College students pursuing majors, advanced degrees or certifications in fields that consistently earn low incomes will no longer be able to take out federal loans to pay for their schooling under new Trump administration rules.

Many of the degree programs that educate social workers, artists, teacher aides and especially certification programs for barbers and nail technicians are likely to fail a new federal litmus test: Will they make more money upon graduation than if they never enrolled in the first place?

The new federal rule, finalized this month by the Education Department, comes amid a national crisis in student loan defaults — and is part of a larger effort to ensure a college degree or professional certification serves as an avenue for economic advancement rather than a debt trap.

It has also provoked debate over whether the mission of higher education — and help paying for it — should be tied to a paycheck after graduation.

But unlike other aspects of the administration’s education actions, the new policy has relatively broad support, with some student advocates saying it should be tougher.

The Education Department hasn’t yet calculated the final data against which institutions will be judged, leaving uncertainty on exactly what programs will face consequences.

The vast majority of bachelor‘s and advanced degree programs at public and nonprofit colleges and universities are expected to be safe, with about 3% expected to fail, according to the department’s estimates.

However, about 33% of programs at for-profit schools are expected to fail.

Overall, 4.2% of students who receive federal loans or grants are enrolled in programs expected to fail the new benchmark, according to the Education Department. An estimated 5.2% of programs overall may fail, but not all students take out federal loans.

“For the first time in a very long time ... institutions and college leaders are going to be held accountable,” said Michael Itzkowitz, president of the education research organization HEA Group. “They are going to start looking and paying more attention to economic outcomes than they ever have before.”

Education experts said some institutions — public, private and for-profit colleges — with programs that fail to adhere to the rule will probably close them, while others will tweak offerings to better match students with good-paying jobs.

Salary vs. debt: what the student loan rule requires

To keep federal loans flowing, the median income of graduates for a school’s bachelor‘s degree, associate degree and undergraduate certificate programs must be higher than the median earnings of people who received only a high school diploma.

Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Education Department will measure the earnings of graduates four years after completion. Their income will be compared with the median earnings of working adults ages 25 to 34 with only a high school diploma either in the state where the college is located or nationally if the institution has high rates of out-of-state enrollment.

In California, HEA says that benchmark is about $36,000 — roughly what a full-time worker earns on the state’s minimum wage.

For master’s and doctoral programs, their graduates must make more than the median 25- to 34-year-old bachelor‘s graduate in either that specific field or across all bachelor‘s degrees, whichever is lower.

“It’s kind of a baseline expectation for students that no matter what type of program they pursue that they should be better off because of the investment that they’ve made,” said Diane Cheng, vice president of policy at the Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Degrees most likely to fail the federal earnings test

But programs in music, drama and fine arts are expected to fail at high rates because their graduates earn too little, as are master’s programs in the mental and social health fields, according to the Education Department.

According to the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University, California mental and social health master’s programs fare much better than elsewhere, because graduates in the state tend to earn more, a median of $70,485 compared with $60,175 nationwide.

At the undergraduate level, mental and social health programs are expected to fail at very low rates nationwide, according to HEA.

The highest percentage of failed programs is expected to be undergraduate certificates, especially for cosmetology, massage therapy and film.

Similar rules existed under the Biden administration, but applied only to certificate programs at public and private nonprofit schools and all degrees and certificates at for-profit colleges, though the rules weren’t in place long enough for schools to face penalties, experts said.

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said “accountability is well overdue in higher education,” but said federal and state education policies may be needed to find other ways to support students in some failing programs.

“We need social workers,” Mitchell said. “Whether it’s the fentanyl epidemic or homelessness in L.A., we need people who can work on the street with people who need it the most.”

There’s also been concern at religious studies programs amid different estimates of failure rates calculated by the Education Department. Gregory Baylor, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said society benefits from people choosing to “serve the world through religious vocation.”

“The government shouldn’t punish people who pursue socially valuable callings just because in its judgment they don’t earn enough money,” he said.

For-profit programs hit hardest

For-profit colleges, which have long faced criticism for saddling students with debt for little benefit, have the highest expected fail rate.

Among the sectors most at risk is cosmetology and related personal grooming services, where the Education Department expects more than 90% of undergraduate certificate programs to fail and, according to the PEER Center, annual income for graduates is typically under $28,000.

The beauty industry has argued that graduates of their programs aren’t as low paid as it seems, because many work part time, and both part- and full-time workers earn a significant amount in tips and may underreport those dollars to avoid taxes.

In response, the Education Department decided to delay the rule’s implementation by at least one year for programs that prepare students for careers in which a majority of workers receive tips, so the programs can be evaluated under the new Trump-supported “No Tax on Tips” policy.

If reported graduate earnings don’t rise significantly despite taxes being waived on tips, and the rule isn’t adjusted to better reflect the part-time nature of much of the beauty workforce, “we are going to be short somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 new entrants into the field every single year,” said John Russell, who leads the American Assn. of Career Schools, a trade group for cosmetology, barbering and similar schools.

Education experts said one possible response to such a scenario is for state legislatures that set licensing requirements to decide some occupations — such as barbers and stylists — need less training.

Concern about arts

At the California Institute of the Arts, administrators expressed concern about judging earnings four years after graduation given the nature of the field they are teaching.

“A lot of them are essentially independent contractors, so it’s a slightly different trajectory than someone who goes to an engineering program,” said Michael Bryant, interim provost at CalArts. “It takes them a little bit longer to get themselves established.”

To minimize the possibility programs fail, Bryant said, the college is taking a number of steps, including expanding its career fair and increasing industry partnerships. If programs do end up failing, the college may use some of its own funds to help students afford those programs.

“Southern California is such an important cultural destination and a big place of cultural production,” said CalArts dean Steven Lam. “We’re in a moment when the federal government is creating policy that may further damage that ecosystem.”

Jonathan Gienapp, Stanford associate professor of history and law, stressed there are reasons for education beyond making money.

“In certain fields of study, especially in the humanities, whether or not that program has been successful and has done a really good job in its educational mission, might not be all that directly tied to immediate earnings potential,” he said.

_____

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.