‘We Need Many More College Graduates,’ Says Obama’s Departing Higher-Ed Adviser

James Kvaal, President Obama’s top higher-education adviser, left the White House last week for a residency at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. In an interview on Tuesday with The Chronicle, he reflected on his biggest accomplishments, his biggest battles, and what lies ahead — for him and his former boss.

Q. You spent seven years in the Obama administration — on the campaign trail, at the Education Department, and in the White House. What are you proudest of accomplishing during that time?

A. One of the things that I really hope we accomplished is to make the case to the country that we really need a dramatic increase in educational attainment. We had something like that with the high-school movement a hundred years ago, and we had a dramatic lead in education over the rest of the world. That edge in educational attainment has really helped fuel our economic growth, but we have leveled off.

I think the president started a national conversation around how we need to help more people earn degrees, and he also put in place some of the most important building blocks to help us get there: One is increasing scholarships; the second is helping students manage student loans; and the third is helping colleges do a better job at providing a quality education at an affordable price.

Q. What didn’t get done that you’d hoped would?

A. The president says this is a relay race, and I think that’s certainly true. There is a lot of unfinished work. One thing that will be a big focus for Secretary King [John B. King Jr., who was confirmed as the new education secretary on Monday] is helping students repay their loans. We still have hundreds of thousands of students defaulting every year, even though under Pay as You Earn, they ought to be able to get into a situation where they can repay them. We have to do a much better job of reaching students and helping them understand they can meet their obligations.

Q. President Obama has pushed colleges to become both more affordable and more accountable. Do you think colleges are sufficiently concerned about costs and student outcomes, particularly labor-market outcomes?

A. I think colleges are very different, and I think the reasons students go into college are different. Certainly, many of them are seeking a degree in order to get a good job, but that’s not the only reason. I do think we need to make sure that students are coming out of college in a position where they are able to afford to repay their loans, at the very least.

The gainful-employment regulation applies only to those programs that are explicitly intended to help their students get a good job. In that case, asking if those students are earning enough to repay their loans is an appropriate metric.

Q. What was the biggest fight of your tenure? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess gainful employment.

A. That certainly was one where people had very strong feelings on both sides.

The end result is a very good one. You see for-profit colleges trying to improve the quality of their programs, bring down prices, and offer free orientation programs. Some of them do a particularly good job of serving working and older students, but we need to make sure that when those for-profit colleges are doing well financially, it’s because their students are also doing well.

Q. How did the pushback from for-profit colleges on gainful employment compare to the pushback from lenders on the switch to 100-percent direct lending?

A. For the first more than a decade of my career, I was working on direct student loans. It was clear to me that we could save a lot of money for taxpayers and reinvest it in students by moving to [100-percent] direct loans. But it seemed like an impossible pipe dream. When this president took office, with the financial crisis, it was a moment where it was achievable.

Gainful employment was much more difficult — it was an industry that was at its peak in 2009-10, and there certainly were a lot of people very interested coming out from all sides. We’ve just now gotten through the litigation piece of it, and there are some in Congress who still want to roll it back, which I think would be a big mistake.

Q. Are you satisfied with how the rule turned out in the end? Is it a strong-enough accountability measure?

A. I think that the rule is very strong rule, and I think it’s having a big impact on the industry. Anyone who doesn’t agree with that should look out the window. But I think there is more work to do to make sure that the student-aid programs are focusing on outcomes and that colleges are helping students succeed and get good jobs. I don’t think gainful employment is a silver bullet or the end of our work in this area.

Q. What about the revamped College Scorecard? Were you disappointed by the decision to do away with the ratings plan?

A. I think where we ended up is a pretty positive place. I think employment outcomes is a very important piece of information. It is not the only thing that matters, but I don’t think we should ask students to make one of the most important decisions in their lives without understanding the ramifications. The fact that we were able to get out the first reliable, comparable data on employment outcomes is a tremendous achievement. People in the private sector are picking up that data and putting their own take on it.

I think we also need to be thinking about ways to demonstrate the noneconomic value of college. That is a difficult challenge for the community. But the answer is not to give students less information, but to figure out what else we’re providing, and demonstrate to students that it’s useful.

Q. One of your signature policy proposals was free community college. Over the past year, you have been selling the plan to state and local policy makers. Do you think we’ll ever have a federally funded plan, or is this something that’s going to happen at the state and local level?

A. In our system, these things rarely happen in one fell swoop. It would be great if the president could hit a walk-off home run, but I think more likely is a series of singles. That’s the way high school became free and universal — it wasn’t a single step.

You can see some federal progress, but ultimately, we’re going to have to do it together as a country, and not just look to Congress to do everything for us.

This is a moment for community colleges. There is widespread concern about costs and student debt, a focus on the precariousness that many middle-class families feel; there is concern about debt; and there is respect for the practical, useful education community colleges provide. So I think there is a lot of momentum here.

Q. You also had a hand in simplifying the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Is the form simple enough now, or are more changes needed?

A. There is more to do. I am very proud of what the administration has been able to accomplish. We reduced the time to complete [the form] from an hour to 20 minutes. When you consider that there are 20 million Fafsas being filled out each year, that’s a lot of Advil.

We need to be much more strategic and deliberate in making sure students fill out the form. We’re sharing info with high schools about who has filled it out, to get rates up.

Q. What will be the Obama administration’s legacy on higher education?

A. The defining goal, the North Star as [the former education secretary, Arne] Duncan used to call it, is the idea that we need many more college graduates. That includes two-year degrees, certificate programs that have real value in the work force. I think that is a real, clear vision of where we need to go as a country. It’s time for another big step forward on education, like the one we took on high schools years ago.

Over time, it will become clear how many of the foundational pieces we have put into place, with Pell Grants, college tax credits, more-affordable student loans, and perhaps more important, our partnership with colleges in helping them identify ways to help students learn and graduate at an affordable tuition now.

Q. You’re heading to the University of Michigan for a semester. What interests you about teaching?

A. It’s an opportunity to order my thoughts about higher education. I really enjoyed my opportunity here to work with younger people. I am really looking forward to engaging with them and hopefully giving them a bit of a head start in their careers in public service.

Q. Are you done with Washington, or do you still have the bug?

A. I think what’s best for me is to explore something else for a while. It’s been a tremendous honor to serve, and the importance of some of the decisions that the president makes is humbling, but I think it would be good for me to spend some time closer to where those decisions are having an impact, on students, and seeing what it is like at a different level.

Kelly Field is a senior reporter covering federal higher-education policy. Contact her at kelly.field@chronicle.com. Or follow her on Twitter @kfieldCHE.