With a new president in the Oval Office, what many hope to see is a new plan for handling student loan debt.

Both presidential candidates’ policies on student debt could very likely affect the New School Community—negatively and positively. That is if either of them follow through with their claims and promises.

To explain just how serious the student debt issue is here, according to ProPublica’s data bank, the median debt for New School graduates is $25,495 and in 2013, 41.3 percent of New School graduates took out federal loans.

While that lines up exactly with the percentage of NYU students who graduated with federal student loans, only 26.6 percent of students from Columbia University had outstanding federal student debt at graduation.

While some students may also be eligible for private loans (usually given by banks to students with especially good credit) or health professional loans (if the student is entering medical or nursing school), federal funding represents the bulk of student loans.

Owing back money after leaving school is no joke. Student loans are one of the top causes of debt in the United States, according to the household debt and credit report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And right now, there is currently over $1.2 trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt in America. Student debt surpassed credit card debt in 2010, with and continues to do so by more and more every year since.

Knowing this, The New School Free Press set out to dig into each candidate’s policy on student loans to figure out exactly where the future of college students’ bank accounts everywhere could be headed.

Here’s what Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are planning to do with student debt:

Donald Trump on Student Debt

While Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump doesn’t have the best track record with educational systems in general – Trump’s for-profit real estate seminar program, Trump University, is facing multiple lawsuits– the republican candidate has given lip service to all the major concerns revolving around student debt.

Trump’s plan is to cap loan repayment at 12.5 percent of the person’s income and completely disregard any leftover debt after 15 years, The New York Times reports. The GOP candidate also plans on using the grip of the U.S. government to bully colleges into limit rises in tuition costs.

At a press conference in Miami in July, Trump said “The saddest thing I see is these students are leveraged, [with] debt up to their necks…They can’t breathe, they’re scared, they’re so scared — they have leveraged their entire life.”

As NYT notes, in early October at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, Trump went further into detail to speak about student debt. “Students should not be asked to pay more on their loans than they can afford,” Trump told the college student-filled audience. “[Students] should not be an albatross around their necks for the rest of their lives.” The GOP candidate also believes colleges should be using more of their endowment funds for lowering tuition costs.

Trump has previously critiqued the federal government for profiting off federal student loans. In an interview with The Hill, Trump said “ [student loans] is probably one of the only things the government shouldn’t make money off—I think it’s terrible that one of the only profit centers we have is student loans.” The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal student loan program to turn a profit of about $1.6 billion in 2016.

Trump Super PAC CEO Steven Hoffenberg announced that under the Trump education policy plan, money for college student loans will be provided by an undisclosed, private charity. The campaign does offer the opportunity to donate, but it is unclear if that money will go to relieving student loan debt.

Sam Clovis, a co-chair of Trump’s campaign and an economics professor at Iowa College, said that in the future, student loans will be given based on the collaborative decision of private banks and colleges. This would be an alternative to giving the decision to the federal government, which Clovis and Trump argue unfairly profits off of. The Huffington Post has previously reported that this could cause an increase in the cost of liberal arts degrees.

“Computer scientists probably would have little trouble borrowing money, but French majors might encounter challenges. Banks would be free to tailor loans based on students’ career paths,” Clovis told HuffPost.

Hillary Clinton on Student Debt

Student debt is one of the issues Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has stressed in her campaign.

Clinton previously released a student loan forgiveness and refinancing plan, as well as the plan’s fact sheet. The plan prevents individuals from having to pay more than 10 percent of their income at once to pay off their student loans after graduation. The program will also allow all post-graduate federal loan borrowers an extra three months postponement on each student loan payment. Clinton has also proposed that all college debt be forgiven after 20 years, which could be a massive lifesaver for some who have been ridden with the debt for the majority of their adult lives. Clinton’s campaign asserts that this plan will provide debt relief to 25 million people.

The Clinton campaign claims that if she is elected, by 2021, families making $125,000 dollars per year or less will not have to pay tuition for an in-state, public, four-year college or university. And from the moment she is elected, no student from a family with an income of $85,000 a year or less will have to pay tuition to attend an in-state four-year public college or university.

However, besides the unexplained claim on her website that “States will have to step up and invest in higher education,” it is unclear where the money to make this possible will come from.

Clinton also believes universities should be actively working to lower their tuitions. The democrat candidate claims she would work to find schools that couldn’t lower their costs for students or who weren’t successful with helping those enrolled find jobs, NYT reports. Clinton’s plan includes having students work 10 hours a week to achieve a student debt-free life after college.

The vice president and institution fellow at the American Institutes for Research and president of College Measures, Mark Schneider, was asked by Politico about his stance on Clinton’s plans. “When we talk about changing student debt, I get nervous about how much many of these changes will cost,” he said.

The main overlap between Clinton and Trump’s plan is the claim that they will prevent the federal government from “profiting” off student loans. Clinton says she hopes to do so by cutting interest rates on student loans. On her campaign website, Clinton says she wants to hold colleges and universities accountable for the success of their students and controlling tuition costs. Meanwhile, Trump wants colleges to give preferential financial treatment to students who choose more lucrative majors.

The reception of Clinton’s refinance plan has not been entirely positive. Accepting the benefits of Clinton’s plan, like paying lower interest rates, would potentially rob individuals of the current income-based repayment options and other government benefits, according to Forbes.

Google conducted a survey earlier in 2016, based on 1,001 borrowers living in the United States, which found that 39.4 percent of individuals were unsure that lowered interest rates would be worth losing the income-based repayment options. 35.9 percent of those polled said it was definitely not worth it. These borrowers, of course, are not necessarily experts.

Income-based repayment options are monthly repayment plans that the government believes the borrower can afford based on their family size and income. Time will tell if her plan will be better than the current plans in place by the federal government, if Clinton is elected.

To the NSFP, both candidates appear to have the right intentions, which would be saving the American public from drowning in academic-caused debt, but Clinton seems to have her plans mapped out clearer than Trump. What is unclear is where the money will end up coming from that will save students all that money.

We’ll just have to take her word for it.

---

Illo: Alex Gilbeaux