Washington, DC — Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) President Debra W. Stewart today released the following statement in response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 28, 2014. CGS is the only national organization dedicated solely to the advancement of graduate education and research. The organization draws its institutional members from colleges and universities significantly engaged in graduate education, research, and scholarship culminating in the award of the master's or doctoral degree.

In his 2014 State of the Union message, President Obama expressed his support for strategic investments to spur economic growth and secure the nation’s continued position as a leader in global innovation. The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) is encouraged by the president’s call for policies to increase job opportunities, expand our skilled workforce, support basic research, reform immigration, and increase access to education.

We appreciate the president’s recognition that our nation’s prosperity depends on expanded access to educational opportunity. And the evidence suggests that opportunities need to span kindergarten through graduate school. Today access to and support for graduate education is a national imperative. We know that the payoff from graduate education is undeniable in terms of economic growth, innovation and job creation

Many of the skills that U.S. employers are seeking are only gained through advanced learning. Our economy depends on this highly trained talent to compete with other nations, which are investing heavily in graduate education. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that by 2022 the U.S. will see an 18.4% increase in jobs requiring a master’s degree and a 16% increase for people with doctoral degrees.

While the president’s remarks focused on the benefits of K-12 and undergraduate education for building the new economy, we urge the administration to give equal attention in his future agenda to policies that support the pipeline of talented U.S. students enrolling in graduate programs. There are immediate and consequential risks if this pipeline falters.

One of these immediate risks is that the U.S. will fall behind in technological innovation. As President Obama emphasized, innovation will play a critical role in economic growth: “The nation that goes all-in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow.” We commend the president’s acknowledgment that federally-funded research is critical to the “ideas and inventions behind Google and smartphones,” and his call for Congress to “undo the damage done by last year’s cuts to basic research so we can unleash the next great American discovery[…]”Graduate degree holders create start-up companies, patents and jobs in every U.S. state.

At every level of education, it is vital that careers and the requisite skills needed to pursue those careers are clearly shared with students. A number of recent reports on graduate education reform, based on CGS’s Pathways through Graduate School and Into Careers report, have concrete recommendations for universities, business leaders, and policymakers designed to address these challenges and ensure that America grows the highly-skilled talent we need.

CGS also supports President Obama’s call for immigration reform. About 43% of international students studying at our colleges and universities are pursuing graduate degrees. International students who study in the U.S. often want to remain in the U.S. to work in jobs that utilize the knowledge and skills they gained through their graduate studies. Given the challenges and restrictions that international students now face upon receiving their master’s and doctoral degrees, it is in our collective best interest to permit those who want to stay and contribute to our economy following completion of their degrees to do so.

We look forward to working with the Obama Administration to ensure that U.S. graduate schools can continue their vital role in achieving the goal of a creative, innovative, knowledgeable and skilled workforce that is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century global economy.

Student Aid

• The Capitol Recap (NASFAA)
• Fact Sheet on Title IV, International Education (Coalition for International Education)

• How Governments Support Higher Education Through the Tax Code (Pew Charitable Trusts)
• Tax Primer: A Brief Introduction to Higher Education Tax Policy Issues (NACUBO)

• The Essential Guide to Higher Education under the Trump Administration (Politico)
• Higher Education Institutions and Overtime Pay Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (DOL)
• Issue Brief on Interim Title IX Guidelines (ACE)

• Snapshot on Legal History of Race Conscious Admissions Policies (Politico)

• 2019 State Legislative Calendar (Fiscal Note)
• 17 Issues Facing State Legislatures in 2019 (Fiscal Note)
• Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2019 (AASCU)

Advanced degrees are becoming a necessary entry-level requirement for many of the fastest growing occupations of the 21^st century. America’s capacity to develop the talent required to meet national needs and to compete in the global economy depends on individuals having access to quality postsecondary education, both undergraduate and graduate. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provides the opportunity to include policy changes that address these challenges so that America has the educated and skilled workforce necessary to advance the U.S. economy. These changes may however, require different approaches for undergraduate and graduate students.

CGS recommends the following principles for HEA reauthorization:

Establish procedures that support master’s and doctoral students in making informed financial aid decisions to reduce their borrowing and debt.

• Provide loan counseling for students at points of transition in the education continuum.
• Clarify the difference between the amount students are eligible to borrow versus the amount they need to borrow, and require the student to affirmatively make the choice.
• Include information regarding the sources of funding that comprise the student’s award package and the tax liability associated with each source of funding.
• Notify periodically, master’s and doctoral students of their loan repayment options and the amount of interest accrued on their loans.
• Consolidate, reduce and simplify the number of loan repayment strategies available to students, including income-driven repayment options that are income- not degree-based, with the goal of reducing defaults and the amounts of debt forgiven.
• Eliminate duplicative costs of borrowing for a given academic year.

Modify Annual and Aggregate Loan limits

• Provide sufficient federal financing options to graduate students so that they do not seek private education loans.
• Set separate undergraduate and graduate aggregate loan limits for federal loans.
• Provide authority to periodically review and adjust the annual and aggregate student loan limits.

Create incentives for innovative programs and programs that increase degree completion and respond to the demands of the workforce in areas of national need.

• Provide Pell Grants to income-eligible graduate students who did not exhaust their full Pell eligibility as undergraduates, up to the total number of semesters allowed in law.
• Encourage the design and implementation of graduate programs that combine rigorous disciplinary content with workforce expectations.
• Revise the “areas of national need” under Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) to include consideration of the arts, humanities and social sciences.
• Continue the eligibility of graduate students to participate in College Work Study.

• Retain Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) as an incentive to pursue careers in jobs that serve the public good.

Please note the the specifics of our recommendations may change as the legislative process unfolds. The statement below represents CGS's original position submitted for committee hearings.

The Council of Graduate Schools recognizes that undergraduate education is important to the creation of a stable economy, providing students with foundational knowledge and work skills and offering college graduates a wide range of employment opportunities. Historically however, graduate education in the United States has played a critical role in the success of the U.S. workforce and economy. It contributes significantly to producing America’s most influential researchers, innovators, and leaders. U.S. graduate schools are environments in which students acquire the skills and knowledge needed to compete in the global economy, as well as to solve problems of national and global scope.

The Higher Education Act has had an inconsistent history of support for graduate education. Recent Congressional actions have reduced the financial support for graduate students, while other countries are strategically putting more resources into graduate education to grow their economy and compete in the global market.

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce is specifically interested in receiving recommendations that allow for examination of ways to:

• Empower students as consumers in higher education,
• Simplify and improve the student aid and loan programs,
• Increase college accessibility, affordability, and completion,
• Encourage institutions to reduce costs,
• Promote innovation to improve access to and delivery of higher education, and
• Balance the need for accountability with the burden of federal requirements.

Each topic is addressed separately. An effort was made to not duplicate recommendations across the six topics; however many of the recommendations are interrelated.

Empower students as consumers in higher education

• Students and their families need access to current, reliable and consistent information to use in deciding where to go to school, including cost, time to completion and what outcomes graduates achieve. A wealth of information is currently available on many websites and through the Department of Education and other related agency and department websites. However, a consistent complaint is that there is no way to compare across websites, there is too much information which is confusing, the information is not current or relevant, there is no connection to jobs, and for graduate students in particular, information regarding stipends, grants, fellowships, internships and assistantships is not available. Definitions are not the same across websites, and calculations of outcomes utilize different data across websites. These changes could be incorporated into Title I, Part C, Sections 131 and 132.
• Following on the recommendation for better information above there is a need for a common taxonomy of terms across data bases, with the ability to crosswalk between Department of Education, National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Labor data, e.g. IPEDS, NPSAS, O-Net, National Survey of College Graduates. Changes could be included in Title 1, Part C, Section 132.
• Each academic year, as part of any loan agreement that undergraduate and graduate students enter into, students must be informed of the information available through the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). Students should be strongly encouraged to access their information at least once per year, and to participate in a required online tutorial (available through NSLDS) that includes items such as an explanation of loan terms and conditions, definitions of cost of attendance, and explanation of the debt and payment estimates the student will encumber, as well as the kinds of counseling they can receive regarding financial assistance. These changes could be included in Section 485B of the Higher Education Act.
• Students should have a full understanding of what institutional accreditation means and what program accreditation is. This information shall be made available on the institution’s webpage; it must also provide whether upon successful completion of the program the student would be eligible to sit for required professional certification or licensing examinations. These changes could be made to Section 114 or 132 of the Higher Education Act.
• Specify that at least one member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (or its successor) shall represent graduate schools. This would be included in Section 114(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act.

Simplify and improve the student aid and loan programs

The federal student loan program has become increasingly complex and outdated. It does not recognize that needs of students have changed, that the average student pursuing postsecondary education is more likely to be non-traditional, and that many students are not aware of how much debt they are taking on and the impact of these decisions on their financial futures.

Actions over the past two years have changed the student loan landscape for graduate students and created doubts about their ability to pursue a graduate education. As of July, 2012, graduate students no longer qualify for in-school interest subsidies, a policy that makes them eligible only for unsubsidized loans and Grad PLUS loans, each with an interest rate higher than the rate of subsidized loans. Unlike with subsidized loans, these loans begin to accrue interest immediately. Because most graduate student delay repayment of their loans until graduation, the interest on their loans compounds throughout their graduate careers. The result is that for graduate students, debt grows faster and is significantly higher than undergraduates for every dollar borrowed.

Graduate students also carry the burden of accumulated debt in order to pursue their degrees. According to data drawn from the 2007-08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08), 73% of master’s recipients had an average cumulative undergraduate and graduate debt of $41,000, while 67% of those who received doctoral degrees had an average cumulative debt of $60,000. However, it is worth noting that new debt acquired exclusively in graduate school is substantial and that graduate students must borrow to attend school. The rate of borrowing is highest for students from underrepresented populations and in those fields where underrepresented populations are most heavily enrolled. In the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this unwarranted financial burden on graduate students must be alleviated:

• The interest subsidy needs to be reinstated for graduate students while they are pursuing their degrees, so that all Stafford loans carry the same interest rate, are capped at the same maximum interest rate and have the interest subsidized while the borrower is in school.
• The historic difference in interest rates of approximately one percent between Stafford loans and the PLUS loans should also be reinstated. The only loans not eligible for the in-school interest subsidy would be the PLUS loans for parents and graduate students.
• The number of repayment options for loans should be reduced or consolidated. Standard repayment plans (10 and 20 year) should be offered as well as a single income-sensitive repayment plan.
• Graduate degree holders should have the option of re-financing or consolidating their federal loans at the completion of their programs of study.
• Determine ways to simplify needs analysis so that the process is sensitive to the differences between traditional and non-traditional students, including graduate students in the category of non-traditional students (e.g. asset and income protections, on-campus and on-line programs of study).
• Include within the experimental sites program (Section 487A) support for collaborative efforts between university financial aid offices and graduate schools to improve counseling, debt management and special accommodation services for graduate students.

Increase accessibility, affordability and completion

• As mentioned previously, there is an overwhelming need for transparent, easily navigated, comparable institutional websites, with common definitions of terms and interconnectivity with other relevant websites such as O-Net and NSF.
• Provide for year-round Pell Grants for accelerated learning and accelerated master’s degree programs (no penalty for full eligibility to Pell Grants and subsidized loans for students choosing this path). These changes would be included in Title IV, Subpart 1.
• Make grants to states for the development of debt management tools that provide undergraduate and graduate students with access, before acquiring student loan debt, to clear, simple information about (a) the average amount of loan debt in their field of study and (b) information about average entry-level and expert salaries typical of a range of career options in that field for their chosen degree. This will provide students with the information they need to understand the financial consequences of their choices of school and cost of attendance, program of study and occupational choices.
• Undergraduate and graduate students want to understand how their coursework connects to the workplace and careers. A recent Gallup workplace engagement survey suggests that factors that contribute to greater workplace engagement are better pipelines between campuses and the work place. More and better mentorships for students should be built into students’ course of study and included in supportive services offered by institutions of higher education. It also requires more career counseling and experiential learning. These provisions could be designed similarly to language in Section 402D, but included in the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to study the impact on completion in graduate programs. It could also be included in Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) as an allowable activity under those grants.
• Place a requirement that the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (or its successor) will include impact on graduate students and graduate degree holders in the studies and reports they issue. This would require additional language to Section 491 of the Higher Education Act.

Encourage institutions to reduce costs

The Council of Graduate Schools understands that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce intends to have additional hearings on this issue. We encourage the Committee to include graduate school representation in these hearings. Because graduate schools are usually internal administrative and programmatic units within institutions of higher education, the perspective they provide would be informative as the Committee considers how to encourage institutions to reduce costs institutionally and for students.

Promote innovation to improve access to and delivery of higher education

• A successful model for innovative master’s programs is the Professional Science Master’s (PSM) degree. It combines scientific training blended with business skills. These are science-plus programs developed in concert with employers that combine study in mathematics or science with skills-based coursework in management, policy or law. The PSM is a degree program with demonstrated results and should be authorized as a free-standing program within title VII of the Higher Education Act.
• Within the GAANN program, allow for the funding of interdisciplinary/multi-disciplinary programs, particularly in the STEM fields of study. Graduate education is advancing into fields of study that are no longer single-focused subject areas, and the GAANN programs should reflect this change.
• Support a separate Javits program that includes professional development, mentoring and career counseling to provide greater career pathway options for graduate degree holders.
• Under FIPSE include projects that explore ways to incorporate mentoring, traineeships, engagement with employers and other efforts to improve graduate education and connect it to career options for graduate students.
• Include in title VI, Part B, Business and International Education Programs, specific support for graduate students, including international internships. Allow for consortia of graduate schools to be an eligible entity to apply for grants.

Balance the need for accountability with the burden of Federal requirements

The higher education association community provided recommendations to the House Committee Education and the Workforce. In the document under section 2, Better Information for Consumers, is a detailed discussion of and recommendations for disclosures, consumer information, student outcome data, data system requirements, and college cost information. The Council of Graduate Schools is supportive of what is contained in the larger community set of recommendations and urges the Committee to also consider within those recommendations the impact on graduate schools and graduate students.

CGS has joined with a broad coalition of higher education groups to file an Amici Curiae or “friend of the court” brief in an affirmative action case to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 15^th. The case, Schuette v. Coalition, involves a challenge to a constitutional amendment in the state of Michigan that prohibits public institutions of higher education in the state from using race or gender in admissions decisions. Through its inclusion in the brief, CGS is supporting the ability of universities to use student body diversity as a goal in admissions. A decision is expected to be issued by June 2014.

UPDATE: The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013 was signed into law August 9, becoming the latest in a series of actions taken over the past few years with respect to federal student loans that have had a disproportionate, negative impact on graduate students. The agreement that Congress reached in August on student loans is a short-term fix to a complex problem. CGS will be working for a longer term solution in the context of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. To that end CGS is meeting with officials in the Administration and the White House, has submitted reauthorization recommendations to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and will be working with both the House and Senate Committees as they schedule reauthorization hearings to make sure that graduate education has a seat at the table. The statement below represents CGS's original position during the student loan interest rate negotiations.

A POSITION STATEMENT

One of the key conclusions of the recently issued National Academy of Science report on Research Universities and the Future of America is that graduate education is critical to the country’s strength and prosperity. The authors of this landmark study recognized that our collective failure to see graduate education as a national priority is threatening the capacity for America to develop the talent required to meet national needs and to compete in the global economy. Rarely does the country have a better opportunity to reverse a dangerous trend than it does today, as we consider debates over the student loan interest rates in Washington, D.C. Policymakers must take this opportunity to put America back on the right track by restoring graduate students to the same status as undergraduate students, affording these groups the same benefits when borrowing money from the federal government to pursue an advanced education.

Recent actions have disproportionately disadvantaged graduate students

Historically, the interest rate for subsidized and unsubsidized student loans has been the same, whether fixed or variable. For PLUS loans, even with a higher interest rate and cap, the difference has been closer to 1.5%. Graduate students have long been a good investment since they are more likely to pay off their student loans and have had much lower default rates. For this reason, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores any increase in the borrowing limits for PLUS loans as a “money saver.”

Actions over the past two years have changed the student loan landscape for graduate students and created doubts about their ability to pursue a graduate education. As of July 2012, graduate students no longer qualify for the in-school interest subsidies, a policy that makes them eligible only for unsubsidized loans and Grad PLUS loans, each with an interest rate higher than the 3.4% rate of subsidized loans. The savings that were generated from this policy change went to support a one-year extension of the 3.4% interest rate on subsidized loans and to sustain the $5,550 maximum Pell Grant award. Graduate students are not eligible for either.

CBO has also estimated that the savings to the Federal government from PLUS loans is 64 cents for every dollar loaned. For unsubsidized loans the savings is 40 cents and for subsidized loans it is 14 cents. From these numbers it is clear that the federal government is making a profit off of federal loans to graduate students and using the savings to pay for a lower interest rate on subsidized loans and sustain the escalating cost of the Pell Grant program.

The Pell program is critical to addressing clear inequities in opportunity in America and for building a rich pool of domestic talent to attend graduate schools in the future. It must be funded. But this strategy of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul will simply diminish opportunity for both Peter and Paul going forward. The graduate debt burden is especially heavy on students from underrepresented populations.

Graduate student debt is growing, particularly among underrepresented students

Many graduate students carry the burden of accumulated debt in order to pursue their degrees. According to data drawn from the 2007-08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08), 73% of master’s recipients had an average cumulative undergraduate and graduate debt of $41,000, while 67% of those who received doctoral degrees had an average cumulative debt of $60,000. Among whites, 70% of master’s recipients had cumulative debt averaging $38,000, and 72% of doctoral recipients had cumulative debt averaging $60,000. Among African-Americans, 87% of master’s recipients and 85% of doctoral recipients had cumulative debts averaging $52,000 and $68,000, respectively. Additionally, among Hispanics, 82% of master’s recipients had cumulative debt averaging $46,000.*

However, it is worth noting that new debt acquired exclusively in graduate school is substantial as well. NPSAS data also show that underrepresented minority groups, the groups that should be a growing percentage of domestic students, carry a higher level of debt than their majority counterparts. Among all students, 46% of master’s students and 39% of doctoral students incurred graduate debt during the 2007-08 academic year. Among white students, 41% of master’s and 38% of doctoral students incurred debt, while these numbers for African-American students were 68% and 62% and for Hispanic students 58% and 41%, respectively. In part, this is because minority students are more likely to be enrolled in fields where students are typically entirely self-funded. This includes fields such as public administration, social and behavioral sciences, and education.

But borrowing is beginning to grow in STEM fields as well. In the past it was fair to assume that STEM students were able to secure full support through a combination of assistantships, fellowships, and employer aid. However, analysis of data drawn from the same data source show that for master’s and doctoral students in some STEM fields of study, loans are becoming an increasing part of the aid they need for graduate study. And as more data become available they are likely to show that minority students again are shouldering a heavier burden.

Where we stand now in the debate

The current debate in Congress over how to address immediate concerns about sky-rocketing student debt provides an opportunity to build a pipeline of domestic talent in America and to sustain the country’s capacity to secure its future through a robust system of graduate education. And yet as Congress considers a variety of proposals to address the matter of student debt, the disparity in graduate student treatment continues. All but one of the market-based interest rate proposals widen the gap between the interest rates for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans and PLUS loans, as well as the caps for each.

Similarly, the proposals to extend the current 3.4% rate do not address the inequities already being experienced and could result in even greater disparities for graduate students as sources of funding are sought to pay for the extension. Sequestration has also resulted in higher fees on loans for graduate students.

The elimination of the Grad PLUS program has been proposed as one of the further cuts that could be made to meet additional sequestration targets. Eliminating the Grad PLUS program means that not only would graduate students continue to pay higher interest rates on federal loans, they would have to take out more costly private, direct-to-consumer loans.

Not just belt-tightening

Graduate students must borrow to attend school. The rate of borrowing is highest for students from underrepresented populations and in those fields where underrepresented populations are most heavily enrolled. But borrowing also happens across the board and students increasingly, even in STEM fields where historically institutional support has been stronger, now find borrowing is an essential component of attending graduate school. If we want American students to pursue graduate education we need to recognize graduate education as part of the educational pipeline in America.

Income-Based Loan Repayment is not the answer

Income based repayment (IBR) should not be considered the default option for all students when it comes to paying student loans. It certainly is not a justification for policies that will increase the discrepancy between undergraduate and graduate loan interest rates. IBR was established as a safety net for students who are taking on greater debt and facing a poor economy with fewer job options upon graduation. IBR provides for lower monthly payments over a longer period of time than the standard 10-year repayment plan.

With the IBR plan, however, the total amount that the student repays increases as does the unpaid principal and interest that will be forgiven, which under federal tax law is treated as one-time, taxable income. This tax provision substantially reduces the value of loan forgiveness, especially if the borrower is unable to pay the full tax liability in one year. For graduate students paying higher interest rates to begin with, this burden becomes even more significant over time. An example from the New America Foundation’s “Safety Net or Windfall?” report illustrates the tax burden nicely: “If the amount forgiven is $20,000, under IBR the borrower would have to pay $5,000 in additional income taxes that year. Borrowers who receive loan forgiveness would likely have to pay state income taxes on the amount as well. What that means in a state with a flat 7 percent income tax, is that same borrower would owe a combined $6,400 in state and federal income taxes.”

Declining graduate student enrollment

Between the fall of 2010 and 2011, first-time graduate enrollment fell 1.7%. This was the second consecutive decrease in such enrollment since the fall of 2003. This decline was not only in fields one would expect such as education, but also in engineering and other STEM fields. In the past international students could be counted on to fill the gap, but preliminary estimates from a CGS survey of international student applications for the fall of 2013 indicate that the numbers from key countries are trending down. For example, applications from China, which in the past has accounted for 29% of international graduate students at U.S. institutions, appear to be down 5% for fall 2013 following double-digit increases for the past several years. Given the global competition for graduate students it is essential that we find ways to not only reverse the declines in US graduate enrollment but significantly accelerate the flow of domestic students into our graduate programs. And in doing this we know from earlier research that financing is a strong factor in graduate student success. In a recent study of doctoral program completion, 80% of the respondents in an exit survey indicated that financial support was a key factor in their ability to complete the degree.

If the future of America is the future of graduate education, we must act now

The declining trend in US student enrollment in graduate programs suggests that America’s potential graduate students are already seeing advanced study as beyond their reach. The present situation is not sustainable if our nation is to meet the needs for a diverse workforce and a global knowledge economy. The good news is that we have an opportunity to address this challenge today. Any fix to address the student loan interest rate dilemma and growing student debt cannot be made only with an undergraduate student focus. It must equalize treatment of graduate students, in terms of interest rates, whether fixed or market-based, and the caps on maximum rates that can be charged.

* Reliable data for Hispanic doctoral graduates are unavailable

Contact:
Julia Kent
(202) 223-3791
jkent@cgs.nche.edu

Washington, DC — Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) President Debra W. Stewart today released the following statement in response to the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States RE: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The case questions whether the University of Texas at Austin is permitted to use race, along with other criteria, in making undergraduate admissions decisions.

On June 24th, the Supreme Court sent the Fisher v. UT Austin case back for review by the U.S. court of appeals for the 5th circuit. As the case continues to be analyzed, it is important to remember that the diversity of American colleges and universities is one of the greatest strengths of the U.S. higher education system. Diverse student populations provide experiences and perspectives that enhance the education of all students, preparing them to work, collaborate and thrive in a variety of contexts. The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) supports the commitments of its U.S. member universities to meeting this 21st-century objective and to developing a broad base of highly educated U.S. talent that will support the health and prosperity of the nation as a whole.

How best to achieve inclusion in a student population is a complex question, and one that must be answered in individual university contexts. The Council of Graduate Schools believes that it is important to protect the autonomy of U.S. institutions to design admissions policies that are customized to their institutional missions.

The arguments in the Fisher v. UT Austin case are based on undergraduate admissions processes, which tend to be uniform and centralized in the Admissions Office of a university. By contrast, the graduate admissions process is decentralized, more nuanced and customized to the missions of individual graduate programs. Institutional autonomy in achieving diversity has far-reaching implications in the graduate education sector for that reason, especially in programs and disciplines that see less diversity than others.

As the Council of Graduate Schools works to help universities respond to this and future rulings, we will stand by our position that the United States must continue to support and develop the diversity of its talent.

A recently released CGS publication is available online:

Guide to Advocacy for Graduate Education Leaders
In today’s environment of constrained public resources and political flux, graduate leaders are actively communicating the value of graduate education and research with key stakeholders. This guide provides a variety of principles, practical strategies, and adaptable examples to use in advocating for graduate education on campus, in the local community, and at the state and federal levels. 54 pages. June 2013.

CGS provides free electronic access to all our publications at the Member Library. Any administrator, faculty, or staff member of a CGS member institution may view, download, or print copies of CGS titles in PDF format (login required).

Print copies of this publication are also available for purchase in the Online Store. CGS members receive discounted rates. To order, access the publication in the Member Library. For complete details on CGS publications, visit cgsnet.org/publications. 

The U.S. is engaged in global competition for talent to meet the knowledge and skill demands required in the 21^st century workplace. Many countries see graduate education as a key component to their economic growth and have established immigration policies that encourage rather than discourage, highly qualified international students to enroll in their graduate education programs. With this growing international competition for talented graduate students, immigration policies should not make it more difficult for international students to participate in U.S. graduate education programs. Further, these policies should increase the likelihood that they can remain in the U.S. upon graduation. We cannot afford to lose our place in the global marketplace as a producer of, and magnet for, the world’s top talent. 

To maintain our competitive ability to attract talented international graduate students and retain them once they have completed their course of study, CGS recommends the following immigration policy principles:

Extend dual intent to include nonimmigrant foreign students studying at the bachelor’s level or higher, with no restrictions on the field of study.

Allow international students who obtain advanced degrees to qualify for immigrant visas so they may remain in the U.S. and work in jobs related to their fields of study. This would apply to:

• Individuals who have earned a doctoral degree from a U.S. institution of higher education;
• Individuals who have earned a master’s degree in a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) field from a U.S. institution of higher education.

Continue the use of Optional Practical Training (OPT) as a bridge between student visa status and H-1B visa status, for temporary employment directly related to the student’s major area of study, which gives the student work experience and training, and the employer an opportunity to assess the student’s abilities in the workforce.

Increase the number of H-1B visas available to graduate degree-holders and highly skilled workers to enhance U.S. leadership in an increasingly competitive global economy.

• Expand the number of H-1B visas from the current level of 65,000 per year.
• Increase the number of H-1B visas available per year to those who have earned a master’s degree or higher in a STEM field from a U.S. institution of higher education.

Explore ways to renew academic visas efficiently, particularly with respect to the interview requirements, to minimize the interruption to student’s academic progress.

Enact a permanent legislative solution that allows recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to legally remain in the U.S. with a path to citizenship.

Contact:

Julia Kent
(202) 223-3791
jkent@cgs.nche.edu

Washington, DC — Debra W. Stewart, President of the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), today announced that Beth Buehlmann has been named the Council’s Vice President for Public Policy and Government Affairs.

Buehlmann brings to CGS more than eight years of experience shaping the development of higher education policy in the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and over 20 years of combined leadership experience in the fields of higher education and workforce development. From 2005 until her appointment at CGS, Buehlmann served as the education policy director for the HELP Committee under the leadership of Sen. Mike Enzi.

The announcement marks the successful outcome of a nationwide search for a chief government relations officer to advance the role of graduate education and research in federal policy. “CGS is delighted that Beth Buehlmann, a national expert on national higher education policy, will be leading our continued efforts to drive progress on the critical issues facing U.S. graduate education and the country,” Stewart said. “Beth has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to build consensus on Capitol Hill by guiding the development of bipartisan education bills and effectively leading change. CGS members will benefit both from her experience and knowledge as the organization continues to advance the graduate education agenda in Washington.”

In her new leadership role at CGS, Buehlmann will be responsible for designing and negotiating public policy strategies that maximize the impact of the Council’s agenda. Buehlmann will bring her deep knowledge of the America COMPETES Act and the Higher Education Opportunity Act to CGS’s future work in the current policy environment. In accepting the appointment, Buehlmann emphasized the role of graduate education in promoting economic development and innovation. “CGS has a remarkable record of high quality research on critical aspects of graduate education,” Buehlmann said. “I am challenged by the opportunity to work with the ‘think tank’ side of CGS to shape a graduate policy agenda that moves our country forward.”

Buehlmann holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration from Illinois State University and a B.S. in Mathematics Education from Chicago State University. Prior to her work on the HELP Committee, she held the positions of Vice President and Director of the Center for Workforce Preparation at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Director of Congressional Relations in the Washington office of the California State University System. Throughout the 1980s Buehlmann was the chief education staff person for all education and workforce issues for the ranking members on the House Committee on Education and Labor.

The Council of Graduate Schools is the only national organization dedicated to the advancement of graduate education and research. Council members are colleges and universities engaged in graduate education, research, and the preparation of candidates for advanced degrees. Over 500 institutions of higher education in the United States and Canada constitute CGS’s core membership.