Borrowers and advocates watching the American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education docket may be wondering where June's student loan status report is. The answer: there isn't one, and there was never supposed to be.

The monthly status reports became one of the few public windows into how fast the Department of Education was processing income-driven repayment (IDR) applications and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) buybacks.

With the court-agreed upon requirement now satisfied, that window may close — at least until a federal judge decides whether it should stay open.

Catch-Up

Under the October 23, 2025 order (PDF File), the Department agreed to file exactly six status reports. The first was due 30 days after the federal government's appropriations lapse ended, with each subsequent report due every 30 days after that.

That schedule produced six filings, dated December 15, January 14, February 13, March 16, April 15, and May 13 (with a supplemental follow-up May 19). The sixth report on May 13 was the last one the settlement required.

No June report was missed, because none was owed.

What The Reports Covered

Each report had to disclose, for the prior calendar month:

• IDR applications received, pending, and decided (with approvals and denials where possible)
• The number of borrowers whose loans were discharged under IBR, Original ICR, or PAYE
• PSLF buyback applications received, pending, and decided
• The number of borrowers discharged through PSLF.

The first report also had to explain how the Department identified borrowers eligible for IDR discharge and how many IBR applicants were denied after July 4, 2025, for lacking a "partial financial hardship."

The reports have been a key source of information for borrowers to understand how quickly IDR applications and PSLF buyback applications were processing.

What's Next

The same order says that after the sixth report, the parties "shall confer about the need for further reporting" and, if necessary, tell the court where they stand. That sets up the next hearing on July 8, when the judge can decide whether the Department keeps filing these monthly disclosures or the reporting obligation ends for good.

How This Connects

These filings were the source for some of the starkest data on the student loan backlog.

The Department's own reports showed IDR applications pending in the hundreds of thousands (roughly 530,295 still waiting as of May 2026) and described how it is processing time-based forgiveness in every-other-month increments.

The timing matters for the millions of borrowers caught in the SAVE plan limbo and those weighing a move to IBR, PAYE, or the new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) taking effect in July 2026. If the July 8 hearing ends the reporting requirement, borrowers and watchdogs may lose their clearest month-to-month read on whether the backlog is actually shrinking.

Don't Miss These Other Stories:

Borrowers who were defrauded by their college may be able to get their federal student loans canceled and previous payments refunded by applying for a borrower defense to repayment discharge.

If approved for the discharge, negative credit reports relating to the loans will also be removed from the borrower’s credit history. Also, eligibility for federal student aid will be reinstated.

More than 700,000 borrowers have submitted borrower defense to repayment claims. And about 40% of processed claims have been approved. Could you qualify to have your student loans discharged as well? Here's how to find out.

What Is Borrower Defense To Repayment?

The borrower defense to repayment is a set of regulations that specify when federal student loans may be discharged because of harmful acts and omissions by the student’s college.

These regulations are authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 U.S.C. 1087e(h), which states:

The specific regulations that apply to your loans depend on whether they were first disbursed:

• Prior to July 1, 2017 (1995 Rule): State-law standard — the school's act or omission had to give rise to a cause of action under the borrower's state law. (Burden essentially the borrower's, no uniform federal test.)
• On or after July 1, 2017 and before July 1, 2020 (2016 Rule): Federal standard — borrower must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, a school misrepresentation, breach of contract, or favorable judgment.
• On or after July 1, 2020 (2019 Rule): Federal standard, but narrower — borrower must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the school made a misrepresentation of material fact they reasonably relied on, which caused them financial harm.

Biden tried to loosen the standards in 2022, but that was blocked by the courts.

Recent Changes To Borrower Defense Regulations

The current regulations (the 2019 Rule), which were adopted during the first Trump Administration, narrowed eligibility for the borrower defense to repayment. Now, to qualify for borrower defense discharge:

• Misrepresentations must have been made with “knowledge of its false, misleading, or deception nature or with a reckless disregard for the truth.” 
• The borrower must have experienced financial harm because of the misrepresentations.
• Borrower defense to repayment claims must be filed within three years of the student’s separation from the college.

The Trump Administration also adopted a partial relief formula that limited the amount of debt discharged under the borrower defense to repayment.

The U.S. Department of Education announced that it was rescinding the partial relief formula and providing full relief to all borrowers with approved borrower defense claims. The U.S. Department of Education also said that it intends to issue new regulations for the borrower defense to repayment. Further developments will be announced on the U.S. Department of Education’s Borrower Defense Updates page.

The IRS has determined that borrower defense to repayment discharges are excluded from income (e.g. tax free). Borrowers are also not required to repay education tax benefits that were claimed on previous federal income tax returns. [Revenue Procedure RP-20-11]

Which Borrowers Are Eligible To File For Borrower Defense To Repayment Discharge?

How does the federal government determine who's been defrauded by a college? Misconduct that could qualify under the borrower defense to repayment rules includes fraudulent or illegal acts by the college under federal or state law and misrepresentations. A few quick examples include: 

• False endorsements
• False certifications (such as the college signing financial aid documents on behalf of the student)
• Providing false information to college ranking organizations

Misrepresentations don't just include false, erroneous and misleading statements, but also omissions that make the statement false, erroneous or misleading. Examples of misconduct include misrepresentations concerning:

• Admissions rates (selectivity), college rankings and student admission profiles 
• The qualifications of teachers and the quality of training equipment
• Graduation rates, employment rates and earnings after graduation
• The ability to transfer credits to other colleges
• Licensing passage rates or licensure requirements
• College and program-specific accreditation, approval and certification
• Tuition and fees, and eligibility for financial aid
• The terms or the amount of a loan
• The nature of a loan (e.g., characterizing a loan as a grant)

If any of these types of misrepresentations influenced you to take out student loans, you may qualify as someone who's been defrauded by your college. If so, you can file a defense to repayment claim even if you're eligible for other types of student loan forgiveness. The college is not required to have closed.

Borrower defense to repayment claims are evaluated under a "preponderance of evidence standard." In other words, to have your claim approved there needs to be more evidence in favor of a conclusion than against it.

Sweet v. Cardona/McMahon

Sweet v. Cardona was the most recent case and settlement around borrower defense to repayment claims - where borrowers filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, seeking an end to further delays and proper processing of their applications for discharge. (Sweet v. Cardona, Case No. 19-cv-03674-WHA, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)

The Biden Administration decided to settle this lawsuit. The settlement will provide billions of dollars of discharges to about 200,000 borrowers who attended 153 colleges. 

See the full list of for-profit colleges here.

As of 2026, we're seeing thousands of borrowers receive their discharge under the settlement.

Which Loans Are Eligible For A Borrower Defense To Repayment Discharge?

Only federal education loans in the Direct Loan program are immediately eligible. Loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and Federal Perkins Loan can may be made eligible, however, by including them in a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan.

Private student loans are not eligible and cannot be made eligible. 

How To File A Borrower Defense Claim

Borrowers can file a borrower defense to repayment claim online, by calling 1-855-279-6207 (8 am to 8 pm ET, Monday to Friday), or by completing a 9-page Borrower Defense to Repayment Application Form. The completed application form can be sent by email to BorrowerDefense@ed.gov or by postal mail to:

U.S. Dept. of Education — Borrower Defense to Repayment
P.O. Box 1854
Monticello, KY 42633

Borrowers should attach evidence to support their claim, such as:

Evidence of misconduct can also include legal action taken against the college by the federal government (including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and state attorneys general.

Should Loans Continue To Be Paid While Borrower Defense Claims Are Reviewed?

While a borrower defense to repayment claim is being reviewed, the borrower may choose to have their loans placed in a forbearance. But if the claim if not approved, any interest that accrues will be capitalized at the end of the forbearance period.

With this in mind, you may want to continue paying the interest during the forbearance to prevent the loan balance from increasing. If your borrower defense to repayment claim is approved, amounts previously paid on the loan may be refunded.

Other Financial Relief Options If You've Been Defrauded By Your College

If your college shut down while you were enrolled or within 180 days of withdrawal, you may be eligible for a closed school discharge of your student loans. To qualify, you would need to be able to prove that you weren't able to transfer credits or complete your education at another college.

Did your college apply for financial aid on your behalf or sign your name to a Master Promissory Note (MPN) without authorization? If so, you may be eligible for a false certification discharge of your student loans.

Finally, students may qualify for compensation under state tuition recovery funds and surety/performance bonds. This may provide compensation for out-of-pocket costs that weren’t paid using student loans. Information about these options may be found on the websites of the state board of higher education and the state attorney general.

The number tearing through social media: $300 billion. It's the size of a postwar reconstruction fund the U.S. floated for Iran as part of a framework deal — and the online reaction has been immediate. If we can find $300 billion for a foreign country after a war few Americans wanted, the argument goes, why not spend it on the 42.8 million people carrying federal student debt at home?

Set aside the politics for a second (and one fact-check below), and it's a useful thought experiment.

So we ran the numbers against the latest Federal Student Aid portfolio data to answer the question people are actually asking: how much student debt could $300 billion erase, and who would benefit most?

Why It Matters

Americans owe $1.696 trillion in federal student loans, including $1.534 trillion in Direct Loans across 38.7 million borrowers, according to the latest student loan debt statistics.

At $300 billion, you can't cancel all of it — that's about 18% of the total. But targeted well, $300 billion is enough to make tens of millions of borrowers completely debt-free.

Where you point it changes everything.

5 Ways To Use $300 Billion For Student Loans - And Who Wins

1. Erase student loans for everyone under $20,000. Clearing the debt for every Direct Loan borrower who owes less than $20,000 costs $186.7 billion and wipes out the debt for 21.2 million borrowers (more than half of all federal Direct Loan holders) entirely. The remaining $113 billion knocks about $12,700 off each of the 8.9 million borrowers in the next $20K–$40K band of borrowers. 

Best for: maximizing the number of people who hit a zero balance.

2. Give (almost) everyone $10,000. A flat $10,000 cancellation (the same design as Biden's plan that the Supreme Court struck down) fully clears the 12.9 million borrowers who owe under $10,000 and gives $10,000 to the other 25.8 million. Total cost lands near $300–324 billion and helps all 38.7 million Direct Loan borrowers. 

Best for: spreading relief as widely as possible.

3. Wipe out the distressed. Direct Loan borrowers who were 31 to 360 days delinquent held roughly $111 billion. That means $300 billion could clear every delinquent borrower and still leave nearly $189 billion to cancel debt for those already in default and sent to collections. 

Best for: targeting the people actually drowning.

4. Rescue the undergraduate borrowers. The single largest group of borrowers is the $20K–$40K bracket — 8.9 million people holding $253.9 billion. That's the typical four-year college graduates' loan debt amount. These are people who typically just did undergraduate degrees and didn't borrow more than normal. For $300 billion, you erase this entire bracket and still have about $46 billion to spare. 

Best for: the "typical" 4-year college graduate.

5. Protect seniors and wipe out the smallest balances. Borrowers 62 and older hold $105.4 billion (2.0 million people, many facing Social Security garnishments in the future). Add every borrower under $10,000 ($65.9 billion, 12.9 million people), and the bill is just $171 billion — clearing 14.9 million people with room left over.

Best for: protecting retirees and the lowest-balance borrowers.

Quick Fact Check On The $300B Number

The viral $300B is not official, and may not even be US-funded. We don't have all the answers on this number yet. Vice President JD Vance has said the proposed Iran fund would be financed by Gulf nations, not U.S. taxpayers, and President Trump has publicly disputed the $300 billion figure itself.

The student loan math above is real, but the "U.S. money for Iran" premise is contested.

How This Connects

The average federal student loan balance is about $39,375, with a median near $20,281 — which is exactly why bottom-up loan forgiveness goes so far.

Roughly one-third of all borrowers owe less than $20,000, so a relatively small share of the dollars cancels debt for a huge share of people. For context, the entire Public Service Loan Forgiveness program has discharged about $85.5 billion since inception. $300 billion would be more than three times that — in one stroke.

The catch: no student loan forgiveness plan changes why the balance keeps climbing. Total federal debt rose from $1.565 trillion to nearly $1.7 trillion even as record amounts were forgiven, because new borrowing and interest keep outpacing relief.

Don't Miss These Other Stories:

The U.S. Department of Education announced on June 16, 2026 that it is handing operational responsibility for two of its most consequential non-financial aid functions (services for students with disabilities and enforcement of federal civil rights laws as it relates to education) to other federal agencies.

Under four new interagency agreements, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will support the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), while the Department of Justice (DOJ) will take on civil rights enforcement, student privacy protection, and desegregation training and advisory services.

The move is the latest and largest step in an effort that has been going on for more than a year. It follows 10 earlier partnerships that shifted programs to the Departments of Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury, and HHS. The move is clear: the Trump administration wants to shrink the footprint of the Education Department without waiting for Congress to formally eliminate it.

What Actually Changes (And What Didn't)

The single most important point for families to understand is what these agreements are not. They are not a repeal of any law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) all remain fully in effect. The legal rights students and parents hold under those statutes do not change because an agency reorganizes who administers a program.

The agreements are built on a legal tool called an interagency agreement, authorized under the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535). That statute lets one federal agency contract with another to perform services. As the Department's own fact sheet notes (PDF File), these agreements have been used by both Democratic and Republican administrations, including a 2022 agreement under the Biden administration directing the Department of Labor to administer certain First Step Act grants.

An interagency agreement cannot, on its own, transfer or end a statutory duty that Congress assigned to the Education Department.

That distinction matters because the Department says it is keeping its legal authority. In the civil rights partnership, the agencies state that "the enforcement of federal civil rights laws will continue without interruption, and ED will retain all statutory authorities and functions."

On special education, the Department says the partnership "does not alter" the federal government's obligation to enforce disability rights laws.

When the administration moved six education programs to four other agencies in late 2025, we pointed out that interagency agreements do not change the underlying law — responsibility for these programs still legally sits with the Department of Education, and shuffling the operational work to another agency does not save money, improve outcomes, or improve accountability on its own.

And all of these moves also track with what we expected last year.

Special Education Moves To Health And Human Services (HHS)

Under the HHS partnership, the agency that already oversees Medicaid, Head Start, and a range of disability programs will support the administration of OSERS, the office that houses IDEA and vocational rehabilitation. The stated goal is to reduce bureaucratic friction and better coordinate the disability services that are currently split across two government departments.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon framed the partnership around outcomes. "Through our partnership with HHS, we will align federal services with the goal of strengthening academic outcomes and supporting individuals with disabilities so that they can achieve greater independence, key life skills, and meaningful employment," she said.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. added that the two agencies would "cut bureaucratic barriers, better align federal resources, and deliver more effective support for individuals with disabilities and their families."

Along with the announcement, Secretary McMahon recorded this video message to parents:

Some context on scale: IDEA marked its 50th anniversary in 2025, and more than 8 million infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities are served under the law today — more than double the number when it passed in 1975.

The administration has paired the reorganization with a funding pitch, including a proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget request for what it describes as a historic increase of more than half a billion dollars above the prior special education appropriation, and a recently announced $144 million boost for state and local IDEA programs.

Important note that those figures are administration claims as the FY2027 budget is a request to Congress, not enacted funding.

One conceptual concern advocates have raised is philosophical as much as administrative. IDEA treats disability as an education matter (guaranteeing a free appropriate public education) not as a medical condition to be treated. Housing its administration inside a health agency makes that boundary worth watching, even though the statute itself is unchanged.

Civil Rights Enforcement Moves To Department Of Justice (DOJ)

The Department of Justice will also take on a coordinating role in civil rights enforcement alongside the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (ED-OCR). The two agencies have actually shared a coordinated enforcement agreement for more than two decades, so the partnership builds on existing collaboration rather than inventing it from scratch.

Many actions you see against colleges and even individual fraudsters come from this partnership.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the partnership aims to "build a stronger, more coordinated civil rights enforcement system — one that makes clear that discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or ability will not be tolerated in our schools."

DOJ will also partner with ED on student privacy under FERPA and on the training and advisory services that help school districts develop desegregation plans, an authority rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

How This Will Impact Families Moving Forward

For parents and students, the practical answer right now is: handle issues the same way you always have. 

The Department's civil rights fact sheet is explicit that the partnership "will not impact students, parents or families who believe they have experienced discrimination." Anyone who believes discrimination occurred in an education program can still file a complaint with ED-OCR, which retains authority to investigate complaints based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age. Complaints can be filed electronically through the OCR website, and OCR staff remain available on the status of pending cases.

The same continuity applies to special education. IEPs and 504 plans are written and enforced at the school and district level under federal law. A change in which federal agency provides back-office administration does not rewrite your child's plan or remove a school or district's legal obligations.

The open questions are about execution and oversight, not rights. Splitting closely related functions across agencies can fragment coordination, slow guidance, and blur lines of accountability when something goes wrong.

Whether families experience faster, more responsive service or new bureaucratic seams will depend on how these agreements are implemented and that will take months or years to become clear.

Don't Miss These Other Stories:

Syracuse University Chancellor J. Michael Haynie told the community last week that it will not hit its undergraduate enrollment target for the fall and, as a result, will run a budget deficit "something the University has not experienced in quite some time."

His letter framed the shortfall as the product of national forces: a shrinking pool of 18-year-olds, fierce competition for students, and a drop in international applications tied to visa problems and federal policy.

While that backdrop is true, we believe it to be only partly responsible for Syracuse's downfall. Haynie's letter casts the deficit as the "new normal" for "even strong, well-resourced universities" — a framing that quietly recasts a Syracuse problem as everyone's problem.

Syracuse spent the past several years making a series of financial and communication decisions that alienated the very families it now needs. Plenty of peer schools face the same demographic and policy headwinds, but have been seeing record applications and normal enrollment. 

The "new normal" is true and smaller private universities do face headwinds and risks, but much of what Syracuse is facing is self-inflicted.

A Deficit Years In The Making

Undergraduate tuition is the university's primary source of revenue, and missing the enrollment target means Syracuse "will not bring in enough revenue to cover its spending." Haynie urged "urgency and purpose, not panic," and said enrollment volatility has become the "new normal" even for strong, well-resourced schools. 

Our take is this: some of Syracuse's shortfall is the new normal but a lot of their issues is due to a string of decisions other schools simply didn't make. It's telling that this letter is from a chancellor who's only been in position for a few months, at a college that's seen a slate of public gaffes. 

The exposure is structural. Student services revenue (including room and board for sophomores and up, plus athletic ticket sales) accounts for 65% of Syracuse's operating income, according to Syracuse.com. When headcount drops, the financial hit lands immediately.

The slide has been building for more than a year. In fall 2025, the university reported overall enrollment falling roughly 3.5%, driven largely by declines in international and master's students, then-Chancellor Kent Syverud said.

International students historically made up about 15% of Syracuse's student body and typically pay the full $69,180 annual tuition, so their absence carries outsized weight. Those numbers fell after the Trump administration temporarily suspended visa interviews in mid-2025, and three Syracuse students had their visas abruptly revoked as part of a federal action affecting more than 1,700 students nationwide. Syracuse's Center for International Services, the official liaison with U.S. immigration offices, lost more than a third of its staff over the summer.

The Financial Aid Unforced Error

Syracuse has been the butt of financial aid professional jokes for the last several years.

In spring 2025 (with echoes happening on a smaller scale in 2026), the university lowballed admitted students on merit aid, then reversed course after coming up short on commitments, offering some students who had already declined packages worth up to $200,000 over four years.

The New York Times documented the situation in a June 2025 article headlined "Why Did Syracuse Offer $200,000 Deals to Teens Who Had Turned It Down?"

The fallout, reported by The Daily Orange, fell hardest on families who followed the rules. Parents who committed by the May 1 national decision deadline watched students who waited (or who had declined outright) receive tens of thousands of dollars more. 

One parent who appealed said she was offered $2,500 at a time, "which, compared to the $45,000 one could get just by not committing, became a bit of a joke." Another called it "totally a slap in the face." Multiple families said emails to the financial aid office went unanswered.

The episode was not a rounding error. It rewarded indecision, punished loyalty, and signaled to thousands of families that Syracuse's published deadlines and merit criteria were negotiable. Merit aid, one alum told The Daily Orange, "should reward achievement and make a great education accessible — not serve as a last-minute admissions tactic."

For a school whose entire educational pitch rests on trust, the reputational damage arrived just before the very recruiting cycle now coming up short.

What We've Been Hearing From Families

At The College Investor, we spend a lot of time reading what parents and students actually say about paying for college (across our Facebook communities, our comment sections and the questions readers send us directly). 

Syracuse has been coming up, and the sentiment is not good.

The near-six-figure sticker price is the first turnoff. Even families who can write the check tell us they see a number close to $95,000 a year and quietly cross the school off the list before they ever weigh the financial aid award. A sticker price that high doesn't just screen out who can pay - it also it shapes who bothers to apply.

The aid messaging is the second, and in our communities it may be doing more damage than the price. After the 2025 episode became public, the takeaway families repeated was not "Syracuse is generous." It was some variation of "Syracuse plays games."

Parents described feeling like they were dealing with a used-car salesman — that the published deadline and the first offer were openers, not real numbers, and that the family who trusted the process paid more than the family who walked away. And many were now waiting because they felt that Syracuse would wait to offer more aid.

That is a corrosive thing for a college to teach the people considering paying for it. Once families believe the aid number is a tactic rather than an assessment of their student, some stop applying altogether rather than risk being the ones who get played.

This is the part of the story the "new normal" framing misses entirely. National demographics don't explain why our readers specifically distrust Syracuse's financial aid office. That distrust was earned, and it is showing up in the exact behavior a tuition-dependent school can least afford: qualified families choosing not to apply at all.

What This Means For Families Considering Syracuse

For households weighing Syracuse, the lesson is simple: the sticker price is high and the discount system is opaque. Cost of attendance is nearing $95,000 a year, and while the university touted a 7% increase to its aid budget last year, bringing the total to $391 million, families learned that the timing and size of an award could hinge on whether they held out rather than on a student's record.

The deficit also raises practical questions for current students. Budget gaps tend to surface in larger class sizes, thinner student services, deferred maintenance, and pressure on the programs students enrolled to study.

Syracuse has already started some changes: in April, the university announced it would sunset 93 programs through an Academic Portfolio Review — cutting a catalog of roughly 460 degree programs and certificates that Provost Lois Agnew noted was "well above the peer average of roughly 200 programs" at comparable institutions.

The university also offered voluntary retirement packages to about 175 faculty. By the provost's own figures, 55 of the 93 programs had zero students enrolled, and the closures affect 258 students (about 1.2% of the student body) all of whom will be allowed to finish their degrees.

Agnew stressed the review "was not a cost-cutting exercise" and that no positions were slated for elimination, framing it instead as "disciplined stewardship." Even taken at face value, it is a striking amount of institutional restructuring to land in the same window as a budget warning. Families paying near six figures a year have a reasonable expectation that the catalog they chose will still exist at graduation.

For prospective students, the practical move is to treat any single school's financial aid offer as a starting point, not a verdict, and to compare net price across multiple schools.

This cycle once again showed that schools facing enrollment pressure may sweeten offers after May 1 — but counting on that is a gamble.

What Happens Next

Haynie is right that demography is tightening. The number of 18-year-old high school graduates peaked at 3.9 million last year and is projected to decline for the next 15, a squeeze every tuition-dependent school will feel.

But that is precisely why the "new normal" framing deserves scrutiny: if the headwinds are universal, the differentiator is execution — and Syracuse's execution is what failed.

Other expensive institutions face the same demographic cliff without generating headlines about poaching their rivals' declined applicants after the May 1 deadline, ignoring parents' emails, or gutting the office that supports international students. Blaming macroeconomics for an outcome your competitors avoided is not analysis, it's deflection.

The deficit is a moment of accountability for an administration that, over the past year, raised prices, restructured programs, mishandled aid, and let its international-student support erode — then asked families to trust that everything is under control and that the rest of higher education is in the same boat.

Whether Syracuse emerges "stronger," as Haynie predicts, will depend less on the national environment than on whether leadership stops treating the families who pay the bills as variables to be optimized. 

One of the biggest reasons families distrust higher education is pricing, and Syracuse is a prime example as to why.

Don't Miss These Other Stories: