Key points:
- Debt burdens are dissuading prospective educators from entering the profession
- Higher education in flux: Challenges and strategies for the teaching community
- A seismic shift in student loan repayment: Implications for borrowers and the economy
- For more news on faculty support, visit eCN’s Campus Leadership hub
On May 5, 2025, the Trump administration formally ended the federal government’s five-year suspension of student loan collections, reinstating aggressive recovery procedures on defaulted loans. This policy shift has already begun to reverberate throughout the higher education landscape, particularly among part-time faculty, administrative staff, and other professionals who required graduate-level education to qualify for employment within the sector.
The consequences are not abstract. They are deeply personal and financially destabilizing for the very individuals who sustain the academic mission of U.S. colleges and universities.
Estimates suggest that more than 5 million borrowers are currently in default, with an additional 4 million classified as late-stage delinquent, and thus at imminent risk of entering default status. These borrowers, many of whom work in education, now face collection tactics including wage garnishment, tax refund seizures, and even Social Security offsets. Such punitive measures compound the structural challenges already faced by academic laborers.
The adjunct majority: Underpaid, overqualified, and overburdened
The policy’s impact is particularly acute among adjunct faculty and non-tenure-track staff. These individuals constitute an estimated 47 percent of the academic workforce, with some institutions relying on adjunct labor for more than 70 percent of course delivery. Although these educators are often required to hold master’s or doctoral degrees, their compensation rarely reflects the advanced credentials they bring to the classroom. According to a report from the Learning Policy Institute, more than half of educators borrowed to fund their own education, and a substantial proportion remain in repayment well into their professional lives.
McKnight Associates reported that as of 2024, the typical adjunct faculty member earns between $2,500 and $5,000 per course, often without health insurance, retirement benefits, or office space. Many teach upward of four or five courses across multiple institutions to piece together a livable income, often while managing significant student debt. The reactivation of federal loan collections threatens to disrupt their already-precarious financial positions, forcing impossible choices between rent, groceries, and repayment obligations.
Default, collections, and administrative instability
Under current federal law, borrowers who have not made payments for more than 270 days enter default and become subject to aggressive recovery measures administered through the Treasury Offset Program. These may include the seizure of tax refunds and Social Security income, and wage garnishment–actions that disproportionately impact low-income professionals, many of whom took public-sector jobs under the belief that such careers came with a promise of eventual loan forgiveness.
Further compounding the crisis is the legal suspension of income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, including the Biden administration’s SAVE plan. With enrollment in these programs frozen and no clear pathway for recertification, borrowers are being forced into more expensive and less flexible repayment structures. The result is a cascading financial burden that strikes hardest at those already navigating institutional marginalization within higher education.
The broader impact on academic labor and institutional quality
The Learning Policy Institute warns that debt burdens are dissuading prospective educators from entering the profession and are prompting existing faculty to exit early. When adjuncts are forced to work second or third jobs to manage loan repayment, the quality of student instruction suffers. Institutions that rely on contingent labor may experience higher turnover, lower morale, and diminished pedagogical continuity, which directly affect student outcomes.
This crisis is not new but has now reached a dangerous inflection point. Adjuncts, who sustained universities during the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to play an outsized role in student instruction, are being penalized for choosing public service careers in education. Rather than receiving support, they are being exposed to financial penalties that could have long-term consequences on their credit, mental health, and professional standing.
Toward policy alternatives and institutional accountability
There are feasible policy interventions available. Expanding eligibility for IDR plans, restoring functionality to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, and implementing targeted debt cancellation for educators are among the most cited recommendations by financial aid advocates and labor organizations. The American Council on Education, the Institute for College Access & Success, and others have called for an alignment between student debt policy and workforce development priorities–especially in sectors like education, where wage returns are low but social value is high.
Institutionally, colleges and universities must also take responsibility for the unsustainable adjunct model. Transparent compensation practices, access to benefits, and long-term contracts for non-tenure-track faculty are necessary steps toward equity. Without such reforms, the debt crisis will not only harm individuals but will erode the overall credibility and quality of American higher education.
Valuing those who teach
This is more than a financial issue. It is a reflection of national values. The decision to reinstate student loan collections without rebuilding fair repayment infrastructure is not merely short-sighted–it is ethically indefensible. If society values education as a public good, it must also value the educators who make it possible. As policymakers and institutional leaders weigh their next moves, they must ask themselves: Who is being asked to bear the burden, and at what cost to the future of higher learning?
