The U.S. Education Department is finalizing new earnings-test guidelines that could place a large share of graduate programs in visual arts, music, and performance at risk because many alumni earn relatively low incomes after graduation. Under the proposed rules, universities whose programs fail the test twice within three years could lose access to federal student loans for those programs, forcing students to transfer, change fields, or leave school. Critics warn that the policy could sharply reduce enrollment and even trigger school closures.
The department’s preliminary calculations suggest that many of the nation’s most prestigious arts programs would fail. Yale’s master’s programs in visual arts and music would not meet the standard. Harvard’s master’s program in museum studies would also fail, along with Juilliard’s undergraduate and graduate music programs. Juilliard said the measure does not reliably reflect institutional quality or student success in the performing arts, arguing that graduate outcomes should be measured in more than just paycheck data.
The proposed earnings test would apply to all university programs, but the threshold for master’s degrees is especially strict. The department would compare alumni earnings four years after graduation against the median salary of workers ages 25 to 34 who hold bachelor’s degrees. That is a higher bar than the previous standard, which compared programs against workers with only high school diplomas.
Supporters of the policy say higher education should provide a return on investment and should not leave students burdened with debt and weak earning prospects. Senate education committee staff have backed the updated guidelines, arguing that taxpayers should not subsidize degrees that leave graduates worse off financially. The policy was inserted into last year’s domestic policy bill and is being finalized ahead of a July deadline, with implementation expected next fall.
Arts leaders and higher education experts say the framework misunderstands the value of arts education. They argue that many valuable programs, especially in the creative fields, produce cultural and social benefits that are not captured by income data alone. Tom Eccles of Bard College said the government appears to be choosing metrics as if there were a simple, objective way to measure the worth of an arts education.
The issue comes as colleges face rising costs and pressure to justify degrees with weak economic returns. Annual undergraduate tuition can reach $90,000, fueling concern about student debt and program accountability. At the same time, many arts programs have already been closing due to low enrollment, high overhead, and competition from larger research universities.
According to Education Department calculations, 90% of graduate students in religious studies and all recipients of culinary certificates would also fail the new test. Analysts estimate that the failing programs would represent about 6% of all higher education degrees, potentially affecting roughly 644,000 students. Students in arts master’s programs that would fail the rules already carry nearly $311 million in federal loans.
Public comments on the proposal were overwhelmingly critical. Opponents say the policy could make access to arts education harder and weaken programs that contribute meaningfully to society, even if their graduates do not earn high salaries immediately after school.
