But while neither side disagrees with the thought process behind the rule, there are a lot of concerns with its actual implementation and the sheer number of students it will impact.

In draft form, the rule planned to set a threshold for the percentage of earnings taken up by annual loan payments and for the program’s total default rate on the loans taken out by former students. If the program could not meet those thresholds, then they would not receive federal funding for students in the form of student loans or grant programs.

The final version made the debt-to-earnings ratio much tougher, but eliminated the student loan default rate from the equation.

The elimination of the default loan rate as the second measure of accountability surprised advocates of the law, but it has been the downfall of the rule in past versions.

The threshold on a student loan repayment rate included in the 2011 version of the rule was struck down by a judge as being insufficiently justified, New America reported. But while Education Department officials originally claimed this change was due to the 95,000 comments received during the public comment process, they admitted to the New York Times that concerns over future legal challenges actually led them to drop the cohort default rate as a standard.

President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan visit a classroom at the Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH) in Brooklyn, N.Y., Oct. 25, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) 

Steven Cruz of the LIBRE Foundation, a non-partisan organization that focuses on the Hispanic community, said this was just another case of the Obama administration paying nothing but “lip service” to constituent concerns instead of “creating policy that is evidence-based.”

The final version included several other changes from the previous draft.

Schools will now have a longer transition time to make sure they are in compliance, but they will no longer have a “mitigating circumstances” appeal process to use if found to be failing. Schools will also have to denote their failing “grade” and disclose that information to all students and the state accreditation boards.

“The gainful employment regulation is nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to cut off access to education for millions of students who have been historically underserved by higher education. Regulations created and issued based on bias against certain institutions have no place in our country,” Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, said in a statement.

The complicated final rule is more than 800 pages long and though it attempts to make concessions to both sides, it seems to have just made a regulatory mess.

“This is another case of the government being the central planner and dictating what people need to do and going about it in the absolutely worst way,” Cruz said, comparing the “gainful employment” rule to the Affordable Care Act.

Critics of the law are still concerned about the tough standards imposed by the debt-to-earnings ratio.

The final version states that in order to receive a passing grade – and thus receive federal funding – the program’s graduates must have annual loan payments less than 8 percent of total earnings or less than 20 percent of discretionary earnings.

“Once again the Department elected to arbitrarily change metrics and regulations to favor certain institutions over others. In this case, the Department favored public institutions that benefit from generous taxpayer operational subsidies, but have lower graduation rates and higher default rates, over programs at private sector institutions where graduates are achieving real earning gains and successfully repaying their loans,” Gunderson said in a statement.

“…If this regulation were applied evenly across all of higher education, students seeking a law degree from George Washington University Law School, a bachelor’s in Hospitality Administration from Stephen F. Austin State University and a bachelor’s in Social Work from University of Texas would lose access as well. We will vigorously contest all these issues to help ensure that students, employers and communities are not harmed by such an arbitrary and biased regulation.”

The Department of Education has repeatedly refused to state where the 8 percent metric derives from. The average debt-to-earnings ratio at for-profit institutions is currently 16 percent, Cruz said.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Wednesday that if current performances were graded under the new restrictions about 1,400 academic programs that enroll 840,000 students would fail to meet the standards, Inside Higher Ed reported. At least 99 percent of the failing programs would be at for-profit institutions.

“We’re still seeing a widespread effect particularly among people who are enrolled in for-profit institutions, which are underrepresented minorities, veterans and people who for some reason have not had the opportunity to pursue your standard four-year degree,” Cruz said.

“The Department of Education took people’s concerns and did absolutely nothing to address them other than the bare minimum and because of their hubris they are going to be affecting hundreds of thousands of minorities and disadvantaged students and making it even more difficult for them to have a shot at the American Dream.”