Is NATA Really Advocating with the RISE Student Loan Fight?

This is not advocacy, this is increasing debt. A loan has interest on top of tuition. It only elongates the process of payment and increases cost.

Are we advocating for easier access to debt, or are we advocating for a more affordable pathway into the profession?

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

While protecting student access to federal loans may provide short-term relief, it does not address the underlying issue:

The rising cost of athletic training education.

Increased borrowing capacity can unintentionally enable continued tuition inflation, leaving graduates with greater debt burdens while entering a profession that has historically struggled with compensation and workforce retention. Rather than focusing solely on preserving access to loans, the profession should also be examining strategies to reduce the overall cost of education, improve return on investment, expand employer-sponsored pathways, and create more affordable routes into athletic training.

We keep talking about how business fundamentals are not discussed in AT curriculum… let’s dupe more students into joining a professional that still has not provided or validated a good enough ROI for the cost of this educational pursuit.

*As a paying member of the NATA I have never been asked if this is something that I want advocated for. It brings a lot of questions on if the NATA really reflects or listens to me as a practicing athletic trainer or member of this organization. I do not feel that these initiates are adequately communicated or debated before a stance is taken to represent a national body