On Oct. 3, the U.S. Department of Education declared on X that they are “finally holding institutions of higher education accountable,” by banning “predatory student loans for low-paying degrees.”

The decision came after a similar rule was implemented over the summer. According to a Fact Sheet published by the department titled, “Trump Administration Implements Accountability Provisions of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act,” an “accountability framework that applies a commonsense earnings test across all sectors, institutions, and programs,” was established on June 29, 2026.

Under this rule, undergraduate programs had to prove that graduates of these majors made more than working individuals with only high school diplomas, while graduate programs had to prove their graduates earned more than people with bachelor degrees.

After reassessing the rule, the Department of Education decided, starting in 2027, the following list of majors will be disallowed student loans: Cosmetology, Massage Therapy, Culinary Arts, Medical/Dental Assisting, Graphic Design, Religious Studies, Social Work, Fine and Studio Arts, Music, English Literature, and Early Childhood Education.

This decision raises concerns among students of these majors.

Sophomore Kayden Beidler, an English Lit. Major, worries about the financial burden this would bring. “Money and finances are already really difficult right now, and this is just another straw on the camel’s bending back,” Beidler said in an email. They believe this will affect students mentally as well. “The mental load of one more attack on a department and subject I love is an unfair burden I and my peers shouldn’t have to carry.”

Many students rely on these loans, Beidler included, who takes out the maximum number of both subsidized and unsubsidized. 

First-year Izzy Ollet, who is majoring in both Education and Art, acknowledges that while the lack of loans wouldn’t impact their education financially, it may impact their education institutionally. “If fewer students enroll and afford the courses, the departments like visual art and communications might end up with budget cuts. This might mean either losing professors or losing different courses offered.” 

Ollet worries that if only a certain group could continue pursuing these degrees, a lack of diversity and way of thinking may impact both art and education. “One of the best parts about creative courses is that even though they might land you in lower income jobs, people are there because they love what they’re doing. Whether it’s my art classmates who want to go into art therapy, or my teaching education classmates, I’d hate to imagine losing them because of federal cuts.”

The question of how much this will affect private schools vs. public schools becomes a concern as well. “Small schools like EMU are already struggling with enrollment and numbers, especially in these majors, and with this added layer to discourage students from coming if they can’t get loans, it could very well be the death knell for some programs,” Beidler states.

Ollet considered the effects of this decision for the long run. “It’s framed in a way that makes it appear like we’re trying to lessen the number of students that go into debt. However, from a student perspective, it really just seems like it’s going to drive away students from taking creative majors.”

When asked the difference between EMU cutting majors and students being disallowed loans, Ollet believes it comes down to institutions vs. federal decisions. “When a school cuts a major it’s an institutional decision and applicants of the major can simply choose to transfer to another college. But cutting loans like this on a federal scale will eventually result in only the wealthy being able to access these courses.”

Both students considered if it was a coincidence that these specific majors were also female-dominated. Beidler believes it was part of the administration leaning towards authoritarianism and the consolidation of power. “In our patriarchal society, authoritarianism and consolidating power goes hand in hand with stripping women of autonomy and opportunity. Much of the current administration would probably be ecstatic if the majority of women in the U.S. were stuck at home with kids.” They acknowledge that this is fine if by choice. “But the end goal is to strip women of opportunities to make that choice, and push them out of the public eye.” 

Ollet believes it was considered. “There technically is a chance it might be coincidental, but federal decisions like these had to have taken in the aspect that [the majors] are female dominated.”

An official statement on when this rule will go into effect has yet to be released from the White House.