Gen AI Transparency on Federal Regulations

The podcast discusses how the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (HR1) has significantly reformed federal student aid, particularly by eliminating the Grad PLUS program and altering loan limits for graduate students, which takes effect in 2026. The core of the conversation revolves around the Department of Education's crucial task of drafting regulations for this new law, especially the "do no harm" provisions related to program-level earnings. The episode highlights numerous public comments from professional organizations and individuals, making urgent cases for fields like occupational therapy, public health, and physician assistant programs to be classified as "professional degrees" to avoid drastically reduced borrowing caps. These comments emphasize the potential for severe workforce shortages and limited public access to essential services if these vital professions are not adequately supported. Additionally, concerns are raised about the broader impact on equity for vulnerable student groups, the rising cost of tuition, and the need for greater accountability from educational institutions to ensure students receive a valuable education that enables loan repayment.

They're all basically saying, "Look, our program programs meet the spirit the intent of a professional degree and excluding us they would have severe consequences for our workforce for the public it directly impacts students’ ability to finish these programs.

Let's start with occupational therapy OT. We saw a ton of submissions there Mary Harden, Baylor, Drexel, MGH Institute, TCU, and UW Madison, many others, they seem very aligned.

Oh completely aligned across the board they're hitting three core points about OT graduate programs.

Okay what are they?

One They lead directly to professional lensure and national certification and that's required in all 50 states to practice.

Right?

Two, they demand really substantial graduate level training, usually two, sometimes three years beyond a bachelor's.

Okay?

And three, they are the prerequisite for practicing in a federally recognized health profession. They emphasize how vital OT's are helping people with daily activities, recovering from illness, injury, improving quality of life across the lifespan.

What the law hard-codes (ED can’t redefine)

Who’s in the program cohort. Only Title IV–aided completers from the academic year 4 years before the determination, who are not enrolled and are working. ED can define “working,” but cannot add non-completers or include non-aided students for pass/fail. Congress.gov

How many years to pass. A program fails if its cohort’s median earnings are below the comparator in at least 2 of the 3 most recent years. ED can’t change the “2-of-3” structure. Congress.gov

Comparators & geography (undergrad). Compare to the median earnings of 25–34-year-old working adults with a high school diploma in the state of the institution—or U.S. national if <50% of students reside in-state. Data source must be the Census Bureau. No MSA/ZIP/COLI swaps here. Congress.gov

Comparators (graduate). Compare to 25–34-year-old working adults with a bachelor’s degree, using the lowest of: state-wide general, same-field-in-state, or same-field national (with a different “<50% in-state” fallback). “Field of study” is as determined by the Secretary (e.g., 2-digit CIP), but the “lowest-of” rule itself is statutory. Congress.gov

Small cohorts. If a program’s cohort is <30, ED must aggregate additional years, then aggregate equivalent-length programs to reach ≥30. The 30 minimum is in law. Congress.gov

Student notices, appeals, and re-entry. ED must provide an appeals process, require student notices after 1 miss in the 3-year “covered period,” and allow re-entry after ≥2 years via an ED-set process. (ED designs the process; the existence/timing is statutory.) Congress.gov

Effective timing. Institutions must assure compliance beginning July 1, 2026 (the law’s start date). ED can phase process details but can’t move the statutory date. Congress.gov

Common asks from comments — what’s realistic? A) Doable now via regulation (high confidence)

Define “working” carefully. ED can set earnings/wage-match rules (e.g., minimum positive earnings, treatment of self-employment/1099, unemployment insurance gaps) consistent with the statute’s “working” requirement. Congress.gov

Choose “field of study” granularity for grad comparators. Law lets ED decide the taxonomy (e.g., 2-digit vs 4-digit CIP) for graduate-level “same field” comparators. This is a big lever for fairness/noise. Congress.gov

Spell out program mapping & cohort construction. ED can define what counts as a “program” (credential level, CIP, length), how to handle cross-listed CIPs, teach-outs, and transfers—so long as it stays within the statute’s program-level frame. Congress.gov

Design the appeals & re-entry processes. ED decides evidence allowed (e.g., data-quality issues, misclassification), timelines, and documentation standards. Congress.gov

Operational safeguards for small programs. While the ≥30 minimum is fixed, ED can define “equivalent length,” the order of aggregation, suppression rules, and privacy protections. Congress.gov

Student disclosure specifics. ED can set format, content, and delivery of at-risk notices, and require standardized language. Congress.gov

Measurement cadence & data handling. ED can lock the reference years, how it stitches multi-year results, and which federal data it uses for program cohort earnings (the statute dictates Census for the comparator, not for the cohort measure).