Can you please review the attached rough draft of my research paper and provide your peer review, including feedback on three areas for improvement or weakness? Thanks! Luke.
Lucas Farley
Professor Palazzolo
ENG102: Class # 11707
Sept 2, 2026
Lesson 11 - Draft, Review and Reflect
Introduction
My paper introduces the current dilemma in America regarding student loan debt. College graduates are drowning in student loan debt. They are struggling to find jobs that will allow them to afford loan payments while still affording the necessities of life. Recent graduates are delaying marriage and/or homeownership. For the first time in decades, they are also struggling to achieve greater financial and professional success than their parents.
This paper will explore arguments for and against continuing student loan forgiveness programs and for and against new student loan repayment methods. These arguments are drawn from peer-reviewed articles that are primarily unbiased and from credible sources and authors. I will present these arguments to the reader for their consideration and to support my underlying thesis for this paper, namely, "Student loan forgiveness should cease, and student loan repayments should resume."
A Brief History of Federal Student Loan Debt in America
Federal student loans began in 1958 through the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) for full-time undergraduate and graduate students. (Hillman, 2014) It was created to assist former military members financially in obtaining a college education after departing the service. This act was a "direct response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik," as there was a perception that the US was falling behind in math and science. (Hillman, 2014)
Federal student loans became a regular means of funding college education for the lower and middle classes in America in 1965 with the passage of the Higher Education Act. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993) This Act expanded funding even further to include millions of middle-class individuals with financial need by providing college financial aid through the federal financial aid programs it established. The basic components of these programs included low-interest federal student loans, grants, and work-study. These initial provisions were part of President Johnson's "Great Society" social reforms that addressed his anti-poverty and civil rights campaign objectives. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993) This act was amended in 1986 to include ongoing funding for established HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) and to create the National Teacher Corps, which targeted the recruitment and training of teachers in low-income communities that were historically understaffed. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993)
When the federal financial aid program was initially administered, most of the funds were provided as grants or work-study between 1965 and 1970. (Hillman, 2014) The federal loan program began with modest loans averaging $500 to $600 in the 70's, rising to $1000 to $1200 in 1980. (Hillman, 2014) These loans, along with grants and work-study, were put toward tuition, which ranged from $243 to $800 at public universities and $1000 to $2500 at private universities. (Hillman, 2014)
As the gap between maximum federal financial aid and the cost of tuition widened during the 80's, defaults on student loan repayment rose to an average of 20% in the 1980 and 1990's. (Hillman, 2014) Only after accountability rules were created and enforced did the default rates decline to 10%, which is where they stabilized until COVID (Hillman, 2014)
An Overview of the Extent of Federal Student Loan Debt Problem
The default rate on student loan debt is expected to rise to a crisis level in America following the post-COVID-19 repayment pause, with estimates that "roughly 1 million federal student loan borrowers defaulted during 2025:Q4, with an additional 2.6 million borrowers defaulting during 2026:Q1". (Cohn, 2026)
Student loan balances have risen exponentially over time, creating repayment challenges that affect millions of borrowers. Repayment outcomes have worsened because "student loan burdens have risen," making it harder for borrowers to manage payments and avoid delinquency (Dynan, 2020).
Unlike the original intent of the 1965 Higher Education Act, federal loans have become the primary source of financing for higher education because financial aid formulas have removed grants and work-study as options for most of the middle class. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993) Hillman emphasizes that borrowing has expanded significantly since the creation of federal loan programs, contributing to today's large national loan portfolio (Hillman, 2014).
What Are the Repercussions of the Federal Student Loan Debt Problem
Like any other debt, failure to pay has ramifications for both the lender and the borrower. As the lender, the federal government would have to report the losses, spend money on debt collectors to try to reclaim at least a portion of the debt, and federal revenues would decrease without those repayment funds. (Cohn, 2026) For 2025 only, this could easily represent $27-30 billion in financial losses, which further increases the deficit, and 2026 would see 2.5 times that impact if the 2.6 million defaulters are accurate. (Cohn, 2026)
As the borrower, the student/graduate would be contacted by debt collectors; they could have their wages garnished, their tax refunds withheld, and their credit scores negatively impacted. (Cohn, 2026) If loan default rates continue to rise, all Americans are affected as taxpayer costs increase to offset the losses and associated expenses.
Loan forgiveness also adversely affects the federal budget by reducing federal revenues and the federal government's ability to support other non-secondary education expenditures. (Dinerstein et al, 2025) On the other hand, loan forgiveness could positively impact the economy, as without student loan debt repayments, consumer borrowing in other areas such as auto loans, credit cards, and mortgages would increase. (Dinerstein et al, 2025) Loan forgiveness would also positively impact the middle class, as disposable income would increase without loan payment obligations. (Dinerstein et al, 2025)
Short-Term Solutions
An immediate short-term solution would be to simplify repayment plans and make "income driven plans easier for borrowers to access". (Dynan, 2020) This simplification would begin by reducing the number of possible repayment plans. Currently, these additional plans create confusion for borrowers. Having fewer plans would remove that obstacle. (Dynan, 2020) Fewer plans would allow a more streamlined approach for the federal government as far as administering the reduced number of plans. (Dynan, 2020)
Another short-term solution is to provide streamlined access for borrowers to obtain all repayment plan options. (Dynan, 2020) "Streamlining repayment options would help struggling borrowers in the near term by reducing confusion and administrative barriers." (Dynan, 2020)
Long-Term Solutions
One potential solution to the issue of college debt is a barter approach. The borrower can have a portion of their loan forgiven for each year that they work in public service. This method is just one way to repay the debt without forgiveness or erasure of the student loan debt. With this method, they are basically working off the debt. (Briones et al, 2024). This barter method would also have a positive impact on tax revenues as the borrower would be working and paying taxes while their debt was being "worked off." (Cather et al, 2025)
Another potential solution would be for employers to repay student loan debt as an employee benefit. Employers would repay their employees' student loans while they are actively employed, and employers would receive a tax benefit for facilitating these payments. In this way, it is a win-win for both employees and employers. (McCarthy & Silliman, 2015)
Long-term changes are also required to the federal financial aid programs themselves. One such change would be to "address the underlying drivers of rising debt, including tuition growth and the structure of federal aid programs". (Dynan, 2020) Dynan suggests that the federal government must address tuition inflation directly. This can be accomplished through several methods, including providing state funding to stabilize tuition at state schools, holding private institutions accountable for rising costs, and enacting policies that slow cost growth over time. (Dynan, 2020)
Another encouraging long-term solution would be to redesign the income-driven repayment plans to ensure sustainability for the Federal Student Loan program. (Dynan, 2020) Specifically. Dynan's long term solution is "to redesign income driven repayment so that payments accurately reflect borrowers' lifetime earnings, reduce excessive federal subsidy costs, and create a simpler, more predictable system that ensures the long term financial sustainability of the federal student loan program." This analysis should be completed at the time the loan(s) are taken and again when the borrower graduates, as majors and career plans shift. Under this new "lifetime earnings" view, a schoolteacher and a nuclear engineer should not each be allowed to borrow the same loan maximum as a nuclear engineer will make at least double that of a teacher. However, if the engineer only borrows the teacher's lower maximum, they would be required to repay the loan faster because of their higher income. (Dynan, 2020) By accelerating the repayment schedule for those who can afford it and decelerating it for those earning significantly less, the federal government's revenue stream will stabilize, allowing it to continue providing federal student loans to borrowers in the future. (Dynan, 2020)
Conclusion
My paper addressed the current issue of college debt. It provided both the positive and negative aspects of student loan forgiveness programs. It also provided the positive and negative aspects of proposed student loan repayment programs. It presented multiple well-structured arguments and detailed evidence supporting my thesis that "Student loan forgiveness should cease, and student loan repayments should resume." As a student with over $50K in student loan debt accumulated so far and only ½ way into my 4-year educational journey, this topic is greatly personal. However, my thesis comes from the belief that an agreed-upon debt should be repaid. Do you, the reader, agree with my premise that student loan repayments should resume?
Lucas Farley
Professor Palazzolo
ENG102: Class # 11707
Sept 2, 2026
Lesson 11 - Draft, Review and Reflect
Should Student Loan Forgiveness Stop?
Introduction
My paper introduces the current dilemma in America regarding student loan debt. College graduates are drowning in student loan debt. They are struggling to find jobs that will allow them to afford loan payments while still affording the necessities of life. Recent graduates are delaying marriage and/or homeownership. For the first time in decades, they are also struggling to achieve greater financial and professional success than their parents.
This paper will explore arguments for and against continuing student loan forgiveness programs and for and against new student loan repayment methods. These arguments are drawn from peer-reviewed articles that are primarily unbiased and from credible sources and authors. I will present these arguments to the reader for their consideration and to support my underlying thesis for this paper, namely, "Student loan forgiveness should cease, and student loan repayments should resume."
A Brief History of Federal Student Loan Debt in America
Federal student loans began in 1958 through the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) for full-time undergraduate and graduate students. (Hillman, 2014) It was created to assist former military members financially in obtaining a college education after departing the service. This act was a "direct response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik," as there was a perception that the US was falling behind in math and science. (Hillman, 2014)
Federal student loans became a regular means of funding college education for the lower and middle classes in America in 1965 with the passage of the Higher Education Act. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993) This Act expanded funding even further to include millions of middle-class individuals with financial need by providing college financial aid through the federal financial aid programs it established. The basic components of these programs included low-interest federal student loans, grants, and work-study. These initial provisions were part of President Johnson's "Great Society" social reforms that addressed his anti-poverty and civil rights campaign objectives. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993) This act was amended in 1986 to include ongoing funding for established HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) and to create the National Teacher Corps, which targeted the recruitment and training of teachers in low-income communities that were historically understaffed. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993)
When the federal financial aid program was initially administered, most of the funds were provided as grants or work-study between 1965 and 1970. (Hillman, 2014) The federal loan program began with modest loans averaging $500 to $600 in the 70's, rising to $1000 to $1200 in 1980. (Hillman, 2014) These loans, along with grants and work-study, were put toward tuition, which ranged from $243 to $800 at public universities and $1000 to $2500 at private universities. (Hillman, 2014)
As the gap between maximum federal financial aid and the cost of tuition widened during the 80's, defaults on student loan repayment rose to an average of 20% in the 1980 and 1990's. (Hillman, 2014) Only after accountability rules were created and enforced did the default rates decline to 10%, which is where they stabilized until COVID (Hillman, 2014)
An Overview of the Extent of Federal Student Loan Debt Problem
The default rate on student loan debt is expected to rise to a crisis level in America following the post-COVID-19 repayment pause, with estimates that "roughly 1 million federal student loan borrowers defaulted during 2025:Q4, with an additional 2.6 million borrowers defaulting during 2026:Q1". (Cohn, 2026)
Student loan balances have risen exponentially over time, creating repayment challenges that affect millions of borrowers. Repayment outcomes have worsened because "student loan burdens have risen," making it harder for borrowers to manage payments and avoid delinquency (Dynan, 2020).
Unlike the original intent of the 1965 Higher Education Act, federal loans have become the primary source of financing for higher education because financial aid formulas have removed grants and work-study as options for most of the middle class. (Reinventing the Federal Student Loan Program, 1993) Hillman emphasizes that borrowing has expanded significantly since the creation of federal loan programs, contributing to today's large national loan portfolio (Hillman, 2014).
What Are the Repercussions of the Federal Student Loan Debt Problem
Like any other debt, failure to pay has ramifications for both the lender and the borrower. As the lender, the federal government would have to report the losses, spend money on debt collectors to try to reclaim at least a portion of the debt, and federal revenues would decrease without those repayment funds. (Cohn, 2026) For 2025 only, this could easily represent $27-30 billion in financial losses, which further increases the deficit, and 2026 would see 2.5 times that impact if the 2.6 million defaulters are accurate. (Cohn, 2026)
As the borrower, the student/graduate would be contacted by debt collectors; they could have their wages garnished, their tax refunds withheld, and their credit scores negatively impacted. (Cohn, 2026) If loan default rates continue to rise, all Americans are affected as taxpayer costs increase to offset the losses and associated expenses.
Loan forgiveness also adversely affects the federal budget by reducing federal revenues and the federal government's ability to support other non-secondary education expenditures. (Dinerstein et al, 2025) On the other hand, loan forgiveness could positively impact the economy, as without student loan debt repayments, consumer borrowing in other areas such as auto loans, credit cards, and mortgages would increase. (Dinerstein et al, 2025) Loan forgiveness would also positively impact the middle class, as disposable income would increase without loan payment obligations. (Dinerstein et al, 2025)
Short-Term Solutions
An immediate short-term solution would be to simplify repayment plans and make "income driven plans easier for borrowers to access". (Dynan, 2020) This simplification would begin by reducing the number of possible repayment plans. Currently, these additional plans create confusion for borrowers. Having fewer plans would remove that obstacle. (Dynan, 2020) Fewer plans would allow a more streamlined approach for the federal government as far as administering the reduced number of plans. (Dynan, 2020)
Another short-term solution is to provide streamlined access for borrowers to obtain all repayment plan options. (Dynan, 2020) "Streamlining repayment options would help struggling borrowers in the near term by reducing confusion and administrative barriers." (Dynan, 2020)
Long-Term Solutions
One potential solution to the issue of college debt is a barter approach. The borrower can have a portion of their loan forgiven for each year that they work in public service. This method is just one way to repay the debt without forgiveness or erasure of the student loan debt. With this method, they are basically working off the debt. (Briones et al, 2024). This barter method would also have a positive impact on tax revenues as the borrower would be working and paying taxes while their debt was being "worked off." (Cather et al, 2025)
Another potential solution would be for employers to repay student loan debt as an employee benefit. Employers would repay their employees' student loans while they are actively employed, and employers would receive a tax benefit for facilitating these payments. In this way, it is a win-win for both employees and employers. (McCarthy & Silliman, 2015)
Long-term changes are also required to the federal financial aid programs themselves. One such change would be to "address the underlying drivers of rising debt, including tuition growth and the structure of federal aid programs". (Dynan, 2020) Dynan suggests that the federal government must address tuition inflation directly. This can be accomplished through several methods, including providing state funding to stabilize tuition at state schools, holding private institutions accountable for rising costs, and enacting policies that slow cost growth over time. (Dynan, 2020)
Another encouraging long-term solution would be to redesign the income-driven repayment plans to ensure sustainability for the Federal Student Loan program. (Dynan, 2020) Specifically. Dynan's long term solution is "to redesign income driven repayment so that payments accurately reflect borrowers' lifetime earnings, reduce excessive federal subsidy costs, and create a simpler, more predictable system that ensures the long term financial sustainability of the federal student loan program." This analysis should be completed at the time the loan(s) are taken and again when the borrower graduates, as majors and career plans shift. Under this new "lifetime earnings" view, a schoolteacher and a nuclear engineer should not each be allowed to borrow the same loan maximum as a nuclear engineer will make at least double that of a teacher. However, if the engineer only borrows the teacher's lower maximum, they would be required to repay the loan faster because of their higher income. (Dynan, 2020) By accelerating the repayment schedule for those who can afford it and decelerating it for those earning significantly less, the federal government's revenue stream will stabilize, allowing it to continue providing federal student loans to borrowers in the future. (Dynan, 2020)
Conclusion
My paper addressed the current issue of college debt. It provided both the positive and negative aspects of student loan forgiveness programs. It also provided the positive and negative aspects of proposed student loan repayment programs. It presented multiple well-structured arguments and detailed evidence supporting my thesis that "Student loan forgiveness should cease, and student loan repayments should resume." As a student with over $50K in student loan debt accumulated so far and only ½ way into my 4-year educational journey, this topic is greatly personal. However, my thesis comes from the belief that an agreed-upon debt should be repaid. Do you, the reader, agree with my premise that student loan repayments should resume?
