upon whether or not the borrower was expected to get IDR forgiveness prior to these waivers, and whether the waiver changes that anticipated outcome. These effects are:

1. Before and after the policy is applied, borrowers are expected to receive some IDR forgiveness at the end of their repayment term. For these borrowers, the waivers would affect the amount ultimately forgiven, but because payments are based upon income and ( print page 27605) the amount of time borrowers are expected to repay is unchanged, there is no effect on the amount of anticipated future payments.

2. The borrower was expected to receive IDR forgiveness before the policy's application, but afterward is now expected to pay off their balance before receiving IDR forgiveness. Because these borrowers are now expected to repay in less time, there is some reduction in the amount of anticipated future payments.

3. Before applying the policy, the borrower was expected to retire their loan balance prior to receiving IDR forgiveness, but as a result of the policy is now expected to retire their balance sooner. Because these borrowers are now expected to repay in less time, there is some reduction in the amount of anticipated future payments.

We project that most borrowers modeled to be on IDR would end up in the first group. Since these borrowers would not see a change in the amount they pay before receiving forgiveness, we do not assign a cost to the waivers for these borrowers. Any costs associated with the forgiveness of amounts above the balance owed at repayment entry for IDR borrowers is limited to the minority of borrowers in the second and third groups, for whom the forgiveness reduces the number of payments needed to fully repay their loan. The result is we do not anticipate significant costs for the waivers that would be granted under §§ 30.81 or 30.82 for borrowers in IDR.

We are not assigning an estimated outyear budget cost to the provisions in § 30.84 related to borrowers who are eligible for forgiveness on a repayment plan but have not successfully enrolled in such plan. We already assign a high percentage of future borrowers who would be eligible for forgiveness on an IDR plan as being in an IDR plan, including those with lower balances. Therefore, our assumption is that this provision will only affect borrowers who have already accumulated time in repayment.

For estimates related to the effects of the proposed waiver provisions on borrowers with loans not in IDR plans, the Department's approach is to: (1) estimate the potential waiver amounts borrowers would be eligible for and aggregate them by loan cohort, loan type, and budget risk group used in the SLM; (2) Add the waiver amounts for non-defaulted, non-IDR borrowers to the Department's baseline DDB assumption in FY 2025; and (3) remove the amounts associated with the waiver provisions from defaulted, non-IDR borrowers from the baseline collections assumption. The revised IDR, DDB and collections groups are run in a SLM scenario for each provision to generate the estimates in Table 4.1. To produce the potential waiver amounts in Step 1 of this process, the Department developed a loan level file based on the FY2022 sample of NSLDS information used for preparing budget estimates. Information from this file allows the evaluation of times in repayment that qualify for one of the provisions and anticipated balances at the end of FY2024 for use in calculating the amount that the Secretary may waive for borrowers who have experienced balance growth.

To help estimate the costs of §§ 30.86 through 30.88, as well as § 682.403(b)(3), the Department reviewed information about institutions that lost eligibility to participate in title IV for CDR and the relevant timeframes for those actions and identified loans that would be eligible for a CDR-based waiver under § 30.86 and § 682.403(b)(3). Similarly, we identified loans for borrowers that entered repayment within a fiscal year of an institution's closure in the list of closed schools and assumed they would be eligible for a total balance waiver under § 30.85 and § 682.403(b)(3). [ 102 ] To estimate the effects of § 30.88, similar identification was made of students with outstanding loan balances who attended GE programs that failed the GE metrics based on the data from the 2015, 2016, and 2017 Award Years released in 2023 and did not have any students who received Title IV aid from 2018 onwards, as shown in Table 3.10. Approximately 7.4 percent of loans made by cohort 2024 in our sample qualified for total balance waiver under one of these provisions. The proposed waivers in these three sections are also applicable going forward, but the Department does not estimate a significant cost related to the CDR or closed school waiver provisions. No institutions have lost eligibility based on CDR performance since the 2014 CDR rates and only 28 institutions have lost eligibility on this basis since 1997, so we do not expect this to be a significant source of waivers for future cohorts. We also assume that closed school discharges for future loan cohorts are already captured in our baseline estimates especially given the automatic closed school discharge provision now in effect. [ 103 ] Therefore, the primary source of outyear costs estimated for these provisions is Gainful Employment performance, and a separate process using the results of the model used to estimate the cost of that regulation was used to generate an estimate for cohorts 2021-2034.

These estimates are all based off the same random sample of borrowers that is used for all other budget estimation activity related to Federal student loans for the Department. Currently, the most recent sample available is from the end of FY2022, which is the best currently available data that maintains the Department's consistent scoring practices. The Department recognizes from its general ledger records that there have been a significant number of loan discharges granted since that sample was pulled. This particularly includes forgiveness tied to IDR and PSLF.

In this NPRM, the Department provides our best budget estimates based on the most recent sample used in the required baseline, while noting that this data does not allow the Department to adjust for these recent discharges because they occurred after the date the sample used in that baseline was generated. The Department's PB2025 baseline projects its best estimates of future discharges based on the sample data and other information available when the baseline is developed. As a new sample is drawn and updated balances and loan information are available for analysis, we will incorporate that into the analysis of these waiver provisions in the final rule so that we do not attribute existing discharges to these waivers. For instance, between 2022 and 2023 the Department approved hundreds of thousands of additional discharges for borrowers through fixes to IDR and PSLF as well as automatic relief for borrowers with a total and permanent disability, and discharges based upon borrower defense findings and covered by related court settlements. These discharges include almost $44 billion in approved discharges for more than 901,000 borrowers through IDR, approximately 200,000 borrowers through a court settlement, and more than 150,000 borrowers through PSLF. The discharges also include a few tens of thousands of borrowers through total and permanent disability discharges. The Department also approved roughly 10,000 new discharges based upon borrower defense to repayment findings ( print page 27606) and continued processing relief for previously approved discharges.

While the Department's best estimates based on the most recent sample cannot adjust for such discharges for the reasons explained above, we can anticipate these different types of discharges are most likely to affect certain provisions. Discharges through income-based repayment could primarily reduce the costs of § 30.83; those for PSLF could primarily affect the cost of § 30.81; and those for borrower defense and other types of discharges could primarily affect § 30.82 because these borrowers are less likely to be on an IDR plan, or they could affect the costs of §§ 30.85 through 30.88 because some of these borrowers may have otherwise been eligible for a closed school loan discharge or attended programs that failed to provide sufficient financial value because they failed to meet standards of debt-to-earnings or earnings premium and have closed. We anticipate having a more recent sample for FY2023 available by the time we write a final rule. As a result, we anticipate that final rule would reflect those discharges that have already occurred, which may affect the results in the net budget estimate for the final rule.

The Department used the information about projected passage and failure rates of GE programs (also described as program transition rates) in the 2023 final GE regulation  [ 104 ] along with enrollment and average loans in the associated categories and respective years to calculate the total amount of Federal loans that students in programs that fail GE metrics will get relief from 2021-2034 under § 30.86. In our modeling we do not project that institutions will voluntarily close programs prior to a failure or other Secretarial action based on failing to deliver sufficient financial value, so we do not include any modeling for § 30.87. The rates for 2026 represent the program transition rates before the second GE metrics will be published and programs could lose eligibility for students who attend to borrow Federal loans and receive Pell Grants. For our budget estimate, the time frame for applying these rates was extended back to 2021 to account for students who attended during the years on which the metrics are based and would subsequently get relief on their associated Federal loans. As done in the analyses of the 2014 and 2023 GE regulations, the Department assumes institutions at risk of warning or sanction would take at least some steps to improve program performance by improving program quality, increasing job placement and academic support staff, and lowering prices (leading to lower levels of debt). Evidence and further discussion of this can be found in the 2023 GE regulation. Therefore, the rates for 2027 to 2033 represent the program transition rates after programs could be sanctioned and reflect an increase in the probability of having a passing result. In this analysis, the rates for 2027 to 2033 were used in calculating the amount of total relief for cohorts 2027 to 2034, extending to the last outyear of the current budget window.

To calculate the percent of enrollment by program type, performance category, and cohort that would receive relief, the program transition rates for the given year were transformed to account for students whose loans would be eligible for forgiveness in that year, in the next year, and two years out. These percents are shown below in Table 4.2. For all enrollment at programs that fail for a second time and are deemed to become ineligible moving forward, students in qualifying cohorts would be eligible to receive relief on their associated loans to attend those programs, which is indicated by the 100 percent for pre-ineligible programs. To estimate the percent of enrollment at programs with one failure (for D/E, EP, or both) whose students would be eligible for forgiveness in the next year, the rate of one failure was multiplied by the rate of a following second failure that would cause the program to become ineligible moving forward. To estimate the percent of enrollment at programs that are passing in a given year but whose students would be eligible to receive relief in two years, the rate of a passing program getting a failure in the next cycle was multiplied by the rate of it failing again. For example, the program transition assumptions for GE programs in the 2023 GE rule  [ 105 ] shows that for 4-year programs in 2027, the rate of passing programs expected to fail D/E, EP, or both in the next year are 3.1 percent, 0 percent, and 0.2 percent, respectively. The rates of each of these paths for a passing program to fail a metric in the following year were multiplied by the rates of the program failing the same or both metrics again and becoming ineligible, 73.5 percent for EP, 87.7 percent for DE, and 89.6 percent for both. Once those two sets of rates are multiplied by their failure status and summed together, the final estimate for the percent of enrollment at passing programs in 2027 to become eligible for relief in 2 years is 2.5 percent, calculated by ((3.1 percent * 73.5 percent) + (0 percent * 87.7 percent) + (0.2 percent * 89.6 percent)). Last, students at programs that were already deemed ineligible in the past would not receive Federal aid to attend and therefore not be eligible to receive relief on those loans, which is indicated by the 0 percent for ineligible programs. These percentages were multiplied by the enrollment and average loans calculated in the 2023 GE regulation in the associated categories (loan type and budget risk group) and respective years (cohorts 2021-2026 and 2027-2034) to calculate the total loans that would be eligible for relief under § 30.86.

Table 4.2—Percent of Enrollment That Would Be Eligible for Relief by Program Type and Performance Category

  2021-2026 2027-2034 Proprietary 2-year or less Pass 7.8 5.3 Fail D/E only 81.2 76.2 Fail EP only 89.2 84.2 Fail Both 96.6 91.6 Pre-Ineligible 100.0 100.0 Ineligible 0.0 0.0 Public and Nonprofit 2-year or less Pass 2.2 0.8 Fail D/E only 39.5 34.5 ( print page 27607) Fail EP only 52.7 47.7 Fail Both 70.9 65.9 Pre-Ineligible 100.0 100.0 Ineligible 0.0 0.0 4-year Pass 4.7 2.5 Fail D/E only 78.6 73.6 Fail EP only 96.5 91.3 Fail Both 94.6 89.6 Pre-Ineligible 100.0 100.0 Ineligible 0.0 0.0 Graduate Pass 2.4 0.4 Fail D/E only 80.1 75.1 Fail EP only 0.0 0.0 Fail Both 91.3 86.3 Pre-Ineligible 100.0 100.0 Ineligible 0.0 0.0

Once estimated, the dollar amounts of forgiveness from this gainful employment performance metric is aggregated by cohort, loan type, and budget risk group and divided by the net loan volume for those same categories. This generated an adjustment factor based on the modeled future GE rate performance that is added to the PB2025 baseline DDB rate. To get the full potential cost of the GE related provisions, those increased DDB rates were fed into the second step of the main estimation process for the non-IDR estimate so that the combined effects on DDB can be loaded as one DDB assumption group in the SLM as increased DDB rates. This resulted in the increase in costs associated with the gainful employment provision of approximately $27.2 billion for cohorts 1994-2034.

While the primary estimates presented in Table 4.1 are based on the best data the Department has available currently, we recognize some of the impacts depend on borrower action in the period since our data was extracted and the implementation of the proposed waiver provisions. One effect is the response of programs and institutions if they have a program that fails the GE regulations. The primary estimate includes assumptions that some failing programs improve and therefore do not fail again and lose access to title IV, HEA programs. In the alternative budget scenario, we model the effects if there is no improvement by failing GE programs. We use the results of that scenario from the gainful employment final rule to estimate the higher outyear costs displayed in Table 4.3.

Another modeling assumption that affects the net budget impact of the proposed waivers relates to the payment behavior of borrowers in FY 2024. Payments and interest have resumed following the multi-year COVID-19 payment pause and the extent to which borrowers do not make payments and accumulate additional interest or make payments and therefore reduce interest that has already accumulated will affect the net budget impact. The Department has looked at payment reports from the initial months since the return to repayment and looked at the percentage of outstanding balances in repayment were less than 31 days delinquent. In the primary net budget impact score, we assumed that half of the borrowers that were more than 31 days late in the non-IDR, non-defaulted part of our sample would start to make payments prior to the rule taking effect and did not add additional interest to their balance. For this alternative, we added a year of interest to all borrowers in deferment, forbearance, or over 30 days delinquent statuses to estimate the effect of this payment behavior factor.

Table 4.3—Alternate Budget Scenarios

Alternative scenario	Description	Modification score (1994-2024)	Outyear score (2025-2034)	Total (1994-2034)
Payers in FY2024	The estimated balances in FY2024 depend on assumption about borrower payment behavior. This alternative adds a year of interest to the 37% of borrowers not in a good payment status (under 30 days delinquent) in January 2024 payment reporting. This compares to the primary estimate in which half of those borrowers in delinquent, deferred, or forbearance status were treated as paying	68,272	0	68,272
GE No Program Improvement	Uses the No Program Improvement estimate from GE modeling to estimate increased outyear impact from more students being in programs that fail the accountability measures	11,927	19,835	31,762

As required by OMB Circular A-4, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of these regulations. Table 5.1 provides our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized transfers that may result from these proposed regulations.

Table 5.1—Accounting Statement: Classification of Estimated Expenditures

[In millions]

Category Benefits Reduction in loans that are unlikely to be repaid in full in a reasonable period Not quantified Increased ability for borrowers to repay loans that have grown beyond their balance at repayment entry Not quantified Reduced administrative burden for Department due to reduced servicing, default, and collection costs Not quantified Category Costs   2% Costs of compliance with paperwork requirements for guaranty agencies and commercial FFEL loan holders $12.06 One-time administrative costs to Federal government to update systems and contracts to implement the proposed regulations 3.4 Category Transfers Reduced transfers from borrowers due to waivers: 2% Based on excess balances upon entering repayment of IDR borrowers under income limits in § 30.81 1,197 Based on excess balances upon entering repayment of all borrowers in § 30.82 6,777 Based on time in repayment in § 30.83 2,893 Based on eligibility for forgiveness in IDR in § 30.84 945 Based on eligibility for forgiveness from Closed School in § 30.85 826 Based on eligibility for forgiveness from CDR in § 30.86 2 Based on eligibility for forgiveness from GE in § 30.86-§ 30.88 2,848 Based on provisions affecting commercial FFEL borrowers in § 682.403 1,861 Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal government to affected student loan borrowers.

The Department considered the option of not proposing these regulations. However, we believe these rules are important to inform the public about how the Secretary would exercise his longstanding authority related to waiver in a consistent manner. The Department thinks foregoing these proposed regulations would reduce transparency about the Secretary's discretionary use of waiver. For all the reasons detailed above, such waivers would produce substantial, critical benefits for borrowers and the Department, among others, and reduce some costs for the Department as well. Overall, the Department's analysis of costs and benefits weighs in favor of the proposed regulations.

As part of the development of these proposed regulations, the Department engaged in a negotiated rulemaking process in which we received comments and proposals from non-Federal negotiators representing numerous impacted constituencies. These included higher education institutions, legal assistance organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, student loan borrowers, civil rights organizations, state officials, and state attorneys general. Non-Federal negotiators submitted a variety of proposals relating to the issues under discussion. Information about these proposals is available on our negotiated rulemaking website at https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

In drafting this NPRM, the Department considered many alternatives. For provisions related to waiving balances beyond what a borrower owed upon entering repayment, we considered several ideas that would have provided a capped amount of relief for borrowers that met certain conditions. For instance, during negotiated rulemaking we considered capping the amount of a waiver at $20,000 for borrowers on IDR plans with incomes at or below 225 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. However, many negotiators raised concerns that the amount of relief granted was too low to fully address the issue of balance growth. They also raised concerns that having such an income cap would miss many middle-income borrowers who have also experienced balance growth and need assistance. We were convinced by these comments that it would be better to provide relief to a wider group of borrowers and instead protect against providing undue benefits to the highest income borrowers, which is reflected in this proposed rule in § 30.81. We thought this approach was superior to alternative ways to address concerns about targeting, such as providing a sliding scale of relief that would decrease as income rises. We were concerned that such an approach would be operationally complicated and confusing to explain to borrowers. Similarly, we considered providing up to $10,000 in relief for borrowers not on an IDR plan or whose incomes were above a certain threshold as opposed to the $20,000 limit proposed in this draft rule. However, we were persuaded during negotiated rulemaking that a relief threshold of $10,000 would miss providing sufficient assistance to large numbers of borrowers who need the help to successfully manage their debts.

Regarding the waiver in § 30.83 for loans that entered repayment a long time ago, we considered applying the thresholds for shortened time to forgiveness present in the SAVE plan. This provision provides forgiveness after as few as 10 years of payments for borrowers who originally took out $12,000 or less, with a sliding scale of an additional year of payments for each added $1,000 in borrowing. However, we thought such an approach would not be appropriate because this timeline is only available under the SAVE plan. By contrast, the goal of § 30.83 is to address situations where borrowers have been unable to fully repay in a reasonable time and have not even been able to repay in full over an extended period. This extended period is consistent with ( print page 27609) the forgiveness timelines on other IDR plans, which provide repayment terms of up to 20 or 25 years.

For the provisions in § 682.403, the Department considered two alternatives. We considered permitting waivers for loans that first entered repayment 20 years ago instead of 25. However, the only IDR plan available to FFEL borrowers provides forgiveness after 25 years, so we did not think it was appropriate to select a forgiveness period that is otherwise unavailable for these borrowers. We also considered including a provision similar to § 30.84 for borrowers who are eligible for but haven't applied for IBR. However, we do not believe we would have the data to make such a determination so did not include it.

The Secretary certifies, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), that this final regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities.”

These regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are focused on arrangements between the borrower and the Department. They do not affect institutions of higher education in any way, and these entities are typically the focus on the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. As noted in the Paperwork Reduction Act section, burden related to the final regulations will be assessed in a separate information collection process and that burden is expected to involve individuals more than institutions of any size.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) ( 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) ). This helps provide that: the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

Proposed § 682.403 in this NPRM contains information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the Department would, at the required time, submit a copy of these sections and an Information Collections Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. In the final regulations, we would display the control numbers assigned by OMB to any information collection requirements proposed in this NPRM and adopted in the final regulations.

Section 682.403—Waiver of FFEL Program loan debt.

Requirements: The NPRM proposes to amend part 682 by adding a new § 682.403 to allow the Secretary to waive specific Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans held by private lenders or managed by guaranty agencies.

In the case of FFEL Program loans held by a private loan holder or a guaranty agency, under proposed § 682.403(a) the Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan when a loan first entered into repayment on or before July 1, 2000; when the borrower is otherwise eligible for, but has not successfully applied for, a closed school discharge; or when the borrower attended an institution that lost its title IV eligibility due to a high CDR, if the borrower was included in the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the CDR or rates that were the basis for the institution's loss of eligibility. If the Secretary chose to exercise his discretion under this section, the Secretary would notify the lender that a loan qualifies for a waiver and the lender would be instructed to submit a claim to the guaranty agency. The guaranty agency would pay the claim, be reimbursed by the Secretary, and assign the loan to the Secretary. After the loan is assigned, the Secretary would grant the waiver.

Sections 682.403(c), and (d) describe the specific requirements of the waiver claim filing process for a lender, and guaranty agency, with the Department.

Section 682.403(c) Notification provides that if the Secretary determines that a loan qualifies for a waiver, the Secretary notifies the lender and directs the lender to submit a waiver claim to the applicable guaranty agency and to suspend collection activity or to maintain suspension of collection activities on the loan.

Section 682.403(d) Claim Procedures describes the waiver claim procedures. Under proposed § 682.403(d)(1), the guaranty agency would be required to establish and enforce standards and procedures for the timely filing of waiver claims by lenders.

Proposed § 682.403(d)(9)(i) would require the guaranty agency to assign the loan to the Secretary within 75 days of the date the guaranty agency pays the claim and receives the reimbursement payment. If the guaranty agency is the loan holder, under proposed § 682.403(d)(9)(ii) the guaranty agency would be required to assign the loan on the date that the guaranty agency receives the notice from the Secretary.

§ 682.403(d)(1)  Claim Procedures.

The proposed regulatory changes would add burden to lenders and guaranty agencies and would require a new collection in the Federal Student Aid information collection catalog. As noted in Table 3.11 in this RIA and explained in the costs, benefits, and transfers section, we currently estimate that approximately 900,000 commercial FFEL borrowers would qualify for this waiver claim. Of these, an estimated 300,000 are currently in default at a guaranty agency and therefore are not affected by the claim procedures related to lenders. These waivers affect the current 314 lenders (268 For-Profit and 46 Not-For-Profit) and the current 12 ( print page 27610) guaranty agencies (6 Not-For-Profit and 6 Public). Among those 12 guaranty agencies we estimate that about 80 percent of borrowers would be processed by Not-For-Profit guarantors and 20 percent would be processed by Public guarantors. The costs are estimated using the median hourly wage of $31.60 reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for loan officers. [ 106 ] We estimated the number of hours needed per task in the sections below based upon discussions with Department staff that have worked on similar processes in the past. These figures and considerations are the basis for the following estimations.

The proposed regulations in § 682.403(d)(1) Claim Procedures would require the 12 guaranty agencies to establish and enforce standard procedures of timely waiver filing by affected lenders.

We estimate that these procedures would follow the current discharge processes that guaranty agencies utilize, therefore minimizing development of the new procedures. We estimate that it would take each guaranty agency two hours to draft the required standard procedures for a total of 24 hours (12 guaranty agencies × 2 hours).

§ 682.403( d )(1) Claim Procedures—OMB Control Number 1845-NEW

Affected entity	Respondent	Responses	Burden hours	Cost $31.60 per hour
Private non-profit	6	6	12	$379
Public	6	6	12	379
Total	12	12	24	758

§§ 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) Claim Procedures.

The proposed regulations in §§ 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) Claim Procedures would require affected lenders to submit claims to the guaranty agencies based on the notification received from the Department as established in § 682.403(c) within seventy-five days of receiving the notification. The documentation includes the original or a true and exact copy of the promissory note, and the notification received from the Department. If a lender does not have the original or true and exact copy of the promissory note, it may submit alternate documentation acceptable to the Secretary.

We are estimating that each lender would require three hours per borrower to gather the required documentation together and prepare to submit the documentation to the appropriate guaranty agency for a total of 1,800,000 hours (600,000 borrowers × 3 hours).

§§ 682.403( d )(2), (3), and (4) Claim Procedures—OMB Control Number 1845-NEW

Affected entity	Respondent	Responses	Burden hours	Cost $31.60 per hour
Private non-profit	46	90,000	270,000	$8,532,000
For-profit	268	510,000	1,530,000	48,348,000
Total	314	600,000	1,800,000	56,880,000

§ 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures.

The proposed regulations in § 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures would require affected guaranty agencies to review the waiver claim and supporting documentation from the lenders to determine that the document meets the requirements of §§ 682.403(d)(3), and (4).

We estimate that it would take each guaranty agency one hour to review the incoming documentation for a total of 600,000 hours (600,000 borrower documentation files × 1 hour).

§ 682.403( d )(5) Claim Procedures—OMB Control Number 1845-NEW

Affected entity	Respondent	Responses	Burden hours	Cost $31.60 per hour
Private non-profit	6	480,000	480,000	$15,168,000
Public	6	120,000	120,000	3,792,000
Total	12	600,000	600,000	18,960,000

§ 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures.

The proposed regulations in § 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures would require affected guaranty agencies, after determining waiver claims submitted by the lender meet the regulatory requirements, to pay the waiver claim to the lenders within 30 days of receipt of the waiver claim.

We estimate that it would take each guaranty agency 20 minutes to prepare and submit the payment for a total of 198,000 hours (600,000 borrower waiver claim payment × .33 hours). ( print page 27611)

§ 682.403( d )(6) Claim Procedures—OMB Control Number 1845-NEW

Affected entity	Respondent	Responses	Burden hours	Cost $31.60 per hour
Private non-profit	6	480,000	158,400	$5,005,440
Public	6	120,000	39,600	1,251,360
Total	12	600,000	198,000	6,256,800

§ 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures.

The proposed regulations in § 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures would require affected guaranty agencies to assign a loan that it paid through the waiver claim process within 75 days of the date that it pays the waiver claim to the lender or the date of notification from the Department if the guaranty agency is the lender.

We estimate that it would take each guaranty agency one hour to assign the loans which have been paid through the waiver claim process or that was otherwise already at the guarantor for a total of 900,000 hours (900,000 borrower documentation files × 1 hour).

§ 682.403( d )(9) Claim Procedures—OMB Control Number 1845-NEW

Affected entity	Respondent	Responses	Burden hours	Cost $31.60 per hour
Private non-profit	6	720,000	720,000	$22,752,000
Public	6	180,000	180,000	5,688,000
Total	12	900,000	900,000	28,440,000

Consistent with the discussions above, the following chart describes the sections of the proposed regulations involving information collections, the information being collected and the collections that the Department would submit to OMB for approval and public comment under the PRA, and the estimated costs associated with the information collections. The monetized net cost of the increased burden for institutions, lenders, guaranty agencies and students, using wage data developed using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. For institutions, lenders, and guaranty agencies we have used the median hourly wage for Loan Officers, $31.60 per hour according to BLS. https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​current/​oes132072.htm .

Collection of Information

Regulatory section	Information collection	OMB control No. and estimated burden	Estimated cost $31.60 per hour
§ 682.403(d)(1)	Under proposed § 682.403(d)(1) the guaranty agency would be required to establish and enforce standards and procedures for the timely filing of waiver claims by lenders	1845-NEW; 24 hours	$758
§ 682.403(d)(2), (3), & (4)	The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) would require affected lenders to submit claims to the guaranty agencies based on the notification received from the Department as established in 682.403(c) within seventy-five days of receiving the notification. The documentation includes the original or a true and exact copy of the promissory note, and the notification received from the Department. If a lender does not have the original or true and exact copy of the promissory note, it may submit alternate documentation acceptable to the Secretary	1845-NEW; 1,800,000	56,880,000
§ 682.403(d)(5)	The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(5) would require affected guaranty agencies to review the waiver claim and supporting documentation from the lenders to determine that the document meets the requirements of 682.403(d)(3), and (4)	1845-NEW; 600,000	18,960,000
§ 682.403(d)(6)	The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(6) would require affected guaranty agencies, after determining waiver claims submitted by the lender meet the regulatory requirements, to pay the waiver claim to the lenders within thirty days of receipt of the waiver claim	1845-NEW; 198,000	6,256,800
( print page 27612)
§ 682.403(d)(9)	The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(9) would require affected guaranty agencies to assign a loan that it paid through the waiver claim process with- in seventy-five days of the date that it pays the waiver claim to the lender or the date of notification from the Department if the guaranty agency is the lender	1845-NEW; 900,000	28,440,000
Total		1845-NEW; 3,498,024	110,537,588

If you wish to review and comment on the Information Collection Requests, please follow the instructions in the ADDRESSES section of this notification. Note: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the Department review all comments posted at www.regulations.gov .

In preparing your comments, you may want to review the Information Collection Request, including the supporting materials, in www.regulations.gov by using the Docket ID number specified in this notification. This proposed collection is identified as proposed collection 1845-NEW.

We consider your comments on these proposed collections of information in—

• Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use.
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions.
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond.

Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d) , the Department is soliciting comments on the information collection through this document. Between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register , OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Therefore, to make certain that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives your comments on these Information Collection Requests by May 17, 2024.

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79 . One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4 , the Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these final regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide meaningful and timely input by State and local elected officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. “Federalism implications” means substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed regulations do not have Federalism implications.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person(s) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov . At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov . Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

• Income taxes
• Administrative practice and procedure
• Colleges and universities
• Loan programs-education
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Student aid
• Vocational education

Miguel A. Cardona,

Secretary of Education.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of Education proposes to amend parts 30 and 682 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1) , and 1226a-1 , 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) , 31 U.S.C. 3716(b) and 3720A , unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 30.1 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(2).

b. Revising paragraph (b).

c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(8) as paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9).

d. Adding a new paragraph (c)(7).

The additions and revisions read as follows:

(a) * * * ( print page 27613)

(2) Refer the debt to the Government Accountability Office for collection in accordance with § 30.70(f).

(b) In taking any of the actions listed in paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary complies with the requirements of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS) at 31 CFR parts 900-904 that are not inconsistent with the requirements of this part.

(7) Waive repayment of a debt under subpart G of this part;

3. Add § 30.9 to read as follows:

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any other person, act, or practice will not be affected thereby.

4. Section 30.20 is amended by:

(a) In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), removing the words “IRS tax refund” and adding, in their place, the words “Treasury Offset Program”.

(b) In paragraph (b)(2), adding the word “or” after the semicolon.

(c) In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), removing the semicolon and the word “or” and adding, in their place, a period.

(d) Removing paragraph (b)(4).

5. Section 30.23 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

(1) All information provided to the debtor in the notice under § 30.22 or § 30.33(b) that identifies the debtor, the debt, and the program under which the debt arose, together with any corrections of that identifying information; and

6. Section 30.25(c)(1)(ii)is amended by removing the citation “(a)(1)” and adding, in its place, the citation “(a)”.

7. Section 30.27(c) is amended by removing the citation “ 4 CFR 102.11 ” and adding, in its place, the citation “ 31 CFR 901.8 ”.

8. Section 30.29(a)(3) is amended by removing the citation “ 4 CFR 102.3 ” and adding, in its place, the citation “ 31 CFR 901.3 ”.

9. Section 30.30(a)(3) is amended by removing the citation “ 4 CFR 102.3 ” and adding, in its place, the citation “ 31 CFR 901.3 ”.

10. Section 30.33 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:

11. Add § 30.39 to read as follows:

12. Section 30.62 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (d)(1).

The revisions read as follows:

(a) For a debt of any amount based on a loan, the Secretary may refrain from collecting interest or charging administrative costs or penalties to the extent that compromise of these amounts is appropriate under the standards for compromise of a debt contained in 31 CFR part 902 or to the extent that waiver of repayment of these amounts is appropriate under § 30.80.

(1) Compromise of these amounts is appropriate under the standards for compromise of a debt contained in 31 CFR part 902 ; or

(1) The Secretary has accepted an installment plan under 31 CFR 901.8 ;

13. Add § 30.69 to read as follows:

14. Section 30.70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (e)(1) as follows:

(a)(1) The Secretary may use the standards in the FCCS, 31 CFR part 902 , to determine whether compromise of a debt is appropriate if the debt arises under a program administered by the Department, unless compromise of the debt is subject to paragraph (b) of this section.

(c)(1) The Secretary may use the standards in the FCCS, 31 CFR part 903 , to determine whether suspension or termination of collection action on a debt is appropriate.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the Secretary—

(e)(1) Subject to paragraph (e)(2) of this section, under the provisions of 31 CFR part 902 or 903 , the Secretary may compromise a debt in any amount, or suspend or terminate collection of a debt in any amount, if the debt arises under the Federal Family Education Loan Program authorized under title IV, part B, of the HEA, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program authorized under title IV, part D of the HEA, the Perkins Loan Program authorized under title IV, part E, of the HEA, or the Health Education Assistance Loan Program authorized under sections 701-720 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 292-292o .

15. Add § 30.79 to read as follows:

16. Add subpart G to read as follows:

The Secretary may waive all or part of any debts owed to the Department arising under the Federal Family Education Loan Program authorized under title IV, part B, of the HEA, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program authorized under title IV, part D, of the HEA, the Federal Perkins Loan Program authorized under title IV, part E, of the HEA, and the Health Education Assistance Loan Program authorized by sections 701-720 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 292-292o , under the conditions included in, but not limited to, §§ 30.81 through 30.88.

(a) Pursuant to the authority to waive debt that the Secretary is unable to collect in full under the standards prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3711(d) , and subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the Secretary may waive one time the amount by which each of a borrower's loans has a total outstanding balance that exceeds—

(1) The original principal balance of that loan for loans disbursed before January 1, 2005;

(2) The balance of that loan on the day after the end of its grace period for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005;

(3) The balance of a Federal or Direct Parent and Graduate PLUS Loan the day after it is fully disbursed; or

(4) The amounts determined under paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable, for all loans repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan.

(b) A borrower is eligible for the waiver described in paragraph (a) of this section if—

(1) The borrower is enrolled in an IDR plan under §§ 682.215, 685.209, or 685.221 as of a date determined by the Secretary; and

(2) The borrower's adjusted gross income, or other calculation of income as shown on documentation of income acceptable to the Secretary, demonstrates that the borrower's annual income as calculated under § 685.209 is either—

(i) Less than or equal to $120,000 if the borrower files a Federal tax return as single or married filing separately;

(ii) Less than or equal to $180,00 if the borrower files a Federal tax return as a head of household; or

(iii) Less than or equal to $240,000 if the borrower is married and files a joint Federal tax return or is a qualifying surviving spouse.

(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may waive one time the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which each of a borrower's loans has a total outstanding balance that exceeds—

(4) The amounts determined under paragraphs (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable, for loans repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan.

(b) A borrower who has received a waiver under § 30.81 is not eligible for a waiver under paragraph (a) of this section.

(a) The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan for a borrower—

(1) Who is repaying only loans received for undergraduate study or a Direct Consolidation Loan that repaid only loans received for undergraduate study if the loan first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2005; or

(2) Who has loans other than loans described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the loan first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000.

(b) For the purpose of this section, a loan enters repayment on—

(1) For a Federal Stafford Loan, a Direct Subsidized Loan, or a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the day after the initial grace period ends;

(2) For a Federal Parent and Graduate PLUS Loan or a Direct Parent and Graduate PLUS Loan, the day the loan is fully disbursed;

(3) For a Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan made before July 1, 2023, the earliest day as determined under paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section for loans that were repaid by that consolidation loan; or

(4) For a Direct Consolidation Loan made on or after July 1, 2023, the latest day as determined under paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section for loans that were repaid by that consolidation loan.

The Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan if the Secretary determines that a borrower is not enrolled in, but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for forgiveness under—

(a) An income-based repayment plan under § 682.215 or § 685.221;

(b) An income-contingent repayment plan under § 685.209; or

(c) An alternative repayment plan under § 685.208(l).

(a) The Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan if the Secretary determines that a borrower has not applied or not successfully applied for, but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for, any loan discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness opportunity under part 682 or 685.

(b) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (a) of this section are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan.

(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with attending an institution or a program at an institution if the Secretary or other authorized Department official has issued a final decision that terminated the institution or program's participation in the title IV, HEA programs or denied the institution's request for recertification, or the Secretary or other authorized Department official has otherwise determined that the institution or the program in which the student was enrolled is no longer eligible for its students to receive assistance under the title IV, HEA programs and that decision, denial, or determination was due, in whole or in part, to any of the following circumstances:

(1) The program or institution has failed to meet an accountability standard based on student outcomes established under the HEA or its implementing regulations for determining eligibility for participation in the title IV, HEA programs.

(2) The program or institution has failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students, including in situations where the institution or program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities; ( print page 27615) this paragraph applies to circumstances when the institution or program has lost accreditation at least in part due to such activities.

(b) The waiver described in paragraph (a) of this section is limited to loans that were borrowed to attend that program or institution during the period that corresponds with the findings or outcomes data that forms the basis for the action described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless the Secretary determines that the use of a different period is appropriate.

(c) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (a) of this section are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan.

(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with attending a program or institution if the program or institution has closed and the Secretary or other authorized Department official has determined that—

(1) Based on the most recent reliable data for that program or institution, the program or institution has not satisfied, for at least one year, an accountability standard based on student outcomes established under the HEA or its implementing regulations for determining eligibility for participation in the title IV, HEA programs; or

(2) The program or institution—

(i) Failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students including in situations where the institution or program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities; this paragraph applies to circumstances when the institution or program has lost accreditation at least in part due to such activities; and

(ii) Is the subject of a program review, investigation, or any other Department action that remains unresolved at the time of closure and that is based, in whole or in part, on the conduct described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

(a) The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan received by a borrower associated with enrollment in a Gainful Employment (GE) program as described in 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i) and (c)(1)(A) if—

(1) The program or institution closed;

(2) The Secretary makes the determination that the program was not a program that prepares students to become a doctor of medicine or osteopathy or a doctor of dental science; and

(3) For the period in which the borrower received loans for enrollment in the program, the Secretary has reliable and available data demonstrating that, for students who received title IV, HEA assistance—

(i)(A) The median annual loan payment of graduates from the program is greater than 20 percent of the median annual earnings for graduates, minus 150 percent of the applicable Federal Poverty Guideline for the year being measured or the denominator of such calculation is zero or negative; and

(B) The median annual loan payment of graduates from the program is greater than eight percent of the median annual earnings for graduates of the program or the denominator of such calculation is zero; or

(ii) The median annual earnings of graduates from the program are equal to or less than the median annual earnings for working adults aged 25-34, who either worked during the year or indicated they were unemployed ( i.e., not employed but looking for and available to work) when interviewed, with only a high school diploma (or recognized equivalent)—

(A) In the State in which the institution is located; or

(B) Nationally, if fewer than 50 percent of the students in the program are from the State where the institution is located, or if the institution is a foreign institution.

(b) In determining whether a program meets the requirements under paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary—

(1) Identifies a program using the program's six-digit CIP code as assigned by the institution or determined by the Secretary, in combination with the institution's six-digit Office of Postsecondary Education ID (OPEID) number and the program's credential level, unless the Secretary does not have reliable and available data at the six digit-level, in which case the Secretary will use the four-digit CIP code;

(2) Calculates the annual loan payment based upon the average of—

(i) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for undergraduate students for the three consecutive award years ending in the latest completion year for the students whose median debt payment is being calculated for graduates of undergraduate certificate programs, post-baccalaureate certificate programs, and associate degree programs; or

(ii) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate students for the three consecutive award years ending in the latest completion year for the students whose median debt payment is being calculated for graduates of graduate certificate programs and master's degree programs; or

(iii) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for undergraduate students for the six consecutive award years ending in the latest completion year for the students whose median debt payment is being calculated for graduates of bachelor's degree programs; or

(iv) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate students for the six consecutive award years ending in the latest completion year for the students whose median debt payment is being calculated for graduates of doctoral programs and first professional degree programs; and

(3) Calculates the median annual earnings of program graduates by considering earnings in the third year subsequent to graduation.

(c) The Secretary may also apply the waiver described in paragraph (a) of this section for loans received for enrollment in a GE program at an institution—

(1) If the institution has since closed;

(2) Prior to the closure, the institution received a majority of its title IV, HEA funds from programs that met the conditions described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and

(3) The Secretary did not have data to evaluate the program's performance as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(d) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (a) or (c) of this section are met but the loan has been repaid by a ( print page 27616) Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan.

17. The authority citation for part 682 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071-1087-4 , unless otherwise noted.

Section 682.410 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1078 , 1078-1 , 1078-2 , 1078-3 , 1080a , 1082 , 1087 , 1091a , and 1099 .

20. Add § 682.403 to read as follows:

(a) General. (1) This section specifies the rules and procedures under which—

(i) The Secretary determines that a FFEL Program loan qualifies for a waiver of all or a portion of the outstanding balance and notifies the lender of any such determination;

(ii) The lender submits a waiver claim to the applicable guaranty agency;

(iii) The guaranty agency pays the claim, is reimbursed by the Secretary, and assigns the loan to the Secretary; and

(iv) The Secretary grants the waiver.

(2) For the purposes of this section, references to—

(i) The lender includes the guaranty agency if the guaranty agency is the holder of the loan at the time the Secretary determines that the loan qualifies for a waiver, except that the waiver claim filing requirements applicable to the lender do not apply to the guaranty agency; and

(ii) The guaranty agency means the guaranty agency that guarantees the loan.

(b) Determination of qualification for a waiver by the Secretary. The Secretary may waive the borrower's obligation to repay up to the entire outstanding balance on an FFEL Program loan if the loan qualifies for a waiver under one of the following conditions:

(1) First entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000.

(i) The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan if the loan first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000.

(ii) For the purpose of this section, a loan enters repayment on—

(A) For a Federal Stafford Loan, the day after the initial grace period ends;

(B) For a Federal PLUS Loan, the day the loan is fully disbursed; or

(C) For a Federal Consolidation Loan, the earliest day as determined under paragraph (b) (1) (ii)(A) and (B) of this section for any loan that was repaid by that consolidation loan.

(2) Closed school discharge. The Secretary may waive the borrower's obligation to repay up to the entire outstanding balance of a loan where the Secretary determines that a borrower has not applied or not successfully applied for, but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for, a closed school discharge on that loan under § 682.402(d).

(3) Cohort default rate. For loans received for attendance at an institution that lost its eligibility to participate in any title IV, HEA program because of its cohort default rate, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1085(m) , the Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of the loan, provided that the borrower was included in the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the cohort default rate or rates that were the basis for the loss of eligibility.

(c) Notification. If the Secretary determines that a loan qualifies for a waiver under paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary provides notice to the lender that the lender must—

(1) Submit a waiver claim to the applicable guaranty agency; and

(2) Suspend collection activity, or maintain a suspension of collection activity, on the borrower's FFEL Program loan.

(d) Claim procedures. (1) The guaranty agency must establish and enforce standards and procedures for the timely filing by lenders of waiver claims.

(2) The lender must submit a claim for the full outstanding balance of the loan to the guaranty agency, within 75 days of the date the lender received the notification from the Secretary described in paragraph (c) of this section.

(3) The lender must provide the guaranty agency with the following documentation when filing a waiver claim:

(i) An original or a true and exact copy of the promissory note.

(ii) The notification described in paragraph (c) of this section.

(4) If the lender is not in possession of an original or true and exact copy of the promissory note, the lender may submit alternative documentation acceptable to the Secretary, such as documentation of a borrower's affirmation of the debt.

(5) The guaranty agency must review the waiver claim and determine whether the claim meets the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section.

(6) If the guaranty agency determines the waiver claim meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, the guaranty agency must pay the claim within 30 days of the date the claim was received by the guaranty agency.

(7) If the lender receives any payments on the loan from or on behalf of the borrower during the suspension of collection activity or after receiving a claim payment from the guaranty agency, the lender must promptly return the payments to the sender.

(8) The Secretary reimburses the guaranty agency for the full amount of a claim paid to the lender after the agency pays the claim to the lender.

(9) The guaranty agency must assign the loan to the Secretary within 75 days of—

(i) The date the guaranty agency pays the claim and receives the reimbursement payment; or

(ii) The date the guaranty agency receives the notification described in paragraph (c) of this section if the guaranty agency is the lender.

(10) After the guaranty agency assigns the loan, the Secretary may waive the borrower's obligation to repay up to the entire outstanding balance of the loan.

(11) After the Secretary grants the waiver, the Secretary notifies the borrower, the lender, and the guaranty agency that the borrower's obligation to repay the debt or a portion of the debt, has been waived.

(e) Payments received during the suspension of collection activity or after the Secretary's payment of a waiver claim.

(1) If the guaranty agency receives any payments from or on behalf of the borrower on a loan during the suspension of collection activity or after the loan has been assigned to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, the guaranty agency must promptly return these payments to the sender. At the same time that the agency returns the payments, it must notify the borrower that there is no obligation to make payments on the loan after the Secretary has granted a waiver unless—

(i) The borrower received a partial waiver of the outstanding balance of the loan; or

(ii) The Secretary directs the borrower otherwise. ( print page 27617)

(2) If the guaranty agency has returned a payment to the borrower, or the borrower's representative, with the notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and the borrower (or representative) continues to send payments to the guaranty agency, the agency must remit all of those payments to the Secretary.

(3) If the Secretary receives any payments from or on behalf of the borrower on the loan after the Secretary waives the entire outstanding balance of a loan, the Secretary returns the payments to the sender.

(f) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (b) of this section are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such loan once the loan has been assigned to the Secretary.

1.  Trends in College Pricing 2023: Data in Excel. Table CP-2. Available at https://research.collegeboard.org/​trends/​college-pricing .

2.   https://www.cbpp.org/​research/​pell-grants-a-key-tool-for-expanding-college-access-and-economic-opportunity-need .

3.   https://studentaid.gov/​data-center/​student/​portfolio ; https://www.census.gov/​library/​stories/​2021/​08/​student-debt-weighed-heavily-on-millions-even-before-pandemic.html ; https://www.philadelphiafed.org/​-/​media/​frbp/​assets/​consumer-finance/​reports/​cfi-sl-1-payments-resumption.pdf ; https://www.aarp.org/​money/​credit-loans-debt/​info-2021/​student-debt-crisis-for-older-americans.html ; https://www.stlouisfed.org/​publications/​economic-equity-insights/​gender-racial-disparities-student-loan-debt .

4.  Section 432(a)(6) is in, and explicitly applies to, Part B, which establishes the FFEL program. In creating the Direct Loan program, Congress established parity between the FFEL and Direct Loan program, providing that Federal Direct Loans “have the same terms, conditions, and benefits as loans made to borrowers” under the FFEL program. 20 U.S.C. 1087a(b)(2) . See Sweet v. Cardona, 641 F.Supp.3d 814, 823-825 (ND Cal., 2022); Weingarten v. DOE, 468 F.Supp.3d 322, 328 (D.D.C. 2020); McCain v. US, 2011 WL 2469828 (Ct.Cl. 2011). The legislative history of the Direct Loan program shows that 20 U.S.C. 1087a(b)(2) is broadly read to apply the provisions of the FFEL statutory provisions to Direct Loan except as provided by statute or inconsistent with the different structure of the Direct Loan program. For example, the Direct Loan program provides total and permanent disability discharges, closed school loan discharges and forbearances to borrowers although none of those are mentioned in the Direct Loan statutory provisions.

5.  When transferring the HEAL loan program to the Department, Congress explicitly stated that the Secretary's powers with respect to collecting FFEL loans extend to HEAL loans. See Division H, title V, section 525(d) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( Pub. L. 113-76 ) (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014). The Secretary's waiver authority under section 432(a)(6) of the HEA extends to HEAL loans.

6.   See Public Law 89-29, 79 Stat. 1246 (Nov. 8, 1965).

7.  Waiving the Department's right to repayment of all or part of a debt correspondingly releases the borrower of further liability on account of all or part of that debt.

8.   88 FR 60163 (August 31, 2023).

9.  See 81 FR 39330 (June 16, 2016); 81 FR 75926 (November 1, 2016).

10.  When the FCCA was enacted in 1966, it stated that “[n]othing in this Act shall increase or diminish the existing authority of the head of an agency to litigate claims, or diminish his existing authority to settle, compromise, or close claims.” Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, Public Law 89-508, 4, 80 Stat. 308 (1966). And the FCCS specifically provides that it does not “preclude [ ] agency disposition of any claim under statutes and implementing regulations other than [the FCCA],” and that “[i]n such cases, the laws and regulations that are specifically applicable to claims collection activities of a particular agency generally take precedence.” 31 CFR 900.4 . The FCCA and FCCS do not, on their own terms, limit the Secretary's authority because the HEA endows the Secretary with separate and independent authority to compromise a debt, or suspend or terminate collection of a debt. See § 1082(a).

11.   81 FR 39369 (June 16, 2016).

12.   https://www.pewtrusts.org/​en/​research-and-analysis/​reports/​2020/​05/​borrowers-discuss-the-challenges-of-student-loan-repayment ; https://www.newamerica.org/​education-policy/​reports/​in-default-and-left-behind/​ .

13.  See 87 FR 41878 (July 13, 2022); 87 FR 65904 (November 1, 2022); 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023). See also https://www.pewtrusts.org/​en/​research-and-analysis/​reports/​2020/​05/​borrowers-discuss-the-challenges-of-student-loan-repayment ; https://www.newamerica.org/​education-policy/​reports/​in-default-and-left-behind/​ .

14.   See 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(3) . In addition, Congress permitted ED to compromise or collect debt pursuant to the standards articulated by ED's own debt collection regulations or Treasury's debt collection regulations, see 31 U.S.C. 3711(d) , which similarly permit relief where there is evidence the agency would not collect the debt in full within a reasonable period of time. See, e.g., 31 CFR 902.2(a)(2) ; 34 CFR 30.70(a)(1) (referencing 31 CFR part 902 ).

15.  For example, the average balance for a Parent PLUS loan recipient is almost $30,000 and the average balance for a Grad PLUS loan recipient is about $58,000. As of Q4, 2023, see Federal Student Aid Portfolio by Loan Type, available at: https://studentaid.gov/​data-center/​student/​portfolio .

16.  Based on the American Community Survey 2022 5-year estimates of Median Age at First Marriage.

17.  See 20 U.S.C. 1077a and 1087e(b) .

18.   www.jpmorganchase.com/​institute/​research/​household-debt/​student-loan-income-driven-repayment .

19.  U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2015. Federal Student Loans: Education Could Do More to Help Ensure Borrowers are Aware of Repayment and Forgiveness Options. GAO-15-663.

20.  For more information on this approach see the National Institute of Standards and Technology, https://www.itl.nist.gov/​div898/​handbook/​prc/​section1/​prc16.htm , or statistical textbooks such as Ott & Longnecker, An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis.

21.  Borrowers with professional doctoral degrees, which include fields like medicine, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and law, have the highest cumulative student loan balances among those who have completed postsecondary education (see https://nces.ed.gov/​programs/​coe/​indicator/​tub/​graduate-student-loan-debt ). These are also fields that tend to have the highest wages (see for example, https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​current/​oes_​nat.htm ). Borrowers with master's degrees or higher, also tend to have higher debt (see Bhutta et al. “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2016 to 2019: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, 2020, 106 (5). https://www.federalreserve.gov/​publications/​files/​scf20.pdf ) For research on the returns to graduate degrees, see, for example, Altonji & Zhong (2021). The labor market returns to advanced degrees. Journal of Labor Economics, 39(2).

22.  See 20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(9)(A)(i) and 20 U.S.C. 1087e(d)(1)(A) .

23.  See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(d)(1)(D) .

24.  See 20 U.S.C. 1098e .

25.  There is also evidence of many borrowers being in repayment for a long time in a paper by the Urban Institute using credit panel data estimated that there are nearly 100,000 borrowers with loans that were first originated prior to 1990, making them well more than 30 years old. The author also estimated that 1.5 million borrowers had a loan with an origination date before 2000. The author notes these statistics may well be an underestimate because older debts may no longer appear on a borrower's credit report even though they are still outstanding. https://www.urban.org/​sites/​default/​files/​publication/​101492/​when_​student_​loans_​linger_​0.pdf .

26.  See 34 CFR 685.209(k)(4)(v)(B) and 34 CFR 685.219(c)(3) .

27.   https://www.ed.gov/​news/​press-releases/​fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-provide-debt-relief-and-support-student-loan-borrowers .

28.  See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7) (ICR provision describing qualifying payments and deferments for relief); 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7) (IBR provision describing qualifying payments and deferments for relief).

29.   See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7) .

30.   20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7) (stating the Secretary may repay or cancel any outstanding balance of principal and interest for a borrower who “at any time, elected to participate in” an IBR plan and meets the conditions for qualified payments or deferment).

31.   See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7) ; 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7) .

32.   34 CFR 685.209(l) .

33.  Goldstein, Adam, Charlie Eaton, Amber Villalobos, Parijat Chakrabarti, Jeremy Cohen, and Katie Donnelly. “Administrative Burden in Federal Student Loan Repayment, and Socially Stratified Access to Income-Driven Repayment Plans.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 9, no. 4 (2023): 86-111.

34.   https://www.jpmorganchase.com/​institute/​research/​household-debt/​student-loan-income-driven-repayment#finding-1 .

35.   https://www.philadelphiafed.org/​-/​media/​frbp/​assets/​consumer-finance/​reports/​cfi-sl-payments-3-resumption.pdf .

36.  Herbst, Daniel. “The impact of income-driven repayment on student borrower outcomes.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 15, no. 1 (2023): 1-25.; Conkling, Thomas S., and Christa Gibbs. “Borrower experiences on income-driven repayment.” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Research Reports Series 19-10 (2019).

37.   https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2023/​07/​10/​2023-13112/​improving-income-driven-repayment-for-the-william-d-ford-federal-direct-loan-program-and-the-federal .

38.   https://www.ed.gov/​news/​press-releases/​department-education-announces-actions-fix-longstanding-failures-student-loan-programs?​utm_​content=​&​utm_​medium=​email&​utm_​name=​&​utm_​source=​govdelivery&​utm_​term=​ .

39.   87 FR 65904 (November 1, 2022).

40.   https://www.gao.gov/​assets/​gao-21-105373.pdf .

41.  See Title IX, Subtitle G, Part 8, section 9675 of the American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 ( Pub. L. 117-2 ).

42.  Some examples of the Department's oversight and compliance measures over institutions include but are not limited to: program reviews authorized under Sec. 498A of the HEA; requiring most institutions to submit a compliance and financial audit authorized under Sec. 487(c) of the HEA; and others.

43.  There are some institutions that previously lost title IV eligibility because of failing CDRs, and qualifying loans associated with those institutions would be eligible. By contrast, there are not any programs that previously lost title IV eligibility based on failing GE measures because the prior rule was rescinded before any program lost eligibility, and the new rule does not go into effect until July 2024.

44.  Section 435(a)(2) of the HEA ( 20 U.S.C. 1085(a)(2) ).

45.  Section 401(j) of the HEA ( 20 U.S.C. 1070a(j) ).

46.   88 FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).

47.  See January 17, 2017 Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #100—Upcoming Release of Final Gainful Employment Debt-to-Earnings (D/E) Rates.

48.   79 FR 64890 (October 31, 2014).

49.   88 FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).

50.   79 FR 64890 (October 31, 2014).

51.   88 FR 70035 , 70127 (October 10, 2023).

52.  GAO-21-105373, COLLEGE CLOSURES: Many Impacted Borrowers Struggled Financially Despite Being Eligible for Loan Discharges https://www.gao.gov/​assets/​gao-21-105373.pdf .

53.  Ibid.

54.  Barrow, L. & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a Worthwhile Investment? Annual Review of Economics, 7(1), 519-555. Card, D. (1999). The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings. Handbook of Labor Economics, 3, 1801-1863.

55.  Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G. (2011). Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 159-184.

56.  Moretti, Enrico. “Estimating the social return to higher education: evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data.” Journal of econometrics 121, no. 1-2 (2004): 175-212.

57.  Currie, Janet, and Enrico Moretti. “Mother's education and the intergenerational transmission of human capital: Evidence from college openings.” The Quarterly journal of economics 118, no. 4 (2003): 1495-1532; Lochner, Lance, “Nonproduction Benefits of Education: Crime, Health, and Good Citizenship,” in E. Hanushek, S. Machin, and L. Woessmann (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 4, Ch. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science (2011); Ma, Jennifer, and Matea Pender. Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Washington, DC: College Board. Milligan, Kevin, Enrico Moretti, and Philip Oreopoulos. “Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom.” Journal of public Economics 88, no. 9-10 (2004): 1667-1695.; Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti. “The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports.” American economic review 94, no. 1 (2004): 155-189.

58.  According to 2022 Digest of Education Statistics (Table 331.10), 34.6 percent of undergraduates received Federal student loans for the 2019-20 academic year.

59.  Fry, Richard. “The changing profile of student borrowers.” (2014). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/​social-trends/​2014/​10/​07/​the-changing-profile-of-student-borrowers/​ .

60.  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2022. Table 331.60.

61.  Ma, Jennifer and Matea Pender (2023), Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2023, New York: College Board.

62.   https://www.census.gov/​library/​stories/​2021/​08/​student-debt-weighed-heavily-on-millions-even-before-pandemic.html ; https://www.philadelphiafed.org/​-/​media/​frbp/​assets/​consumer-finance/​reports/​cfi-sl-1-payments-resumption.pdf ; https://www.aarp.org/​money/​credit-loans-debt/​info-2021/​student-debt-crisis-for-older-americans.html .

63.   https://nces.ed.gov/​datalab/​powerstats/​table/​Lcvndq .

64.  Looney, Adam and Constantine Yannelis. “A Crisis in Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions they Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2015; Ma, Jennifer, and Matea Pender. Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Washington, DC: College Board.

65.   88 FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).

66.   https://studentaid.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​DLEnteringDefaults.xls .

67.  See, e.g., 88 FR 43820 , 43851 (July 10, 2023).

68.   Id.; 87 FR 65904 , 65957 (November 1, 2022).

69.   See, e.g. 88 FR 43820 , 43951 (July 10, 2023); 88 FR 1894 , 1905 (January 11, 2023); 87 FR 41878 (July 13, 2022), 41919; 87 FR 65904 , 65957 (November 1, 2022).

70.  Blagg, Kristin. (2020) When Student Loans Linger: Characteristics of Borrowers Who Hold Loans Over Multiple Decades. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/​sites/​default/​files/​publication/​101492/​when_​student_​loans_​linger.pdf .

71.   https://www.ed.gov/​news/​press-releases/​over-323000-federal-student-loan-borrowers-receive-58-billion-automatic-total-and-permanent-disability-discharges .

72.  Herbst, Daniel. “The impact of income-driven repayment on student borrower outcomes.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 15, no. 1 (2023): 1-25.; Conkling, Thomas S., and Christa Gibbs. “Borrower experiences on income-driven repayment.” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Office of Research Reports Series 19-10 (2019).

73.  See the review in Ko & Moffit (2022). Take-up of Social Benefits. NBER Working Paper 30148. Also see various articles in “Administrative Burdens and Inequality in Policy Implementation” Part I and Part II in RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, volume 9, issues 4 and 5, 2023.

74.  Currie, Janet (2006). The Take-up of Social Benefits. In Public Policy and the Income Distribution. Russell Sage Foundation. Herd & Moynihan (2018). Administrative Burdens. Russell Sage Foundation.

75.  We use a random sample of borrowers where sample descriptive statistics match those of the full portfolio.

76.  This comparison is based on historical data, which may be different than future trends, which is a necessary tradeoff to consider medium- or long-term repayment trajectories for borrowers.

77.  Because imputed income is an approximation, we also estimate the number of borrowers who could be eligible, regardless of income. To the extent that a larger or smaller number of borrowers qualify under § 30.81 because of income, then the number of borrowers that qualified under § 30.82 would decline or increase by the equivalent number.

78.  As of February 15, 2024. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/​offices/​OSFAP/​PEPS/​closedschools.html .

79.  The 2022 Program Performance Data is available for download at: https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2023/​05/​19/​2023-09647/​financial-value-transparency-and-gainful-employment-ge-financial-responsibility-administrative , historical cohort default rate data is available at: https://fsapartners.ed.gov/​knowledge-center/​topics/​default-management/​archived-press-packages .

80.   88 FR 43851 (July 10, 2023).

81.  Additionally, we imputed income to provide an approximation of borrowers' incomes to estimate how many borrowers would qualify under this provision. However, because imputed income is an approximation, we also estimate the number of borrowers who could be eligible, regardless of income. In this estimate, 7.0 million borrowers have balance growth and are enrolled in an IDR plan. Because this estimate does not use an income limit, this number serves as a likely upper bound on the number of borrowers who would receive a waiver under § 30.81. If there were a larger number of borrowers that qualified under § 30.81, then the number of borrowers that qualified under § 30.82 would decline by the equivalent number.

82.   https://nces.ed.gov/​datalab/​powerstats/​table/​sejwfb .

83.   https://nces.ed.gov/​datalab/​powerstats/​table/​sejwfb .

84.  As noted earlier in footnote 25, we estimated a sensitivity of the number of borrowers who could be eligible, regardless of income.

85.   https://www.pewtrusts.org/​en/​research-and-analysis/​reports/​2020/​05/​borrowers-discuss-the-challenges-of-student-loan-repayment ; https://www.newamerica.org/​education-policy/​reports/​in-default-and-left-behind/​ .

86.  Congressional Budget Office (2020). Income-Driven Repayment Plans for Student Loans: Budgetary Costs and Policy Options. https://www.cbo.gov/​publication/​56277 .

87.  Based on Q4 2023 data on Direct Loans and ED-held FFEL borrowers in Repayment, Deferment, and Forbearance from the FSA Data Center, Portfolio by Repayment Plan, available at: https://studentaid.gov/​data-center/​student/​portfolio .

88.  Eligibility for a 30-year repayment plan on a consolidation loan is based upon total education loan indebtedness, which can include non-Federal debts.

89.  Based on Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Surveys 2004/2009. https://nces.ed.gov/​datalab/​powerstats/​table/​loivbe .

90.   https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​data-on-older-borrowers-and-parents-session-2.pdf .

91.  SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSETS: Improvements to Program Design Could Better Assist Older Student Loan Borrowers with Obtaining Permitted Relief. United States Government Accountability Office. December 2016. https://www.gao.gov/​assets/​gao-17-45.pdf .

92.   https://www.gao.gov/​assets/​gao-21-105373.pdf .

93.  For schools that had high CDR metrics prior to 1999 or from 2015 to 2020, we do not have an exact accounting of which of schools were able to successfully appeal their potential sanctions. Therefore, we approximate which schools lost eligibility to disburse Title IV aid by comparing the list to data on Title IV eligibility from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), as of 2002 (for 1992-1998) and 2022 (2015-2020).

94.  There are two key metrics under the GE regulations, a debt-to-earnings (D/E) rate and an earnings premium (EP) test. Programs that fail either metric in a single year will be required to provide warnings to current and prospective students. Programs that fail the same metric in two of three consecutive years will not be eligible to participate in Federal student aid programs. See https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2021/​gainful-employment-notice-of-final-review-factsheet.pdf .

95.  Depending on the number of students who completed the program, the cohort period will either be two years or four years. For example, for D/E and EP measure calculations during the 2023-24 award year, the two-year cohort period will be award years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the four-year cohort period will be award years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19.

96.  These data are available https://studentaid.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​GE-DMYR-2015-Final-Rates.xls .

97.  The Department released a data file called the 2022 Program Performance Data (“2022 PPD”) along with the proposed rule titled “Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (GE), Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB)” available at: https://www.regulations.gov/​document/​ED-2023-OPE-0089-0086 . These data include program performance information, using measures based on the typical debt levels and post-enrollment earnings of program completers.

98.  These data are available at https://studentaid.gov/​data-center/​school/​ge/​data .

99.   https://www.gao.gov/​assets/​gao-21-105373.pdf .

100.   https://www.wsj.com/​articles/​a-borrower-will-be-114-when-bonds-backed-by-her-student-loans-mature-11578393002 .

101.   https://fsapartners.ed.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​2023-01/​SAPMemoQ42022.pdf .

102.  Federal Student Aid, Closed School Search File.xlsx downloaded 2/15/2024 from https://www2.ed.gov/​offices/​OSFAP/​PEPS/​closedschools.html .

103.  These provisions are currently administratively stayed pending appeal in Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. U.S. Department of Education , No. 23-50491 (5th Cir.). Because the rule has not been permanently enjoined nor has a court found that the challenge to the rule is likely to succeed on the merits, the Department maintains this assumption for these purposes.

104.   88 FR 70158 (October 10, 2023).

105.   88 FR 70158 (October 10, 2023).

106.   https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​current/​oes132072.htm .

[ FR Doc. 2024-07726 Filed 4-16-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

• Class Notes

The Latest News from Your Classmates

Find out what your fellow alums are up to—new jobs, marriages, and more—in the September / October 2024 Class Notes!

The Continuous Reunion Club column appears below!

Check out the CRC column —and columns from other Cornell groups—in the Group Notes. Want to see your group represented in future sections? Email us for information!

No news from you all, so you’ll have to tolerate what’s mulling about in my aging, addled mind: Iowa’s many rural towns and their small-town newspapers.

My interest in this arises from my early life. For my first 21 years I lived on a small subsistence farm. After Cornell and marriage, for the next 17 years I lived in the nearby rural village of Elba, NY, population 700, where I was the science teacher in the K-12 school. While living there I earned a doctoral degree at the University of Rochester. Preferring to maintain some connection to rural life, I moved about 1,000 miles west to Des Moines, IA, for a faculty position at Drake University. For a love of Iowa, I stayed for 57 years. In my waning years I now consider more highly my travels in all Iowa’s counties and county seats than my travels in all U.S. states, all the provinces of Canada, half the states of Mexico, and world travel in 32 other countries on five continents.

Iowa is a state of small, county-seat cities, and villages serving the social and business needs of their areas. Some small, rural towns are holding on with their weekly newspapers. In south-central Iowa is the village of Afton, population 1,000, which, against the national trend of dying newspapers, still has its 119-year-old, 60-cent, weekly Afton Star Enterprise. The Afton paper also serves the communities around it, providing each with local news that, in some mysterious way, serves to enrich and bind each community together.

For a love of Iowa, I stayed for 57 years. Paul Joslin ’50

I regularly read the Afton newspaper, which I receive from a friend and former resident of Afton. It’s a six-page publication and includes a variety of local news and three regular columns. Of great interest to me is a regular, 450-word column by a local retired farmer and gifted writer and illustrator who has the enviable ability to write entertainingly about what otherwise would be trivial events. His name is Rick Friday and fittingly his column is called “It’s Friday.”

I quote (paraphrasing a bit) from a recent column of his titled “Folks Tales,” which triggered similarities to my Depression-era upbringing, and perhaps yours as well: “During a child’s upbringing, parents use a variety of folktale strategies that are simply not true. My mom claimed she had eyes in the back of her head. When I broke my arm, the doc never asked if I was wearing clean underwear. My nose never grew after I told a fib. A watermelon seed I swallowed didn’t grow in my stomach. I handled a lot of toads and never got warts. And the moon is not made of cheese. I didn’t need glasses because I sat too close to the TV. A passing car never cut my hand off when I put it out the car window. It always hurt when they said it wouldn’t.” ❖ Paul Joslin ( email Paul ) | 13731 Hickman Rd., #4207, Urbandale, IA 50323 | tel., (515) 278-0960 | Alumni Directory .

“At 95, I’m aging—but rather gracefully,” writes Calvin Gage , who is also “inching toward the 66th anniversary with my wife, Marge. A year ago, we moved to a life care community, Lake Forest Place in Lake Forest, IL. We settled into an apartment where Marge is developing a beautiful patio garden. Among the 400+ residents, I’ve discovered a few with Cornell connections. One was a grad student whose dissertation was about Cornell’s first president, Andrew Dickson White. This chap went on to become president of Lake Forest College. Another resident’s daughter graduated from the Hotel School and, we’re told, had a very successful career in that business. There are other Cornellians here that I have yet to meet.”

Calvin adds, “In this community, where all of us are in our 80s, 90s, and, yes, 100s, it is refreshing to observe the vitality all around me. Yes, there are walkers and rollators and canes and electric scooters—and some can no longer stand tall—but mentally they are with it. That is very satisfying.” ❖ Class of 1951 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Carol Singer Greenhaus writes from Rye, NY, that seeing her three daughters, six grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren gives her the most satisfaction these days—and, as her father used to say, “not a lemon in the bunch.” She feels that Cornell made her travel more interesting and made her interest in geology grow. “Like a kid, I collect rocks.”

Eli Manchester writes from Westwood, MA, that he and his wife are living in Fox Hill Village, a wonderful retirement community. He enjoys watching Cornell athletics on ESPN. He is lucky that his daughters and family live close by so that they see them often. His younger daughter graduated from Cornell Law School. He feels that his five years in Cornell engineering was a wonderful preparation for his professional life.

Harriette Scannell Morgan writes from Adamstown, MD, that waking up gives her the most satisfaction these days. Cornell changed the trajectory of her life; she met her husband, Monte , there and they had 61 years of marriage and two sons. Over the years they lived in the U.S., Canada, South America, and Europe, traveled to all the states, and were huge volunteers.

Bernard Patten writes from Athens, GA, that attending Cornell set the stage for his academic life and how to pursue it. Great satisfaction comes from “research and writing a revisionary kind of ecology, a three-volume work called Holoecology . My subject is a systems ecology topic I have been pursuing since I arrived in UGA Ecology in 1968.” He also has established a flagship quartet, TSS Adirondika Pro Musica. He has two grandsons that his daughter is raising in Atlanta.

Marion Lotz Rutan writes from Haines City, FL, that she has celebrated the 70th anniversary of her wedding with her husband. She enjoys Zoom calls with family and books available through the Library of Congress.

Ann Coffeen Turner writes from Keene, NH, that she enjoys tutoring and reading, having published her teaching materials on the Internet (Teachers Pay Teachers). ❖ Thomas Cashel, LLB ’56 ( email Tom ) | Alumni Directory .

William Ash , PhD ’60, reports that he and his late wife, Gertrude (Kehm) , were lucky to raise four responsible children to adulthood “without any problems whatsoever. They love the USA!” With two grandsons and two great-grandsons, “the family grows into the future with pride, but with hopes that the world will allow them to reach their potential.” William has been writing short monthly newsletter articles for the Cape Lookout Sail and Power Squadron in Trent Woods, NC. “I’ve now written close to 300 articles, each 1–2 pages, with the purpose of making our boating waters safe.”

Virginia “Jinny” Jackson Browning is pleased to still be healthy in mind and body at age 92. Her favorite activities at home in Kentucky are reading and spending time with her children, grandchildren, and 12 great-grandchildren. “The numbers of great-grandchildren are increasing!” she reports.

Dottie Clark Free writes that she enjoys the volunteer activities at the retirement home where she lives in Palo Alto. Her family continues to grow. “In 1966 I married four people: a widower with three children. We now number 18.” Did attending Cornell change the trajectory of her life? “Tremendously! It gave me more confidence and broadened my outlook.”

Cornelius Jones (Monrovia, CA) shares that his wife of 67 years, Ruth, died in 2020. In studying the Jones family’s ancestry, Cornelius has learned that they were some of the first settlers of Staten Island, NY. Early in his career, Cornelius drastically changed his professional life from being a farm agent in New York to being a missionary with the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society.

Herb Neuman is thoroughly enjoying his first great-grandchildren—boy and girl twins. He is still working in real estate development in New York, Maryland, and Florida, training young members of the family firm as they take on responsibilities. In 2023 Herb was co-winner of the Tanner Prize in recognition of being active in the new Hillel building project at Cornell and engaged in strengthening the Jewish Studies Program.

I’ve now written close to 300 articles, each 1–2 pages, with the purpose of making our boating waters safe. William Ash ’53, PhD ’60

Bertram Pitt writes that, although he no longer sees patients, he continues to be active in clinical research. Recent papers relate to heart failure, hypertension, and renal (kidney) disease. “Currently I am working on therapies to reduce dementia in patients with hypertension,” he reports. On the calendar is a trip to Australia from his home in Ann Arbor, MI.

Louis Pradt and his wife, Sandra, still live in the Wisconsin house they moved into 51 years ago. “I like to fill it with music: playing, hearing, and seeing.” Louis spends time dealing with family affairs and gets a lot of satisfaction from the children in the family. He was disappointed to miss our 70th Reunion and sends his greetings to Cornell friends.

Alan Raynor and wife Mary enjoy life in Port Charlotte, FL. He especially likes having time to pursue special interests and is even finding time to write a movie.

Susan Finn Smith , with her husband, Donald (Iowa State), lives a busy life at a retirement community in Middleton, WI. “We have many activities and events,” she says, “but especially enjoy connecting with friends or family, reading, writing essays, streaming movies, going to concerts, and reading the New York Times or Washington Post .” Their son lives nearby and visits often, but their two daughters live and work far away, she reports. “Our second great-grandchild arrived earlier this year.” Susan transferred to Cornell from Iowa State as a junior and completed her BS degree at Cornell. “I grew to love Upstate New York,” she recalls. “I also made Eastern friends and came to love classical music and writing.”

Joyce Wisbaum Underberg , BS ’52, reports that she is still able to keep up with the news “and with the few friends I have left!” In her professional life, Joyce served as director of government affairs for Schlegel Corporation at its headquarters in Rochester, NY, and she remains active in a few organizations that welcome “old war horses” as board members. “I’m very content,” reports Joyce, “with all four children gainfully employed and in happy relationships that have produced nine grandchildren. Life is good—I’m lucky!” Joyce credits Cornell with helping her mature from a somewhat sheltered teenager to an adult “who is still trying to push the envelope for change that I think matters!” Keep us posted on your progress, Joyce.

Lois Crane Williams , MEd ’60, continues to write about local and family history. She lives in assisted living at a retirement complex in Lancaster County, VA, and says, “Marrying a Cornell engineer (the late Peter Williams ) was one of the really good events in my life!” ❖ Caroline Mulford Owens ( email Caroline ) | Bob Neff , JD ’56 ( email Bob ) | John Nixon ( email John ) | Alumni Directory .

Reunion 2024! What a terrific weekend it was! A bit cool and cloudy, but warm spirits throughout the campus. Eight thousand Cornellians returned to the Hill. More than 400 events, programs, and concerts were offered. We were busy. Time flew by. And now we cherish wonderful memories of a glorious weekend.

Dave , PhD ’60, and Mary Gentry Call , as Reunion co-chairs, planned with consideration of our age and limitations. We were cared for with Statler accommodations, good meals, transportation, and time to visit with old friends and also to rest. A special note: at Saturday dinner, held at Kendal where a few of our class including the Calls live, we were delighted that Mary was able to join us. A big thank you to Mary and Dave, who held steady and made it happen for us in spite of their significant health challenges.

Chick Trayford , MBA ’60, our class president, was kept at home because of physical limitations resulting from his treatment in recent months. However, he worked tirelessly to encourage classmates to return for Reunion. The results of his efforts are reported below.

Here are a few highlights of the schedule. Thursday: excitement as we arrived at the registration area; dinner at the Statler; the traditional and wonderful Savage Club’s Reunion Show. Friday: “Democratic Resilience Globally” presentation by the Class of 1979 and the Brooks School of Public Policy (retired ambassador Dwight Bush ’79 shared that, to foster a global worldview, he and his wife give each child one plane ticket a year to anywhere outside of the U.S.); lunch at Moakley House on the golf course; Olin Lecture at Bailey Hall with Andrew Ross Sorkin ’99 , award-winning journalist and author, CNBC “Squawk Box” co-anchor, and co-creator of Showtime series “Billions”; Statler dinner with the Sherwoods (men’s singing) and Corey Earle ’07 discussing “Then and Now”; Cornell University Chorus and Glee Club at Bailey.

Saturday: State of the University Address by President Martha Pollack; Al Eckhardt took a few of us to visit the Merrill Family Sailing Center, where he, a lifelong competitive sailor and skipper of the winning 1954 crew, proudly showed us the new facility and the Class of 1954 FJ22 sailboat he gave to Cornell (a story new to me: as teenagers, for several summers Al and Chick raced sailboats on Long Island Sound. In August 1950, they wished one another well and said goodbye. Soon after, completely by surprise, they found each other on the Cornell campus!); reception and dinner at Kendal; Cornelliana Night with much Big Red spirit and the old songs we love to sing. Sunday: Packing and hugs and good wishes to all.

Here are the officers who will tend to class business: president, Chick Trayford; VP and treasurer, Dave Call; Annual Fund representative, Warren “Breck” Breckenridge ; nominations chair, Al Eckhardt; webmaster, Jan Jakes Kunz ; co-correspondents, Ruth Carpenter Bailey and Bill Waters , MBA ’55.

We cherish wonderful memories of a glorious [Reunion] weekend. Ruth Carpenter Bailey ’54

And here are the results of the work they and others performed on behalf of the class: The Class of 1954 now holds the record for attendance at a 70th Reunion! The University has confirmed that we had 29 classmates in Ithaca! Last year the Class of 1953 had 11; the previous record was 26. We had a total of 55 people including spouses, children, and guests. Dollars raised for Cornell by our class totaled $14.2 million! (“A huge number,” says Cornell, but not the record, which is $17.0 million, held by the Class of 1948.) We thank all who gave to enable us to reach this amount.

Random thoughts: Corey Earle presented a delightful program with photos about Cornell history and changes on campus. We are fortunate to have him as the informal historian of the University. I recommend that you listen to him on Zoom whenever you have the chance. President Pollack gave her final Reunion speech. I swelled with pride to hear of the enormous breadth and depth of Cornell’s impact around the globe. A new book, Beyond Borders: Exploring the History of Cornell’s Global Dimensions , now available and co-edited by Corey, tells in some detail about this important work. Interestingly her talk was interrupted by protestors. Security was prepared: they were given a few minutes to shout and disrupt on behalf of Gaza; the audience drowned them out; then quietly and professionally the security people calmly ushered them out of Bailey. On a happy note, the Cornell Band, not in uniform, played enthusiastically as we entered and departed from Bailey on a couple of occasions. A fun addition.

The University holds a Service of Remembrance and Thanksgiving. I must confess I was taken aback when I saw the length of the list of classmates who have died. One we lost very early was Fred Wood . Jane Barber Wood Smith came this year with their daughter, Barbara Wood ’82 . To the staff of Alumni Affairs, Jane wrote, “Thank you so much for your part in making our 70th Reunion such a joyous and comfortable occasion. I am just so happy and grateful to have been there to renew with old friends and see the old campus surviving amidst the new.

“It was especially poignant for my daughter and me to retrace some family memories from 1963 when she was 3, we lived on Wait Avenue, and her father, my first husband, Fred, worked as acting Episcopal chaplain at CURW. He was later class correspondent and he and I were to be Reunion chairs in ’69; by then he was battling leukemia and died in 1970 when he was chaplain and associate professor at Vassar College.

“Barbara and I were able to track down the chandelier in the Founders Room at Anabel Taylor that was contributed upon request by my father-in-law Frederic Wood 1924 (a former Cornell trustee), along with the plaque indicating that it was in memory of his son. Since no one in the family had ever seen this, we took pictures and emailed and phoned my sister-in-law Meredith Wood Einaudi ’61 in Palo Alto, CA. She was delighted.”

Those of us who attended Reunion were grateful to be there. We remembered those unable to be there. I hope reading these comments gives you a bit of the flavor of a happy weekend. ❖ Ruth Carpenter Bailey ( email Ruth ) | Bill Waters , MBA ’55 ( email Bill ) | Class website | Alumni Directory .

Richard Shriver was honored by the Connecticut River Conservancy with the Bud Foster Award. CRC gives this award each year to someone who has shown outstanding devotion, service, and accomplishment in the Connecticut River watershed. Bud Foster was the first executive director of what is now the CRC. As its website notes, “In those pre-Clean Water Act days when CRC was first established, the challenge facing our rivers was significant. That meant the dedication of those looking to make a difference was also extraordinary. This award shines a light on those who work hard for the benefit of our rivers.”

In its announcement, CRC noted Dick’s contributions: “Dick has been supportive of the Connecticut River Conservancy at every turn. He has been an early morning boat captain for the Unified Water Study, has published articles about restoration stories with great depth and detail, has hosted murmuration bird paddles for local community members, and offered his home as a celebratory reception place. He has been a convener, connector, and friend who brings others together with open arms to unite our efforts for greater collective impact. Thanks to Dick’s leadership, $1 million was recently granted by the Endeavor Foundation to support conservation priorities throughout the watershed. All this in a relatively short time, after a successful career. Dick is an impressive example of how much one person can accomplish when inspired and committed. And now his efforts inspire more of us to appreciate and steward this amazing resource.”

Samuel “Skip” Salus derives great satisfaction from “being able to move around without pain.” He spends his days reading, playing bocce, attending lectures or events, and keeping in touch with old friends. Sadly, Skip shares, “I lost my wife to a strange disease.” He adds that he enjoys “seeing my sons in their jobs competing successfully. I have 13 grandchildren and five are in college—one just graduated and one is at Ithaca College.”

Ruth McDevitt Carrozza (York, PA) greatly enjoys keeping in contact with her far-flung family in Florida, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine, and camping with her daughter and son-in-law. She’s also enjoying her new friends in her community and participating in community activities such as crafts and bus trips. “I celebrated my 90th birthday with a great family party on April 1. We are waiting for my fourth great-grandchild.” When asked if Cornell changed the trajectory of her life, she wrote, “Although I was a landscape design student, I was able to become a science teacher because of my science classes at Cornell.”

Although I was a landscape design student, I was able to become a science teacher because of my science classes at Cornell. Ruth McDevitt Carrozza ’55

Hans Duerr writes from his new home in Orchard Park, NY, where he moved to be closer to his sons after his life partner, Jeanne, died in 2020. He is happy to be alive and healthy. George Morson derives great satisfaction from family, his health, volunteering, and tennis. He happily reports that his grandson is a pilot.

Dick Kurtz , BS ’58, appreciates his “good health, happy wife, and family. I enjoy seeing the growth of our 4-year-old identical male quadruplet great-grandchildren—and supporting their parents.” Dick participates in his church choir, plays bridge, volunteers in church affairs, walks the dog, and travels in the U.S. He notes that the University “supported my love of Latin American friends, travels, and countries.”

Shirley Sanford Dudley writes, “I studied psychology at Cornell and became (after an advanced degree) a counselor, registrar, and assistant dean in a seminary. I loved, loved, loved working with students. They have been some of my best friends for life. Also, as a minister’s wife, the variety of students at Cornell enabled me to open up to a wider group of people of all sorts in the cities where we lived.” Now, Shirley is occupied with leadership roles in her senior center, choirs there and at church, 10-minute plays, letter writing, exercising, walking, and reading good books.

These days, Kenneth Sanderson greatly enjoys meeting new people, volunteering at polling places and as an usher at theaters, gardening, and attending plays. “2024 has been the worst year of my life,” he shares. “My wife, Barbara, died, and my brother Don died. I’m glad that I got to bring Barb to visit Cornell once.” When asked if Cornell changed the trajectory of his life, he wrote, “Absolutely. It gave me a goal for life: always excel! And it provided the professors and classmates that served as role models. I only attended Cornell for two years for a BS degree, but I have always felt that I was part of a family. Cornellians opened many doors for me throughout my career.”

Stay tuned for more news from our classmates in the next column! ❖ Class of 1955 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Diana Motycka Day has been participating in church activities as a deacon, gardening around her home, and socializing with her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. “I met Bob Day the first day of freshman year at orientation! We fell in love, but Bob’s national scholarship kept him studying too much so I dated Tom Herbert ’54 , MBA ’55, and married him! That marriage ended. Bob and I both went to our 45th Reunion in 2001 and decided immediately to get married right away in 2002. That was an idyllic marriage for 15 years, until Bob died.”

Virginia Seelig Lenz has five grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. She is a tour docent at Poplar Forest, Thomas Jefferson’s retreat home, and a facilitator for a book club at her local library.

Gail Berkson Malloy-Brown is retired from teaching at Adelphi University but still working part time as a psychotherapist. She notes that she’s still recovering from Dick Brown ’48 ’s death four years ago. “Cornell sent me on a ‘trip’ from hospital nurse to public health nurse to teacher and academic administrator of nursing, to psychoanalyst and psychotherapist in private practice, and from BS to MA to PhD.”

Pat Brodie gets the greatest satisfaction in life from spending time with her children and grandchildren. Now retired, she’s writing a memoir. “I’m living in Brookhaven in Lexington, MA, now. Everyone here is over 65. It reminds me of living in the dorm at Cornell.”

I’m living in Brookhaven in Lexington, MA, now. Everyone here is over 65. It reminds me of living in the dorm at Cornell. Pat Brodie ’56

Robert Ridgley writes, “I’m still happily married to Marilyn (Hester) ’57 after 66 years! We just welcomed our first great-grandchild!” Robert retired as CEO of Northwest Natural Gas and continues with numerous activities for the community of Portland, OR, including the Cornell Club. “Economics and history studies at Cornell led me to Harvard Law School, 23 years of legal practice, and then a second career in management of a public utility.”

Carol Skidmore Cuddeback writes, “My 90th birthday party had 53 relatives attending! Great occasion for our large family! I was surprised! Wish my dear husband could have been there.”

Theodora Litner Weihe enjoys “being able to dance and play golf with my younger friends, being able to eat out when I don’t feel like cooking, and being able to drive! I love having a loving husband in good health. We go to grandchildren’s graduations when we can, but otherwise aren’t traveling much. Attending Cornell allowed me to feel confident in many new settings—socially and professionally.”

There will be more news from classmates in our next Class Notes column! ❖ Class of 1956 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Those hills of Cornell drew me back again for the 2024 Reunion. The founders of the Continuous Reunion Club declared that attending Reunions only every five years just isn’t enough. I joined CRC in 2000, so I have enjoyed the Reunions every year since then except for the two years of the pandemic.

This year I was able to meet Nan Krauthamer Goldberg and Judy Richter Levy , LLB ’59, for dinner at the Statler’s Taverna Banfi fine dining restaurant. Judy arrived from Manhattan to enjoy her Law School Reunion. She and one other female classmate double registered our senior year. Judy announced that she is about to retire from her practice of personal injury law, which she pursued for at least 50 years with her late husband. She had an interesting and rewarding career helping victims receive compensation due to other people’s negligence. She may occasionally assist her daughter, also an attorney, with her cases. Judy has been our class’s go-to person in NYC to arrange luncheons and dinners whenever Cornell events took place there. Many classmates who enjoy the Cornell hockey games in Madison Square Garden have attended those dinners.

Nan is one who was fortunate to remain in the Ithaca area as three weeks after graduation she and Stan ’55 were married. Stan was a retailer in an Ithaca home improvement business that later grew and diversified, and he became a real estate developer. Nan and Stan had four children in the next 10 years, which kept Nan busy using skills learned in her child development classes. Nan later had her own business, Learning Foundation of Ithaca. Over the years, Nan has helped hundreds of high school students in test preparation and goal-setting. To this day she continues to help local students and also Rotary exchange students. Her family now includes 11 grandchildren, four of whom are Cornellians. Although Stan passed away in 2015, Nan continues to live in their fine modern home on the west shore of Cayuga Lake, across the road from Taughannock Falls State Park.

Naturally, our dinner conversation included news about many of our distaff side classmates. We especially recalled the recent passing of two very active women, Sue DeRosay Henninger and Vanne Shelley Cowie . Both served as leaders during our undergrad years and since we became alumni. Sue was our president early in our alumni days. Vanne’s decorations in Balch Hall for our 40th Reunion are still memorable. Sue was a patroness of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, while Vanne was a patroness of the Cornell Botanic Gardens (formerly the Cornell Plantations).

Judy Richter Levy ’57 , LLB ’59, is about to retire from her practice of personal injury law, which she pursued for at least 50 years with her late husband.

Their spouses, Joe Henninger ’56 , MBA ’58, and former trustee Bob Cowie ’55 , MBA ’57, survive them. Both couples were recipients of the prestigious Frank H.T. Rhodes Exemplary Alumni Service Award. Vanne and Bob were honored in 2003 and Sue and Joe were honored in 2009. (And, both couples were members of the Continuous Reunion Club!) Our other honored recipients of the Frank H.T. Rhodes Award are: Art Gensler , 1998; Tony Cashen , MBA ’58, 2001; Steve Weiss , 2008; Steve Laden , 2009; and Bob Staley , MBA ’59, with his wife, Elizabeth (Chapman) ’60 , 2012.

Our class is recognized as having a great number of our alumni involved in Cornell and class activities. In our class leadership and Reunion committees alone, we approach 100 individuals. Could any other class even come close to that? There is a pattern prevalent in the classes of the 1950s. Many male students had plans to continue their education in professions such as medicine, law, advanced business degrees, and further academic studies. Not so for the women. Only about 10 of us ’57 women went right into law or medical schools. In fact, we were not encouraged to continue our education. A corridor-mate, a ’56 co-ed, went to a vet school for an interview. She was told outright that she would not be admitted because she would be “taking the place of a man.”

Graduation found many of us married or soon to be married, then becoming mothers, homemakers, and community volunteers. Only later did some pursue advanced degrees. Barbara “Bobbie” Redden Leamer is a perfect example. She and Dick ’56 were married in the Anabel Taylor chapel the day before our graduation. Defying all who bet against it, she, as our women’s class council president, along with her counterpart, Jim Drennan , MD ’61, was in place the next morning to lead us to our Barton Hall graduation ceremony. Bobbie and Dick were quickly on their way to Jackson, MI, for Dick’s job with Mobil Oil. Dick’s entire career was with Mobil Oil and entailed move after move, 11 of them by our 25th Reunion.

With their three children born in ’59, ’61, and ’63, Bobbie became a Girl Scout leader, a library volunteer, a PTA leader, a Sunday School teacher, and involved with various newcomer groups, sports booster clubs, and many, many more. Her interest in library work led her to earn a master’s in library and information sciences in 1979 from the University of North Texas. Their last move was to Fairfax, VA, in 1989, where they remain. She continues to volunteer at public libraries in the Fairfax area and in Saranac Lake, NY, where they have a summer home. Their family has expanded to include nine grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. ❖ Connie Santagato Hosterman ( email Connie ) | Alumni Directory .

Albert Caines , the only vector control specialist and entomologist in Oswego County, NY, and the area, collected over one million mosquitos in his work. He lives in Phoenix, NY, and enjoys fishing, watching high school sports, Cornell football and lacrosse, two great-grandchildren, and dining out with his girlfriend.

Debbie Fanto Czegledy , who majored in fine arts, had a wonderful career at the United Nations, using her arts skills. Her role in the last 12 of her 20 years at the U.N. was as head of the department that informed people about the work of the agency that gave grants to women in developing countries, through booklets, exhibits, events, and speeches. She also traveled to European countries to fundraise and to developing countries to encourage project recipients. After she retired, she became a professional portrait artist. Now living in Plandome, NY, on Long Island, she still enjoys painting and participates in a French conversation group, many church activities, swimming, and entertaining in her garden with her many friends.

Dean Danzer worked as a chemical engineer for 38 years at Monsanto, then traveled all over the world after retiring. He suffers from amyloidosis and is confined to a wheelchair. He lives in St. Louis, MO, with his wife, Virginia, who graduated in 1961 from Washington University. She is still in good health and is able to drive. He enjoys reading, investing, church activities, and spending time with his family.

Gerald Freedman started out as a mechanical engineer but took multiple other courses, including one on how the body works with Prof. Singer in home economics, which changed his life. He then went to medical school and retired as a radiologist. He lives in Hillsboro Beach, FL, with his wife, Karen, who is a joy! His health is stable, but he has pain in multiple joints. He enjoys sculpting clay, watching TV, reading magazines, spending time with friends, and talking on his cell phone with his kids, who are doing great!

Albert Caines ’58 , the only vector control specialist and entomologist in Oswego County, NY, and the area, collected over one million mosquitos in his work.

Arthur Horowitz says Cornell provided him with the opportunity to learn, limited only by his lack of brain power! He practiced as an ob/gyn until 21 years ago, and since then has helped his wife in her fine art business. They live in Hopkins, MN, and travel a lot—2 million miles to 100+ destinations. Their three children graduated from Barnard, Cornell, and Wesleyan in the 1980s and have since provided them with seven grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren. Arthur’s greatest satisfaction is waking up in the morning!

Susan Swanson Hueber says Cornell pressed her “curiosity button”! She lives in Ridgecrest, CA, and is a widow, which means she has no more horses to care for. She finds satisfaction in getting up every morning, learning (by non-digital means), enjoying music and art, cooking for fun and friends, activities with her dog, and friends and family. She also volunteers at a small local natural history museum.

Almeda “A.C.” Church Riley says Cornell changed her life by providing two good marriages to Cornell graduates, Bill Dake ’57 (1959–84) and John Riley ’55 (1995–2021). In between, A.C. gave 10 years of public service to her community. She lives in Woodlawn Commons, an independent living community in Saratoga Springs, NY, and is on its residents’ association board. She is a member of the United Methodist Church and the League of Women Voters, regularly plays bridge and mahjongg, plans to play frequent golf this summer, and enjoys spending time with her children and their families.

Audrey Wildner Sears says Cornell changed the trajectory of her life when she met Ray ’57 , her spouse of 66 years, and set off on an adventure! She derives great satisfaction from still being active in her community in Grantham, NH. She enjoys volunteering at Montshire Museum of Science in Norwich, VT.

Cynthia Rau Sears is very excited because she recently became a great-grandmother to Nolan Michael! She and husband Raymond, who live in Wayne, NJ, find it hard to believe! ❖ Barbara Avery, MA ’59 ( email Barbara ) | Dick Haggard ( email Dick ) | Alumni Directory .

“ Oh, I want to go back to the old days … Hard to believe we are celebrating our 65th Reunion,” says Marty Lehman . “The event triggers a flood of memories—long bus/train rides from my home in Portsmouth, OH, to Ithaca, lifetime friendships with my brothers from Tau Delta Phi, late nights spent in the architectural drafting rooms ( Work like a jerk till your eyes ache like hell! ), the unforgettable Beaux Arts Ball on the top floor of White Hall, George Healy’s brilliant lectures in British lit, Kingston Trio for Spring Weekend, trudging through the snow on the Quad on Dragon Day, custodial residence at the Heller House on Eddy Street with my architecture classmate Bill Woods , early morning ‘bridge’ parties (milk punch for breakfast) overlooking Beebe Lake, graduation party in the ‘secret garden’ behind the Heller House … Always returning to my old Cornell .”

“Great Reunion!” says Carole Kenyon . Says Phyllis Corwin Rogers , “The best part of Reunion is the trip down memory lane.” Says Harry Petchesky , “Like most of our classmates, I came for the camaraderie and the programs offered by Cornell, all of which got high marks from their attendees.” Says Judy Brotman Cochran , “This was another of the Class of ’59s wonderful Reunions and why many of us keep coming back.” Particularly heartwarming were the rousing cheers given to retiring President Martha Pollack after her State of the University Address, and the performance by the Cornell Alumni Chorus and Glee Club at Cornelliana Night.

Memories of people, places, and events: “Climbing the stairs to Rockefeller Hall and sitting in the auditorium for a physics demonstration reminded me of Professor Herbert Newhall , PhD ’42 ’s introductory physics course in 1955; it was as invigorating now as it was then,” said Phil Yarnell . At our Saturday evening dinner, Corey Earle ’07 gave a fabulous talk contrasting Cornell in the late 1950s with the Cornell of today. Gerry Schultz followed Corey’s presentation with a slideshow featuring Hans Bethe, Phillip Morrison, Dexter Perkins, Michell Sienko ’43 , and other professors who inspired us during our days on the Hill. Svein Arber spoke eloquently about Clinton Rossiter ’39 and Milton Konvitz , PhD ’33 . Sadder remembrances were expressed at Anabel Taylor Hall on Friday morning, when Ron Demer , Bill Kingston , Ellie Applewhaite , and Bill Day read the names of 181 classmates who had passed away since our 2019 Reunion. Ron notes that our class began with 2,262 people, including those who earned degrees and those who did not; 720 have died, which is 32% of those who initially started.

Sixty-eight ’59ers were at Reunion, many accompanied by spouses and friends. Among us was Marsha Gratz Perry , attending her very first Reunion (hooray!). In contrast, Reuners such as Ellie Applewhaite and Harry Petchesky have attended every Reunion, beginning with our 5th back in 1964. One classmate unable to attend but still represented was George Ladas , whose charming book, The Amazing Adventures of Karnival Kat and Eight Musical Mice , was featured at the Cornell Store’s book signing on Saturday morning. Another attendee-in-spirit was Carl Leubsdorf , whose article about becoming a political columnist, “I Really Owe It All to The Sun,” appeared in the Reunion edition of the Cornell Daily Sun .

At least one of us was seen dancin’ to the beat at the evening tent parties. But let’s admit it: most of us had ‘retired’ by that hour. Jenny Tesar ’59

Some statistics: Our class was among those given special recognition at Cornelliana Night, for raising a record amount of money during a 65th Reunion year: $49,797,404. Over 8,000 people registered for Reunion, representing 47 states, the District of Columbia, and 23 countries. More than 450 events were on the schedule: tours, exhibits, lectures, workshops, open houses, receptions, and even canoeing on Beebe Lake. Two ’59ers shared a mid-afternoon snack of BBQ with electricians setting up events on the Arts Quad. And at least one of us was seen dancin’ to the beat at the evening tent parties. But let’s admit it: most of us had “retired” by that hour.

A new-for-’59ers event: Reunion kicked off on Thursday afternoon with the Spirit of ’31: Passing It Forward ceremony, during which the three oldest Reuning classes, celebrating their 75th, 70th, and 65th reunions, presented the Class of 2019, attending their first Reunion, with their official class banner. Events receiving ’59ers’ acclaim included a guided tour of the Mann Library exhibit “Introducing Vladimir Nabokov, Lepidopterist.” We all remember Nabokov’s teaching and his worldwide fame as a writer, but this exhibit illustrated his lifelong involvement (beginning at age 5!) with questions of butterfly evolution and diversity. FYI: The University’s Insect Collection has over seven million insect specimens, including hundreds of butterflies collected by Nabokov.

At the reception celebrating women in engineering—where it was noted that women now comprise nearly 50% of Cornell’s engineering students— Al Newhouse had a good discussion with a female manager from Shell Oil about the impact of EVs on our electric grid. Professor Ross Brann’s talk, “Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and Racism Revisited,” received high marks from Stefanie Lipsit Tashkovich , MEd ’64 (“wonderful”) and Carole Parnes . Carole also commended the presenters at the annual Liberty Hyde Bailey Lecture, this year on synthetic biology and the transdisciplinary, team-based approach being used to solve complex medical, agricultural, and other problems.

The old, the new: All ’59ers and their guests received coupons for a two-dip ice cream cone or cup at the Dairy Bar (Itha-Kahlua Fudge—yum!). A bus full of classmates took a bus tour of the campus with the informative, witty tour guide pointing out new buildings, places being renovated and expanded, the relocation of the baseball field, etc. A stop at the Botanic Gardens (formerly Cornell Plantations) provided a brief respite from the day’s hustle and bustle. On another day, several of us were given a bird’s-eye view of the construction of Cornell Bowers CIS, named after the late Ann Schmeltz Bowers , the college’s primary donor. ❖ Jenny Tesar ( email Jenny ) | Alumni Directory .

Elaine Moody Pardoe has sadly reported from Columbia, MD, “My husband, David, died on March 28. We had a wonderful 62 years of marriage, which are giving me cherished memories to help me through this difficult time. I now live in a retirement community, where I have compatible fellow residents who have experienced the same heartbreak. Dave and I considered moving here one of the wisest decisions ever made. We have three children, who are my greatest source of comfort; we share undying love for their father.”

John Ramsey , who lives in Perry, IA, with his spouse, Lois Lee Huck, says, “I’m happily retired from my ichthyology career at the University of Puerto Rico, Auburn University, and Iowa State. My wife and I enjoy the amenities of our retirement community.”

Merrill Burr Hille reports from Seattle, WA, that she still enjoys hiking and the pleasures of her four grandchildren, who are ages 4–26. Cornell influenced her life, says Merrill. She enjoyed doing research in the Department of Chemistry, which got her to graduate school and eventually to her professorship in biology at the University of Washington; there she managed to publish significant cell biology manuscripts in 2002.

Raoul Andrews-Sudre sent word from Pompano Beach, FL, that he is “playing golf and cooking for my friends. I also give lectures on energy medicines and consult on spa design and management. I continue to travel the world and visit my daughter and grandchildren in Paris.”

Bradford Brown lives comfortably with his wife, Mable, in Johnston, RI. Asked what brings him the most satisfaction, Bradford says, “Our family, including my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. I’ve been writing memoirs on topics like anti-racism.”

Meantime, Donald Dewey , BA ’65, is still in New Rochelle, NY, where he says he is comfortable with his wife, Sandy. “I also find satisfaction watching the Boston Celtics and not working.” Queried on whether Cornell changed the trajectory of his life, Don drolly says, “I think so; my daughter Elizabeth Dewey Efe ’98 , MBA ’06, also attended Cornell.” Send your news to ❖ Judy Bryant Wittenberg ( email Judy ) | Alumni Directory .

Read the news from your classmates here! Dorcas McDonald founded and is the executive director of the Learning for Living Institute in Boulder, CO. She appreciates Cornell for getting her started to find what she wanted to do.

Longtime tennis photographer Ed Goldman is a new member of the Eastern Tennis Hall of Fame. He has photographed the U.S. Open since 1976. Congratulations, Ed!

Stan Marks is still working and judging in Arizona. A nice Q&A article with his photo appeared in the Town of Paradise Valley Independent , describing his volunteer work for the Paradise Valley, AZ, court.

From Yonkers, NY, Marco Minasso has one grandchild at Cornell. Of his days on the Hill, he recalls, “I felt a part of a large family discovering new ideas every day.”

Mike Polansky writes, “Since retirement doesn’t really work for me, I started a new career as a reporter for a string of local newspapers, Massapequa Post and others, where I cover local board and chamber meetings with matters relating to Massapequa, NY.”

David Marks , MS ’64, is “living in the country with deer and turkeys in the backyard. A big change from Cambridge, MA, but we enjoyed both. After 43 years at MIT as a professor of civil engineering, we are taking it easy in the country. My daughter and granddaughters went to Cornell. Cornell took me as a small-town rural kid and showed me the world.”

Joel Blatt writes, “I’m still teaching European history at the Stamford campus of the University of Connecticut. I was inspired to teach history by Edward Fox and Walter LaFeber.”

I was inspired to teach history by Edward Fox and Walter LaFeber. Joel Blatt ’61

From James Belden , DVM ’64, in Florida: “After 31 years practicing equine sports medicine on the racetrack and another 28 years with sport horses, we have semi-retired to a new farm in Williston, FL. Our focus presently is special-case equine rehabilitation, and we are enjoying the peaceful lifestyle being away from mainstream competition. We continue to show reining horses but only on a regional basis. The new farm affords us more opportunity to visit the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The tempo of life in North Florida is relaxed compared to South Florida.”

In sad news, Alan Schmitt ’s son wrote that his father died in December 2023 at age 83, and Stephen Wilson ’s son informed us of Stephen’s death and indicated that he wishes to continue carrying on his father’s Cornell support.

Before his death in March, classmate Gary Busch sent in a lengthy news form. He wrote, “I have closed our two African cargo lines and ended the charter of our planes. I have closed my shipping line and sold the last two vessels. I have sold my house in London and down-sized twice to a small apartment. I sold my house in Venice, Italy, and closed my shared apartment in Vanino, Russia. I still have my country house in Somerset. I have largely stopped traveling on a regular basis and sold my car. I continue my daily news blog and my occasional political consulting. All in all, I am leading a normal life after all these years, now surrounded by children and grandchildren. I look forward to a less exciting schedule and hope to settle into a more placid period of gradual decline.” These classmates will be missed. ❖ Susan Williams Stevens ( email Susan ) | Doug Fuss ( email Doug ) | Alumni Directory .

Cornellians is thrilled to share news from Anne Kaczmarczyk Evans , who graduated from the Nursing School in NYC in 1962. (Though the school has been closed for 45 years, Cornell formerly combined three years of education, hospital training, and hands-on experience at NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine—as the institutions are now known—on top of two years of prior academic study, granting a bachelor’s degree in nursing.)

These days, Anne spends her time dancing, sitting on the beach enjoying the sun and water, attending church services, and volunteering at the local historical office and local Medicare office. She writes, “I spent a delightful lunch in NYC with two classmates in March at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.” When asked if attending Cornell changed the trajectory of her life, Anne said, “I earned a professional degree, which lead to a lifetime of work.”

Thanks for writing, Anne! Cornellians is always happy to receive news from Nursing school alumni and celebrate their distinct Big Red experience. They’re welcome to fill out an online news form or write directly to Alexandra Bond ( email Alex ).

Here’s the news that’s come over the transom since our last column. If you’ve missed this one, you can atone by sending news for the next one.

From Ewing, NJ, Patricia Carlin White , MEd ’63, writes that now that she has retired from teaching high school home economics (“culinary arts”), she is keeping busy as a textile artist making handwoven clothing and with traveling—most recently to Japan and to Lisbon a few times a year to visit her son and his family.

After 30 years working with Penn State student counselors, Betty Lefkowitz Moore is enjoying retirement by being with friends, volunteering at the library, providing medical assistance for those without funding, serving as director of the Jewish Community Center, and being a great-grandmom.

Linda Zucchelli Martinelli of Rexford, NY, proudly reports that her two grandsons at Cornell are both on the Dean’s List!

Beverley Mochel Wilson lives in Lawrence, KS, where she volunteers four days a week recording and live broadcasting for sight-impaired individuals. “We are the second largest service in the country with 250 volunteers and 1,000 listeners!”

Author Jack Foley lives in Oakland, CA, where he is a prolific writer, poet, and critic. Since 1988, he has presented poetry on the Berkeley, CA, radio station KPFA. In 2021, Academica Press published The Light of Evening: A Brief Life of Jack Foley , and the companion volume, A Backward Glance O’er Travel’d Roads . Last year’s output included Creative Death (Igneus Press), Bridget (Stoneybrook Editions), and, coming up, Ekphrazz (Igneus Press) and Collisions (Academica Press).

Bob Simpson , a retired automotive engineer for the Chrysler Corporation now living in Fenton, MI, keeps himself busy completing projects and/or repairing or fixing things. David Harrald writes that he is enjoying retirement in Sun Lakes, AZ.

From Veneta, OR, John Abele sends word that these days, in addition to enjoying the company of his family, he gets the most satisfaction from watching Fox programs and “supporting the Conservatives.” Liz Belsky Stiel writes that she and husband Lester ’60 are settled in La Jolla, CA, where they “plan to continue to age in place.”

From La Conversion, Switzerland, Jacqueline Browne Bugnion ’62 writes that in retirement she has been financing an agricultural school.

Originally from St. Paul, MN, Jean Kitts Cadwallader serves on several boards in Homer, NY, where she set up home after graduation with her late husband, William , DVM ’62 , a Cornell veterinarian, and raised her family, which now includes 10 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and two more “in the oven.”

From La Conversion, Switzerland, where she has lived for almost six decades, Jacqueline Browne Bugnion writes that in retirement she has been financing an agricultural school that is linked to the “Great Green Wall,” a major reforestation project in Burkina Faso whose purpose is to promote peace, restore 100 million hectares of land, sequester 250 million tons of carbon, and create 10 million jobs. The project is providing food and water security, habitats for wild plants and animals, and a reason for residents to stay in a region beset by drought and poverty.

After 30 years of part-time teaching as an anatomy and physiology instructor at Frederick Community College, Betty Kopsco Bennett , now retired in Middletown, MD, keeps busy with family, church, and volunteer work.

In retirement, Ray Hutch , a Penfield, NY, resident, serves on several boards including the YMCA, Rochester Area Community Foundation, Lollypop Farm (Humane Society), United Way, and Synergy IT Solutions, the company he founded.

Abbie Jobe ’26 , a CALS agricultural engineering major, is the Class of 1962 Rhodes Tradition Fellow (2022–24). Abbie reports that, thanks to this award, she was able to take advantage of some great experiences this past school year. She was selected to join the SMART (Student Multidisciplinary Applied Research Teams) Program on the E&E Green Farms at Cornell with which she was able to travel to Rwanda in January to help a female seed processor and distributor build a website from HTML. This past summer she traveled to the Kingdom of Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland), where she spent five weeks as a project manager for Cornell Engineers in Action, helping her team of six engineers build a water distribution system for the Matutini primary school.

Want to know what’s happening at Cornell every day? Read the Cornell Daily Sun online via this link . You can also sign up on the site for a free daily newsletter.

Check out our class website for timelier information. Please send along news and updates (photos, too, which we can display on our class website) about what’s happening with you and your family. Send your entries to: ❖ Judy Prenske Rich ( email Judy ) | Alumni Directory .

The exciting news from the Class of 1963 is that our president, Paula Trested Laholt , was honored with the William “Bill” Vanneman ’31 Outstanding Class Leader Award. From the announcement: “This prestigious award is given to class officers who have provided long-term exemplary service to their class, in honor of Bill’s 75 years of superlative service. Paula has been indispensable to her Class of 1963 for decades, first volunteering for her 25th Reunion. She is the current class president and a member of the class council. Paula was recognized during Reunion on Saturday, June 8, as part of Cornelliana Night in Bailey Hall.” Lauren Coffey, director of Class Programs wrote: “Having worked closely with Paula, I can say that she is so deserving of this award and embodies the spirit of Bill Vanneman ’31 . I’m so thrilled for Paula, as I’m sure you will all be as well!” Our class is very proud of Paula and grateful to her for always saying yes and jumping in to help out when necessary through the years. Congratulations, Paula!

A fun story in Cornellians in June was about physical education memories, and a comment from classmate Nancy Cooke McAfee was highlighted: “I almost didn’t graduate because I could not pass golf. I was inept—the teacher finally said, ‘OK, I will pass you, but please, don’t ever come back!’ P.S.: I never picked up another golf club!” Check out the story and add your own memories to the comment section!

Whin , ME ’68, and Joan Melville still live in Pittsford, NY. Whin writes: “I am busy volunteering for my fraternity and church and traveling. We have 11 grandkids from the ages of 23 months to 21 years. Cornell gave me good analytical skills and good background from Milton Konvitz , PhD ’33 . He taught development of American ideals, good economics, and business law—all so valuable in my career.”

David and Trisha Sheaff are enjoying family, traveling, and volunteering when they can. They are enjoying life in Harpswell, ME. When asked if Cornell changed the trajectory of his life, David said: “Absolutely! My years at Cornell opened many doors and friendships.”

Judy Branton Wilkins writes from Penn Valley, CA, “My husband, Paul, passed away in June 2022. My son Brian got married for the first time at 48 to Kristina (from Lithuania), who had two boys, and they now have a daughter. I keep busy with book clubs, genealogy, and mahjongg.” Did attending Cornell change the trajectory of her life? “Yes. I entered as a music major and left with a double major in music and economics. I thought I would forever be a piano teacher, but I was an economist with HUD and a production coordinator of housing. Then, with the birth of our first child, I became a piano teacher including advanced pupils. I feel in both areas I have made a contribution. More importantly, Cornell gave me an inquisitive mind and a lifelong love of learning.”

Our president, Paula Trested Laholt ’63 , was honored with the William ‘Bill’ Vanneman ’31 Outstanding Class Leader Award.

John Herslow writes that he and his wife, Janis, are “enjoying family and owning new property in Springtown, PA. Gardening and taking winter cruises keeps us busy.” He admits that Cornell taught him to learn to compete.

Sandra Hackman Barkan is “busy with her children and two grandsons, travel, grassroots political activity, and reading. My husband, Joel Barkan , passed away in 2014. I met him the first week of freshman year; we got married just before the beginning of our senior year. He was supported by faculty to become an Africanist (he was a political scientist). I graduated with a degree in French and ended up an Africanist with a PhD in comparative literature. That and African literature were key to my research and teaching.”

Bob and Shoshana Agnew are living in Palm Coast, FL. “I retired last year after a business analytics career, continuing applied math research. Family, including a new granddaughter, brings us satisfaction as does exercise, reading, and Internet communication. We are concerned about events in the Middle East. Shoshana’s whole family lives in Israel. Although mechanical engineering was fairly dull (and lengthy at five years), Cornell launched me into Air Force ROTC, grad school, and a satisfying career.”

Bob Ulrich enjoys seeing his twin grandchildren, Tyler Sprague ’27 and Lili Sprague ’27 , who both finished their freshman year at Cornell—Tyler in engineering and Lili in Human Ecology. Their parents, Mark and Corey Ulrich Sprague , are Class of ’93 .

Marion Travalini Rodd is in Ventura, CA. “I am enjoying children, family, and friends and my grandnephew and great-grandnephew. I am working hard to stay healthy and playing flute in the Ventura County Concert Band. I have three grandchildren in or entering college: Cameron, University of Michigan ’25; Camille, Haverford College ’27; and Ethan, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, ’28. Cornell opened up a whole world of friendships and opportunities for me.”

Mark and Carolyn Press Landis ’65 welcomed their first great-grandchild in 2023. Taylor Landis-Miller ’14 and Brad Wagner ’14 are the parents, and they live in Berkeley, CA. That’s all for now. Please send news! ❖ Nancy Bierds Icke ( email Nancy ) | 12350 E. Roger Rd., Tucson, AZ 85749 | Alumni Directory .

I’ve a different approach to this month’s column: instead of classmates’ recollections, I’m passing along Susan Mair Holden ’s detailed account of our 60th Reunion, beginning with the very next paragraph.

This note is for all whom we missed at Reunion. We understand that a 60th in Ithaca is not easy for most of us; the phrase “Well, I’m here” was heard several times in answer to “How are you doing?”

The phrase “A grand time was had by all” is an appropriate description of our delightful four days and three nights on the Hill, June 6–9. Our Reunion was beautifully planned and executed by Carolyn Stewart Whitman . There were enough class activities for us to enjoy being together, and just enough free time to take advantage of the lectures, open houses, and experiences that Cornell planned for anyone who cared to attend.

Thursday afternoon was registration and check-in at one of Cornell’s new dorms: Barbara McClintock Hall, located east of Balch and Clara Dickson. McClintock is adjacent to the North Campus Appel Commons, where our Thursday evening cold buffet dinner was held. Following dinner, there was an ice cream social back at headquarters, where a selection of Cornell Dairy’s famous ice creams were enjoyed by all.

The continental breakfasts on Friday and Saturday and the brunch on Sunday that preceded our class meeting engendered many compliments for Cornell catering. They served a lovely dinner at Duffield Hall on Friday evening, which was our first sit-down dinner with nearly all our 118 attendees. Many of us attended the traditional Chorus and Glee Club concert that night in Bailey Hall.

This year, we reached the magic Reunion plateau for us to have our banquet in the Statler Hotel Ballroom on Saturday night. Again, it was a terrific meal with great spirit and nostalgia as the Sherwoods sang, joked, and serenaded Cynthia Wolloch , the outgoing chairman of our JFK Memorial Award.

Cindy organized a very special event for our class: the JFK Award Forum, which many university administrators and deans attended to congratulate and hear from this year’s award winner, Sarah McMorrow ’24 . They also got to learn more about the work done by our officers to ensure the award continues in perpetuity.

It was a passing of the mantle for Katie Dealy ’00 , our JFK Award winner in 2000. As she accepted the first chairmanship of the newly organized JFK alumni board, she said that the award “changed my life.” She explained movingly that the award allowed her to accept and live on a public policy salary, which directly led to her career in public service.

Ken Kupchak ’64 , JD ’71, gave many class officers beautifully carved cheese boards handmade from a koaia tree that had to be removed from their yard.

Two of our classmates who have been application readers for years, Judie Pink Gorra and Stan Morgenstein , will also sit on this board. Cindy and Ken Kupchak , JD ’71, worked tirelessly with the University to ensure our award is legally protected and will continue to be funded and awarded each year.

The JFK Forum featured four conversations, each between one classmate and one award-winning alum. Eileen Corwin Mason , Mike Smith , PhD ’73, Bill Lacy , and Stan Morgenstein, all of whom have pursued careers in public service, spoke with four of our award-winning alumni.

An event just for our class, planned by Carolyn, was a movie, exhibit, and guided tour of Cornell’s collection of Blaschka Invertebrate Models, which are gorgeous crystal works of art that are such accurate models of invertebrates, they are used for research.

Notable events the University hosted were the yearly Olin Lecture, especially enjoyed by CNBC viewers, with Andrew Ross Sorkin ’99 ; and Cornelliana Night on Saturday, which was a wonderfully spirited evening—but this year especially for ’64s. Ours was the only class recognized for our class project and gift to the University! There was a beautiful collage of photos from the day’s JFK Forum, highlighted on the jumbotron by the University, while the Alumni Affairs speaker/cheerleader shared the story of our award with the assembled classes. Such pride we felt, and gratitude to Cindy and Ken!

Back at class headquarters on Sunday morning, for brunch and our class meeting, we were able to check on the progress of the huge jigsaw puzzle that Bob , PhD ’69, and Alice Dannett Friedenson , MA ’71, created for our Reunion. Over the years, Bob has taken countless photos of our Reunions; Alice was able to assemble them into a wonderful collage from which she produced a huge puzzle. Thank you to both of them.

Our class meeting included our election of officers. Congratulations to Elliot Gordon , our new class president! Having worked closely with him for four years, I heartily approve his election. There is no more patient, talented, and pleasant man on Earth.

We’re delighted that Carolyn and her 60th Reunion committee member, Linda Cohen Meltzer , will be our 65th Reunion co-chairs. This will be the third Reunion that each of them will have chaired … so far! They work seamlessly together, as this Reunion surely showed. Ken announced that the other officers will remain the same, including our outstanding Cornell Fund representatives, Phyllis Rivkin Goldman , MS ’67, and Michael Troner , who did a stellar job garnering Tower Club members for our class.

Ken said farewell as our president, giving many of his key officers beautifully carved cheese boards handmade from a koaia tree that had to be removed from their yard; he carried these boards all the way from Hawaii. And we also had a representative from the other non-contiguous state, Alaska: Mike “Tree” Smith with his wife, Linda (Dryer) , MPS ’04 . Also from afar: Rodrigo Ong , MS ’64 , came from the Philippines with his grandson. It truly was a memorable event. Do try to make our 65th!

That’s all for Reunion news. As for your news, just please keep it coming! Update me by email, regular mail, our class website , or our class Facebook page . ❖ Bev Johns Lamont ( email Bev ) | 720 Chestnut St., Deerfield, IL 60015 | Alumni Directory .

There is one more year until our wonderful 60th Reunion happens, June 5–8, 2025, in Ithaca. It promises to be a terrific event! Our classmates Myron Jacobson , Liz Gordon , Bill Vanneman , and Chuck Andola shadowed the Class of ’64 Reunion to see what works and doesn’t work for our own Reunion. Myron states they found a new dinner venue, and the University now offers guided bus tours throughout the weekend. Good news!

Liz commented, “Chuck and I spent some time meeting with Skorton Center director Julie Edwards, who is spearheading the extremely effective resilience coaching for students, which is the basis for our 60th Reunion gift to the University.”

Jeff Kass , our gift committee chairman, further describes the gift: “Our Class of 1965 Student Well-Being Fund Legacy Gift supports the work of the Skorton Center, which is the University’s health center. Our Legacy Gift has helped finance a two-semester pilot program to provide coaching from specially trained Cornell staff that provides emotional well-being support for students facing stress. The pilot has yielded significant outcomes for participants and garnered positive feedback. Cornell is adding more coaches in anticipation of increased demand for the fall 2024 semester. Jamil Sopher , ME ’66, our class president, will soon share further information on progress and plans for the Legacy Gift and Student Well-Being coaching program.”

Loren Meyer Stephens writes that her latest novel, All Sorrows Can Be Borne , is the story of Noriko Ito, a Japanese woman faced with unimaginable circumstances, and is set in Hiroshima, Osaka, and the Badlands of eastern Montana. The story spans the start of WWII to 1982.

The Cornell Club of Boston sponsored an enjoyable June walk through the Mount Auburn Cemetery and lecture by Christopher Dunn, director of Cornell’s Botanic Gardens. Mount Auburn is the first garden cemetery in the U.S. and is notable for the many prominent Bostonians who are buried there. It is a joy to walk peacefully throughout paths of the extraordinary landscape featuring ponds and sculptural elements.

Put the dates of June 5–8, 2025, on your calendar! See you there! Please send your news to: ❖ Joan Hens Johnson ( email Joan ) | Stephen Appell ( email Stephen ) | Alumni Directory .

Hope your summer went well! Ralph Schwartz writes from St. Paul, MN, that he taught chemistry for 38 years and retired 16 years ago. He now enjoys fly fishing, bird watching, and travel. He became a cross-country skier and raced in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Italy. Training was a year-round event. He admits he was a total couch potato at Cornell! Ralph and his wife enjoy river cruising and have several more trips scheduled. Their children and grandchildren live in the Twin Cities area.

Jeff Collins continues to enjoy retirement as well as life in the Forest at Duke, a continuing care retirement community. He is heavily involved in social justice areas, particularly voting rights and reproductive rights. Retirement has allowed Jeff and wife Rose Mills to enjoy their love of travel. In 2023 they went to the Crested Butte, CO, Wildflower Festival, and visited friends in Santa Barbara, CA. Then they went to the U.K. Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey), the Isles of Scilly, and South West England (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset). The 2024–25 trips planned are to Morocco, to Italy, and a cruise on the Magdalena River in Colombia. They continue to enjoy the many cultural activities offered in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, including theater, music, film, and fine dining.

Marcia Tondel Davis has lived in England for over 50 years. She currently lives in Brill, Buckinghamshire, a village with many opportunities for music, art, sport, volunteering, and walks in the countryside with her dog. She has taken courses at Oxford, including philosophy and art. She enjoys visiting the southwest coast of England and has traveled to Seville, Iceland, Ibiza (where one daughter and two grandchildren live), and Lake Garda, Italy. Her other daughter, son-in-law, and one grandchild live near her in Brill.

Barbara Ann Lawrence recently moved to a new senior retirement complex in Fort Lauderdale, FL, having sold her townhome located next to the largest park in Broward County. She has attended a Finger Lakes wine-tasting event and went to a polo event in Wellington, FL. In 1993, Barbara went to New Zealand for a month with a friend from there. This gave the trip an interesting perspective. She never thought in ’66 that she would learn to paint or draw, make sculpture, or do strength training. Barbara would like to meet Cornellians from the mid-’60s classes who live in Southeast Florida.

Marcia Tondel Davis ’66 lives in Brill, Buckinghamshire, a village with many opportunities for music, art, sport, volunteering, and walks in the countryside with her dog.

Kathleen Earle Fox writes from Tenants Harbor, ME, that she is currently working as an artist in watercolors. In July she had a show at the Granite Gallery in Tenants Harbor. She also sings in a Congregational Church choir. A few years ago, she learned to play the fiddle and now plays regularly. She never imagined in ’66 that she would be combining her art with artificial intelligence to produce exciting new art! Her husband, Stan, and their children Seann Colgan ’91 , Thomas Fabisiak ’03 , and Susie Fox and their partners attended a Formula One race in Montreal this past June.

Jeff Konvitz writes from Beverly Hills, CA, that he keeps busy in several ways. He is practicing entertainment finance and trial law, producing motion pictures, and writing. His new historical novel, The Circus of Satan , will be out this fall. Writing best-selling novels is something he never imagined in ’66. Among his favorite travels were his 25th wedding anniversary in Palm Beach, FL, and a World Series of Poker tournament in Las Vegas. Jeff’s youngest daughter graduated from Arts and Sciences magna cum laude in economics this past May.

Ronni Barrett Lacroute continues to live in McMinnville, OR, where she is involved in full-time philanthropy. Her activities include educational programs and nonprofits, supporting programs and operations. She participates in strategic planning and programming. Her Cornell programs include the Johnson Museum, the Lab of Ornithology, Cornell Wind Symphony tours, and the College of Arts and Sciences. Ronnie enjoys gardening, bird watching, and poetry reading. In ’66 she never imagined living in Oregon. She has not traveled since the beginning of the pandemic, which resulted in health issues for her and her daughter. She does visit her daughter and grandson weekly, as they live nearby.

Bonnie Lazarus Wallace was an elementary school teacher for 44 years; 30 of them teaching fourth grade and 14 as a substitute teacher. She now interviews students from her hometown of Cheshire, CT, who have applied to Cornell. Bonnie goes to the gym every morning and takes walks when the weather is nice. Her husband travels the world teaching dentists to do implants. Her daughter lives on Martha’s Vineyard, MA, and her son in Santa Barbara, CA. Bonnie and her husband travel to see family, including six grandchildren.

Now, a fall 2024 note from Mary Jansen Everett and Alice Katz Berglas : “A new Cornell year is in full swing, and freshmen are figuring it out. Dorms, quads, Collegetown, downtown Ithaca. Where to eat, where to study, where to party, when to sleep. Life on the Hill moves quickly, changes constantly (like the weather). Constant is the learning: stumbles and successes, friendships made, knowledge gained (all sorts), finding a way to make Cornell one’s own. And collecting the memories that stick. It is a new Cornell Class of 1966 year, too. All sorts of new possibilities for Cornellians of every age and stage. Stay connected with us! We will do the same along this 2024–25 year and on. Our best to each/all. For your calendar: Cornell 60th Reunion! June 4–7, 2026 (more memories that will stick!).” ❖ Susan Rockford Bittker ( email Susan ) | Pete Salinger , MBA ’68 ( email Pete ) | Alumni Directory .

How did Cornell change the trajectory of your life? This was a question on this year’s news form; we’re starting each classmate’s report with their answer.

“My tenure as sorority treasurer and house president gave me the leadership opportunities that led to my owning my own business,” writes Pauline “Polly” Watkins Runkle (Ft. Lauderdale, FL). Now, she enjoys “art class and painting, living on the ocean, travel, summers in Stonington, ME, church friendships, community, walking in our state parks, watching for birds, and the love of friends and family.” She adds that she’s active in the art community in South Florida and Cape Ann, MA, and loves going to concerts.

“Attending made my life wider, better, fuller. Thank you, Cornell! And both our kids went to Cornell, too,” observes Joanne Edelson Honigman (Brooklyn, NY). Joanne likes “making art, helping my husband with his institute, and being with my five grandchildren.”

“Cornell gave me confidence in my developing career, friends and contacts, and the opportunity to work on a NASA grant to design an unmanned Lunar Roving Vehicle,” observes Robert Pitkin , ME ’68 (Buda, TX). He’s now retired and spends time with “Kingdom Racing, church service, and a men’s group.” He enjoys “friends, golf, retirement, and sharing life with my wife of 54 years.”

Cliff Straehley , located in Fair Oaks, a suburb of Sacramento, CA, says Cornell changed his life trajectory “very much. Found lifelong friends. Continued my love of wrestling. I’ve never forgotten ‘freedom with responsibility.’ Furthered my path to my MD and my career.”

“At Cornell, I learned the importance of study, of balancing study and play, of diversity and difference, and of standing on my own feet. Cornell engendered a love of learning that I continue to enjoy,” answers Judith Edelstein Kelman (New York, NY). “Sixteen years ago, I founded Visible Ink, a writing program at Memorial Sloan Kettering that offers interested patients the opportunity to write on any topic in any form with the individual support of a volunteer writing mentor,” Judith writes. “Over 3,000 participants have joined. The program is free of charge to patients, supported by grants and donations. I feel privileged to be part of an extraordinary community. We have three grandkids on the cusp of high school graduation and two entering their senior year of college (one at Cornell),” she adds. “We’ve taken each of the nine grandkids on a special trip. Since we live in NYC, we get to host many of them and their friends in our home.”

Cornell gave me the opportunity to work on a NASA grant to design an unmanned Lunar Roving Vehicle. Robert Pitkin ’67, ME ’68

“Cornell opened my mind to new ideas and ways of looking at various issues (political, social, environmental, economic); I try to see all sides of an issue, even when it’s hard to do,” responds Ted Feldmeier , BS ’71 (Eliot, ME). “I’m just working at staying healthy, as I have been doing for a long time, enjoying nature, going dancing and partying with friends on Saturday night, giving and helping select charitable causes, and my wonderful wife, Joan. Life is good!” He adds that he’s “been participating in local Democratic politics involving the upcoming November ’24 presidential election.”

John Alden (East Providence, RI) is treasurer of his homeowners association and has “several consulting gigs for private secondary schools on finance and administration.”

Tom Moore , ME ’68 (Gig Harbor, WA, and Portland, OR) writes: “After 20 years in our retirement home we built on the coast of Maine, we have relocated to the Pacific Northwest. Our new second home is in Gig Harbor, WA, with water access and views that are just as great as in Maine. We still split our time between here and Portland, OR. Our two oldest grandkids (grade 11) are looking at colleges. I took them both back to Ithaca last summer for a good Cornell immersion experience. Will see if it takes. Both of my own kids turned down their Cornell acceptances for other colleges.”

William Wohlsen (Philadelphia, PA) says that “foreign language study—German, French, Dutch—and bicycle riding” bring him the most satisfaction these days.

This was not a ’67 Reunion year, but at least six of us returned to Cornell this June. I was there with my wife, Eileen Barkas Hoffman ’69 , at her class’s 55th. As is typical of our experience attending her Reunions, it only rained twice and we were inside both times.

Although we received a number of news forms recently, please do write to let the class know what you’re doing and your thoughts about your time at Cornell. ❖ Richard Hoffman ( email Richard ) | 2925 28th St. NW, Washington, DC 20008 | Alumni Directory .

More news to share with our classmates, as the summer starts to come to an end! We need more news and updates from you, so please let us know where you are and what you are doing—or share your reflections on your years at Cornell with our classmates!

Steven Steinhardt reports that he lives in Albany, NY, and when in Florida this past winter he visited with his AEP fraternity brother Art Bernstein . He is of counsel to the Albany law firm Nolan Heller Kauffman LLP, where he has practiced primarily in the field of healthcare regulation. Earlier in his career he was an attorney with the New York State Department of Health and served as associate general counsel.

David Weisbrod and his wife, Margaret Simon ’66 , an architect and artist, continue to live in Greenwich, CT, where David, after a career at JP Morgan Chase and then as the CEO of a financial derivatives clearinghouse, is an elected member of the town’s Board of Estimate and Taxation. He is currently serving his fourth consecutive term. My wife, Sharon Lawner Weinberg , PhD ’71, and I, along with Cheryl Katz Kaufmann and her husband, Nick ’67 , recently had dinner with David and Margaret. David credits Cornell with broadening his outlook on life and expanding his horizons.

Mary Hartman Schmidt and her husband, William, continue to live in Massachusetts and enjoy spending time with their family, including their five grandchildren, all of whom live in Massachusetts. Summers include family time at their vacation home on Martha’s Vineyard. Mary continues to practice trusts and estates and matrimonial law in Boston. Mary writes that her years at Cornell opened possibilities for her for friendships and her legal career.

Ithaca remains on our radar, now that our oldest granddaughter rows for Ithaca College. Candi Dabi Vene ’68 & Bruce O’Pray ’68

Candi Dabi Vene and her husband, Bruce O’Pray , continue to live in Park Ridge, NJ, and write that their grandkids bring them the most satisfaction these days, followed by community involvement and, for Candi, cooking! “Our blended family of four adult children have blessed us with 10 grandchildren who range in age from 19 to 5-year-old twin boys. Bruce continues to work full time consulting with small businesses. He finds it very satisfying to watch them prosper under his tutelage. Candi handles a small amount of real estate, is active in community affairs, and enjoys spending as much time as possible with nearby grandchildren.”

Candi and Bruce add, “Our connections to Cornell have stayed very much alive. One son graduated from Cornell in 1997. We have remained close friends with Candi’s Pi Phi sister, Tove Helland Hammer ’69 , and her husband, Dave , PhD ’69 . Tove recently retired from teaching in the ILR School after a wonderful 40-year career, while Dave continues to do research and teach in the College of Engineering. Ithaca remains on our radar, now that our oldest granddaughter rows for Ithaca College. Our ‘Ithaca Connection’ is filled with special memories spanning decades! We have attended a few northern New Jersey alumni events, which were fun. We’re still hoping to meet some classmates we know at these events!” They write that Cornell enriched both of their lives and was a big factor in forming their identities. “It encouraged independence and our ability to problem solve and to be curious and always interested in learning.”

I look forward to receiving more news and updates from all of you! Please email me about you and your family with news you want to share with our classmates. ❖ Steve Weinberg, MBA ’70, JD ’71 ( email Steve ) | Alumni Directory .

Greetings, Class of ’69! This column was written in June by guest columnist Alan Cody .

121 classmates attended our 55th Reunion, and Robert Tallo , one of our class co-presidents during the past five years, writes: “The Class of ’69 was treated to Ithaca weather at our Reunion, June 6–9. Cloudy, then rain, then sunshine, then windy, etc. A reminder of our days on the Hill! Fortunately, the weather cooperated with regard to events, with minimal inconveniences and a great finale Saturday evening on the terrace of Martha Van.

“After a great five years of Greg Baum ’s leadership during ‘interesting’ times, Cindy Nixon DuBose and Sally Knowlton put together a fantastic program of events. We enjoyed an impressive presentation on ‘Cornell, the First American University’ by Corey Earle ’07 , Friday night entertainment by class musicians, tasty food at the HQ and Morrison Dining Hall (quite a step up from the Barf Bar), numerous campus-wide events, the Sherwoods, delicious meals, and plenty of ice cream and great conversations with old and new friends.

“A shout-out also goes to the student clerks, Omani, Emma, John, Dennis, and Yuri! From walking out in the pouring rain to place directional signs to HQ to managing to connect the big-screen TV in the multipurpose room for the first game of the NBA finals, they were fantastic from start to finish.

“It’s going to be hard, but I fully expect that Sally and Cindy will top this year’s performance at our 60th in 2029. Make sure to put it on your calendar to experience a great weekend and reunite with the Class of ’69. Go Big Red!”

Greg Baum, one of our class co-presidents during the past five years writes: “Serving the past five years as co-president was personally very rewarding. It offered me an opportunity to get to know a large number of classmates that I would not have otherwise encountered. Arranging for the periodic leadership group Zoom calls was sometimes challenging, but the speakers taught us so much about a variety of topics. We learned about the University’s legal department, its libraries, the vastness of its facilities, and the new Brooks School of Public Policy. Classmates shared their career expertise on COVID and other infectious diseases, vaccine development and implementation, ornithology, battery technology, the world’s energy supply, mystery writing, a female franchising pioneer, opera lighting, and U.S. foreign policy challenges with China and Russia. The Class of 1969 includes so many truly remarkable individuals, and I am very grateful to have been able to be a part of showcasing them.”

Sally Knowlton writes, “The Heights (our Reunion caterer) was secured last fall and finalized in January. Shadowing the Class of 1968 certainly helped put us in a position to secure the best food purveyors. By being involved and attending Reunion, Cindy and I feel grateful to have met so many interesting and great people we never knew before!”

Jon Kaplan , MD ’74, class affinity group networking coordinator, writes that he had a great time recruiting and communicating with affinity group leaders (representing Greek organizations, sports teams, residence units, etc.) in preparation for Reunion. “These ‘AGLs’ (30 of them) volunteered to reach out to classmates in their affinity groups to encourage them to come to Reunion. Based on word-of-mouth and the turnout at Reunion, the effort was a success!”

Special thanks to our Reunion campaign chair, Lee Pillsbury . Under his leadership, our class raised $24,852,986 (a class best!) from 532 donors on our honor roll, including 32 Tower Club members and 82 Cornell Giving partners. Lee writes to all who contributed, “Thank you for all that you do. I am so proud to be a part of the great Class of 1969.”

And none of this would have been possible without our dedicated Reunion registration chairs, Larry and Nancy Jenkins Krablin , who write: “Krablins have played cooperative and interacting roles. When Nancy chaired our 20th in 1989 (the rugby shirts with the origin of the intertwined 6/9 class logo created by Ken Lin ’70 , a colleague of Larry’s at Burroughs), all registrations were on paper, Larry created a primitive electronic form to collate data, and payment was by paper check to Cornell Class of 1969, for which he opened a unique bank account. For the seven Reunions that followed, the process has evolved with technology! The highlight of the month of June (and the several weeks before) was our 55th Reunion. As Reunion co-registrars, we get to interact with everyone who comes, and with many who are thinking about it but ultimately can’t travel to Ithaca. Reunion itself was a lot of fun and very well planned by our outstanding Reunion chairs Cindy Nixon DuBose and Sally Knowlton. As always, we came away with new friends and a heightened appreciation of what Cornell is and does.”

Walking through my old dorms and classrooms [during Reunion weekend] kindled poignant memories. Phyllis Levine Evan ’69

Thanks also to Kate Freyer, our class engagement officer who always guides us to a great Reunion.

At our class meeting on Saturday night during Reunion weekend, we elected new class officers for the next five years. Congratulations to the new officers, with thanks for their enthusiasm in stepping up to lead our class. The new officer slate is: co-presidents Adam Sieminski , MPA ’71, Bill Bruno , ME ’71, and Steve LaRocca ; secretary and treasurer Stephen and Ingrid Dieterle Tyler ; membership chair Robert Tallo; Reunion co-chairs Cindy DuBose and Sally Knowlton; registration chairs, Nancy and Larry Krablin; affinity group chair Jon Kaplan; VP communications and webmaster John Wilkens , ME ’71.

Phyllis Levine Evan writes, “I wasn’t sure about coming to Reunion; I wasn’t sure I would know anybody. I am so glad I did! There were so many fun and interesting activities, it was hard to choose. I was always busy. People were friendly and inclusive. I made new friends and reconnected with old.

“Walking through my old dorms and classrooms kindled poignant memories. Happy times as well as things I wish I had done differently—if only I had the wisdom then that I have now. The Chimes, the bridge over the gorge, Beebe Lake, the Arts Quad … all the good old stuff. New dorms (so many), incredible additions to Goldwin Smith and the architecture building—an excellent job of maintaining classic old buildings while adding new airy spaces. Thank you to our Reunion organizers for doing a great job. If in doubt, come!”

Congratulations to our classmate Doug Antczak , who is retiring as the Dorothy Havemeyer McConville Professor of Equine Medicine. We wish Doug and Wendy well in retirement with thanks for all your contributions to the Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine.

Gary Shaye reports that he continues his long career with Save the Children as associate vice president, trustee relations. His time in the Peace Corps inspired him to join Save the Children and their work to provide support for children in countries throughout the world including the U.S. It was a pleasure talking with Gary about his work for this wonderful organization during Reunion.

Chris Degnen recounted for several of us, at Friday Reunion dinner, his walk and bike trip along the Camino de Santiago, a nearly 500-mile walk on a legendary pilgrimage route through the Galicia region of northwestern Spain rich in medieval culture.

Tom Allen reports that he and his wife, Gayle, are happily retired in the San Diego area. Tom has been volunteering with the San Diego Police Department and enjoys coming to the aid of citizens with health crises, stranded vehicles, and more.

I wish I had the space to share all the wonderful conversations I had during Reunion. Please share yours by emailing your thoughts about Reunion and other news to Cornellians associate editor Alexandra Bond ’12 ( email Alex ) or by submitting an online news form .

There will be even more interesting experiences to share at our next Reunion, so mark your calendars for our 60th, June 7–10, 2029, and be there! Best regards: ❖ Alan Cody ( email Alan ) | Class website | Alumni Directory .

I’m writing this the second week of July, in the spare bedroom of a dear friend who is putting me up (or putting up with me), while my kitchen is demolished and rebuilt as the final piece in a home refurbishing. Amazing how one cannot really exist without a kitchen!

I was recently in Ithaca for what proved to be a rainy Reunion. After returning home, I thought I might not have enough responses from classmates for this Class of 1970 column. How wrong I was!

First, a bit about Reunion. This year was the 45th Reunion of my Johnson School MBA program. Being retired, and not being a practicing corporado anymore, very few of the Johnson activities were of much interest. In fact, prior to arriving in Ithaca, I had planned only to be at the class picture-taking session for individual Johnson classes. In addition, only three individual classmates, including me, attended! One of the others was an old acquaintance, and an undergrad from another university, and had little knowledge of the breadth of activities a Cornell Reunion offers. So we joined forces, and off we went.

One very interesting advantage was the fact that Larry ’69 and Nancy Jenkins Krablin ’69 were the registrars for their class Reunion. Larry was a roommate of mine many years ago and gave me some leeway to attend some of their events and experience their headquarters in very new facilities on North Campus. Others from our class were there as the official “shadows” in preparation for our own 55th Reunion next year, so they will have a full plate of activities for us!

Be aware that our class Reunion is now less than a year away. If you have any thoughts or ideas, and wish to be involved or to volunteer, contact Sally Anne Levine , JD ’73, our class president. Find her contacts (and others’) through the Alumni Directory . Hope to see many of you in 2025!

Fred Piscop ’70 is a renowned crossword puzzle creator and the inheritor of the legacy of Split Decision Puzzles.

Fred Piscop (Bellmore, NY), renowned crossword puzzle creator and the inheritor of the legacy of Split Decision Puzzles from his schoolteacher George Bredehorn, was recently a guest on an Australian podcast, Wide Open Air Exchange . Fred noted that he never knew anyone down there had heard of him!

Howard Rosenof (Newton, MA) is another engineer responding to my continuing question about classmates staying in engineering. The following is an outline of his varied experiences. “I’ve enjoyed forays into management, teaching, marketing, and consulting, but never strayed too far or too long from hands-on engineering. After Cornell I got an MSEE from Northeastern and I went to work designing electrical control systems for nuclear power plants. Pressures from environmental groups and cheap oil led me to conclude that I didn’t have much of a future in nuclear, so I moved on to design controls for chemical plants. (Some environmentalists have since acknowledged that nuclear power can help mitigate climate change, and interest in the field seems to be increasing.)

“I developed a particular interest in one type of chemical plant that had a reputation for being difficult to control, leading to numerous articles and speaking engagements, teaching opportunities in the U.S. and Europe, co-authorship of the first published book on the subject, and an international award. After that, about halfway through my career, I switched to artificial intelligence and its applications to process control, working for two companies prominent in the field, and again traveling a lot. In retirement, I wrote my second book, Engineering, Your Career , published in 2022. It combines insights I gathered over more than 40 years, with extensive research. There’s only one review on Amazon, but I’ve gotten a great deal of positive feedback privately.”

And lastly, I need to mention yet again one of our most amazing classmates (and yet another engineer), Robert Langer (Newton, MA). He was recently awarded the Kavli Prize in Nanoscience given by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. His award was for improving drug delivery through nanoparticles, which translated into applications that developed mRNA vaccines for COVID-19. Read his entire story here .

As always, you may contact me directly (see below) or you may use the University’s standard online news form . ❖ John Cecilia, MBA ’79 ( email John ) | Alumni Directory .

Nina Gordon Schwartz was delighted to have a painting in the June Art League Landscape Exhibit , a juried exhibition at the Torpedo Factory Art Center in Alexandria, VA’s Old Town. Professionally, Nina owns Impulse Graphics, where she’s a graphic designer and art director. Her work has been in advertising, book design, and direct mail design—including corporate branding and collateral materials that express each company’s mission and philosophy.

We are grateful for Marcia Wities Orange ’s Reunion report. She loves the Continuous Reunion Club (CRC) and encourages others to join. For her, this year’s highlight was seeing the New York Times ’ Andrew Ross Sorkin ’99 and to discover him to be a fellow communication arts major. She adds that it was fun to catch up with classmates Dot Preisner Valachovic , Holly Person Flynn , Arthur Mintz , and John Henrehan , BS ’76.

In April, Marcia enjoyed Cornell’s Adult University’s theater weekend in Manhattan, along with Elisabeth Kaplan Boas and Art Spitzer . Marcia will return to CAU in Ithaca in July for a weeklong CAU class that Elisabeth will also attend.

The online news form has been useful to a growing number of us. Do consider using it for your own news, please.

Mike Kubin and his wife, Nancy Chemtob, continue to live in Manhattan. There, a bunch of friends met in his apartment when Cliff Essman visited from Baltimore. Cliff’s wife, Sue, was at the party, too, as were Jerry and Aimee Goldstein Ostrov ’72 , Ted , JD ’74, and Michelle Grossman , Stu and Hilary Oran , and Danny Bernstein ’70 . Amazingly, this group of friends met on the Hill some 56 years ago. These days, Mike enjoys traveling, writing, playing bass guitar, and hanging out with his grandkids. He’s still working at Invidi, the world’s leading provider of addressable television technology. They sold it to AT&T in 2018 and are looking to buy it back.

Howard Jacobson and Jona live in Rochester and enjoy traveling when he isn’t working. He works part time advising entrepreneurs as well as startup and early-stage businesses. He believes his undergraduate opportunities to explore are, in part, what allowed his curiosity to expand—and thus his entrepreneurial spirit to grow.

Thomas Nally remains among the ranks of those who plan never to retire. He continues to serve as senior advisor for A Better City, going into the office five days a week. He and wife Susan Brownlee make Brookline, MA, home, where he’s president of his neighborhood association and active in other civic roles. Reflecting on how Cornell affected his life trajectory, he adds that Cornell reinforced and supported its shape from before—and ever since—undergraduate days.

Nina Gordon Schwartz ’71 was delighted to have a painting in the June Art League Landscape Exhibit.

Also a consultant active in his field, Alan Miller writes from Rockville, MD, where he lives with his wife, Sue O’Hara ’72 , BA ’71. Al consults for the International Finance Corp. and is founder of a new venture fund. Both aim to promote sustainable cooling solutions. His book manuscript, based on his career in climate change and ozone depletion, is currently out for review by the University of Virginia Press.

After a successful career mostly in management consulting (including Deloitte, KPMG, EDS, and SAS), Gary Cokins is partly retired, he writes from Cary, NC. He gives training webinar courses mostly to accountants. He and his wife, Patricia Monseaux Tower ’67 , have two grandsons, 20 and 22. He asks, how cool is it that the 22-year-old just started with Boeing in Houston with the International Space Station on preventive maintenance? Taking stock, he believes his operations research and industrial engineering bachelor’s taught him how to think systematically. He’s written 10 books; you can learn more at his website .

Still another classmate who is not retired: Jeff Punim works three days a week from Long Beach, CA, where he and Donna make their home. He has time for golf, tennis, cycling, and travel to Southeast Asia and France.

Margaret “Molly” Mead is on the faculty at Amherst College. She and her wife, Carole Bull, have been married more than 20 years and enjoy taking long walks (which they call forest bathing). How has attending Cornell changed her life course? Molly shares that after the student takeover of Willard Straight Hall, when she joined others to surround the building, she went the next year (her junior year) to a small town in Pennsylvania to talk about the Vietnam War.

Jim Newman , MD ’75, lives in Wynnewood, PA. His enjoyment derives from three disparate things: writing, ice hockey, and his four grandchildren. He loved his first and second careers. Then, retired, divorced, and with grandchildren on the way, he was hit hard by the pandemic’s isolation and illness. He gave his soul over to writing and loves it. He’s written an unpublished medical satire and a self-published memoir. After that, even more: a genre-bending fiction trilogy is soon to have a fourth in the series. All are identifiable by the protagonist, Gabriel. In retirement, he adds, he is working on writing—and the wash, dishes, grocery shopping, filling out questionnaires, and answering wrong numbers. He says he would never have been as intuitive, empathetic, funny, engaged in the world, and fascinated by everything had he not gone to Cornell.

Dianne Holmes , MS ’74 (Vancouver, WA) retired last September. She enjoys gardening, travel, and hanging out with her friends. Credentials from an Ivy League school, including the scientific master’s, opened many doors for her.

Regarding your 75th birthday: Most of us will have seen this milestone—or will soon see it—and the class is having a virtual get-together and toast Saturday, September 21. Remember, there will be swag for ’71-ers who register in time . After registering, you will receive a confirmation email including login details for our Zoom celebration. Questions? Please email: 1971AtCornell@gmail.com . ❖ Elisabeth Kaplan Boas ( email Elisabeth ) | Cara Nash Iason ( email Cara ) | Alumni Directory .

Fellow classmates, this is Wes Schulz , ME ’73, one of three class correspondents who produce this column. We appreciate your input. Our senior class correspondent, Alex Barna , is stepping down from his scribe position—taking a “permanent sabbatical,” he says. Alex has faithfully served the Class of 1972 for many, many years. We appreciate his efforts and offer him a deeply felt thank you.

From Trumbull, CT, Richard Girouard reports that after 52 years, he is still doing (and still thoroughly enjoying) his restaurant consulting projects. However, the COVID years were tough. He started serving on the Trumbull Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission in 2000 and has been its chairman for the last 20 years. He also is a justice of the peace. Attending Cornell changed his life’s trajectory from the original plan to be a cinematographer. His girlfriend’s father (who graduated from Cornell under Dean Robert Beck ’42 , PhD ’54) thought the restaurant business would be a better profession, since Richard had grown up in it. “My girlfriend’s father gave me good advice.”

Clifford Hendry reports from Pittsburgh, PA, that he and wife Jean have three children and nine grandchildren who all live nearby and are doing well. He keeps busy with daily exercise classes and attending the various sports activities of the grandchildren. Cliff’s other activities include tutoring first graders to improve their reading skills. He also has a fun job delivering flowers for a friend’s business—and business is booming these days.

Reflecting on his time on the Hill, Cliff wrote, “I had an incredible Cornell experience. I played quarterback on the 1971 Ivy championship team. I was second string, but our awesome first-string quarterback, Mark Allen ’74 , got hurt early in the game against Penn at Franklin Field in Philadelphia. It was our last game. We had to win to get our first Ivy championship. I came off the bench and had the best game of my career. We won 41-13. I was presented with the game ball afterwards in the locker room. The lesson is: don’t quit because you are not playing. Have perseverance. Ed Marinaro broke the NCAA rushing record and was my good friend and still is today.”

Jim Vaughn and wife Julie are in Hilton Head Island, SC. He is a third-generation Cornellian. What brings him the most satisfaction these days? “Being able to embrace life on my terms and in my time with family and friends.” He is monitoring the Cornell Free Speech Alliance and says he agrees with their efforts. Jim serves on a public service board that is a leader in reclaimed water and sound water practice.

From their longtime home in Walpole, MA, Charley Rayner , ME ’73, and wife Cindy are enjoying the retirement life. He was a season ticket holder for hockey as a student and still keeps up with the Cornell hockey news. Charley retired in 2011 partly because he got tired of all the business travel during his civil engineering career. His three children are all married with houses and kids. Erik works in wealth management and lives close by in Needham, MA, with wife Bridget and sons Henry and Will. Brett and wife Claire and their kids Nevin and Willa are in Washington, DC. Lindsay and husband Tom live in the same Walpole neighborhood as Charley. Their daughter Charlotte is the youngest grandchild and is called Charli. I am guessing that she might be getting some extra attention from her grandfather.

Irwin Rosenfeld writes that he is still active in theater. He has performed in 20 plays or musicals since 2019. He has also been singing in a choir since he retired in 2016. He enjoys spending time with his six grandchildren who live near Seattle and Nashville. He related that attending Cornell converted him from being a math major to going pre-med, which eventually led to a successful career in psychiatry.

I played quarterback on the 1971 Ivy championship team. I was second string—I came off the bench and had the best game of my career. We won 41-13. Clifford Hendry ’72

Here is a request from two of our classmates. Charles Tetrault and Jerry Schulz started a project of trying to remember everyone on their freshman floor, including their room numbers and hometowns. While they have made significant progress, if you lived in U-Hall 4, second floor, in 1968–69, please drop them a note ( email Charles and Jerry ).

When they sent this request to me, I wrote back with the following: “I have a memory from my Cornell engineering days of taking ‘Mechanical Drawing.’ I sat at a drafting table next to someone else named ‘Schulz.’ This person would complete the drawing assignment effortlessly in 35 minutes. I would spend two hours scribbling and erasing furiously. I am sure this other person got an A grade, whereas I just barely passed. Skip forward a few years to when I was working for an engineering firm in Boston. The draftsmen were on strike. Management had some of the younger engineers go work on the drawing boards to keep production going. I did not want to do this, so I kept my transcript handy. It showed a grade of D+ for me in ‘Mechanical Drawing.’ Fortunately for all concerned, I was not called upon to work on the drafting table.”

Jerry replied to complete the story: “Yes, I was the one who was in the class with you. I had not thought of this class in decades. I remember that I was pretty good at the class, which was back in the era of T-squares and triangles. Except I had an unfair advantage, which is that at the urging of my grandfather I had taken a mechanical drawing class in high school, so I had a big head start. I did get an A, which was one of only two in four years of college.

“My only other A was in ‘Computers and Programming,’ which is a bit freaky—I never realized this until now. I switched from engineering to Arts and Sciences as a government major. Upon graduation, I forgot about engineering and computers and went to work for six years as an elementary school teacher. But then I made a career change and went into computer work in government and nonprofits, which I did for the rest of my career. And this has occasionally involved some graphics work which I continue to enjoy. (Thanks, Grandpa!) So, as they say, no experience or learning is irrelevant.”

Thank you to all who have written in. Keep the news coming! As always, you may contact one of us directly, or use the University’s online news form . ❖ Wes Schulz , ME ’73 ( email Wes ) | Frank Dawson ( email Frank ) | Susan Farber Straus ( email Susan ) | Alumni Directory .

So many retirement stories—I’m feeling left out. Michael Ciaraldi lives in Shrewsbury, MA, and is five years into retirement, pursuing his avocation as author and playwright. (You can find his plays on this site , which requires a membership.) He and wife Angelina spend time with family and, of course, their chihuahua. Medical issues forced him to skip the 50th Reunion, but on his Share Your News form he wrote that his time at Cornell “affects every aspect of my life,” so he intends to make it to the 55th in 2028. As do we all!

George Mitchell II lives in North Rose, NY, working as a part-time farmer, coaching track, and spending time with kids, grandkids, and his dad, now 97, a graduate of the Cornell Class of ’50!

Terry Richmond lives in a cottage in Ottawa with husband Doug and family, part of a gang of close friends who go for long walks in the countryside. They welcomed a group of Syrian refugees to Ottawa last May. One of her sons is curator of the Canadian Canoe Museum in Peterborough, ON, which stewards the world’s largest collection of paddled watercraft—and we’re all invited to visit! Terry reports spending a “frightening amount of time” reading the news and fretting over it. I feel the same way—the news from Cornell and other campuses over the past few months brought flashbacks of freshman year—but it sounds like she’s also helping where she can. She credits Cornell with widening her world to include different cultures and causes.

Nancy Dworkin Miller is now retired and lives in Jersey City with husband Jerry. She finally has time for visits with her family, which now includes seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. Between visits there’s time for reading, jazz concerts, festivals, acoustic guitar lessons, and even a little paid consulting. Did attending Cornell change her life’s trajectory? “Absolutely,” she says, “by emphasizing critical thinking and communication skills.”

Charles Camisa continues to practice dermatology part time in Naples, FL; between patients he spends time reading, writing, taking CAU courses, and traveling. His youngest daughter, Kristen, was married last April. As for Cornell’s influence on his life, it was where he realized that his dream of being a vet was not to be—upon entering the barn and finding he was allergic to the animals. But like any good Cornellian, he adapted and switched to pre-med. I had a similar epiphany, discovering after my first few stair-climbs as a chimesmaster that I was more suited to the Glee Club.

Cornell was where dermatologist Charles Camisa ’73 realized that his dream of being a vet was not to be—upon entering the barn and finding he was allergic to the animals.

Donald Partridge lives with his wife, Pat, in Batavia, NY, raising and exhibiting their famous Brown Swiss cows with help from their six grandkids. He also makes hay, sells sweet corn at their roadside stand, and has traveled to every state in the lower 48, adding Alaska in June.

Here in Seattle, Bill McAleer , MBA ’75, is still a partner with Voyager Capital. Voyager incubates the tech companies that have turned this city from a hub for lumber and airplanes into the digital cerebellum of the American economy. He has a knack for helping entrepreneurs through their ups and downs, and fortunately the ups have outnumbered the downs. He reports that the companies they’ve backed over the past 25 years are now worth about $10 billion. He and Colleen (McGinn) ’74 have three grandkids who I’m guessing will learn that when Grandpa talks, they would do well to listen.

Louis “Dusty” Profumo , MBA ’74, lives in Atlanta with wife Anita. He retired last year at age 71 after 25+ years in the restaurant business, and joined the board of American Franchise Capital, which operates 89 Taco Bell and 45 Applebee’s franchises. I’m guessing his five grandkids always have a place to meet Grandpa for lunch! He also has a 19-year-old son at Georgia Tech looking to be a “helluva engineer.” Dusty credits Cornell for changing the direction of his life and providing lifelong friends.

I plan to retire from radio at the end of the year. That would mark 55 years since my first paid job at WVIP (RIP) in Mount Kisco, NY. To prepare myself, I’ve moved to a four-day week, which leaves more time to fix things at our beach house and to practice my book-reading skills. Unlike my fellow English majors, I was never good at long-form reading—in the early ’70s you could often find me hopelessly asleep in the Uris stacks, but I’m getting better at it and can proudly report that I’ve hacked and slashed through 473 pages of the complete works of Charles Dickens on my Kindle. I should finish around the time our light-rail system is completed. ❖ Dave Ross ( email Dave ) | Phyllis Haight Grummon ( email Phyllis ) | Pam Meyers ( email Pam ) | Alumni Directory .

This edition is being written in the aftermath of our 50th Reunion, which was another record-breaker for our Notable Class. Since then, you’ve undoubtably read the follow-up emails detailing all that transpired. My personal highlight (prior to the Saturday night dinner—see below) was the mini-reunion of some of my WVBR colleagues from our class, reliving our DJ days when we went back on the air live on WVBR 93.5 FM (and streamed worldwide on wvbr.com ) from our class headquarters at Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hall Friday night, playing the favorite songs that you sent in. It was great to again hear Angel Harper (Sounds of Blackness), Larry Kleinman (weekday mornings), Dan Boyle , MRP ’77 (overnights), and Zack Mosner (Salt Creek), along with me (Saturday mornings). (You may have seen my recap post on our class Facebook page or the “DJ Telescoped” audio recording .) So I asked them to tell us what they have been doing since 1974 and received the following:

Angel Harper, a former elementary school teacher and standup comic with a brown belt in karate, is a vested member of SAG-AFTRA and has been very busy in the Los Angeles area as an actress, voice-over talent, and studio teacher on many productions. For example, she has worked with Brat Studios, American Experience’s “Fly With Me,” AFI’s “Hole in the Wall” and “Echoes of Greatness,” among others.

Larry Kleinman replied that he did “eight more years of radio, including six as the morning man at WLIR-FM on Long Island, and stints at WIOQ in Philadelphia and WNEW-FM in New York and 30+ years owning (and eventually selling) a small software development/IT consulting firm. Along with my wife of 42 years, Sally, we raised two wonderful daughters, one of whom gave us our first grandchild in 2023. For the past seven years, I’ve been a docent at the USS Intrepid , still floating in NY harbor (the ship, not me). For the past 11 years I’ve been an EMT crew chief, where I spend a lot of time on an ambulance taking people older than me to the hospital, and occasionally actually saving someone’s life.”

Dan Boyle offered this summary: “1976: skipped the last semester of grad school (City Planning in Sibley Hall) for a fellowship with the NYS Assembly; talked my way into weekend work at WQBK-FM. 1977: just about ran out of money when a full-time position opened; did overnights for a year (the best!); moved to late night and eventually to midday. 1980: couldn’t see myself taking requests for ‘Free Bird’ when I was 30, so got a real job using my degree at NYS Department of Transportation; my mom was happy! 1987: moved to the NYC area to work at the city’s transit authority in operations planning. 2000: after various twists and turns in Tampa and San Diego, I started my own transit consulting firm. Cornell taught me how to think, but WVBR taught me how to talk, and that was the most useful skill in my career.”

Cornell taught me how to think, but WVBR taught me how to talk. Dan Boyle ’74, MRP ’77

Zack Mosner said, “I gave up on big city living after about 45 years in the Seattle area and moved to beautiful Anacortes, in the San Juan Islands in Washington State. Retired in 2017 after almost 25 years with the Washington State Attorney General, having created a Bankruptcy and Collections Unit. A highlight? Winning a test case at the U.S. Supreme Court. With wife Patty for over 19 years, we have six kids between us and seven grandkids—so far!”

Speaking of Reunion stories, my fellow correspondent, Molly Miller Ettenger , reports, “ Walter Grote was an alternate on the U.S. Olympic wrestling team in ’76, then won the U.S. National Freestyle Championship in ’78. His daughter Skylar Grote was at the U.S. Olympic trials for wrestling while we were at Reunion! Walter and Skylar are the only father and daughter to have both won the U.S. National Freestyle Championships!” Congratulations to both!

Perry Jacobs sent in three Reunion-related links for your consideration: A Cornell (thank) U podcast episode with Peter Kaplan ; a Cornell video recording titled “Walter LaFeber: A Half-Century of Friends, Foreign Policy, and Great Losers (2006)”, where he talks about how he ended up at Cornell and other personal matters prior to the lecture; and an Ithaca Voice article titled “Gallery: See what’s under construction near Cornell this spring.”

Finally, this will be my last Class Notes column. Back when Dale Lazar , JD ’77, became class president 10 years ago, Jack Jay Wind and Elizabeth “Betsy” Moore were stepping down as class correspondents. So I was recruited, on behalf of our class, by Steve Piekarec , who, along with Dale, were past presidents of the Cornell Club of Washington, of which I have been a longtime member. Also recruited was Lucy Babcox Morris , and we joined Helen Bendix , BA ’73, who was continuing as a correspondent. We three worked together until Helen retired in early 2018, at which time Lucy and I split the assignment. When Shelley Cosgrove DeFord became class president five years ago, she asked us if we could recommend someone for the third slot, and Lucy suggested Molly Ettenger, who accepted. We three then worked together until Lucy stepped down at the end of 2022. Since then, Molly and I have been splitting these columns. However, at our class dinner Saturday night at Reunion, I was honored to be introduced as our new class president. So, going forward, I will be communicating with you from that position. Stay tuned for Molly’s next column with further details about our new class correspondents.

We thank all for their contributions and invite you to continue to send in your news. ❖ Jim Schoonmaker ( email Jim ) | Molly Miller Ettenger ( email Molly ) | Alumni Directory .

Another cool summer’s day in Orlando as I write this. At least inside it is! Here is the news. Elizabeth Grover is still enjoying (and excelling at) tennis—and looking forward to #50 next year. (Can anyone reading this believe it?) She was one of nine Pi Phi’s—along with Nancy Hargrove Meislahn , Gwenn Tannenbaum Canfield , Ann Goodrich Edgerton , Ellen Roche , Joanne Meder , Leslie Hudson , Elaine Johnson Ayres , and Ann Van Valkenburg Hammer —who got together in Savannah (“a bit steamy”).

Rodney Brooks has published The Rise and Fall of the Freedman’s Savings Bank : And Its Lasting Socio-Economic Impact On Black America (Spiramus Press, March 12, 2024). The book tells the story of the bank created just after the end of the Civil War to provide an opportunity for formerly enslaved and Black war veterans to save and gain financial knowledge. Sometimes known as the nation’s first “Black bank,” the bank was created by the U.S. Congress with little oversight and controlled by a board composed of 50 white men. The bank failed just nine years later, done in by incompetence, corruption, and a worldwide depression. With that failure came the loss of the savings of its most vulnerable customers—the newly freed slaves who had trusted the Freedman’s Bank with their life savings. It was crippling; it left 61,144 depositors with losses of nearly $3 million (more than $80 million today). Rodney is retired deputy managing editor, money, at USA Today .

Celebrating 70th birthdays: Kim Solworth Merlino and her husband celebrated her 70th by traveling from their home in New Jersey to San Francisco, where one of their sons lives with his family. Their other son and his wife also flew across the country to meet them for a long weekend. “We had a lovely birthday meal at a restaurant my husband and I had taken them to when our boys were seven and 10 years old.”

Ruth Zafren Ruskin threw herself a 70th birthday party/celebration of “beating cancer a third time”—a wine, cheese, and dessert party, which about 100 family members, friends, and colleagues attended. “We had Ruth-themed Broadway entertainment by daughter Diana’s musical theater group, Shenandoah Cabaret, and I was awarded the ‘Granny’ Lifetime Achievement Award in Living! My award looked a lot like a bobble-head figure of Hillary Clinton remade to look like me.” The party was a fundraiser for JSSA, a nonprofit health and welfare organization that serves the greater Washington, DC, area, of which Ruth is president of the board.

Geoffrey Gyrisco reports, “For my 70th birthday, in below-freezing early-January Wisconsin, I celebrated by bringing big fresh-baked muffins and chocolate cookies to my favorite outdoor airsoft field, for whoever showed up that day. My shots, hitting a far more skilled player, were the final shots of the day.”

Ruth Zafren Ruskin ’75 threw herself a celebration of ‘beating cancer a third time’—which about 100 family members, friends, and colleagues attended.

David Fischell , PhD ’80, describes himself as “an inventor and an engineer at heart.” This is undoubtedly an understatement. He has started 14 medical technology startups, where he served 25 years as CEO, with 15 of his medical products receiving FDA approvals, and he led a 1986 Bell Labs Intrapreneurship Venture creating the forerunner to GoTo Meeting and Zoom. He also holds 198 U.S. patents as of late 2023 and was instrumental in supporting the creation of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Cornell, now the Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering (BME).

In another understatement, David reports, “I get bored, so I need to have projects that keep me engaged in creating new technologies, especially when they involve learning.” He created the technology and design of what became the world’s first drug-eluting stent (for Johnson & Johnson); the responsive neurostimulator (RNS) system, which is implanted cranially to identify and treat epileptic seizures; and the Guardian, an implantable cardiac monitor that can warn high-risk heart attack survivors about future heart attacks. All are FDA-approved. David, thank you. You have saved a lot of lives.

And I do want to quote David here on what I think is excellent advice for current students: “Pick something you like and follow it until something better comes up. Once you are at your first job, begin by knocking it out of the park to establish your reputation. As you continue, learn as much as you can about what is going on in your organization, and when you find a problem that is important and interests you, ask your boss if you can take it on. Once this happens, you will rarely ever be given work, and instead, you will lead the direction of your future. Always be looking for something important where you can make a difference.”

On a personal note, I am thrilled (and so moved) to report that my daughter Briana and her boyfriend, Evan, were accepted by the Johnson School at Cornell and will be pursuing their MBAs starting this August. And my younger daughter, Arielle, just finished her second year at University of Miami Law School. She is showing serious skills both in pre-trial litigation and on her feet in mock trials. ❖ Mitch Frank ( email Mitch ) | Joan Pease ( email Joan ) | Deb Gellman , MBA ’82 ( email Deb ) | Karen DeMarco Boroff ( email Karen ) | Alumni Directory .

It was great to hear from Lynda Gavigan Halttunen in Carlsbad, CA. She writes, “This year I have re-connected with Steven Leigh ’73 , BS ’75. He lives in Florida, and I live in California. After nearly 50 years we still have so much to be thankful for. There IS life after 70 and grand adventures in this new chapter. I’m happy, healthy, and grateful.” She adds that she has been “traveling from California to Florida, New York, Ireland, and Iceland (so far this year).”

Bill Hanavan and I have also had an exciting year so far. In March, we took a Road Scholar trip to the Grand Canyon so that Bill could see it for the first time. Here in Cleveland, we were in the path of totality for the solar eclipse and, within a month, also had a rare and fabulous view of the Northern Lights. Both were firsts for me, and they were stunning! Bill spent the spring planting trees with his gang at Heights Tree People (now a proper nonprofit), and we went up to Nova Scotia to see spring choir and drama performances by our 10-year-old granddaughter, Hilda. We’re planning an all-family get-together in Michigan in August to celebrate this year when Bill and I turn a combined 140.

How are you celebrating your landmark birthday? We’d love to hear all your news that’s fit to print! ❖ Pat Relf Hanavan ( email Pat ) | Lisa Diamant ( email Lisa ) | Alumni Directory .

I hope everyone enjoyed the summer. We’ve received little news from all of you in recent months, so no doubt life is keeping everyone busy. As a result, this column will be brief—but I hope you’ll soon be writing to share what, and how, you’ve been doing.

I spent May traveling with friends in Europe, visiting some new destinations as well as old favorites in Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Poland. The trip was centered around cities filled with history, amazing architecture, great restaurants, and lots of classical music. And we did see plenty of beautiful scenery along the way. I’m happy to say that I finally made it to Prague, which has long been on my bucket list, and was not disappointed. Next up is a trip to Peru in October with Cornell Alumni Travel. This will be my second trip with the Alumni Travel group. My first experience was a safari trip to South Africa in 2017, which was outstanding. Traveling with fellow alums of all ages and backgrounds added a special connection to the adventure and created lifetime memories. I’m hoping the Peru experience will be as wonderful.

Sheryl Checkman is keeping busy in New York City. She writes that she is semi-retired but still takes on the occasional design project and sells her photography online . In addition, Sheryl has been doing background acting for the last six years and joined SAG in 2021. Since the pandemic, Sheryl has become a bird photographer. She notes, “We call ourselves ‘pandemic birders.’” Photography and nature have brought her much satisfaction and joy.

We enjoy hearing from you and having the opportunity to share your stories with our fellow classmates. Please keep all of your news and views coming in via the online news form . ❖ Mary Flynn ( email Mary ) | Howie Eisen ( email Howie ) | Alumni Directory .

Greetings, classmates! Some ’78ers had so much fun at last year’s Reunion that they attended this year’s as well. Pat Reilly , Angela DeSilva , Mary Bowler , Melinda Dower , and Debbie Downes , MD ’82, attended through the Continuous Reunion Club (CRC). Cynthia Kubas accompanied Paul Varga ’79 to his 45th Reunion. In all, 20 classmates were in attendance, either through CRC, other classes, or affinity groups.

Beth Cooper Kubinec  and husband  John ,  JD ’73 , attended the Chesterton House NYC Conference at Cornell Tech the weekend after Reunion. Their youngest son,  Jack ’23 , lived there for three years. For those who are not familiar with this residence, Chesterton House is a center for Christian studies at Cornell. The men live in the former Delta Phi Epsilon house on the Knoll and the women live next door in what used to be the Treman residence. (Disclosure: I was a member of D Phi E and lived in the house for two years.) Beth writes, “We have noticed that just when your kids get old enough to be civilized and actually interesting to be around, they move away and someone else gets to enjoy the results of all your hard work.”  Steve Kesselman , JD ’81, attended a moving ceremony in Ithaca in April, where Zeta Beta Tau—the fraternity he shared with his late son,  Samuel ’22 —dedicated its Chapter Room in memory of Sam, its former president, who passed away a year earlier as a result of vehicular homicide.

More travel of the non-Cornell variety: Gary Holcomb and wife Julie took a week-long vacation to Northern California. “We spent the first half of the trip in San Francisco, seeing the Japanese Tea Garden, Coit Tower, museums, Fisherman’s Wharf, and Giants and A’s baseball games, plus the Oakland Zoo and obligatory cable car rides. We went to Napa Valley for the balance of the trip, complete with wine tastings and great food.”

I saw the official last concert of David Bromberg, whose fantastic blues I first heard in Ithaca. Stephanie Mitchell ’78, JD ’80

Stephanie Mitchell , JD ’80, writes from the Orkney Islands, “I’ve now been living in Orkney for six months, sneaking up on but never quite reaching retirement. I am heading the international trade policy team for the chief veterinary officer in the Scottish Government, which means trying to make the new post-E.U. exit borders work in the interests of Scotland’s agrifood sector. It’s my third civil service after U.S. and E.U. and I’m thoroughly enjoying being grumpy in the service of Scotland. In 2023 I was fortunate to be able to visit the U.S. just long enough to catch up in person with Annie Wong ’77 and the family of Paul Rohrlich , two of my closest friends from the Hill. I also saw the official last concert of David Bromberg, whose fantastic blues I first heard in Ithaca at the summer program between my junior and senior years of high school. I’ve also been glad to hear from Cliff Cockerham and Peter Halamek ’77 , ME ’79, fellow survivors of Clara Dickson and ILC, respectively.”

Rick Schwartz writes: “After 38 years with the strategic value advisory practice at Kroll, a global financial and risk advisory firm, I transitioned to senior advisor, supporting projects of my choosing out of our Silicon Valley location. I continue to pursue my passion for triathlons (40+ races since 2008) and co-lead one of California’s largest and most active triathlon clubs. On long, hard workouts I’m reminded of how I’d push myself through late-night endurance runs on snowy paths during Cornell winters.”

David Doupe and wife Beth moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in 2020 from Los Angeles to be closer to grandchildren. “When we arrived, we had two granddaughters from our son Andrew and his wife, Julie, and just recently our son Tom ’12 and his wife, Annie, had a baby boy! So we are two very happy grandparents!” David continues: “After 46 years in commercial real estate, I am retiring this summer. Given that the majority of my career has been on the road, I’ve had to assure my bride of 44 years that I will have plenty to keep me active! Which I will, between honing my golf skills and staying engaged via a few board seats.”

That’s it for this column. Keep those updates coming! ❖ Cindy Fuller , PhD ’92 ( email Cindy ) | Ilene Shub Lefland ( email Ilene ) | Alumni Directory .

We are thrilled to feature this Reunion report, written by guest columnist and class president Mary Maxon Grainger , MPS ’87:

I’m glowing after an enjoyable 45th Reunion, and I was feeling particularly grateful for all the Class of ’79 volunteers when I agreed to write this column!

We had 200 classmates together in Ithaca and another 60 guests participating in class, college and unit, affinity group, and university activities. This is the size gathering that was anticipated for the 45th, so Reunion co-chairs Larry Stone and Cindy Green hit the mark with pricing, budgeting, venue size, souvenir ordering, etc.! (FYI it’s anticipated that we’ll double that for our 50th in June 2029.)

Larry, Cindy, and registration chair Larry Bunis are amazing volunteers who led the planning and production of this outstanding quinquennial celebration of our time as undergraduate students. Many other classmates pitched in to help decorate headquarters, greet at events, and cover other roles as needed; thanks to Marjory Appel , Jennifer Grabow Brito , Debra Doncov , Jeff Ford , Rich Friedman , Matt Frisch , Bob , MS ’80, and Stacy Buchler Holstein , Lon and Lisa Barsanti Hoyt , Sue Stein Klubock , Steve Magacs , Karen Mineo , Clarence Reed , Janet Goldin Rubin , Deb Seidman , Ginger So , and Nancy Sverdlik . Kudos go to Mike Curran and Margie Wang , who organized optional Friday midday activities, including winetasting with lunch at a local winery. Brad Grainger cheerfully assisted me, Mary Maxon Grainger, at several points during the weekend, and in advance.

’79ers were especially visible at several university events. Serving to introduce programs were Jeff Weiss at our Democratic Resilience Globally program, Scott Zelov , MBA ’81, at a College of Arts and Sciences talk, and Ginger So at the Olin Lecture in Bailey Hall and via livestream. Ambassador Dwight Bush discussed Democratic Resilience Globally with two faculty members of the Cornell Brooks School of Public Policy with support from Stephanie Jacqueney . Provost Michael Kotlikoff (who will be interim president by the time this column is published) visited our dinner on Thursday and conversed with attendees.

Our 45th Reunion class photo was taken during Friday’s reception and dinner at the Newman Arena (in Bartels Hall, where basketball and volleyball are played). Since there’s a jumbotron there, the class meeting was presented via a brief video with membership news from Margie Wang, a fundraising update from Mark Wilson , MBA ’80, nomination of the 2024–29 officers by Jeff Weiss, and recognition of the Reunion leadership and retiring class officers by me. It can be viewed here and the updated leadership is listed here . Retiring class officers and the Reunion leaders were thanked aloud and on signs on the dinner tables. (In addition to Larry, Cindy, and Larry, thanks go out to Steve Bronfenbrenner , Carol French Ducommun , MBA ’85, Danna Levy , Tom Rissman , Janet Rubin, and Cynthia Williams .) If you’re interested in getting involved with the class, please let me know!

At the Ithaca Farmers Market, Carolyn Clark ’79 regularly writes poetry for shoppers.

On Saturday evening, musical classmates performed during the “Redstock” concert, a relatively new Reunion tradition. Gary Dunn , Gregg Garfin , Casey Koulman , and Cathy “Cats” DeMarinis Mueller have been together in the band Your Mother starting in college. Lon Hoyt was the keyboardist for an outstanding jazz quintet. In Bailey Hall, Cornelliana Night featured traditional Cornell songs sung by alumni and students both on stage and seated, and Reunion successes were announced including our record-breaking donation campaign.

The Hangovers entertained us earlier at our Saturday reception. There were Hangovers alumni and Cayuga’s Waiters alumni singing at some of the university concerts and in sing-off style late Saturday in the Goldwin Smith Hall foyer. We don’t have a list of ’79ers who sang, but we know some like Mark Bauer cheered them on. We also don’t have a list of women’s crew members who rowed at the annual gathering on the Cayuga Lake inlet, but these men’s crew members were present: Jeff Bloom , MA ’92, Dave Boor , Craig Buckhout , MBA ’80, Dan “YT” Cheung , Ian Murray , Greg Strub , and William Winand . The Reunion 5K was held again on Saturday morning featuring Judy Ashby , Liz de Cognets Champagne , Dave Chisholm , Debra Duncov, Steve Kusmer , Cindy Lehrer , Gary Munk , and Henry Peck .

Wine was served at class receptions that was donated by our classmates with Finger Lakes wineries. Thanks very much to Fred Frank of Dr. Konstantin Frank and Dave Peterson of Swedish Hill.

Classmate Carolyn Clark is an Ithaca native who has returned to the community. After she signed copies of her poetry books at the Cornell Store on Saturday morning, she went to the Ithaca Farmers Market, where she regularly writes poetry for shoppers.

It’s also interesting to note where attendees traveled from. Tom Riley came the furthest from Honolulu, and Hilda Fritze-Vomvoris was second from Switzerland. Both traveled more than 4,000 miles. There were 51 from New York, 20 from New Jersey, 18 from Pennsylvania, 17 from Massachusetts, 11 each from California and Connecticut, and nine each from Florida and Maryland. In addition, two came from Canada, and there were 19 other states represented.

Our next columns will be composed by the class correspondents Larry Bunis , Linda Moses , and Cindy Ahlgren Shea . Please send them your news, including how you celebrated 45 years since graduation! ❖ Mary Maxon Grainger ( email Mary ) | Linda Moses ( email Linda ) | Cynthia Ahlgren Shea ( email Cynthia ) | Larry Bunis ( email Larry ) | Alumni Directory .

Send us some news. Anything! Our 45th Reunion is next year—let us publish some news beforehand to spark conversations. I’ve cajoled, I’ve begged, I’ve showered and changed my shirt, but nothing works. I have many memories of college days, but too many of my reminiscences involve painful recriminations and flashing blue lights, so maybe you should chime in. Sure, I could write only about myself, but nobody wants to see that.

Speaking of Reunion, you should mark your calendars and clear your schedule; it’s never too early. We are quickly approaching our Geritol and rubber pants years; our Reunion nametags will be in 300-point font and those dang kids working the front desk with their tattoos and hippity hop music will forget to brew the decaf, so gather ye rosebuds while ye may! Reunion is July 5–8, 2025.

Today’s guest columnist is Brian “Sandy” Curtis , who writes from Texas: “ Jill (Lonati) and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary last September. We met in seventh grade, attended Cornell together, and have lived happily ever after. In 2022, we were blessed with our first grandchild, and have another due later this year. I retired from Chevron two years ago after a wonderful time leading their environmental law group. We finished up that phase of our lives being expats in Singapore and Jakarta, and thoroughly enjoyed that part of the world. Since then, we have been enjoying some great travel experiences with family and friends. We are living in Houston, which we have called home for more than 30 years. We remain connected to Cornell, and I have recently caught up with some of my tennis teammates spread out around the U.S. Jill and I are always looking to reconnect with classmates, so please let us know if you are in the Houston area!”

Jill Lonati Curtis ’80 and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary last September. We met in seventh grade, attended Cornell together, and have lived happily ever after. Brian “Sandy” Curtis ’80

They met in seventh grade! They’re living happily ever after! Jeepers, people, they can’t be the only classmates with fascinating stories to share. Singapore and Jakarta! Maybe you’ve been there. Tell us about it. Tell us about the time you went to kill-a-keg at the Creeker and got lost walking home, even though it was only three blocks. Tell us about the hallucinations you had during a prelim because you stayed up three nights in a row. Heck, I can’t be the only one.

Okay, more about me. I’m Dik Saalfeld , married father of none, and I live in the stunning paradise of Vermont, where I spend my days observing critters and plants and wondering at the glory of it all. There’s a pond in the backyard and a lake across the street and the only activity our “security” cameras pick up is foxes raiding turtle nests, deer eating the daisies, bobcats chasing dinner, and the lady who delivers for Amazon. In April we had to travel almost 20 miles to a wildlife preserve to observe the eclipse within the zone of totality, and the weather was perfect—and it changed us forever.

Now it’s your turn. ❖ Dik Saalfeld ( email Dik ) | Chas Horvath, ME ’81 ( email Chas ) | David Durfee ( email David ) | Leona Barsky, MS ’81 ( email Leona ) | Alumni Directory .

Who can believe summer has passed and it is already fall? Doesn’t the time just go faster and faster? I spent the summer working, vacationing in Marblehead, MA, and getting my daughter ready and sent off to University of Florida for her freshman year! My son has transferred high schools and is attending Dreyfoos High School of the Arts for theater tech. And you? What is going on?

Emily Gross Eider tells us that, after raising their two children in Bethlehem, PA, she and her husband spent six years living near the Delaware beaches. They moved to Odenton, MD, to be closer to their daughters and grandson. Stephen Silvia grew up in Buffalo, NY, but now lives in Bethesda, MD, and teaches at American University. He told us that his freshman year he lived in U-Hall 5. While on campus he was involved with the Cornell Daily Sun and Phi Sigma Kappa. He also loved hanging out at Lynah Rink.

And on to the Big Apple, Timothy Matson , MBA ’87, is married to Deborah (Sopher) ’82 , MBA ’87. He is the chief investment officer at National Guardian Life Insurance Company. He grew up in Randolph, NY. Freshman year he lived in U-Hall 4. He was involved in Sage Chapel Choir and ZBT fraternity. We’ve come a long way!

Going south to Ocean Springs, MS, we find Richard Furr , project manager at Mississippi Power Company. He lived in Donlon Hall his freshman year and was involved with the sailing team. His areas of expertise are energy, electricity markets, renewable energy, solar, engineering, and electrical engineering. When he wasn’t in class, you could find him at the Stewart Avenue Co-op or the Nines. His favorite Big Red memories? “A 10-day hike in the Adirondacks as part of freshman orientation, a snowball fight late into the night after the first hard snow, and taking snow skiing as a PE class.”

And in the middle of the country, Alison Sherman Arkin and her husband, Mike ’80 , BS ’78, ME ’80, live in Beachwood, OH. Alison is senior vice president, leadership development at Ratliff & Taylor. She grew up in Elmira, NY, and lived in Donlon Hall her freshman year. She was involved with Human Ecology clubs.

Further west, Gary Tabor is an ecologist and wildlife veterinarian based in Bozeman, MT. He is the founder and president of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation , a support organization for large-scale conservation efforts. Gary is also chair of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas’ Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group, which connects 1,300 scientists across 130 countries.

Gary Tabor ’81 has worked on behalf of large landscape conservation internationally for over 40 years, on every continent without emperor penguins.

Gary has worked on behalf of large landscape conservation internationally for over 40 years, on every continent without emperor penguins. Gary’s conservation achievements include the establishment of Kibale National Park in Uganda; the establishment of the World Bank’s Mountain Gorilla Conservation Fund in Uganda; co-founding the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative; pioneering the field of Conservation Medicine/One Health; co-founding Patagonia Company’s Freedom to Roam wildlife corridor campaign; and co-founding the Network for Landscape Conservation.

Gary is a recipient of the Australian American Fulbright Scholar award on Climate Change and the Henry Luce Scholar Award. He has academic affiliations with Cornell, the University of Wisconsin, Madison, the Salazar Center for North American Conservation at Colorado State University, and the University of Queensland, Australia. He is a member of the Conservation Committee of the National Aquarium in Baltimore. He was involved with the Cornell Outing Club while at school! It certainly helped him for where he is today!

Across the pond, we find Elise Kuebelbeck Johnson in London. Elise is an acupuncturist who grew up in Massapequa, NY. Her areas of expertise are healthcare, acupuncture, and shiatsu. When she wasn’t in class you could find her at Rulloff’s, Cabbagetown Café, and the gorges in the summer. She has enjoyed slowing down a bit with work, though she’s still practicing acupuncture and shiatsu and doing Zoom qigong teaching, which began during the pandemic. She enjoys time with her five children, who mainly live in London, and her wonderful barrister husband, Roddy.

And onto another continent, Jotaro Fujii is living in Tokyo, Japan, and is CEO of Fujii Consulting. His first year on campus he lived in Cascadilla Hall. He was involved in restaurant planning on campus. His areas of expertise are business, leadership, management consulting, and marketing. When he wasn’t in class, you could find him driving around Cayuga Lake!

Please do reach out to me and let me know how you are! I love to hear from my classmates, so drop a line. Stay healthy, enjoy life, and I hope to see you soon! ❖ Betsy Silverfine ( email Betsy ) | Alumni Directory .

Welcome to a wonderful fall season, a great time of year in Ithaca and a great time to reconnect with classmates. Hopefully, you enjoyed the summer and you had an opportunity to share some news and stories with us. We are an excellent vehicle for sharing information about you, your family, and your accomplishments. Please take advantage of this information distribution space and contact us as frequently as you can.

We received some uplifting and exciting news from one of our classmates in Virginia. Linda Harris Crovella has been busy with her legal career but also spends time with her growing family. Linda writes, “Since late September 2022, I have been an administrative law judge with the Federal Maritime Commission in Washington, DC, which I am enjoying so much that my retirement plans are on hold. One thing that may prompt me to retire is the birth of my first grandchild in February, Jackson, to my oldest son, Ben Crovella ’07 , and daughter-in-law Cassie, who live in Boston. I’ve visited several times since his birth and absolutely love snuggling with that little guy! Luckily, there are many flights between D.C. and Boston.”

In addition, Linda has been able to stay in touch with classmates. “Recently, I had lunch with my freshman-year roommate, Ingrid Hall Johnson . We try to get together every six months or so and have even traveled together to past Reunions. I also keep in touch with Ginny Pados Beutnagel , who still makes me laugh as much as she did in college!”

One of the most prolific writers in our class, Henry Herz , reports that he has recently published his 12th picture book, titled I Am Gravity . Henry notes the following about his latest publication: “What reaches everywhere and never tires? Pulling on feathers and galaxies alike? Holding the mighty Milky Way together? Gravity, of course! Told in lyrical, riddling, first-person narrative, gravity boasts of its essential role in life as we know it—from the pulling of the ocean’s tides to the vastness of the stars in the sky.” Best of luck, Henry, with your latest publication.

Please enjoy the fall season and keep in touch with your classmates. Stay well. ❖ Doug Skalka ( email Doug ) | Mark Fernau ( email Mark ) | Nina Kondo ( email Nina ) | Alumni Directory .

Hello, classmates! I hope we have all recovered from a HOT summer! Always looking for news from all of you. Here is what some of our classmates have been up to.

On May 12, three Cornell alums and pilots flew in the National Celebration of General Aviation D.C. Flyover—a parade of nearly 60 general aviation aircraft flying over D.C. for the first time in years. They are Eric Blinderman , Justine Harrison ’96 , and Jim Hauslein ’81 , MBA ’84, all Cornell grads and pilots. Sounds like an amazing sight, and since D.C. airspace has been restricted since 9/11, it was a unique opportunity for the pilots.

One of our class officers, Lynn Leopold , recently came back from an exciting trip to Portugal and Spain. Hiking El Camino de Santiago was a highlight.

Paul Beedle reports from Little Rock, AR, where he is celebrating his 25th year as a parish minister, currently serving at the Unitarian Universalist Church. Music is a throughline, since his early compositions were performed live at Risley Residential College, and he is still composing. In addition, he is learning the hammered dulcimer. That sounds like a great addition to our class band for next Reunion!

We heard from Tom Keegan , who is enjoying retirement in Montana, and spending his time maintaining wildlife habitats, hunting, and birding.

Marti Reisman Sheldon is enjoying friends and loved ones at home in Huntington Beach, CA, with her husband of 37 years, Mark , MS ’85 . The Engineering Co-op program at Cornell led to her successful 42-years-and-counting career with Boeing!

I, Alyssa Bickler , am still in Venice, FL, with my fiancé, Mike Consentino. We love to travel when we can get away, and we enjoy live music events and dining with friends! I recently bought into the recruiting firm where I have worked for the last 10 years and am very excited for the future here! In addition, I am still riding my Harley-Davidson Street Glide with a great group called the Diva Angels. ❖ Alyssa Bickler ( email Alyssa ) | Nancy Korn Freeman ( email Nancy ) | Jon Felice ( email Jon ) | Stewart Glickman ( email Stewart ) | Alumni Directory .

Greetings, classmates! My name is Charles “Chuck” Oppenheim . Mike Held and I are your new class correspondents. I am able to take on this responsibility—as an outlet for my enthusiasm for Cornell and staying touch with classmates—because I have shifted to working part time in my role as a lawyer advising hospitals and other healthcare providers on transactions and regulatory compliance. I live in Los Angeles with my wife, Lydia, and our two sons.

I attended our 40th Reunion and had so much fun (thanks, co-chairs Catherine “Kitty” Cantwell and Janet Insardi ) that I can hardly wait until the 45th! A few classmates and I (because we attend Reunions faithfully every five years, we call ourselves the “Reunion friends”) gathered early, organized by Kathy Witkowsky , and spent Tuesday and Wednesday nights at a rented mansion she found online, which was once home to the president of Ithaca College but is located in Collegetown.

Kathy and I were joined at the mansion by classmates and fellow “Reunion friends” Dave Momot , Karen Reynard Regenauer , Laurie Sheffield , Stuart Wamsley , and Tom Kraemer . We spent the time hiking, cooking, eating and drinking, and playing music by firelight in the back yard. Dave and Tom were on guitar and Kathy played the fiddle, while her husband, Jay (not a Cornellian, but still a great guy) also played guitar. We all moved to the dorm assigned to the Class of 1984 (Ganędagǫ: Hall), and during the Reunion Kathy led yoga one morning and Laurie led printmaking one afternoon with Diane Matyas ’83 , MFA ’89.

Once ensconced in the dorm I had a chance to catch up with numerous classmates, including Felise Milan and Sharon Camhi . Sharon is enjoying her retirement after having practiced as a pulmonologist with the V.A., while Felise stays busy as a professor of medicine, assistant dean for Learner Assessment and Clinical Competencies and director of the Ruth L. Gottesman Clinical Skills Center at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. (You may recognize the name Ruth Gottesman; she was in the news a few months ago because she donated an enormous sum to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine that will allow this medical school to forgo charging tuition from now on.)

We spent Tuesday and Wednesday [before Reunion] at a rented mansion, which was once home to the president of Ithaca College but is located in Collegetown. Charles “Chuck” Oppenheim ’84

Felise lives with her husband in Irvington, NY. Her daughter is a rabbi in Cherry Hill, NJ; one son is a computer engineer and data analyst for Hinge, making sure no one who wants a date goes without; and her younger son is a working actor, dancer, and singer based in NYC and currently performing at the Arizona Broadway Theater. She had a blast at Reunion reconnecting with old friends, and even made new friends with David Grayson and the “Reunion friends.” Felise and David closed down the tent parties, as they enjoyed craft beer, great music, and great dancing!

Naturally, I spent time catching up with many of my fraternity brothers, including Darren Miller , Larry Lazar , Matt Siegal (with wife Laura Weiner Siegal ’85 ), Steve Nachman (with wife Donna Better ’85 ), Phil George , and Tom Allon , who sold his media company, City & State, in 2021 but stayed on to lead its expansion into Pennsylvania and Florida. Tom also founded a NYC policy think tank in 2022 called the 5Boro Institute, and splits time between Brooklyn and eastern Long Island with his wife, Rebecca, four grown children, and two cats.

I also had a chance to catch up with Marcia Stairman Wagner , founder of the Wagner Law Group, a boutique law firm specializing in ERISA and other employment-related legal issues, who reports she has no plans to retire, as she’s just “hitting her stride.”

If you attended Reunion and have war stories to share—and whether or not you attended, if you have any other updates to share—please let us know! ❖ Charles Oppenheim ( email Charles ) | Michael Held ( email Michael ) | Alumni Directory .

Dave Votypka writes, “My college roommate and our buds have been celebrating our 60th birthdays—yikes! Scott Chapman and I missed Byron De La Navarre ’86 , DVM ’90’s 60th in Chi-town. Scott and I went skiing at Stowe a couple years ago and are planning another trip this winter. I’d like to hook up with fellow Cornellian Jeff Dunlap ’86 for some concerts this summer. Also, fellow Cornellian Neil Hoyt ’86 just celebrated his daughter’s wedding recently. WAK!

“What I get the most satisfaction from is family, followed by my job. Farming and owning an ag business has built many relationships over the years. I enjoy these tremendously. Besides work, I love to snow ski, golf, vacation, and ride our UTV around the farm (especially during happy hour).

“I’m slowly retiring out of full-time farming. This will be my 43rd year of farming, including college. I’m renting half of my acreage and will slowly stop growing. My son has an excellent job as an electrical engineer and will not return to the farm. We plan on running our grower business only, called Springwater Ag Products, after all the land is rented, which will give us more time with activities!

“My son Austin just got married to his lovely wife, Lindsay, last fall. I couldn’t be happier! My two grandsons, Teddy and Brooks, are a ray of sunshine in our lives. My stepdaughter is about to have our next granddaughter. Life is full of joy!”

Dave closes out his message by saying, “Making lifetime friends and memories were the best things about Cornell! Oh, and jumping off the gorge and the parties on Libe Slope!”

Most days, I know my Cornell roommates better now than I did then. Melissa Reitkopp ’85

Melissa Reitkopp shares that during COVID, her college roommates began having weekly virtual calls that have continued. “Most days, I know my Cornell roommates better now than I did then. We are having some great adventures all around the world. We called ourselves the 509ers because we lived at 509 Wyckoff Road for our last two years at Cornell. It was a huge old house on North Campus, and we had a floor with seven permanent residents and three ‘honorary’ ones.

“In March 2024, we gathered on the west side of Seneca Lake for the 35th anniversary of Lakewood Vineyards, owned by the Stamp family, including Chris ’83 and Liz Myer Stamp (four generations). Their adult children, Ben Stamp ’11 and Abby Stamp Wilkins ’13 , also work in the family business. Ben worked that evening for the event dinner, and both of them (with their families) joined us for brunch on Sunday with the latest additions (Wesley and Logan—Cornell Class of 2042?!).

“Pre-event, we visited Susan Herlands Holland , who heads Historic Ithaca and its companion store, Significant Elements, and sampled ice cream at the Cornell Dairy Store with Brian Garrett and Erin O’Connor . It is such fun to see students on campus again. We celebrated Linda Woo Kao ’s brother Henry Woo ’86 , BS ’88, and Gail Fink ’s birthdays at the neighboring Lakeside Resort and 3812 Bistro. They are two of our honorary 509ers. A divine lemon curd cheesecake from a Sally’s Baking Addiction recipe was enjoyed by all.

“The weekend was a wonderful whirlwind of events. We all had fantastic wine pairings with our dinner at Lakewood and were joined by my husband, Jeff Peters, and Susan’s husband, Ron Preville. Linda’s ‘snow leopard’ husband, David, couldn’t join us. The ‘bacon on bacon’ small plate was a huge hit, and I fell in love with Lakewood’s Dry Riesling.” ❖ Joyce Zelkowitz Cornett ( email Joyce ) | Alumni Directory .

Happy summer. As I put this column together, many in the lower 48 are experiencing extreme weather. Earlier this week our classmates in southern Florida were inundated with nearly two feet of rain, and about a third of the country will be dealing with temperatures approaching 100 ˚F for the next week. Wherever you are, we hope you are safe and comfortable. If precipitation or temperatures are keeping you indoors, it is a great time to send news updates to your Class of ’86 correspondents.

Laura Pitta Peter has relocated from California to Charlotte, NC. (Depending on where in the Golden State she previously resided, she may not be experiencing a much more temperate climate.) Laura is accustomed to change. She previously worked in industry and for the federal government. She is now in academia as the executive director, research commercialization and development, at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Julie Bick Weed is still freelancing for the New York Times travel section. Her favorite topics focus on new travel technology like facial recognition or AI, so please send her any article ideas! She volunteers at Garfield High School, helping low-income students with writing projects. When she is lucky enough to catch up in person with a Cornell pal like Adrienne Silverstein Iglehart , Aruna Inalsingh , Rob Harpel , or Shera Raisen , “it feels like no time has passed, and the hysterical laughter returns!”

Julie Bick Weed ’85 is still freelancing for the New York Times travel section.

Rich Matteson and his wife, Kimberly, report that they’ve seen both of their sons obtain their college degrees and move on to independent lives and homes. As a result, Rich and Kimberly are free to enjoy their retirement, which includes visiting their sons in Florida and Nebraska. Rich is the CAAAN committee chair for North Texas and works with alumni in the vicinity to enlighten local high school applicants about Cornell. In addition, Rich volunteers with the Cornell Regional Campaign Committee to reconnect with alumni and raise annual funds. After many years of hearing about Cornell, Kimberly was shown Ithaca and the University last August. When at home, Rich is also teaching math as a substitute teacher in the middle and high schools that his sons attended. He finds the experience challenging some days but does feel as if he is making a difference where it counts for some of today’s teens. Regarding the impact that Cornell had on his life, Rich shared, “Cornell opened my eyes to the world, gave me a great education, and taught me that I could accomplish anything that I set my mind to. I am grateful and proud to be a Cornellian.”

That is all I have to share this month. But if you, like Rich, recognize how life and times at Cornell impacted your life and brought you to a life worth sharing, please take a few moments and share those thoughts with us. ❖ Toby Goldsmith ( email Toby ) | Lori Spydell Wagner ( email Lori ) | Michael Wagner ( email Michael ) | Alumni Directory .

By the time you read this, fall semester will be starting again. Hope you’ve had a chance to take some well-deserved time off and enjoy yourself. Let us know where you went, what you did, and who you did it with. In the meantime, I’ll continue to stalk classmates for news. Here’s the latest from my inbox:

My husband, Andy, and I had the great honor of attending the wedding of Bill and Carol Meyers ’s daughter, Sarah, to Justin in Greenwich, CT. Cornellians (and especially U-Hall 3 alums) in attendance were Tim Sullivan , Toni and Jody Monkovic , Shawn Fagen ’86 , Tom Tung ’86 , ME ’87, and Anne Yablonski Suissa ’88 .

Cheryl Berger Israeloff and husband Larry are expecting their first grandchild. Cheryl practices neuro visual medicine and the treatment of the visual aspects of the dizzy patient. Fun fact: I was one of Cheryl’s early test patients back when she was an optometry student! Cheryl mentioned that one Cornell event that changed the trajectory of her life was becoming friends with Janis Cohen Schlerf ’86 , who introduced her to Larry.

Brenda Wilkinson Melvin returned to campus for the Cornell Black Alumni Association’s recent Reunion, which featured panel discussions, a celebration of the life of Africana studies pioneer Professor James Turner, a Sneaker Ball, brunches, parties, winery tours, golf outings, and more. She enjoyed reconnecting with ’87 classmates Darrell Butler , Jacquelyn Browne , Allison Fennell , DVM ’91, Onjalique Clark , Marcia Bobb , and Gligor Tashkovich , MBA ’91, and she also bumped into Scott Pesner at a bus stop on her way back to North Campus! With no time for rest, the day after she returned home from Reunion she started a new job as internal communications director at AARP.

Josh Lesnick gathered with fellow Phi Psis John Webster and Michael Moore and their kids at the Saratoga Race Course to see the running of the Belmont Stakes!

With no time for rest, the day after Brenda Wilkinson Melvin ’87 returned home from Reunion she started a new job at AARP.

Anne Meinig Smalling was just named the incoming chair of the executive committee of the Cornell Board of Trustees as the search begins for a new provost, while Michael Kotlikoff was preparing to become interim president in the wake of Martha Pollack’s retirement.

Tony Spring was named the new CEO of Macy’s Inc. back in February. He’s been with Bloomingdale’s for 36 years in multiple roles, including most recently as the CEO.

Sanmoy Bose continues to enjoy retirement—lots of travel, yoga, tennis, squash, and walks with their two puppies. Sanmoy also does a little consulting with private equity companies and insurance companies as an operations, delivery, and customer subject matter expert. He retired from Duck Creek Technologies in 2022 as their chief customer and delivery officer. Previously he was a senior partner with Accenture.

Joshua Abelson , MA ’89, wrote that during the recent New York Presidential primary, he went to vote in NYC and was greeted by the site chief, Gligor Tashkovich! Gligor has been monitoring polls at elections for many years (and not just in NYC).

Speaking of Gligor—he wrote that he recently went to Athens for the 40th anniversary of the team that helped build the Western European Internet. He had a role in that project while attending Cornell. He caught up with many of the folks he worked with on the project and also had coffee with the Greek Prime Minister! He also traveled to Ravello, Italy, to celebrate his mom’s 86th birthday, followed by a trip to Porto, Portugal.

Please keep in touch and continue to share your news with us by emailing us at: ❖ Whitney Weinstein Goodman ( email Whitney ) | Liz Brown, JD ’90 ( email Liz ) | Alumni Directory .

Greetings, Class of ’88! The autumn air will soon be crisp and the leaves changing colors before our eyes. Take a moment and enjoy the fall foliage, just like we did when we were strolling around campus.

Congratulations to Robert Rosenberg , a former class president, who has been honored with the Frank H.T. Rhodes Exemplary Alumni Service Award. This award recognizes “alumni who have given extraordinary service to Cornell through long-term volunteer activities.”

Meanwhile, a group of classmates— Howard Greenstein , Linda Gadsby , Jacques Boubli , Dan Frommer , Doug Ringel , Rob Rosenberg, Laura Bloch , and Bob Attardo —attended the Cornell Alumni Leadership Conference in Baltimore, MD, earlier this year. They met up with Henry “Huck” O’Connor for dinner. Alumni volunteer leaders heard updates about how to use AI in your workplace and other current topics.

Speaking of volunteering for Cornell and other community outreach projects, I participated in the U.S. College Expo in Toronto, ON, where I answered lots of questions about campus life, University courses, SAT testing, and much more from many Canadian prospective high school students.

Alison Minton ’s pet parrot was featured on Geico’s social media (Instagram & TikTok feeds) for March Madness. Perhaps the parrot should become our newest class mascot, alongside our Cornell bear.

In other class news, Laura Bloch, our class membership chair, who resides in San Francisco, CA, was back on campus to celebrate her daughter Ella Yitzhaki ’24 ’s graduation from the College of Arts & Sciences. Ella is starting a position in health policy in Washington, DC. Her son is in his freshman year at the University of Oregon after he returned from studying abroad in London, England, during the summer. Laura is busy finishing up her second year as the president of the Cornell Northern California Alumni Association, where they put on events to connect Cornell alumni with one another.

Alison Minton ’88 ’s pet parrot was featured on Geico’s social media for March Madness.

Aileen Cleary Cohen chimes in from Palo Alto, CA, that she just retired as the vice president of clinical development at BeiGene, where she “helped bring approval of a cancer drug across five indications.” She’s happy spending time in her cabin in the Sierra Nevada while she cheers on the San Francisco Giants and the New York Knicks.

Her daughter, Emily, is starting her master’s in environment and society at Columbia University while her son, Erik, is at Seton Hall, studying media studies. Her stepdaughter, Rebecca, teaches high school in San Jose, CA. Aileen commented that she made “lifelong friends at Cornell and enjoyed her time on the Hill. Some of the best years!”

Further North, Charles Frischer lives in Seattle, WA, with his wife, Abigail, and kids. “We are enjoying watching them grow into young adults.” Charles runs an investment business, which is a daily challenge. He tries to “work as little as possible each day.” He finds it rewarding to be on the board of his kids’ private school and other corporate boards. The family recently traveled to Cambodia and Vietnam and are hoping to visit India and Laos as their next family adventure.

Karen Kao is semi-retired but still finds time to host small dinner parties and piano singalongs in her new condo in White Plains, NY. She still teaches piano and also volunteers at the local food bank, performing arts center, and arts center, where she is “an art teacher to classes of 25 wriggling elementary school children.”

News flash: This past January, Stephen Aschettino of Oyster Bay, NY, joined the financial innovation and regulation practice at global law firm Steptoe LLP as a partner. His practice focuses on fintech, payments, and digital assets commercial and regulatory matters. He lives on Long Island with his wife and three children.

That’s all for now. Please keep sending your news to me. I love hearing from our classmates, both near and far. ❖ Pamela Darer Anderson ( email Pam ) | Alumni Directory .

Cornell Reunion 2024 brought a record achievement for our class: most classmates ever attending a 35th Reunion! Our Reunion committee treated us to nostalgia like Straight Cookies, Hot Truck wares, and a cappella groups! The Hangovers welcomed us Friday evening during our happy hour. Entertainment during dinner Friday was a live big band, and we ate dinner on the North Campus residential quad. Men who sang during the ’80s and ’90s in the a cappella favorite Cayuga’s Waiters re-grouped for Reunion and brought a wonderfully rowdy serenade to dinner on Saturday night. After dinner, our classmate and musical talent extraordinaire Fil Straughan sang for us and spun tunes from our college years for dancing.

Our class headquartered at the townhouses on North Campus. Thursday we arrived to a red-and-white-festooned campus, golden hour sunshine, and a yummy “Hot Truck”-catered meal. My husband, Mike McGarry , and I sat down outside and promptly made a new friend, Laurie Bechhofer , who came in from Michigan. She knows the lovely Liese, wife of my favorite CHE professor, Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner ’38 . Laurie also was a “townie,” as her dad was a professor here: Robert Bechhofer taught in the engineering college in Operations Research and Industrial Engineering. Laurie drives through our area of Buffalo, NY, regularly en route to visit family and we hope she stops by! Both Laurie and Mike are passionate about helping kids in public schools. I enjoyed listening to them discuss solutions for problems shared in Michigan and New York State. Both volunteer their time to that end. (I am proud to report that Mike just wrapped up nine years of caring, diligent service on our local Hamburg school board and we learned that fellow class correspondent Kris Borovicka Gerig ’s husband also serves on their local school board in Ohio. Thank you to both.

After dinner, we lingered at the tables. Deb Shames and I visited and talked of Cornell memories, our families, and their fondness for sports, especially the Boston Celtics; Deb and her son are huge fans and he was at the Celtics playoff game that night! Deb’s work and passion is for helping students from a wide variety of backgrounds make a good college fit. She has made it her business: Personal Best College Coaching. Deb pairs students with their ideal college and helps them through the application process, reducing the stress for them and their families. She also finds great joy in her volunteer efforts using those skills helping those who are the first in their family to attend college. Helping them get in is one step, but then she stays with them to help them graduate.

Lingering in headquarters, we plopped down on the sofa and made more friends. I loved meeting another lovely Laurie to whom I will now apologize for inadvertently clumsily rejecting the friend request sent to me (please would you try again?). This method now feels as unreliable for me as jotting it on a piece of paper and losing that. Clearly a me problem. On those cozy couches, we also enjoyed meeting Lauren Hoeflich , Evelyn and James Masson , ME ’90, and another classmate John, a pediatrician from Seattle. I’m embarrassed: I should have pulled out my notes app and jotted down John’s details.

Our Reunion committee treated us to nostalgia like Straight Cookies, Hot Truck wares, and a cappella groups! Lauren Kidder McGarry ’89

Rain intermittently baptized our festivities; it seemed appropriate given how often we experienced it during our time on the Hill. Have you heard the term for it? “Ithacating!” While we did enjoy some mini-monsoons, we also reveled in sunshine and warmth. Our visit to Libe Slope had sunshine and another conversation with Cornell Johnson School alumni and Reunion attendees who offered to take our photo. We were trying to re-stage a photo taken of us as newlyweds during the Dragon Day festivities of our senior year. Our volunteer photographer wanted to get it just right, and so we got to know her during the creative process. After the picture we kept chatting, such that their friends left for a museum tour and returned to us four still chatting away! We exchanged contacts with our new B-school alumni friends and hope next year to meet up for a Red Sox game.

I attended the Reunion this time using a cane again; I am hobbled by a dodgy left knee, awaiting replacement midsummer. It helped me appreciate the many accommodations made around campus for students with ambulatory issues. Elevators, smooth pathways, ramps, good lighting, and benches smartly situated made it simpler to move around and rest often. Those with happier knees enjoyed birdwatching walks at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology grounds, or cycling in the surrounding hills, or running (and perhaps walking a bit) the lush Reunion 5K through the Cornell Botanic Gardens.

Finally, the most impactful part of the Reunion for me took place during the Remembrance Service at Sage Chapel. In October 2020, Michael and I never got to attend the Texas funeral of our classmate Alisa Lynn Schmitz Evans because we were following my doctors’ counsel as I’m on two immunosuppressive therapies. Our grieving felt incomplete. Writing her name on the list drew out tears of frustration and sadness. Listening to the poems, verses, and Savage Club choral group helped us reflect and grieve. We were given and took the opportunity to speak her name, share brief words of her life, and light a candle in her remembrance. Afterwards, we and other mourners and rememberers wept to the pipe organ belting out beautifully. When you have a loss, and have need of this reflective service, please pause and go, even amid the fun of Reunion. I felt it added to the real purpose of coming back to campus for us. ❖ Lauren Kidder McGarry ( email Lauren ) | Stephanie Bloom Avidon ( email Stephanie ) | Kris Borovicka Gerig ( email Kris ) | Anne Czaplinski Treadwell ( email Anne ) | Alumni Directory .

As the fall semester gets underway, the Class of ’90 continues to work its magic on the Hill. Casey Jones returns to the campus this semester as associate head coach for the Cornell men’s hockey program. He rejoins the Big Red after 13 seasons at Clarkson, where he coached his teams there to a combined 234-185-56 record, including two trips to the NCAA tournament and five finishes in the top three of their conference. This season is the last for head coach Mike Schafer ’86 , who has announced that he’ll be retiring afterward and handing the reins of the team over to Casey. Schafer himself took over as head coach from another former Cornell hockey player, Brian McCutcheon ’71 , who had been the coach during Casey’s years as a player.

Meanwhile, the Cornell Asian Alumni Association this summer held an event at the Cornell Club in New York City celebrating leadership strategist and bestselling author Jane Hyun . Her new book, Leadership Toolkit for Asians : The Definitive Resource Guide for Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling , went on sale at the end of April and several weeks later landed on Business Insider ’s list of recommended summer reading. “Never thought my book would be considered a ‘summer beach read,’” Jane posted on Facebook, “but I just made the Wall Street top 35 recommended beach must-read list on Business Insider ! I’ll take it.”

Deborah Klein Glasser writes to us about life just north of the border, where she’s been “soaking up all the maple syrup and poutine Toronto has to offer” since 2020. As her son starts his senior year in high school, she’s been dropping “not-so-subtle hints about the wonders of Cornell.” We’ll be sure to check in with her sometime around April or May to see if her subtlety has paid off.

Deborah misses her friends and family in NYC and beyond, so she spent several months this year on a mini-reunion tour, visiting with Rob and Sue Portman Price , MRP ’91, in Nashville—be sure to read all about what he’s been up to in a recent column—as well as class correspondent Nancy Solomon Weiss in New Jersey, plus Howie ’89 and Karen Saul Miller , Vivian Althaus Harrow , and Ilissa Sternlicht ’89 in New York, and Jonah Klein in Toronto.

“Also, while at a neighborhood party, I bumped into Joe Milner ’89 , vice dean and professor at Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.”

This season is the last for men’s hockey head coach Mike Schafer ’86 , who has announced that he’ll be retiring afterward and handing the reins over to Casey Jones ’90 .

Deborah loves staying connected to Cornell through her involvement with the President’s Council of Cornell Women (PCCW) and by volunteering with the Cornell Alumni Admissions Ambassador Network, conducting interviews with high school students who have applied to Cornell. She reports that “PCCW’s symposium earlier this year in Baltimore was incredible, listening to fabulous Cornell speakers, reconnecting with old U-Hall 1 pals Linda Choong and Amy Bodek , and meeting plenty of new and inspiring Big Red women.”

Inspired by the challenges she had faced finding a job when she graduated from Cornell, Deborah has taken leave from her 27 years in marketing in order to build her own business as a job search and career management coach for young professionals. “I am here to help Gen Z clients develop the job search tools needed to secure a summer internship or full-time position.” She notes that she’s happy to offer the kids of fellow classmates a “Big Red discount.” You can check out her website for more information.

Before signing off, please allow your humble correspondent (or, at the very least, me) to remind you that planning for our upcoming 35th Reunion is in full swing. We lost out on having a Reunion in person in 2020, so reconnecting with each other and the campus in general will be doubly special this time around. I have truly enjoyed every Reunion I’ve managed to attend on the Hill; it’s a great chance to not only spend some quality time with a few of the folks you knew way-back-when, but also connect with classmates you didn’t necessarily know at the time, but nonetheless have so much in common with to this day. The best way I can describe the experience is to say it’s like meeting old friends for the first time.

So, save the date! June 5–8, 2025. And if you’d like to help out in any way, please do. The more volunteers we have to help plan and make those plans a reality, the lighter the workload and the more amazing the experience. It’s not too late to reach out to our Reunion committee and other class officers via e-mail at cornellclass90@gmail.com .

Here’s to the start of another academic year, and here’s to seeing each other again in person at its close.

Do you have any news about a classmate or yourself that you’d like to share? Please feel free to drop us a line with your news for the class column. ❖ Allan Rousselle ( email Allan ) | Rose Tanasugarn ( email Rose ) | Nancy Solomon Weiss ( email Nancy ) | Class Facebook page | Alumni Directory .

With our daughter’s graduation from Ithaca College falling on the same day as my birthday, I figured I should invite anyone and everyone who might be in or around Ithaca to celebrate. And why not?

I am glad that Eric Schneider , MBA ’99, a freshman-year dorm-mate and current Ithaca dweller, made his way to the festivities. I remember Eric usually had a smile on his face and always had something witty to say. As a former ROTC member, I knew exactly how he would appear when he strolled into the backyard; familiar face and grin with a touch of gray hair, tailor-fit khakis, and a button-down shirt.

We caught up a bit on his work with Corning Inc. and his children. “Our older son is a graduate of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and our younger son a rising sophomore at the University of Vermont.” At one point Eric paused, looked past me, and shared, “I apologize for being so tightly wound back then. Still a work in progress.” His wife, Susie (Curtis) , a fellow Class Notes ’91 correspondent, chuckled with me. I did not disagree with the overachieving mechanical engineer BS, Cornell Johnson School MBA, and U.S. Navy lieutenant. But it got me thinking, is being tightly wound so bad?

Chris Reynolds , also a U-Hall 2 dorm-mate, said, “I am pretty sure I could make that admission as well,” when I told him about my exchange with Eric. Chris, a political science and econ major and lacrosse player, towered over all of us back then with a nice way about him. “I live in Cold Spring Harbor, NY, with my wife of 25 years and am a partner at RCV Frontline, a venture capital firm that invests in early-stage food and beverage brands.” Chris also earned an MBA from Columbia University.

Chris likes to unwind with his busy family. “We have four children: oldest son plays lacrosse and football at Army; second son attended International Yacht Restoration (trade) School and works in North Carolina for Fibreworks, supporting projects for the Department of Defense and NASCAR, among others; daughter, a junior in high school, committed to play lacrosse and attend the University of Maryland; and youngest son is in eighth grade, a four-sport athlete, and an aviation fanatic.” Whew!

Cathy Merrill Williams ’91 , who resides on the other hill, Washington, DC, wrote, ‘I have two sons attending Cornell!’

My daughter, Abby Marraccino, overcame a major setback in her first two weeks of college, cut from the only sport and team she knew and loved: gymnastics. It lit a fire under her, and she sprung from there, reinventing herself as a diver, a sport she had never tried before. Abby went on to be team captain for part of five league championships and earned four national all-American honors. How? I still ask myself.

I did not know Cathy Merrill Williams back on the Hill. A government and history major who earned a master’s in public administration from the London School of Economics, she is now CEO of Washingtonian Magazine . Cathy, who resides on the other hill, Washington, DC, wrote, “I have two sons attending Cornell! My older son just completed his freshman year and is studying math, sailing, and, well, partying. My younger son will soon join the Hotel School as a freshman.”

Of course I wondered, so I flat out asked Cathy, “Were you tightly wound back then?” Cathy responded affirmatively. “College was fun. I did, however, keep a journal and, looking back, I’m surprised how much I stressed about classes and grades. Now with children and a company to run and the many issues facing the world, it seems a little crazy to have had that be a major worry. Yet, I see it in my own son too, so perhaps it is just the circle of life.” Perhaps it is.

Circling back to our daughter: for her next act, professional or otherwise, she coined the mantra, “Nothing is more powerful than a smile.” Though behind her clenched teeth and those of these classmates are determined beings winding and unwinding as they leap through life. And that’s not such a bad thing at all.

Also not a bad thing: our 35th Reunion is almost here! Please save the date of June 4–7, 2026. Jeff Weintraub , MD ’95, one of our chairs, and Eric Rosario , a member of the planning team and Annual Fund rep, met up on campus for this year’s Reunion to scope things out. After a pandemic interrupted Reunion in 2021, our 35th Reunion promises to be a blockbuster!

Got news to share? Use the online news form or feel free to contact one of us directly: ❖ Joe Marraccino ( email Joe ) | Evelyn Achuck Yue ( email Evelyn ) | Susie Curtis Schneider ( email Susie ) | Ruby Wang Pizzini ( email Ruby ) | Wendy Milks Coburn ( email Wendy ) | Alumni Directory .

My husband, Todd Kantorczyk , recently enjoyed a weekend of baseball in Baltimore, MD, with 14 of his Alpha Sigma Phi (Rockledge) fraternity brothers including classmates Chris Hove , Harvey Beldner , and Brian Nowicki .

Todd’s freshman roommate, Michael Cimini , and my sorority sister Angela Cheng-Cimini celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary in Sardinia, Italy. They were joined by son and daughter-in-law Matthew ’19 and Sarah Dickerman ’19 , daughter Christina, and fellow alumni Santo Barravecchio ’89 , Matthew Rubins ’90 , and Samantha Hardaway ’93 . Angela says, “It was wonderful to reminisce about our days on the Hill!” Congratulations on 30 years!

Lizzy Klein lives in New York City and started a fine jewelry business in 2019 and a second jewelry business in 2024. Mazi New York offers minimalist fine jewelry handmade in NYC and Mazi+Zo is a licensed sorority jewelry line. Lizzy says, “I love spending so much time with college students—they are inspiring!” Lizzy has donated 30% of the sales of her Star of David collection to Hillel to support Jewish college students.

Eileen Rappaport also lives in NYC and is keeping very busy with her residential real estate business and raising her 14-year-old daughter. She is a competitive tennis player and loves yoga, live music, and travel with family and friends. She recently traveled to France and South Africa. Eileen is very involved in fundraising for Memorial Sloan Kettering via Cycle for Survival. Her daughter is starting high school, and they enjoy NYC’s flowers and gorgeous parks. Eileen feels that Cornell changed the trajectory of her life by giving her “the very best friends, a lifetime of memories and lessons, and the best four years spent in beautiful Ithaca. All the opportunities I was afforded at Cornell confirmed that I can always change my path in life and pursue so many different interests at once!”

John Overton Jr. lives in New Hampshire with his wife, Christine Hand-Overton . Their older son, Josh, will begin his first year of medical school at the University of New England. Their younger son, Jacob, completed his sophomore year at the University of New Hampshire.

Rick and Meghan DeGolyer Hauser enjoy seeing the revitalization of their small town in Western New York. Meghan writes that lots of Cornell entrepreneurs are part of the turnaround. (Tell us more!) Their oldest offspring works at Cornell, their middle child just graduated from the University at Buffalo, and their youngest is a rising junior at Cornell.

Please share your news with us via email or use the online news form . Be well and take good care. ❖ Jean Kintisch ( email Jean ) | Sarah Ballow Clauss ( email Sarah ) | Wilma Ann Thomas Anderson ( email Wilma Ann ) | Alumni Directory .

Whit Watson is transitioning from a full-time position at Golf Channel to a freelance role, and still working with Westwood One Sports at golf’s major championships this year. “While working for Golf Channel in Stamford, CT, in May, I had the chance to meet up with my former Sheldon Court roommate Stuart Roth , MBA ’00, MILR ’01, and his wife, Dana, to watch some of the Knicks-Pacers series. My son Zachary is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Virginia, and daughter Ellie just finished her junior year at Boston University, where she is a film/TV major. I was also honored to recently join the board of directors at the Cornell Media Guild, parent of WVBR-FM, the place that started my career. Would love to hear from anyone in the industry, or anyone from our class!”

Atul Aggarwal greatly enjoys outdoor activities such as hiking, running, and meeting up with friends. “I am working as a radiologist. My daughter graduated from Cornell in 2023, and my son will be starting as a freshman at Cornell in the Class of 2028.” Brian Fuhr proudly reports that he recently ran a marathon in three hours and 30 minutes, with “kids half my age,” no less! He is celebrating 25 years with Mat Zucker ’92 .

Adrian Sexton joined a global firm focused on AI, where he leads strategic business growth across sports, media and entertainment, and technology. Clients include the NBA, the NFL, MLB, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount Global, and Universal Pictures/Comcast. “In addition, I have been working on an AI startup, Cohuman.AI, which focuses on responsible, human-centric AI.” Adrian notes that he gets the most satisfaction from family, especially seeing his kids grow and soon apply to universities. “For fun and fitness, I enjoy saunas, HIIT classes, beach volleyball, and Spartan races. To accelerate an early retirement (!), I’m working with a capital group, a global athletes fund, and a major investment bank to acquire a major sports league in the U.S. in connection with the World Rugby Cup.”

Cornell gave us both the confidence and knowledge to be independent entrepreneurs. Mark ’93 and Julie Oratovsky Lonski ’93

Henry Most writes, “I recently taught for the first time the famous ‘Interpersonal Dynamics’ course (aka ‘Touchy-Feely’) at Stanford Graduate School of Business. I’m a lecturer in management at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business and an executive coach. At Stanford I’m in the experiential learning arena, focusing on interpersonal and leadership skills. I traveled around the world with one of my Cornell friends, Adam Gensler , in 1998 and moved out to San Francisco soon thereafter, where he and another Cornell friend, Dave Levitt , lived. Both of them had a significant impact on my life and who I am as a person.”

Mark and Julie Oratovsky Lonski greatly enjoy watching their 11th-grade son grow, thrive, and dream about his college future. “We own and operate our family landscape design-build firm. Cornell gave us both the confidence and knowledge to be independent entrepreneurs, and it taught us to use critical thinking skills every single day.”

John Fuller , ME ’94, writes, “I operate a civil engineering consulting business in my hometown of Port Jervis, NY. We have been in practice for more than 20 years.” John enjoys coaching travel baseball, spending time with his family, and participating in CrossFit at a competitive level. When asked about his time at Cornell, John said, “It helped shape who I am today.” ❖ Mia Blackler ( email Mia ) | Melissa Hart Moss, JD ’97 ( email Melissa ) | Theresa Flores ( email Theresa ) | Alumni Directory .

Daniel Chernin writes, “I am senior vice president and associate general counsel at Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc. My daughter, Marina, is at Georgetown and my son, Joshua, will be applying to Cornell in two years. I loved my time at Cornell and always remember it fondly. My closest friends are still my friends from Cornell.”

Kristen Crockett Tsarnas has been building her professional organizing and interior decorating business, Home Wellness Consulting . From her website: “Feeling and doing your best, true wellness, is only attainable when you have a healthy environment supporting you. Research suggests that your home is the foundation of security and contentment in your family life. As your launching pad into the world, it is also the foundation of your success outside the home. My mission is to help you build a beautiful, colorful, welcoming home that promotes ease, creativity, and contentment for you and each member of your family. I work with clients at every life stage, including moms and dads, young adults in their first apartment, and seniors moving to assisted living. I am passionate about sustained wellness and health for all members of our society and know that we, as a community, can live better.”

Scott Noren has been greatly enjoying working in his garden and the woodlot on his property. He writes, “My house, a cabin in the woods, was constructed during the first year of COVID. I am about to complete my 25th year as a high school science teacher—seven more to go before full retirement. I have taught a wildlife ecology and management class for 23 years; this was my major at Cornell (Natural Resources). Thank you to my professors.”

Rudro Dé , BS ’98, works at JP Morgan in investment banking in NYC. Ingrid Kist-Leader has been traveling internationally a lot—Iceland twice, Greece, Italy, and Ireland. “I’m developing my photography skills a ton! And helping my son apply to colleges, which is bittersweet.” Indeed, Ingrid says that spending quality time with her teenage son brings her the most satisfaction these days. She adds, “I’m a history teacher—can’t wait to retire!”

I have taught a wildlife ecology and management class for 23 years; this was my major at Cornell. Scott Noren ’94

Elizabeth Kaufmann Hale writes, “I have stayed an active member of the Cornell community, as my two sons are currently undergraduate students up in Ithaca. Dylan ’24 is in Dyson and is on the football team. Ryan ’27 is a freshman who is on the premed track. In addition to running a busy dermatology practice with my sister (also a dermatologist), I stay very active by running marathons and half-marathons. This summer, I will be joining AAD’s ‘Skin Cancer, Take a Hike!’ and hiking in the Canadian Rockies!”

Andres Pinter recently made the leap from investor to entrepreneur. “Pursuing a passion to accelerate electric vehicle (EV) adoption, I left a senior role at Ares Management and launched Bullet EV Charging Solutions, an installer and maintenance provider for EV chargers. While analyzing the EV sector at Ares, I recognized that the country’s lack of reliable EV charging infrastructure was one of the biggest impediments to EV adoption. Bullet EV is expanding this year from Texas into California, Colorado, and Arizona. The company installs EV chargers for Tesla, ChargePoint, ABB, and all other major manufacturers. Among other accolades, Bullet EV was recently awarded a grant from Columbia University’s Tamer Fund for Social Ventures. I’m learning it takes nerves of steel to launch a business, and I welcome any insight or advice from fellow alumni.”

Pryor Cashman LLP announced the arrival of counsel Praveena Nallainathan to the firm’s immigration group in New York, where her practice will focus on corporate immigration, nationality, and consular law matters. Most recently, Praveena was of counsel at Am Law 200 law firm Quarles & Brady; prior to that, she served as global director of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Dechert and was associate general counsel of immigration and head of talent mobility for IHS Markit, a publicly traded information services company. While at IHS Markit, Praveena designed and managed the company’s first in-house immigration compliance program. Born in Sri Lanka, Praveena also has deep experience with immigration humanitarian relief programs, including asylum and special immigration juvenile petitions. She received her JD from Rutgers University School of Law in 2006. ❖ Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik ( email Dineen ) | Jennifer Rabin Marchant ( email Jennifer ) | Dika Lam ( email Dika ) | Alumni Directory .

I write this column as many of my Class of ’94 friends—along with some of you, classmates!—are returning from yet another amazing Reunion weekend on the Hill. Abra Benson Perrie , MBA ’04, who attended as a returning alum of the business school, provided a fantastic recap of campus on our Class Facebook page .

Some of my favorite observations of the new and old include: “Toni Morrison Dining (on North Campus) … is nicer than many restaurants I’ve gone to, and the water machine was fancy! Fancy is the word here. Fancy!” And: “Fortunately, some places are pretty much just like we remember them. The Straight will make you smile at its stalwart way—inside and out. There are some things that don’t change much … at least not yet.” Want to read more? Join our Facebook page .

If you couldn’t tell, we are already gearing up for our 30th Reunion, June 5–8, 2025—since we all missed the 25th due to COVID (boooo), this one is going to be BIG! 30 is the new 25! Reunion chairs Patricia Louison Grant and Lisa Powell Fortna will be on campus in early October to get the planning in full swing. And keep an eye open for our new “30 for 30” project coming out in November!

Now on to the news. On April 13, David Jakubowicz became president-elect of the Medical Society of the State of New York. When he takes office in 2025, he will be the first president from Bronx County Medical Society in more than 50 years. A board-certified physician, he is director of otolaryngology and allergy at Essen Health and a clinical assistant professor of otorhinolaryngology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore. David also shared that his daughter, Cornellian Halle ’27 , recently joined AXO sorority, which resides in David’s old fraternity house (Sammy). I hope for Halle’s sake that the floors are a little less sticky than they were in the early ’90s!

Vernetta Kinchen sent in happy news that her son, Tony ’24 , graduated in May from CALS and was accepted into Cornell’s PhD program in systems engineering. She also recently had the chance to be back on campus and joined about 40 Hotelies for lunch at the Pines. Thanks to Ted Teng ’79 for organizing the event!

David Jakubowicz ’95 shared that his daughter, Cornellian Halle ’27 , recently joined AXO sorority, which resides in David’s old fraternity house (Sammy).

Also in May, the Boston Globe released its third annual list of the most influential people in the New England tech sector. The leaders spotlighted in the selective Globe Tech Power Players 50 List have demonstrated innovation and resourcefulness and have contributed heartily to keeping their sector thriving during challenging economic times. Featured prominently are our classmates Niraj Shah and Steven Conine , founders of Wayfair, both of whom I hope we will see on the Hill next June!

Last, but definitely not least, one of our fantastic class authors, Henry Neff , sent word that his seventh novel—but his first that’s strictly for older teens and adults—arrived in June via Blackstone Publishing. It’s called The Witchstone , and Henry shares, “If you enjoy dark comedy and curses, martini-swilling demons, and tennis-playing priests, this book is for you.” Henry has been writing full time for 15 years and also enjoys spending time with his sons (ages 12 and 10).

The Neff family also rescued their second pup, Nox, in December of 2023: “Doggie DNA says she’s part cattle dog, beagle, pit bull, and Lab. Her appearance and behavior suggest there’s some piglet and Tasmanian devil in there too.” When asked if attending Cornell changed the trajectory of his life, Henry responded, “Unquestionably. It’s where I sharpened my mind, expanded my horizons, and met some of my closest friends.” With that ringing endorsement, it only makes sense to put June 6–8 in your calendar right now and make a plan to meet back on the Hill!

Until next time … stay connected and safe, classmates. ❖ Alison Torrillo French ( email Alison ) | Class website | Class Facebook page | Class Instagram page | Alumni Directory .

Autumn greetings, Class of ’96! Please take a moment to let us know how you spent your summer! If you have anything you’d like to share with our class, please submit an online news form or write directly to any of us: ❖ Catherine Oh Bonita ( email Catherine ) | Janine Abrams Rethy ( email Janine ) | Marjorie Polycarpe Jean-Paul ( email Marjorie ) | Alumni Directory .

If you’re anything like me, this time of year makes you think of the start of a new semester on the Hill. What are your plans for the fall? Are any of you venturing out of town to travel? Or marking any career milestones? If you have anything you’d like to share with our class, please submit an online news form or write directly to: ❖ Class of 1997 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Class of 1998: Have you kept in contact with your Cornell family? We celebrated our 25th Reunion last year and, although I could not make it to Reunion, the music of that Spotify playlist cultivated by William Robertson ’97 , BFA ’98, and fellow classmates continues to transport me back to that time and place, high above Cayuga’s waters.

Since then, I have learned about other classmates who have impacted our lives and the lives of others. In two different articles from the Cornell Chronicle , Dan Cane and Tim Chi were profiled for their passion for entrepreneurship and technology, and their shared Cornell experience as undergraduates. Along with Stephen Gilfus ’97 , Lee Wang ’97 , MS ’98, Stephano Kim , John Yang , and John Knight , Dan and Tim co-founded, during their Big Red years, an online learning platform and education technology solution, CourseInfo LLC, which would become Blackboard Inc.

The article stated, “The idea to digitize [Dan’s] class materials inspired the business that would quickly turn his housemates into colleagues and his career path into a wildly successful entrepreneurship. In 2011, Blackboard Inc. sold for $1.6 billion.” Currently the founder and CEO of Modernizing Medicine, a medical technology and management company, Dan shared in the March 2024 article, “I use lessons learned from my time at Cornell daily. More than just the quality of the education, the quality of the experience changed me. Most importantly, the people I met and continue to meet at Cornell are cut from a different cloth.” Giving back to his alma mater, Dan has established the Cane Entrepreneurship Scholars program that encourages the growth and development of young entrepreneurs with financial support, mentoring, and experiential learning.

Dan Cane ’98 and Tim Chi ’98 co-founded, during their Big Red years, an online learning platform that would become Blackboard Inc.

Tim continues to inspire connections through the Entrepreneurship at Cornell Advisory Council. From an April 2024 Cornell Chronicle article : “Looking back on that experience, what is remarkable to me was just how fortunate we were to have a bunch of like-minded Cornellians, from different disciplines, who loved to work together—but more importantly, hang out together. For me, this was the embodiment of why culture in companies is important today.” With his co-founders, “We had product, engineering, finance, sales, and marketing and it was an exhilarating time to be on campus, building something special.”

It was in 2005 when Tim, then in the throes of wedding planning, saw the need to create and build a solution. He shared: “I noticed that ‘online vertical marketplaces’ were springing up everywhere as a purpose-built antidote to broad horizontal search platforms. This led to the proverbial ‘light bulb’ moment—a purpose-built online vertical marketplace, powered by user-generated reviews from newlyweds, for weddings. From this, WeddingWire was born.” With a few co-founders including Lee Wang, Tim “designed a first-of-its-kind two-sided marketplace for the wedding industry to bring both sides of the industry—couples and vendors—together to create a more seamless experience, focused on finding the perfect wedding vendors for any couple’s big day.” In 2019, WeddingWire merged with XO Group, the parent company of the Knot, to become the Knot Worldwide.

Connections, entrepreneurship, friendship, family, and Big Red grit and spirit are just some of the many attributes that we, the Class of 1998, have added to what it means to be a Cornellian. What have you been up to? We want to hear from you! Fill out our online news form or email: ❖ Uthica Jinvit Utano ( email Uthica ) | Alumni Directory .

Meredith Glah Coors writes, “With my oldest son’s diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in 2014 at age 11, I became involved with JDRF (a leading organization funding type 1 diabetes research), working to raise funds for research and a cure. I served on the Mountain West Board in Colorado for six years and joined JDRF’s Global Mission Board in 2022. I chaired our annual fundraiser in 2017 and have worked as an auction chair for the event each year since. During the pandemic, I created a mask fundraiser that raised $36,000; my kids and I sewed masks in exchange for donations to JDRF. Locally I also serve on the board of the Denver Zoo and volunteer at Children’s Hospital Colorado.”

Courtney Armbruster writes, “As an animal lover, I am fortunate that I found the Central New York Cat Coalition, an all-volunteer group that rescues homeless cats and adopts them into loving homes. We also run the largest subsidized spay/neuter program in all of CNY, getting more than 2,500 cats fixed a year for low-income owners and rescuers. Since starting as a volunteer with the organization more than 15 years ago, I continued to take on more responsibility and became the president of the board nearly nine years ago. I stepped back to vice president in 2023 and continue to work hard daily to help this organization improve the lives of animals in our community.”

I foster nearly 100 cats every year and get them adopted into forever homes. Courtney Armbruster ’99

Courtney adds, “I personally foster nearly 100 cats every year and get them adopted into forever homes. I volunteer at our adoption center, write our grant applications, manage our social media and website, coordinate our donations and supplies, and handle correspondence. Cats in my care come from all kinds of backgrounds, including strays, surrenders, and abandoned pets. We help animals with serious medical conditions like ruptured eyes, dental disease, broken bones, and more, and it can be a real challenge. We’re always trying to fundraise to help cats in need, and the supply of animals needing help never ends. It’s a ton of work, but so incredibly rewarding!”

We would love to hear from any classmates who attended our 25th Reunion in Ithaca in June! What did you think of the Olin Lecture, which was given by our very own Andrew Ross Sorkin ? (That event can be viewed here !) Did you make it to the tent parties? Did you check out your favorite spots on campus, and see all that’s changed since our days on the Hill? Hopefully you had plenty of time to spend with friends old and new.

Please drop us a line to let us know about your Reunion experience, so we can share it with the class! Those who weren’t able to attend would love to live vicariously through you. ❖ Class of 1999 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Greetings from a warm and peaceful Cleveland, OH! Wishing you all well, wherever you are, and encouraging you to drop me a line whenever you get a chance. I’d love to hear from you. ❖ Denise Williams ( email Denise ) | Alumni Directory .

Did everyone have a good summer? Remember, we’re now less than two years away from our big 25th Reunion—and those Ithaca summers are truly gorges! Plus, we can party—I mean, um, network?—twice as hard to make up for our 20th Reunion going virtual due to the pandemic, so please do save the date: June 4–7, 2026. Whether the temperatures run hot or cold for the occasion, there’s sure to be the perfect Dairy Bar flavor to match each of our high, nostalgic spirits.

Speaking of excellent frozen treats, Salil Gupte and I kicked summer off by taking our kids around Italy (Rome, Naples, Pompei, Sorrento, Capri) and eating gelato daily (sometimes more than once), then headed to Seattle for our usual “home leave” (with Salil also going back and forth to D.C. and Delhi for Boeing business). This may have been my last long summer break for a while, as I’m slated to start working at the U.S. Embassy in Delhi, pending security clearances and budgets not getting frozen. Don’t want to jinx myself by elaborating further but will share to our class Facebook group when/if it happens. In the meantime, I’m geeking out by working on my MLIS degree through San Jose State University. Being a student again is hard; how did we do it the first time? Oh, that’s right—younger, spongier brains!

You don’t become a Cornell alum without having an unapologetic love of learning, right? (Take that, everyone who called us nerds once upon a time—it’s now called having a “growth mindset!”) Jeremy Werner , class officer at large, attended a May 7 Cornell Silicon Valley event hosted by the Cornell Alumni Association of Northern California on “How Chip Innovation Is Shaping the Future of AI,” with panelists including Cornell professor of electrical and computer engineering Chris Batten, Quanergy founder Tianyue Yu , PhD ’03 , and former CEO of Xilinx Victor Peng , ME ’82 . During the event, the CHIPS and Science Act was discussed, including the $6.1B grant to Micron, where Jeremy leads the storage business, along with Micron’s announced investment of over $100B in a new DRAM fab complex in Upstate New York. Professor Batten also talked about Cornell Custom Silicon Systems , an exciting student-led group at Cornell working on semiconductors.

I’m geeking out by working on my MLIS degree. Being a student again is hard; how did we do it the first time? Nicole Neroulias Gupte ’01

At the event, Jeremy met up with fellow classmates Ilyas Elkin , a distinguished engineer at NVIDIA designing the Tensor datapath for the world’s leading AI GPUs, and Brian Silverstein , whose latest startup MirrorTab is delivering cybersecurity for banks and other high value sites to communicate securely with their customers. (The last startup Brian founded was the web browser shopping plug-in Honey, which was bought in 2020 by PayPal for $4B.)

Over in Colorado, Christina Bové , DVM ’06, is now teaming up with MOVES (Mobile Veterinary Specialists) to offer cardiology services to veterinary clinics in and around Denver. When she’s not working, she can be found hiking or running with her husband, toddler, and dog—her cat prefers to stay on the couch. (I can relate!) Also from her bio, “Dr. Bove is passionate about veterinary wellness and is a wellness/nutrition coach and certified personal trainer. She is also addicted to Jane Austen, specifically Pride & Prejudice !”

Still reading? Send me a message via our class Facebook group or on my LinkedIn (I’m not hard to find) or email (see this column’s closing paragraph) with the phrase “Zero to Three!” Bonus points if you can remember what that references.

Kudos to a classmate who responded after I embedded a phrase in my last Class Notes: Ryan McCarthy writes that he is “loving Austin with my two kids (ages 5 and 7). I stay busy biking, reading, and playing pickleball, and will hopefully start taking advantage of Lake Austin and sailing. I have been working as head of real estate at Soul Community Planet Hotels since 2018 with the vision of making the world a better place by serving those that value personal wellness, kindness, and sustainability. We currently have 10 hotels and are growing. I started training for a sailing race in June 2025 called WA360, which is in the Pacific Northwest and is a 360-mile race with one rule: no motor. The goal is to then do Race to Alaska in 2026—750 miles with one rule: no motor. Should be challenging and fun!”

To share news or a memory and get back in touch with classmates, please email either of us, visit our website , like the Class of 2001 Facebook page , join our Class of 2001 Classmates Facebook group , and/or follow us on X ( @Cornell2001 ). ❖ Nicole Neroulias Gupte ( email Nicole ) | James Gutow ( email James ) | Alumni Directory .

2002 & 2003

Autumn greetings! We don’t have any news to share from either of these classes this round. Please take a moment to let us know how you spent your summer! If you have anything you’d like to share with your class, please submit an online news form . ❖ Class of 2002 & 2003 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

We would love to hear from any classmates who attended our 20th Reunion in Ithaca in June!

What did you think of our class tour of the Cornell Veterinary Biobank? Did you make it to the cocktail hour at the Nevin Welcome Center? Did you check out your favorite spots on campus and see all that’s changed since our days on the Hill? Hopefully you had plenty of time to spend with friends old and new.

Please drop us a line to let us know about your Reunion experience, so we can share it with the class! Those who weren’t able to attend would love to live vicariously through you. ❖ Class of 2004 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

If you’re anything like me, this time of year makes you think of the start of a new semester on the Hill. What are your plans for the fall? Are any of you venturing out of town to travel? Or marking any career milestones? If you have anything you’d like to share with our class, please submit an online news form or write directly to: ❖ Hilary Johnson King ( email Hilary ) | Jessica Rosenthal Chod ( email Jessica ) | Alumni Directory .

Hello, Class of 2006! Summer is in full gear as I write, bringing with it warmth, sunshine, and a lively spirit. Now, as the days grow shorter again, we hope you have soaked up the vibrant energy of the season. Amidst your professional and personal adventures, we’re excited to share the latest news with you from the class.

Shanah Segal and her husband, Amotz, are proud to be raising their two boys in New York City, “exploring new playgrounds, going to museums, and immersing ourselves in the various new popups.” Shanah has recently joined the New York Board of Directors for Postpartum Support International, where she has a platform to raise awareness around issues she helps support in her private practice as a clinical psychologist, such as mental health issues during perinatal and childbearing years. Shanah continues to volunteer for Cornell across a number of areas and hopes to visit Ithaca this year. We can’t wait for you to come back to the Big Red!

Whether you’re embarking on exciting new projects or destinations, cultivating newfound passions, or cherishing moments and milestones with loved ones, please keep the updates coming and share with the class! We’d love to hear about your favorite memories at Cornell, and what you’ve been up to lately. ❖ Kirk Greenspan, MBA ’22 ( email Kirk ) | Alumni Directory .

Hello, Class of 2007! Below are some awesome updates on our classmates’ professional developments. I am so happy to be able to share them with you all. As always, my contact information is listed at the end; I love hearing from you and look forward to future updates!

Justin Dorman , a classmate of ours from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, recently created, authored, graphically designed, and self-published 58 children’s picture books. The books’ wide-ranging topics include animals, nature, national parks, landmarks, and monuments. Fifty-two paperback and six hardcover books in all. He even features Ithaca in his Artistic World Famous Waterfalls book. Justin has fond memories of a backpacking trip in Arizona with Cornell Outdoor Education during spring break of junior year. Thanks for sharing, Justin! I look forward to sharing these with my little ones!

Carolyn Satenberg-Stewart shares that she is the chief people officer at a tech AI startup. She and wife Madelyn live in Sebastopol, CA. She shares that her time at Cornell has definitely had an impact on the trajectory of her life. Wishing you both the best!

Finally, Nicky Rho Rooz has joined international law firm Withers as partner. The firm has expanded its international family law team by establishing a practice in New York, which she will lead. Nicky joins Withers from Salzano Ettinger Lampert & Wilson LLP, and previously worked in the family and matrimonial law group at Blank Rome LLP for nearly a decade beforehand.

She advises on all aspects of family law, including cohabitation, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, divorce and separation, paternity actions, complex financial issues, child and spousal support, high-conflict custody disputes, and domestic violence restraining orders/orders of protection. Her clients include high-net worth and high-profile individuals, including tech sector entrepreneurs and investors.

Congrats to everyone on your accomplishments! Have more updates to share? Please feel free to reach out to me or submit online! ❖ Samantha Feibush Wolf ( email Samantha ) | Alumni Directory .

Autumn greetings! We don’t have any news to share this round. Please take a moment to let us know how you spent your summer! If you have anything you’d like to share with your class, please submit an online news form . ❖ Class of 2008 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

This June was our 15th Reunion! So much has changed on campus and in the world in the last 15 years, but it is always fun to return to “Old Cornell” and enjoy all that Ithaca has to offer. This Reunion our class had 249 alumni, partners, and children come back to the Hill to get together, reminisce, and explore all the new parts of campus. We had 163 alumni and children ranging in age from infant to 17. We stayed on West Campus, in Alice Cook House, which was nicely decorated with well over 1,000 red and white balloons! Our alumni came back from all over the U.S., and from as far as London!

Some of us were able to try the “new RPU” at Morrison Hall, and visit CTB at its new location, with ample outdoor space. We enjoyed an ice cream social, wine tour, dinner at Weill Hall and at the Johnson Museum, family Fun in the Sun, multiple tent parties, and, of course, late night Wings Over Ithaca.

We loved seeing everyone there who made it and can’t wait for our next Reunion in five short years, to see everyone again! See you then, ’09! ❖ Sara Kaleya ( email Sara ) | Alumni Directory .

Alexander Eason spends his time “reading, making money, working out, and learning piano and foreign languages.” Sadly, he shares, “our dogs, Chance and Sully, passed away, so we are remembering them and coping with those difficult emotions.” Of his time at Cornell, Alexander writes, “I was inspired being around so many overachievers and it made me want to strive hard to complete my academic/personal goals.” ❖ Michelle Sun ( email Michelle ) | Alumni Directory .

Steven True writes, “We are moving from Arizona—to England! My wife, Alice, is English, and we are moving to her childhood village with our 15-month-old son, Noah.” Congratulations and good luck, Steven! ❖ Class of 2011 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

If you’re anything like me, this time of year makes you think of the start of a new semester on the Hill. What are your plans for the fall? Are any of you venturing out of town to travel? Or marking any career milestones? If you have anything you’d like to share with our class, please submit an online news form or write directly to: ❖ Peggy Ramin ( email Peggy ) | Alumni Directory .

Veronica Yambrovich Landau shares that she married Matthew in Key West in December 2023! They are enjoying life in Central Florida and are looking forward to meeting their first child. Congratulations!

As always, if you have news to share, please email me! ❖ Rachael Schuman Fassler ( email Rachael ) | Alumni Directory .

Hello, Class of 2014! I hope that many of you had fun at our 10th Reunion this past June. Although I was unable to attend, the following message was passed on to me by other class council members:

“It was so wonderful to see so many of you back on the Hill for our 10th Reunion! Almost 600 classmates attended the weekend, where we reconnected over Dinosaur BBQ, late night Wings Over, and, of course, dancing in the tents. 357 classmates made a gift in honor of our Reunion to almost 200 different areas of Cornell, totaling a class best of $252,285! We appreciate your support of our Reunion campaign and of our alma mater.

“Thank you to Reunion chairs Ashley Black and Krystal Sze for their hard work organizing the weekend, Kelly Parness Hawthorne and Dana Lerner for spearheading our Reunion campaign, and to class president Julia Buffinton for making sure the weekend was a total success!

“Save the date! Our next Reunion is June 7–10, 2029. If you’d like to get involved with planning, please contact Julia ( email Julia ).”

Outside of Reunion news, Tyler Beck and his brother, Austin Beck ’18 , BS ’17, were recently featured in a new Roku documentary series, “Dairy Diaries,” that premiered this April. This series features actress Vanessa Bayer visiting Beck Farms, where she participates in the daily life of a dairy farmer over the course of one week and five episodes. You can read more about the series in this article in Cornellians .

Please send me your news. ❖ Samantha Lapehn Young ( email Samantha ) | Alumni Directory .

Congratulations to Connor Buczek , MBA ’17, who has become head coach for the Big Red lacrosse team. Connor was a three-time All-American while an undergrad, and after graduating pursued his MBA at the Johnson School, at the same time volunteering as an assistant coach. Despite receiving an offer from a Wall Street firm, Connor decided to stay on the Hill for a full-time coaching position. He has since earned Ivy League Coach of the Year twice. Best of luck, Connor!

Rizpah Bellard has founded a company called Nova Farming, which “seeks to empower individuals with valuable knowledge about sustainable agriculture, farm and ranch management, and animal husbandry.” After seeing the widening gap between people and their food systems, Rizpah wanted to bring people into the experience of farming through educational programs and workshops. She was awarded a Fulbright in 2020 and this year was named to COWGIRL Magazine ’s 30 Under 30 list.

Congratulations are also due to Kushagra Aniket , who published a book called Krishna-Niti : Timeless Strategic Wisdom , which offers 11 lessons in strategy from the Indian epic the Mahabharata . According to the book’s blurb, “The authors draw upon their extensive research into the Mahabharata to present this unique perspective on strategy, leadership, and crisis management, distilled from the magnificent epic of India.” ❖ Caroline Flax ( email Caroline ) | Mateo Acebedo ( email Mateo ) | Alumni Directory .

Kristin Stinavage writes, “I am excited to share my achievement of becoming a certified postpartum doula from DONA International and Relief Parenting Respite and Resource Center LLC. This certification is not just a professional milestone but a synthesis of my diverse educational and experiential journey.

“The role of a doula, deeply rooted in the ancient Greek tradition of ‘a woman who serves,’ has always resonated with me. It aligns perfectly with my hospitality background, where the essence is to provide care, comfort, and a memorable experience. This alignment has been instrumental in shaping my approach to supporting families during the transformative postpartum period.

“My education at Cornell and the Culinary Institute of America has been pivotal in my understanding of service excellence—and what hospitality means when serving a family at this point in their lives. It has instilled in me a profound appreciation for the art of showing up for others, especially in moments as intimate and life-changing as the postpartum period. This understanding has been a guiding force in my journey, allowing me to create a unique blend of emotional support, nutritional guidance, and holistic care.

“The postpartum period is more than a phase; it’s a significant transition that deserves the utmost care and attention. My skills, honed through a blend of culinary expertise and hospitality acumen, enable me to offer a level of support that transcends traditional caregiving. I view each meal as a therapeutic tool, not just for physical nourishment but as a medium for emotional healing and family bonding.

“This journey has also led me to reflect deeply on our society’s current perspectives on healthcare. It has highlighted the need for a more inclusive, nurturing approach, particularly in postpartum care. In a world where the healthcare industry is often critiqued for its clinical detachment, I see my role as a doula to bring back the human touch, empathy, and personalized care that every family deserves during such a critical time.

“As I step into this role, I carry with me the understanding that postpartum is a passage—an intimate, transformative experience that merits a communal embrace. My aim is to ensure that this journey is marked by nurturing, growth, and profound bonding for every family I support.

“With continuous learning and skill refinement, I am committed to contributing positively to the evolution of postpartum care, inspired by the wisdom of those who walked this path before me.” Thanks for sharing this fantastic news, Kristin. Classmates, it’s your turn next! ❖ Class of 2016 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Volunteering is a passion for our classmate Connor Donnelly . He writes, “In high school, I was a tutor. In undergrad at Cornell, I was an orientation leader, a Peer Advisor, a tutor through REACH Tutoring, and on the Finance Committee for GlobeMed.

“After completing undergrad, I was an AmeriCorps member for City Year Los Angeles. The following year, I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Uganda, where I served as the national director for DEAR Day, a technical trainer, and a fifth-grade teacher.

“More recently, as a graduate student at the University of Michigan, I was a nonprofit board fellow (a non-voting board member) on the Metro Detroit Salvation Army Advisory Board. I was also a student consultant for the food waste nonprofit ReFED, and the energy poverty startup in Brazil, PopLuz. I was also an Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow for the nonprofit Sustainable Jersey.”

Thanks for all you do, Connor! Classmates, what are you up to these days? We’d love to hear from you! ❖ Class of 2017 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Rhia Jarvis writes, “I got engaged to Adam Wegman! We rotated in the same lab for our PhDs and struck it off just as the pandemic started. It’s nice to think that good things also came of COVID!”

Osei Boateng , MHA ’20, writes, “I serve as the founder of the OKB Hope Foundation, a nonprofit organization committed to delivering free healthcare services to remote and underserved communities scattered across Ghana. Through our pioneering mobile medical unit, we bring one-on-one consultations, essential medications, and diagnostic services directly to the doorsteps of those who need it most. Since introducing our health van, we’ve touched the lives of over 5,000 individuals spanning 55 rural communities.

“Beyond our medical services, we are actively engaged in mental health education and support initiatives within high schools across Ghana through the Wohohiame Wellness Initiative. Since the inception of this program, we’ve extended mental health assistance to more than 3,000 students across six high schools.

“Our impactful work has garnered recognition from distinguished platforms such as the CNN Heroes program and the Global Health Solutions Initiative. These accolades stand as a testament to the relentless efforts of our team and the positive strides we’ve made in enhancing healthcare accessibility and mental health awareness throughout Ghana.” ❖ Class of 2018 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Hello, Class of 2019! I hope you have had a wonderful summer so far. Thank you to all of you who joined us at Reunion this past June! It was wonderful to get back in touch with so many old friends and get to know so many new ones. For those of you who didn’t join us, we look forward to seeing you at the 10th in 2029!

In the meantime, your class council has been at work to start planning some 2019 events! Keep an eye out, especially as we head toward the Frozen Apple hockey game this November. As always, if you have any news to share with the class, please submit it through our online form! ❖ Troy Anderson ( email Troy ) | Alumni Directory .

Peter de Lande Long writes, “My expertise lies at the intersection of design and wellbeing, with research demonstrating how well-designed spaces can significantly reduce anxiety and depression, enhance focus and concentration, and cultivate a strong community sense. This foundation led to the creation of DormAlgo, an initiative focused on reimagining student housing.

“DormAlgo is designed to provide scalable, cost-effective solutions to improve student living environments. Our approach transcends aesthetics; we are dedicated to enhancing students’ lifestyles and wellbeing, creating spaces that are not just functional, but also personalized and comforting—a true home away from home.” ❖ Class of 2020 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Autumn greetings! We don’t have any news to share from these classes this round. Please take a moment to let us know how you spent your summer! If you have anything you’d like to share with your class, please submit an online news form . ❖ Class of 2021–23 ( email c/o Alexandra Bond ’12 ) | Alumni Directory .

Agriculture and Life Sciences

Jim Eckblad , PhD ’71 , writes, “I volunteer through the Decorah (IA) Lions Club to sort and read eyeglass prescriptions on donated eyeglasses. The glasses are then available to travel with mission groups to developing nations, where they are made available to individuals who wouldn’t be able to afford the cost of prescription glasses.”

Lee Basevin Kass , PhD ’75 , is an adjunct professor in the plant breeding and genetics section at Cornell and an adjunct professor at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Lee has completed a new biography of Cornellian and Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock 1923 , PhD 1927 . The book is titled From Chromosomes to Mobile Genetic Elements : The Life and Work of Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock . It is published by CRC/Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Mariella Fourli , MS ’97 , writes, “In 2008 I created an NGO called Microsfere, whose purpose is to promote biodiversity conservation and rural development in communities in West Africa. We have an ongoing project in Ghana, in collaboration with rural communities around Kakum National Park. The involved communities have benefited from initiatives such as microfinance, capacity-building, promotion of micro-enterprises compatible with biodiversity conservation, and children’s libraries; our main focus in the last few years has been on supporting energy-efficient cooking stoves, which have clear benefits in terms of CO2 emissions, deforestation, and women’s health. Overall, more than 600 families have been participating in our projects.”

Timothy Shaffer , PhD ’14 , writes, “I’m leading a civil discourse effort at the University of Delaware’s Biden School called the SNF Ithaca Initiative. As the director and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Chair of Civil Discourse, I have the opportunity to introduce students to more constructive ways of engaging across difference through classes, workshops, and other experiential learning opportunities. Annually, we invite about 100 students from around the country to the SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue.”

Kirsten Kurtz , MS ’21 ’s artwork was featured at an art show that was held in Ithaca by the Community Arts Partnership and Tompkins Food Future. Kirsten is the manager of Cornell Soil Health Laboratory in the School of Integrated Plant Science. The art show also featured the works of several other artists from CALS within the theme of “Picturing a Resilient, Equitable, and Healthy Food Future.” The artwork was displayed throughout the month of June.

Architecture, Art, and Planning

Tom Stack , MArch ’98 , was recently promoted to studio director for the private sector architecture group at H2M Architects + Engineers, headquartered in Melville, NY. The group is currently engaged with real estate development companies designing mixed-use and multi-family projects. Tom and his wife reside on the North Shore of Long Island, NY, and enjoy spending time with their children. They recently welcomed the addition of their fourth grandchild.

Caitlin McCarthy , MArch ’20 , and Jordan Young , MArch ’20 , had their proposal for BUILDFest 2024 selected to be built as one of three permanent, large-scale art installations at the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, where the grounds of the 1969 Woodstock festival was. Construction will begin this summer. BUILDFest is a five-day festival where accepted participants work with student teams to install their designs on-site. Once completed, the installations will be enjoyed during the Catbird Music Festival.

Arts and Sciences

Garth Drozin , GR ’78–81 , retired in March 2023 from a career as a trial attorney and judge in Los Angeles to return to his beloved music composition . Garth lectured on composition to doctoral composition students and professors at the Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing, China, in April 2024. While in Beijing, he received a commission to compose a piece for a professional Chinese orchestra, and he completed that piece in June 2024; it will premiere in Beijing later this year. On October 8, 2024, the Singing Statesmen will perform his men’s choral piece “Loveliest of Trees” at Arkansas State University. His big band jazz piece “Sutch As It Is” will be performed by the Cerritos College Jazz Band in their fall 2024 concert. In October 2023, Garth conducted and sang with the Voice of Love Chorus Los Angeles, an all-Chinese-American chorus of 60 voices, in concert.

Susan Brewer , PhD ’91 , wrote a book titled The Best Land : Four Hundred Years of Love and Betrayal on Oneida Territory that will be published on October 15, 2024. In it, she recounts the story of the parcel of Central New York land on which she grew up. Susan and her family had worked and lived on this land for generations when the Oneida Indian Nation claimed that it rightfully belonged to them. From here she tells the land’s story through the lens of two families—her own European settler family and the Oneida/Mohawk family of Polly Denny—who called the land home. The Brewer and Denny families took part in imperial wars, the American Revolution, broken treaties, the building of the Erie Canal, Native removal, the rise and decline of family farms, bitter land claims controversies, and the revival of the Oneida Indian Nation. As she makes clear in The Best Land , through centuries of violence, bravery, greed, generosity, racism, and love, the lives of the Brewer and Denny families were profoundly intertwined.

Trenton Cladouhos , PhD ’93 , has been a geologist for around 35 years. For the last 16 years, he has been working on geothermal energy, a clean renewable that could “transform the U.S. energy landscape,” according to the Department of Energy. Trenton was featured in a video by TLS Geothermics describing his field of work and gave a talk earlier this year at the 49th Stanford Geothermal Workshop about what is needed to advance the field.

Scott Rosenzweig , MBA ’91 , is running for office in the Montana State House of Representatives, House District 57, to represent Bozeman, Gallatin, and Park counties. Scott’s previous career was working in satellite communications before he was inspired to run for state office.

Ronald Smith , MBA ’94 , writes, “My wife and I founded Friends of St. Kizito Rubuguri Primary School , a nonprofit organization, after visiting St. Kizito Rubuguri Primary School in Rubuguri, Uganda, twice within a three-month span, starting in October 2022. We decided to create a nonprofit to raise awareness and support for the school.”

Nikita Gossain , MBA ’20 , writes, “I began my career at KPMG, where I found fulfillment in the work but sought a deeper impact. Inspired by this drive, I ventured into entrepreneurship after my time at Cornell. Now, as the owner of my three businesses and in the early stages of building a private equity firm, I’ve committed to allocating 50% of all earnings to impactful charities such as Malaria Consortium, Helen Keller International, and New Incentives. While my primary focus is on leveraging my skills in mergers and acquisitions to accumulate financial resources for impactful giving, I am deeply involved in volunteering and community engagement. I actively participate in the Effective Altruism movement, advocating for evidence-based solutions and contributing policy change submissions. Additionally, I mentor girls from my high school, aiming to empower more women to enter the business world. I dedicate time to volunteering at orphanages in India, recognizing the importance of direct action in making a difference. I am also currently working on a project similar to the Soft White Underbelly YouTube channel, utilizing storytelling to shed light on important societal issues. I believe in the power of blending business acumen with a strong sense of social responsibility. As I continue to build my private equity firm, I am driven by the vision of creating lasting, positive change, both through business success and meaningful contributions to the community.”

Pearl Phillips , MBA ’21 , writes, “I chaired this year’s event committee for the Susan G. Komen Impact Luncheon at Cipriani 42nd Street on March 13. I reached out to my fellow alumni and current students in the executive MBA/MS in healthcare and I am humbled to say many answered the call. Our committee is now exclusively composed of EMBA/MS students, including a couple of us who are breast cancer survivors. All proceeds from the event will benefit the Susan G. Komen organization and help to drive advancements in breast cancer care and research.”

Jacob Tannenbaum , MPS ’21 , founded the nonprofit Life After Life Foundation to bring parks to the communities and environments that need help most. The foundation is working to close on their first abandoned brownfield property to begin its remediation and rehabilitation into biodiverse green space for nature-deprived communities.

Pedro Escobar , MBA ’23 , writes, “My engagement with the Student DREAMers Alliance, a vibrant segment of the Hispanic Alliance of South Carolina, is more than a volunteer effort—it is a commitment to the future. I mentor a high school student named Edwin, whose ambition is to get into college, master the English language, and carve a niche for himself in the STEM industry. In a candid video , I delve into the value of education, the significance of breaking down barriers, and how my experiences at Cornell have shaped my approach to mentorship and service. The intersection of my academic background and the mission of the Hispanic Alliance of South Carolina has fueled my passion for this cause. Contributing to a world where educational equity is not just a dream but a reality is essential. By supporting Edwin, I am helping to lay down the stepping stones for his success, just as my path was paved by the transformative education I received. Together, we are not just dreaming of a brighter future—we are actively constructing it. Our journey is chronicled on the Hispanic Alliance’s website , which showcases the unique bond we have developed and the mutual growth we have experienced.”

Engineering

Anima Anandkumar , MS ’08 , PhD ’09 , gave a TED Talk on “ AI that connects the digital and physical worlds ” in April 2024. “While language models may help generate new ideas, they cannot attack the hard part of science, which is simulating the necessary physics,” says Anima. She explains how her team developed neural operators that are AI trained on fine details to bridge this gap. Anima shares some of her recent projects that have stemmed from her developments, including improved weather forecasting and medical device designs. Anima is the Bren Professor of Computing and Mathematical Sciences at Caltech.

Human Ecology

Kristine DeLuca , MA ’19 , writes, “I spent my entire career working in the nonprofit sector—mostly in student development in higher education, with a brief stint as a director for a county department dedicated to providing services for underemployed and unemployed residents of that county. My expertise in providing career services centered around careers in nonprofits, government, and teaching, and I now run programs that provide funding to students committed to providing servant leadership, service, and research for the betterment of communities. I also have volunteered for many nonprofit boards. Currently, I serve as president of the board of directors for the Learning Web, an agency that provides a continuum of care to Tompkins County youth—providing apprenticeships and mentorships for all, as well as supportive services for unhoused youth up to age 24. I’ve served on this board for the past eight years, seven as president.”

Cindy Rodríguez , MPA ’19 , is excited to share that she is Vermont Public’s new senior vice president of people and culture. Vermont Public is an independent, community-supported media organization created in 2021 from the merger of Vermont Public Radio and Vermont PBS. It provides news, music, and educational programming through various platforms and is funded primarily by member donations. Outside of work, Cindy has been enjoying travel and spending time with her family and friends. She recently checked a place off her bucket list—Berlin, Germany—and also traveled to Sydney, Australia.

Samantha Corkern , MPA ’23 , co-founded the Walisha Foundation in an effort to reduce food insecurity in East Africa. From the organization’s website: “Our journey began with a clear vision: to empower smallholder farmers and young graduates, catalyzing a shift toward sustainable agricultural practices. We recognize the pivotal role of wheat and maize in securing food sources across Africa, and our mission is to empower farmers to achieve a hunger-free Africa.”

Jeff Mausner , JD ’76 , has been volunteering in various aspects of animal welfare since his retirement from practicing law in 2012. Jeff has received recognition for his work several times, including receiving a Special Commendation from the California Legislature in 2024, the Guardian of the Animals Award from In Defense of Animals in 2023, and the “best of” award from the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils in 2017 for his volunteer work saving the lives of thousands of dogs, cats, and other animals and improving animal shelter conditions.

Dan Emery , JD ’80 , writes, “I am cutting back my law practice, but continue doing public benefits work and some pro bono work, and participate in and support nonprofits. I have been on the board of Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Maine’s civil legal aid group, for almost 10 years, and spent the past three as board chair. This is very rewarding work, and I trace my interest to two years in the Law School’s Legal Aid Clinic. I am also a water reporter for Friends of Casco Bay, providing photo evidence of phenomena like algae blooms, erosion, and sea level rise. I took some environmental law at the Law School and have retained that interest. I am grateful for the education I received at the Law School, which has allowed me to pursue a rewarding career and other interests including the above.”

Russell Yankwitt , JD ’96 , celebrated his law firm’s 15th anniversary. Started in his kitchen at a folding table with one employee, Yankwitt LLP has turned into a 20-plus-employee boutique law firm in Westchester County, NY. This year, Russell was honored with Pace University’s Westchester Changemakers Award, which pays tribute to outstanding individuals who have contributed significantly to the advancement of Westchester County. He has also been selected by Super Lawyers as a Top 10 attorney in New York this year, which will be formally announced in October. Russell also has the only Westchester-based law firm ranked in Chambers and Partners, one of the most respected resources in the legal industry. He is also the honoree of this year’s Legal Services of the Hudson Valley Equal Access to Justice Awards Dinner and serves on the Federal Bar Council Executive Committee as treasurer.

Lou Guard , JD ’12 , co-wrote a book titled All the Campus Lawyers : Litigation, Regulation, and the New Era of Higher Education that made the New Yorker “Best Books of 2024” list. The book traces the legal controversies affecting college and university campuses, including issues of free speech, affirmative action, and Title IX on college campuses. Lou is currently an adjunct professor of law on the Hill. A signed copy of the book was added to the Cornelliana collection in the University Library.

Welcome to our newest offering: Group Notes! Like Class Notes, these columns are written by alumni, but they comprise news about members of Cornell groups—including campus activities, alumni organizations, and more—across generations. If you would like to see your group represented here, email us for more information!

Continuous Reunion Club

We Continuous Reunion Club members experience our Reunions in many varied ways. Happily, two of our members wrote reports of the weekend’s events for us to enjoy.

First, we have a report from Connie Santagato Hosterman ’57 : Reunion 2024 brought the Continuous Reunion Club members back to the sky lounge of High Rise 5 for their headquarters. We made great use of the lounge for our continental breakfasts and our interesting late-night discussions. Dot Preisner Valachovic ’71 and I arrived early on Wednesday to assist our CRC clerk, grad student Irene Xu , JD ’22 , and the three non-Reunion year (NRY) clerks, Suha, Chloe, and Elana, in the transformation of the bland sixth-floor lobby into a bright, decorated, lively spot. The four clerks quickly bonded and enhanced the initial welcome of all who came to register.

Did we CRC members entice some of the NRY attendees to join us? Of course! By noon on Thursday our CRC president, Melinda Dower ’78 , and vice president Pat Reilly ’78 , accompanied by her husband, had arrived. Soon the ice was in place, so out from the locked “booze room” came beverages and munchies. Let the fun begin!

The highlight for CRC members this year was a visit to William “Buck” Briggs ’76 ’s singular treasure of Cornell and Ithaca memorabilia. There was the bar from the Royal Palm, complete with barstools! There was the lit neon sign from Joe’s! There were lit neon signs from The Rose! There were pieces of bowling lanes from a long defunct Ithaca bowling arena where a band could perch! A large sign obtained from Sam Gould’s Collegetown Store hung from the ceiling. Every way we turned, we saw more and more artifacts from bygone years.

Buck admitted to often being at the right place at the right time and even dumpster-diving at demolition sites to find these treasures. He knows “guys” who help him retrieve and restore his many, many items. There were significant photos, paintings, and old prints as well. Seeing Buck’s amazing collections was truly a nostalgic trip through time.

Dinosaur BBQ catered our Saturday night supper under a tent, perfect for this year’s changeable weather. We had plenty of time to head to Bailey Hall for Cornelliana Night and then to the tents. The evening wrapped up with great camaraderie in our sky lounge headquarters. The next morning, we scattered to our homes, leaving with these heartfelt words: “See you next year!”

And now, a report from John Cecilia ’70 , MBA ’79: One of the great advantages of CRC is the freedom to do many varied things at Reunion, as the group plans only a few special CRC events. This leaves time for exploration of all the various presentations, breakfasts, and more done by schools and organizations in the broad university. But with that freedom to explore the plethora of activities comes the possibility of trying to do too many things at Reunion, and not having enough time or energy. This year I may have overwhelmed myself with too much!

One of the great advantages of CRC is the freedom to do many varied things at Reunion. John Cecilia ’70, MBA ’79

2024 was the 45th Reunion of my Johnson School MBA program. Being retired, and not being a practicing corporado anymore, very few of the Johnson activities were of much interest. In fact, prior to arriving in Ithaca, I had planned only to be at the class picture-taking session for individual Johnson classes. In addition, only three individual classmates, including me, attended! One of the others was an old acquaintance, and an undergrad from another university, and had little knowledge of the breadth of activities a Cornell Reunion offers. So she and I joined forces, and off we went.

One very interesting advantage was the fact that an old undergrad roommate and his Cornellian wife were the registrars for their Class of ’69 Reunion and gave me some leeway to attend some of their events. OMG, more choices to make! So what transpired was a collection of events that had us running around the campus, from the bottom of the hill at West Campus to the far reaches of North Campus and beyond, and missing some special CRC events.

But we did a lot, some of which is mentioned here! A wine tasting with retired Johnson professor Joe Thomas. A quiet late meal at the Statler. A sumptuous breakfast and interesting talks (and stuff) with the Sibley School (mechanical engineering) at its 150th birthday. Being at President Martha Pollack’s last State of the University address and being witnesses to the mini-protest and her very smooth handling of same during her talk. Attending CRC member Andrea Strongwater ’70 ’s Nabokov butterfly event with children. Standing in line to purchase mementos at the Cornell Store. A marvelous stroll through the Botanic Gardens. Cornelliana Night (up close!). The tents. And an impromptu farewell breakfast at the Ithaca Bakery before we began our individual journeys home.

For my graduate school companion, I believe it was an eye-opening weekend, experiencing the breadth and depth of alumni activity available at Cornell Reunions, along with the impossibility of seeing and doing everything! She does intend to join the Continuous Reunion Club, so we can do this every year!

Thanks to our two roving reporters for their accounts! ❖ Connie Santagato Hosterman ’57 ( email Connie ) | John Cecilia ’70, MBA ’79 ( email John ) | Alumni Directory .

Hello, fellow Cornell fencers, and welcome to Group Notes! I’m excited to introduce this new column to share our alumni’s journeys, both personal and professional, while highlighting the latest on the team.

If we haven’t met, I’m Adam Kirsch ’15 , MBA ’16. Like many of you, Cornell fencing was an integral part of my college experience. While I spend most of my time now working as a consultant advising companies on mergers and acquisitions, I still enjoy breaking out the blades when I can and look forward to returning to the competitive fencing scene in fall 2024. I recently returned from a vacation to the United Kingdom, where my family and I worked with local archivists to trace our heritage to a small town in the English countryside, finding the pub operated by my ancestors still standing!

It seems like just yesterday we were all enjoying each other’s company in Ithaca at our annual Alumni Weekend and Spring Awards Dinner! There was a lot to celebrate—including the men’s team’s club national championship (for more, see the Cornell Chronicle story here , which features Gabriel Montalvo-Zotter ’24 , Riley Xian ’25 , and Max Dolmetsch ’25 ). It made the banquet even more special to recognize this team while commemorating the 2004 national champions—represented in Ithaca by Matt Herndon ’04 , Mike Klinger ’06 , Frank Castelli ’05 , PhD ’17, Jason Lin ’04 , and James Morris ’05 .

Matt now resides in State College, PA, and serves on the Borough Council, where he focuses on safer streets, housing affordability, sustainability, and inclusion. Mike traveled to sunny Ithaca from Honolulu, HI, where he works as a civil rights attorney and has recently declined two requests to play bass in a Toad the Wet Sprocket cover band. Dr. Castelli, a longtime Ithaca resident, left the familiar grounds of East Hill to take a new role at Atlanta’s Georgia State University.

I still enjoy breaking out the blades when I can and look forward to returning to the competitive fencing scene in fall 2024. Adam Kirsch ’15, MBA ’16

Also recognized were a number of scholar-athletes: the Graeme Jennings Award went to Molly Veerkamp ’24 and Gabe Montalvo-Zotter ’24; the Scholar Athlete of the Year for the third year in a row was Emma Ni ’25 ; the Georges Cointe Award went to two athletes with endless spirit and energy, Lucas Lutar ’25 and Isabela Carvalho ’27 ; with Patrick’s parents both in attendance, the Patrick DeNeale Award went to Riley Xian ’25 and Sterre Hoogendoorn ’24 ; and the Outstanding Athlete of the Year Awards went to Ketki Ketkar ’26 in epee and Langston Johnson ’27 in sabre.

Notably, Ketki won the NCAA Regional this season in commanding fashion. She earned bronze at NCAA Nationals and closed out the season as an All-American! Ketki is the first fencer to accomplish this feat since Victoria Wines ’17 . Since graduating from Boston College Law School in 2022, Vicki has served as the U.S. compliance lead at McGill and Partners.

Alan Petroff ’74 joined us from Huntsville, AL—bringing with him a wide selection of Yellowhammer beers from his home state! Alan’s Heroes Project, an effort to capture the stories and signatures of the greatest fencers in Cornell’s history, has brought many alumni back into the fold while paying tribute to the rich past of our fencing program.

Doug Herz ’73 coordinated a well-attended alumni meetup in Boston. We’d love to hear from you if you’re interested in organizing an alumni meetup in your home city.

Let us know what you’re up to! To be featured in Group Notes, email your update to: ❖ Adam Kirsch ’15 , MBA ’16 ( email Adam ) | Alumni Directory .

University Chorus & Glee Club

’Tis the summer of reuniting our favorite Cornell singers, from Reunion itself to meetups and joint trips elsewhere around the globe.

From what I heard about Reunion, the weather wasn’t the best, but the camaraderie was wonderful. Adam Juran ’94 , BA ’21, wrote, “It was so much fun making music again after 30 years! Don’t think we should wait so long before doing that again.” Chuck Walter ’99 posted a lovely video of the Chorus singing “The Hill” on the Glee Club Facebook page , to which TP Enders ’90 , ME ’96, commented, “I was thinking as this was going on, that sitting on the Bailey stage, surrounded by ‘The Hill’ being sung in earnest, and looking out over a dimly lit, spellbound audience, must surely be the very pinnacle of the Reunion experience. I’m glad you captured this exquisite moment. Nice to see you, Chuck, and the rest of you 4 and 9 hooligans. Looking forward to a proper 0 and 5 event next year after 2020’s was derailed.” I, too, am looking forward to my much-delayed 25th (aka my 30th) next year (June 5–8, 2025—save the date!) and hope to see many of my Chorus and Glee Club friends in attendance!

It was so much fun making music again after 30 years! Don’t think we should wait so long before doing that again. Adam Juran ’94, BA ’21

In mid-June, after our kids finished school, Esther Cohen Bezborodko ’94 and I took our families to a beautiful Airbnb adjacent to a lovely beach on the Chesapeake Bay right outside of Virginia Beach. It was a glorious four days with three adults, five kids, and a puppy, and everyone had a blast. Esther’s son had his bar mitzvah in May, and her youngest daughter will have hers in November. The family recently moved to North Riverdale (from South Riverdale) and love it there. Performance wise, Esther is now studying with Erik Nelson Werner, and she and her children recently performed in a gala benefit for their local theater featuring lots of Broadway luminaries—a great experience all around, she said.

Steve Engelbrecht ’01 spent the summer in Geneva, Switzerland, with his family. His kids (Alex, 8, Nora, 7, and Steven, 4) were enrolled in a bilingual summer camp and he and his wife were taking French lessons. They had posted some pictures on Facebook and got a reply from Michael Banino ’94 , BA ’95, who lives in Jakarta with his wife, Morgan, and son Finch, 5, but his sister lives in Geneva and they visit every summer. Steve writes, “We were able to work out a get-together at a local place for some delicious local cuisine, a stroll through the Vieille Ville, and a ride on the Ferris wheel in this beautiful city!”

Your updates are music to my ears—please keep them coming! Until we meet again. ❖ Alison Torrillo French ’95 ( email Alison ) | Alumni Directory .

Top image: Photo by Noël Heaney / Cornell University

Published September 1, 2024