Student loan borrowers looking to get a fresh start in bankruptcy have little hope.

That’s the overwhelming sentiment in more than 400 comments submitted this week to the Department of Education. The comments came in response to a request from the Department earlier this year for input on what loan holders should consider when evaluating a borrower’s request to have their student loans discharged in bankruptcy.

It’s difficult to wipe away a student loan in bankruptcy. Borrowers have to prove that paying down the debt would create “an undue hardship,” a notoriously hard standard to meet. Historically, the government has fought borrowers with federal loans aggressively in court as they try to prove their finances are so hopeless that they’ll never be able to pay down their student debt.

For the past several years, borrower advocates, lawyers and even some bankruptcy judges have advocated tweaking the bankruptcy process to make it easier for borrowers to wipe away their student debt. Though it would take an act of Congress to allow borrowers to discharge their student debt without proving undue hardship, the Department of Education does have some discretion in the extent to which they fight these cases. Memos from the Department could also hold some sway in how judges evaluate the cases.

The comments submitted over the past few months aim to advise the Department on these issues — and experts believe a big change is in order, said John Rao, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center and an expert on consumer bankruptcy.

Struggling to pay student debt? Here's what you need to know.

It’s hard to say what will happen next, but Rao said he’s hopeful the Department will change their approach based on the comments. “If they do nothing there’s this huge record now of all these people laying out all these problems,” he said.

Below is some of what they think could be done to address these issues:

Establish clear criteria where loan holders won’t fight a borrower’s request for undue hardship

Borrowers in certain circumstances would very clearly suffer an undue hardship if forced to pay back their student loans, many experts noted in their commentary. If borrowers meet these criteria, then the Department and its loan holders shouldn’t fight their undue hardship request. Experts suggested different criteria in the letters, but they centered around similar themes, including establishing whether a borrower is near the poverty line, has been deemed by the Department of Veterans affairs to be unemployable due to a disability, or is a caretaker for an elderly disabled or chronically ill person.

Use the more lenient standard established by the courts when determining whether a borrower has suffered undue hardship

Congress never defined the phrase undue hardship in the law exempting student loans from bankruptcy discharge, so it’s been up to the courts to define it themselves. In most jurisdictions, courts use a standard called the Brunner test to determine whether a borrower would suffer an undue hardship by paying back their student loan. The Brunner test requires a borrower to prove that they’ve made a good-faith effort to repay the debt, that their financial circumstances are such that they can’t have a reasonable standard of living if they repay the debt, and that those financial circumstances are likely to persist in the future.

This standard is not only difficult to meet, but jurisdictions don’t apply it uniformly. What’s more, other jurisdictions use a completely different test called the “totality of circumstances,” which takes a broader view of a debtor’s financial situation to determine whether repaying their loan would constitute an undue hardship.

“As a result, relief may be determined based on where the debtor lives or the judge assigned to her case. This creates unnecessary disparities and ambiguity in the system,” Christopher Chapman, the president of AccessLex, a law school trade group wrote in his comments.

To mitigate this problem, the government should use the more lenient totality of circumstances test, when determining whether to fight a borrower’s undue hardship petition, the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York wrote.

Get rid of obstacles that make it costly for borrowers to pursue a student loan discharge in bankruptcy

One of the reasons it’s so rare for borrowers to have their student loans wiped away in bankruptcy: So few actually try. Proving an undue hardship often requires costly litigation that borrowers filing for bankruptcy aren’t likely to be able to afford.

One way to avoid these costs, according to a group of professors who study student loans and bankruptcy: The Department and its loan holders should accept proof from borrowers — such as a written and sworn statement, their tax returns, verification of Social Security benefits etc. — that show a borrower is unlikely to be able to repay their loans and meet a basic standard of living. That will help to minimize the often costly formal discovery process, the professors say.

Often this discovery is also unnecessarily invasive and judgmental, NCLC’s letter notes. In an effort to portray borrowers as irresponsible and not making a good-faith effort to pay back their loans, it’s become “common practice” for the government and its loan holders to argue in court that “restaurant meals, cable television, internet access or casual alcohol consumption are avoidable and could free up income to pay the student debt,” the letter reads.

Don’t make government repayment plans a consideration for whether discharge is appropriate

Often in fighting a borrower’s request to have their debt wiped away in bankruptcy, the government will argue that borrowers can take advantage of repayment plans that allow them to repay the debt as a percentage of their income. Many commenters suggested that the government stop considering whether a borrower could benefit from an income-based repayment plan when evaluating if their debt should be discharged.

Though borrowers can stay current on their loans through these plans for as little as zero dollars a month, administrative challenges often make it difficult for borrowers to stay on them. What’s more, the borrower will likely wind up throwing a minimal at the debt for decades, then have the remainder of the debt forgiven, only to face a whopping tax bill on the forgiven amount, advocates say.

In addition, requiring the borrower to repay the debt through one of these programs is a cost to the government that could be avoided by simply discharging the loan, advocates say. NCLC cites the example of a 60-year-old unemployed man subsisting on $194 per month in food stamps, who due to his criminal background, age and race is unlikely to ever find a job.

“Despite this bleak future, the Department argued that the debtor should not receive a bankruptcy discharge and instead should enroll in an IDR with a $0 payment. Simply put, the Department’s policy amounts to throwing good money after bad,” the letter reads. “Efforts to keep the debtor on an IDR for 20 or 25 years, including the administrative costs of annual re-certifications and collection costs if the debtor re-defaults, impose a real cost on the student loan system and taxpayers that is not offset by future recoveries.”

Cut borrowers who didn’t finish college or were victims of illegal conduct some slack

Multiple commenters suggested that the Department and its loan holders weigh whether a borrower finished college or were the victim of fraudulent conduct in deciding if they should to oppose their petition to have their debt wiped away in bankruptcy. Over the past several years, for-profit colleges have been accused of luring students with inflated graduation and job placement rates.

The result, according to many borrower advocates has been thousands of students with debt and no degree or in some cases a degree that offers them little help in the labor market.

“Given the burdens that victims of school misconduct face, we urge the Department to give special consideration to borrowers who attended schools that were later determined to have engaged in illegal conduct,” the attorneys general wrote.