The funding gap is a number. What matters is what people do in response to it. This section moves from calculation to projection, using the data above to identify which programs are most likely to see enrollment changes and where those changes intersect with documented workforce shortages.

The programs most likely to experience enrollment changes are not those with the largest dollar gaps (which tend to be high-ROI programs where students have strong financial incentive to persist) but those with moderate gaps and modest salary outcomes, where private lending underwriting may be less favorable.

Workforce Pipeline Implications

If enrollment declines in these programs, the effects correspond to specific workforce pipelines:

  • Social workers staff child protective services, hospitals, schools, and mental health clinics. BLS projects 74,000 annual openings for social workers through 2034, with 6% employment growth (BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2024-2034 projections).
  • Public health professionals run epidemiological surveillance, vaccination programs, and emergency preparedness.
  • Teachers with graduate credentials (Education, MAT) are required for salary advancement in most districts. Changes to this pipeline could affect K-12 staffing.
  • Mental health counselors and psychologists are in documented shortage nationwide. An APA survey found 60% of psychologists had no openings for new patients, with average waitlists of three months or longer (APA, 2022 Practitioner Impact Survey). Over 169 million Americans live in a Mental Health Professional Shortage Area (HRSA, 2023).

These effects operate on a lag. The policy decision was made in 2025. Loan access changes in 2026. Enrollment changes would show up in 2026–2028. The workforce effects follow in 2029–2032. It takes two years to train a social worker. Five to seven for a psychologist.

Composition Effects

Private market underwriting and enrollment pressure together point toward a compositional shift. In programs where the funding gap is large relative to salary outcomes and private lending approval rates are lower, the students most likely to persist are those with access to non-loan funding: savings, family funds, employer sponsorship, or institutional scholarships.

The mechanism is mechanical:

  1. Federal lending is capped below cost of attendance.
  2. Private lenders evaluate each borrower's credit profile and the program's expected ROI.
  3. For programs with lower expected salary outcomes, approval rates and loan terms are less favorable.
  4. Students with access to non-loan funding continue to enroll. Students dependent on borrowing face a different cost-benefit calculation.

Private loans have never offered income-driven repayment or public service loan forgiveness, protections available under federal loans that have historically mitigated the repayment burden for graduates entering lower-paying public service fields. Institutional responses, such as increased scholarship funding, employer partnerships, or tuition restructuring, could partially offset these compositional pressures, though the scale and timing of such responses are unknown.