An act to add Section 66014.9 to the Education Code, relating to public postsecondary education.
AB 718 would add Section 66014.9 to the Education Code to require California State University to include additional consumer-information disclosures in admission notifications, and would request the University of California to do the same. The bill focuses on giving prospective students clearer information about the likely financial return of a degree by requiring admission letters to include a hyperlink to labor market outcome information and information about student loans. Under the bill, the required loan information includes the federal student loan statement already used in financial aid materials, plus an explanation that public and private loans can have different interest rates and fees, along with a hypothetical example showing how repayment schedules affect total interest paid over the life of a loan.
The bill also requires admission letters to include average salary data and average student loan payment data for the admitted student’s intended area of study. For the academic years 2026-27 through 2031-32, the data may be systemwide averages for graduates in that field; beginning in 2032-33, the data must be disaggregated by campus. The bill allows existing labor market outcome data collected under Section 66014.3 to satisfy the new requirement, and it expressly requires that any data collected or provided comply with state and federal privacy laws.
AB 718 would affect the CSU directly as a mandatory requirement and the UC indirectly through a request rather than a mandate, consistent with the Legislature’s different treatment of the two systems in some education statutes. It would expand the information public universities must provide to applicants, but it does not create a new grant program or alter admissions criteria. The bill is framed as a transparency measure intended to help students compare programs based on earnings potential and borrowing costs before enrolling.
The available vote history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, passing 10-0 on a do-pass-as-amended motion and being sent onward with a recommendation to the consent calendar. There is no committee transcript in the provided materials, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have relatively strong procedural support and little visible controversy at this stage.
The main point of potential contention is the policy choice to require salary and loan-payment disclosures in admission letters, which some may view as useful consumer information and others may see as adding administrative burden or oversimplifying educational outcomes. Another possible issue is the phased implementation, especially the later shift to campus-specific data, which may raise questions about data availability, comparability, and privacy. However, based on the vote and absence of recorded opposition, any concerns do not appear to have generated significant resistance in the materials provided.
AB 718 would add a new Education Code section requiring CSU admission notifications to include labor market outcome links, average salary data, and average student loan payment data for the student’s intended field of study, while requesting UC to do the same. It would incorporate existing labor market outcome reporting under Section 66014.3 and existing federal student loan disclosure language under Section 69800, and it would require compliance with privacy laws. The bill would not change admissions standards, but it would expand mandatory applicant disclosures and create a phased timeline for more detailed campus-level reporting beginning in 2032-33.
The bill appears to have been received positively in the Legislature, at least at the committee level, with a unanimous 10-0 vote to pass as amended and move it forward. The lack of recorded committee testimony suggests no major public controversy is reflected in the provided materials. Overall, the sentiment is supportive of increasing transparency for prospective students about earnings and debt outcomes.
The likely areas of contention are whether requiring salary and student loan information in admission letters is an appropriate state mandate and whether the data may be too generalized or potentially misleading for individual students. CSU would be directly required to comply, while UC is only requested to participate, which could also be a point of policy discussion about consistency across the public higher education systems. The bill’s phased approach, especially the later campus-specific data requirement and privacy safeguards, may raise implementation and data-quality concerns, but no explicit opposition is shown in the provided record.