Blog

Today the Administration announced a multifaceted plan to protect and support student loan borrowers. The announcement includes commitments to improve loan counseling, institute clear servicing standards and disclosures, and to help more borrowers enroll in income-driven repayment plans.

Students should have the best information in the right format to make critical decisions about how to pay for college. Loan counseling can play an integral role in helping student loan borrowers make wise decisions and avoid delinquency and default. The Department of Education’s online loan counseling tools serve 6.5 million students a year, and the Administration’s plan to make improvements based on input from borrowers and other stakeholders will help more students make the choices that are right for them. For TICAS’ recommendations to improve loan counseling that do not require legislation, click here.

Student loan servicers are paid more than $800 million a year to help borrowers access the repayment options, protections, and benefits that come with federal loans. Yet even so, a record 7.9 million borrowers are in default, and there are more than two million federal student loan borrowers over 90 days delinquent. Servicing failures, exacerbated by a lack of standards and misaligned incentives, are widespread. Once implemented and enforced, the standards outlined by the Administration – as well as the commitment to seek input on them – will make a huge difference for borrowers.

Providing borrowers in repayment with better information at the right time is a clear-cut next step. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Payback Playbook would share personalized information with borrowers to improve their understanding of repayment options, a positive move in the right direction. For TICAS’ recommendations on student loan servicing, click here.

Strengthening servicing standards by fully implementing the Administration’s new Student Loan Borrower Rights would improve servicing for borrowers in the following ways: (1) ensure servicers provide accurate and actionable information; (2) establish a clear set of expectations for minimum requirements for communication and services with borrowers; and (3) hold servicers accountable to borrowers and taxpayers. And, when servicers fail to do the right thing, the Department’s forthcoming complaint system can help ensure that borrowers’ concerns are addressed and resolved. We have recommended that the complaint system be public and searchable, connected to the complaint systems used by other federal and state agencies, and made clearer and easier to use.

Lastly, a key part of ensuring that fewer borrowers default on their loans is boosting borrower awareness of repayment plans that tie monthly payments to income. Our Project on Student Debt developed the policy framework and led the campaign that resulted in enactment of the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan, which has been available to borrowers since 2009. The Administration announced a new goal today to enroll two million more borrowers into income-driven plans like IBR. Although income-driven repayment is not the best choice for every borrower, clearly many more borrowers could benefit from tying their monthly payments to an affordable share of their income and knowing that they will not be repaying their student loans for the rest of their lives. The Debt Challenge, the Administration’s campaign to promote employer outreach and boost awareness of repayment options, will help even more borrowers make better informed repayment decisions. We will do our part to get the word out by contacting more than 100,000 subscribers to our website, IBRinfo.org, and sharing information with our Twitter followers and Facebook friends to remind them about income-driven repayment plans.

As the Administration moves forward on taking action to help borrowers manage student debt, we look forward to seeing these steps, tools, and standards put in place so that fewer borrowers end up delinquent or in default.

Posted in

| Tagged

This week, the U.S. Department of Education announced two changes that will simplify an important but frequently overlooked part of the financial aid process, starting with the 2017-18 school year. As a result, low-income students who file a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) will face fewer barriers to receiving the aid they qualify for, and college financial aid offices will be able to spend more time helping students instead of chasing paper.

The financial application process doesn’t end when students submit the FAFSA, which is the gateway to federal grants, loans, and work-study as well as most state and college aid. Last year alone, 5.3 million students – one in four FAFSA applicants – were required to provide extra documentation to their colleges before they could receive federal student aid. This added step in the FAFSA process is called “verification,” and it mostly affects students with family incomes low enough to qualify for a need-based federal Pell Grant. Our 2010 study, After the FAFSA, found that that the complexity of the verification process unnecessarily prevents many low-income students from receiving aid they are otherwise eligible for. Even for those who get through all the paperwork, the added hurdles delay access to needed aid by weeks or even months into the school year.

The Department has now announced that it is eliminating certain burdensome verification requirements based on clear evidence that they are not worth the trouble for students, schools, or taxpayers.

One of the reasons the Department of Education currently flags students for verification is if the income reported on their FAFSA appears too low to support their household. These students must then document their sources of income and may have to explain how their family survives financially. A recent Boston Globe piece details just how difficult this process can be, and college financial aid administrators have reported tremendous and unnecessary costs to students and schools.

Starting in 2017-18, students will no longer be targeted for verification simply because their families are very poor. The Department of Education said it is eliminating this type of verification because evidence showed that “the burden on families […] far outweighed the benefits.” Nearly all students selected for this form of verification (95%) did not see changes to their Expected Family Contribution (EFC), which is used to determine federal aid amounts.

In addition, students who are flagged for verification for other reasons will no longer have to provide extra paperwork if someone in their family received SNAP benefits (formerly called food stamps) or if they made child support payments. The Department of Education found that verifying those pieces of information did not make students more or less eligible for aid.

We applaud the Department of Education for removing these unnecessary verification requirements, which made the aid application process more complicated for the neediest students. This is an important step, but more still needs to be done to ensure that the FAFSA verification process protects the integrity of the federal student aid program without unduly denying or delaying access to aid that eligible low-income students need to succeed.

This Administration has already dramatically simplified the initial FAFSA filing process for millions of students and families, making it possible for them electronically transfer their tax information into the FAFSA and apply for aid when they typically apply to colleges, as TICAS and many others have urged. We look forward to working with Congress and the Department of Education to further simplify the aid application process from beginning to end for students and schools, both by eliminating unnecessary questions on the form and by further reducing unnecessary verification and paperwork.

Posted in

| Tagged

While the President’s proposed budget fully funds the scheduled increase in the maximum Pell Grant and continues to tie it to inflation after 2017, the House Budget Committee’s FY17 budget eliminates the $120 increase scheduled for 2017-18 and freezes the maximum grant at $5,815 for 10 years.

In the 1980s, the maximum Pell Grant covered more than half of the average annual cost of attending a four-year public college. Cutting the maximum grant and freezing it for the next 10 years would reduce the share of covered costs from an already record low of 29 percent in 2016-17 to just 21 percent by 2026-27, making college even less affordable. 

 

Sources: Calculations by TICAS on data from the College Board, 2015, Trends in College Pricing 2015, Table 2, http://bit.ly/1Pyv2sJ, and U.S. Department of Education data on the maximum Pell Grant. Calculations for 2017-18 through 2026-27 assume that the maximum Pell Grant is frozen at the 2016-17 level. College costs are defined here as average total in-state tuition, fees, and room and board costs at public four-year colleges. Projected college costs for future years were estimated by using the average annual increase in costs over the most recent five years.  

Posted in

| Tagged

Both the 2014-15 and 2015-16 California state budget agreements contained crucial and long-overdue increases to need-based financial aid, including Cal Grants. Those investments are helping to make college more accessible for thousands of low-income Californians, though severe affordability gaps remain for the state’s lowest income students.

The good news is that the legislature can continue closing those gaps in 2016-17, and there are resources available to do so right in financial aid’s backyard.

The Middle Class Scholarship (MCS) program was created in 2013 to reduce tuition for middle-income students at the University of California and the California State University who were ineligible for grant aid yet unable to comfortably afford tuition. Last year, lawmakers downsized the program in order to bring eligibility terms more in line with Cal Grants and to exclude students with substantial financial resources, resulting in projected savings of $112 million for 2016-17.

Yet it appears that the program still has more money than it needs, and that even more savings could be achieved without affecting MCS recipients. In both of the years that the Middle Class Scholarship has been available, there have been far fewer eligible applicants than anticipated. Still-nascent awareness about the program could explain the underutilization in 2014-15 – the first year of implementation. But even in the wake of concerted efforts by the California Student Aid Commission and California public colleges to bolster outreach to students and families, the program still has a significant surplus in 2015-16.

When the MCS has a surplus, it means that dollars intended to help Californians afford college are being returned to the state’s coffers. For 2016-17, we project that about $41 million will go unused. Combined with the 2016-17 budget savings from the eligibility changes agreed to last year, that’s a total of about $153 million previously scheduled to be spent on the MCS in 2016-17 that will not be spent on the MCS. By 2017-18, when the Middle Class Scholarship will be fully phased in, this amount could grow to $200 million or more.*

As we’ve previously argued, savings from the Middle Class Scholarship program should remain in financial aid and be reinvested in Cal Grants specifically. Some of it already has been: for instance, the 2015-16 budget, which scaled back MCS eligibility, also increased the annual number of Competitive Cal Grants, which serve students who do not transition straight from high school to college. However, far more could be done given the amount of MCS savings. The $41 million surplus in 2016-17 could increase the Cal Grant B access award, which helps low-income students pay for non-tuition costs of college, by $175.  Alternatively, it could increase the number of new Competitive awards available annually by nearly 5,700.** The legislature could triple those increases by reinvesting all of the MCS savings – the surplus as well as ongoing savings realized through eligibility changes – into Cal Grants. Both the Cal Grant B access award and Competitive Cal Grants serve the state’s lowest income students, but not nearly well enough.

For more on how and why to deepen investment in the Cal Grant program, see the report released by TICAS and twenty other organizations last week.
 

* Projections of future spending are based on 2015-16 MCS award utilization. Projections reflect the scheduled phase-in of award coverage, from 50 percent in 2015-16 to 100 percent in 2017-18.  

** Projections of 2016-17 Cal Grant awards and dollars are based on data from the California Department of Finance: California Student Aid Commission, The Cal Grant Chart: Baseline Budget Forecast thru end of Sep 2015 - updated November 20, 2015.

Posted in

| Tagged

Starting today, all borrowers with federal Direct student loans have access to a new repayment plan with monthly payments limited to 10% of your discretionary income. You can enroll regardless of when you borrowed. If you’re having trouble affording your monthly payments – or just want the assurance of payments based on your income – check out the Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) plan and see if it’s right for you.

REPAYE and other “income-driven” plans can help keep monthly payments manageable, but may not be the best fit for everyone. Depending on how your income changes over time, you may pay more in total than you would under some other repayment plans, such as the 10-year standard plan.

Here is some key information for borrowers considering REPAYE:

  • How much will I pay each month? Your monthly payment will be 10% of your “discretionary income” (that’s your income minus 150% of the poverty level for your family size). If your income is very low, payments can be as little as $0 until your income rises. To see what your payment would be in REPAYE and other plans, you can use the U.S. Department of Education’s easy online Repayment Estimator.
     
  • How long will I be making payments? Up to 20 years if you borrowed only for undergraduate education, or up to 25 years if you took out any federal loans for graduate school. If you reach the time limit and have not yet fully repaid the loan, the remaining balance will be forgiven (but under current IRS rules, it will be treated as taxable income). If you work full-time for the government or a nonprofit organization, you may be eligible to have your loans forgiven after 10 years of payments, tax-free. Find out more about Public Service Loan Forgiveness here.
     
  • Which types of loans are eligible? REPAYE is available for all federal Direct student loans that are not in default. If you have other types of federal loans (such as FFEL* or Perkins Loans), you can consolidate them into a Direct Consolidation Loan, which would then be eligible for REPAYE. Click here and here for information about the pros and cons of consolidating. Neither Parent PLUS loans nor consolidation loans that include Parent PLUS loans are eligible for REPAYE.**
     
  • How do I sign up? Apply online at StudentLoans.gov (look for the “Income-Driven Repayment Plan Request”), where you may be able to electronically transfer your tax information into the application form. Alternatively, you can request a paper application from your loan servicer. No matter how you apply, you can check a box asking for the plan with the lowest initial payment you qualify for. These plans are always available for free – you never have to pay a fee to enroll.
     
  • What if I am already in an income-driven repayment plan? You can change federal loan repayment plans at any time. If you’re already in Income-Based Repayment (IBR) or Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), switching into REPAYE may lower your monthly payments and shorten the total time you have to repay. However, if you switch plans, any unpaid interest will capitalize (i.e., be added to your loan principal), causing interest to accrue on a higher loan balance. Also, if you have to consolidate your FFEL loans to make them eligible for REPAYE, any IBR payments you made before consolidating will not count toward your maximum repayment period in REPAYE. 

For a high-level view of how REPAYE compares to the four other income-driven plans, we created a summary chart. To estimate your monthly payments and eligibility for REPAYE and other plans, visit the Department of Education’s online Repayment Estimator. For more detail about how REPAYE is different from other income-driven plans, see the Department’s blog post. You can find out more about all the income-driven plans at the Department’s website and our website for borrowers, IBRinfo.org

What is next for income-driven repayment? While REPAYE is good news for many borrowers, it is confusing to have five different income-driven plans for federal student loans.  There is broad and bipartisan support for Congress to streamline them into one improved income-driven plan. REPAYE is a good starting point for developing that new plan, but there are still important ways to improve it, including limiting payments to 20 years for all borrowers, as we and thousands of others have urged, and eliminating the taxation of forgiven debt.                                                          

* Most federal loans issued before July 1, 2010 were made through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. If you’re not sure which type of federal loans you have, log in and check your record on StudentAid.gov. If you don’t want to consolidate your FFEL loans into a Direct Consolidation Loan, you may be able to enroll in a different plan called Income-Based Repayment (IBR). However, your monthly payments may be higher and you may end up paying for a longer period of time than you would under REPAYE.

** The only income-driven plan available for Parent PLUS loans is the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan, and the Parent PLUS loan must first be consolidated into a Direct Consolidation Loan to become eligible for ICR. For more information about ICR, click here

Posted in

| Tagged

Today, the Department of Education announced a new income-driven repayment plan called Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE), which is expected to become available in December of this year. Under this new plan, all borrowers with federal Direct student loans will be able to cap their monthly payments at 10% of discretionary income, regardless of when they borrowed or their debt-to-income ratio.

REPAYE will become the fifth income-driven plan available to federal loan borrowers, and it can be hard to tell which plan does what and is available to whom. To help, we put together a high-level summary of the income-driven plans, including REPAYE.

See chart below and click here for a printable version with footnotes.


To find out more about REPAYE and the other student aid changes announced today, check out our press release here.  

Posted in

| Tagged

Once again, the country is facing the possibility of Congress failing to raise the debt limit and the federal government defaulting on its obligations. When we faced this situation in 2013, we blogged about the impact it might have on federal student loans, so we thought we’d look again now.

No one really knows for sure what impact the government defaulting would have. However, when the government came close to defaulting in 2011, J.P. Morgan issued a report entitled “The Domino Effect of a US Treasury Technical Default.” It concluded that “any delay in making a coupon or principal payment by the Treasury — even for a very short period of time — would almost certainly have large systemic effects with long-term adverse consequences for Treasury finances and the US economy.” The report estimates that a default would likely lead to a 20 percent decline in foreign demand for Treasuries over a one-year period, increasing the yields on 10-year Treasury notes by 50 basis points.

So how much would a 50 basis point increase in Treasury yields cost college students and their families in higher interest payments on their student loans? For a college freshman who starts school in fall 2016, takes out the annual maximum in subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans, and graduates in four years, it will increase the cost of college by about $1,000. That’s a 10% increase in interest payments over 10 years on the $27,000 she borrowed. If the government’s defaulting were to increase rates by 100 basis points, it would increase this student’s costs by $2,000 — a 20% increase in interest payments. For a graduate student who starts a two-year program next year, borrows the annual maximum in unsubsidized Stafford loans, and finishes in 2018, a 50 basis point increase would cost him about $5,000 more and a 100 basis point increase would cost him over $10,000 more in interest payments over a 25-year repayment period. (See the tables below for more details.)

In addition, J.P. Morgan and others expect that a default would slow economic growth, lowering family incomes and making it even harder for those already struggling to pay for college.

 

 

 

Posted in

| Tagged

Beyond the fact that they’re almost all open-admission institutions, there are more differences than similarities between community colleges and for-profit colleges, including when it comes to student debt. New data released by the U.S. Department of Education in conjunction with the updated College Scorecard show just how different. Three comparisons are below.

  1. The vast majority of schools where debt problems are most severe are for-profit collegesInside Higher Ed’s recent analysis looked at schools where the majority of students borrows, and a minority of students is paying down their debt seven years into repayment. Our additional analysis found that, of the 257 schools that meet those criteria, 227 (88%) are for-profit colleges. Only two schools (fewer than 1%) are community colleges.
  1. Community college borrowers are much more likely to be paying down their debt. Three years after entering repayment, federal loan borrowers who attended community colleges were much more likely than for-profit college borrowers to have begun paying down their balance. Most strikingly, the available data on repayment rates by completion status show that borrowers who completed their studies at a for-profit college were about as likely to be paying down their loans as students who withdrew from a community college (53 and 51 percent, respectively). 
  1. Many more students at for-profit colleges are neither paying down their loans nor in default. While available default and repayment rates have some differences (most notably, default rates include graduate students and repayment rates do not), they are comparable enough to identify trends and outliers. Comparing default rates and repayment rates tells you how many students have avoided default but still aren’t faring well: perhaps they’re delinquent, in forbearance or deferment, or in a repayment plan where their balance is growing rather than shrinking. Some for-profit colleges have admitted to what the Department, in its documentation of the Scorecard data, described as “gaming behavior that may push students toward forbearance and deferments, meaning they stay out of default but don’t make progress on repaying their loans and may continue to accrue interest.”

    ​Across all schools, this missing middle group – those neither in default nor paying down their loans – composes on average about 21 percent of borrowers three years into repayment. But at 483 schools, 40 percent or more of borrowers are neither in default nor paying down principal. The vast majority of these schools (79%) is for-profit colleges, including Kaplan University and several Kaplan Colleges and Kaplan Career Institutes, which previously shared a parent company that hired private investigators to track down former students to put them in forbearance. It includes several campuses of Education Management Corporation-owned schools Argosy, Brown Mackie, and the Art Institutes. It includes Harris School of Business, Drake College of Business, and Westwood College. This missing middle group also makes up more than half of all borrowers at several Everest College campuses that remain open for business. While Everest schools are now under new corporate management, the former CEO had this to say about managing cohort default rates during a 2011 investor call: “Forbearance, as you well know, is a pretty easy, just a question you have to agree to it and you’re on your way [sic].”

    ​Forbearance abuse for the purpose of evading accountability is well documented in the for-profit college sector, but has not been documented at other types of institutions. Just 6% of the schools where 40 percent or more of borrowers are neither in default nor paying down their loans three years into repayment are community colleges. 

Any college with default and repayment problems of any scale should be focused on better enabling their students to repay their loans. But as the newly available data continue to underscore, for-profit colleges have by far the farthest to go.

Posted in

| Tagged

Whatever you might have thought of the Administration’s plan to rate colleges, its current plan to provide a new tool to help consumers compare colleges could be a big win for students and families. There is broad bipartisan agreement on the need for better consumer information on college costs and outcomes. In fact, last year the U.S. House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation requiring the Education Department “to create a consumer-tested College Dashboard that would display key information students need when deciding which school to attend.”

The Administration has not provided much detail about what it is developing other than that it will release this summer an easy-to-use web tool that lets students and families compare colleges based on criteria important to them. So what key information do students and families need to know and what would make the tool most helpful?

Here are some of the things that we and others have publicly recommended for an improved consumer information tool, building off of the current College Scorecard.

Let users compare colleges by degree level, selectivity, and location. Students should be able to filter schools in ways that align with common college selection criteria: which degree I want, what my odds are of getting in, and where the school is located. Additional filters could be considered, but the comparison groups should not be defined by characteristics that bear little resemblance to how a prospective student is likely to consider colleges (e.g., a school’s sector or Carnegie classification). Additionally, national context should always be provided so students will see if there’s a significant gap between the schools they’re looking at and schools overall.

Provide graduation rates for all students and for Pell Grant recipients. Everyone agrees that students and families need to know what share of students graduate. Given the wide gap at some schools between the graduation rates of Pell recipients and non-Pell recipients, it’s important to provide both. Schools are currently required to disclose the graduation rate for Pell recipients, but not all schools comply and those data can be difficult to find. It will be helpful to have both graduation rates side-by-side.

Provide cumulative debt at graduation. Likewise, it’s critical that students and families know what share of a school’s graduates have loans and how much they typically owe. As the table below shows, schools in the same state with similar costs and proportions of low-income students can have very different borrowing rates and average debt levels. 

Source: Calculations by TICAS on data for 2012-13 from the U.S. Department of Education and Peterson's. Cumulative debt data copyright 2014 Peterson's, a Nelnet company.
Note: Figures for “tuition and fees” and “cost of attendance” are for in-district/in-state students at public colleges. Figures for “% low income” reflect the share of 12-month undergraduate enrollment receiving Pell Grants (enrollment as reported by colleges on the Department’s FISAP form).

Currently, the Administration’s College Scorecard shows the median debt of all former students entering repayment, regardless of whether they graduated or dropped out. This makes colleges with high drop-out rates look like a good deal, because students who left the school after borrowing for only a semester or two bring the median debt level down. For instance, the College Scorecards for the University of Phoenix Online (Phoenix) and University of California at Berkeley (Berkeley) show similar median federal debt for borrowers entering repayment ($17,476 at Phoenix vs. $16,436 at Berkeley). However, only 7% of first-time students seeking a bachelor’s degree at Phoenix graduate in six years, compared to 91% at Berkeley. In fact, undergraduates at Phoenix are more than twice as likely to borrow federal loans as students at Berkeley, and they borrow significantly more on average each year.

Instead of providing debt when entering repayment, we recommend using currently available data for average cumulative federal debt at graduation until more comprehensive data are available. Average debt at graduation should be accompanied by the school’s borrowing rate, so students know how common it is for graduates to have any debt.

Flag schools under investigation. TICAS and 47 other organizations recently urged the Department to flag colleges in the comparison tool that are the subject of public federal or state investigations, lawsuits, or settlements. Students deserve to know when a college’s practices are under heightened scrutiny from regulators, just as investors in publicly traded for-profit colleges are required to be notified of such events. No doubt fewer students would have enrolled in schools owned by Corinthian Colleges if they had known of the many open investigations and lawsuits, fewer students would have been harmed, and fewer students would need loan discharges. 

Indicate the default risk. Students should know what share of a school’s students default on their loans. This can be determined by multiplying a school’s cohort default rate (CDR) by its borrowing rate, producing the school’s student default risk indicator (SDRI). By itself, the CDR only tells you the share of federal loan borrowers at a school who default, which may be very different from the share of students who default. For instance, the College Scorecard for Los Angeles Southwest College says it has a 66.6% default rate. However, that default rate is based on just two students defaulting at a school with nearly 11,000 students, so the typical student’s risk of defaulting at this school is actually extremely low.[1] The Department currently has the data to calculate the SDRI for each school and should provide that instead.

Pretest the tool with consumers: Ultimately, to be effective, this tool must be consumer tested, especially with low-income and first-generation students.

The Administration clearly listened to feedback on its college ratings framework. We hope it considers these recommendations as well so that the new college comparison tool gives students and families the information they need to make more informed decisions and helps encourage colleges to focus more on their affordability and student outcomes.


[1] Based on Los Angeles Southwest College’s FY2011 cohort default rate and its 12-month enrollment in 2011-2012.

Posted in

| Tagged

With so many Americans concerned about college costs and student loan debt, there are more and more proposals to improve college affordability and reduce or even eliminate students’ need for loans. Yet most of the proposals are not very detailed at this point, and the details matter.

One critical detail is which costs are covered. To make a real difference for low-income students, any debt-free college plan must take the full cost of going to college into account, including textbooks, transportation, and living costs like food and housing. These non-tuition costs make up the majority of the full cost of attending a public two- or four-year college (61%-79%), yet their importance is too frequently overlooked. Students may only need to pay the tuition bill to enroll in college, but to succeed in school and graduate they need to be able to cover the other costs, too. Students who can’t get to campus or can’t get the required books won’t benefit from their classes. Students who have to work long hours to pay for rent or child care don’t have enough time to study.

Students can use grants like the federal Pell Grant to help pay for either tuition or non-tuition costs. But many lower income students have to take out loans because available grants don’t cover their total costs. In fact, national data show that lower income students (those with incomes at or below the median) who attend public colleges “tuition free” are currently much more likely to borrow than higher income students who pay for some or all of their tuition bill. This underscores why plans to eliminate debt cannot just focus on tuition.

 

This is worth repeating: low-income students who are already attending college “tuition free” are more likely to need loans. To understand why, we have to look at students’ total net costs (cost of attendance after grant aid) as a share of family income.

Data show that the net costs of attending public two-year and four-year colleges account for a much larger share of income for lower income families than for higher income families. As a result, more lower income students have to borrow to get their degree. For instance, as shown below, community college students with family incomes under $30,000 are expected to dedicate 22% of their income toward paying for college. Unsurprisingly, graduates in this income range are more likely to leave school with debt than students from families who can better absorb net college costs. 


This is why ensuring a debt-free college option requires more than covering tuition costs.  It requires providing additional grant aid for lower income students who may already be going to college “tuition free,” and as we have discussed before, it requires a state “maintenance of effort” provision to ensure states hold up their end of the bargain.  

 

Calculations by TICAS on data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 2011-12. Median income is based on family incomes for students enrolled in college in 2011-12. Students are classified as attending tuition-free if their tuition net of grant aid is zero, and as paying tuition if their tuition net of grant aid is greater than zero.

U.S. Department of Education calculations of 2012-13 net price for first-time, full time undergraduate recipients of federal Title IV financial aid, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014105.pdf, based on figures reported by colleges to the Department via the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. To calculate the shares of income needed to pay the net price, we used the upper bound of the income range (i.e., $30,000 for the $0-30,000 group) when available, and $145,000 for the income range of $110,001 and above which is approximately the median income for students in this group. Graduates’ debt figures from U.S. Department of Education, NPSAS, and include undergraduate students who completed a degree or certificate in 2011-12. Both net price and debt calculations are the most recent available of their kind. 

Posted in

| Tagged

Pages

Subscribe to Blog