Federal and State Policy

In May, we wrote about the 114 career education programs from which more students default than graduate (it’s actually even worse than that since they have more defaulters in one year than graduates over two years). With Corinthian Colleges now preparing to sell or close all of its campuses, it is worth noting that Corinthian runs 25 of the 114 programs with more defaulters than graduates.

These programs are shockingly bad. Everest College Phoenix Associates’ programs in Securities Services Administration and Management, and in Business, Management and Marketing both had more than three times as many defaulters as graduates. Everest University in Tampa has an Associate’s degree program in Computer and Information Sciences that also has three times as many defaulters as graduates.

An effective gainful employment regulation would help protect students and taxpayers from schools like Corinthian. By enforcing the law requiring career education programs to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, a strong rule would hold programs to clear outcome standards and measure their performance against those standards regularly. It would force the worst performing programs to improve or lose eligibility for funding before burying countless students with debts that may haunt them for the rest of their lives.

We and more than 50 other organizations submitted written comments urging the Education Department to improve its draft gainful employment rule to better protect students and taxpayers, including by requiring schools to provide financial relief for students in programs that lose eligibility, limiting enrollment in poorly performing programs until they improve, and closing loopholes and raising standards. If a rule with the changes we called for had already been in effect, Corinthian would long ago have had to rapidly improve or close programs in a way that better protected students and taxpayers.

The final gainful employment rule will be too late to protect Corinthian students, but it is not too late to protect the millions of students enrolling in other schools’ career education programs and the taxpayers who subsidize them.

Click here for a sortable list of the 114 programs with more defaulters in one year than graduate over two years. To read the New York Times editorial on our May blog post, click here.

Posted in

| Tagged

As the Department of Education works on a final rule to stop federal funding for career education programs that over-promise and under-deliver, it needs to close loopholes to prevent unscrupulous colleges from gaming the system.

Under the draft regulation, career education programs would be judged by two different tests: how the debt of their graduates compares to later earnings, and how many of the programs’ borrowers default on their loans.  Programs that consistently exceed allowable thresholds of debt-to-earnings or rates of default would lose eligibility for federal aid.  While many in the for-profit college industry complain that the tests are too stringent, the data show the exact opposite and that the rule needs to be strengthened.

Exhibit A for a tougher rule is the fact that 20 percent of the 114 parasitic career education programs – those where more students default than graduate – would pass the proposed tests. And exhibit B would appear to be Education America Inc.’s Remington College, a formerly for-profit chain that began operating as a nonprofit in 2011.

Data released by the Department in conjunction with the rulemaking show three large certificate programs that have a collective repayment rate of 12 percent – meaning only 12 percent of borrowers are paying down their debt. The three are large medical/clinical assistant certificate programs at what appear to be Remington’s Texas, Ohio and Alabama campuses. (Some of the data files released by the Department do not include college names so only the Department can confirm which college’s programs these are.  However, looking across multiple data files, including a file with college names, strongly suggests these three low-repayment programs are the Remington programs.)

To make matters worse, these three programs would not fail under the Department’s draft regulation– the one that industry complains about being too strict.  Despite the extremely low repayment rate, the aggregate cohort default rate for the three Remington programs is only 14 percent, far below the threshold of 30 percent. Such a low rate of borrower default from programs where hardly any borrowers are paying down their loans suggests the college may be manipulating their default rates by putting former students in forbearance during the window when default rates are being measured – regardless of whether it is in the borrowers’ best interest to do so. In fact, a Remington College executive said as much in 2009, noting that “we’ve known all along what [the Department] finally figured out,” that borrowers receiving forbearance and deferment were later defaulting on their loans once it stopped tracking defaults after two years. The Department then changed its default monitoring to a broader three-year metric. “They [the Department] decided we were getting off too easy,” the Remington executive noted. (Note that colleges can and do manipulate three-year default rates, but it takes more work to do so than for two-year rates.)

Programs where most students borrow and the vast majority of borrowers cannot repay their loans should not keep enrolling students receiving federal aid. The Department could close this loophole in the gainful employment rule by instituting a repayment rate in addition to the other tests. It must also prohibit unscrupulous schools from manipulating their program default rates or their repayments rates by making small payments on behalf of former students.

Read more about these issues and recommendations in our comments on the Department’s draft gainful employment rule. -Debbie Cochrane

Posted in

| Tagged

The Obama Administration is moving forward in defining what it means for career education programs to “prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” This requirement – which applies to programs at public, nonprofit, and for-profit colleges – has long been in federal law, but, without a rule defining what it means, the Department has been powerless to enforce it.

The draft rule would measure career education programs’ outcomes in two ways. First, the debt burdens of program graduates who received federal aid would be compared to their later earnings. Second, students’ ability to repay their loans – including both graduates and noncompleters – would be measured through a program-level cohort default rate.  Programs where graduates’ earnings don’t justify typical levels of debt, and those where borrowers too frequently default on their loans, would lose eligibility for further federal grants and loans unless the programs improve.

The data released by the Department in conjunction with its proposed rule are alarming. They couldn't make a better case for why the rule is desperately needed and must be strengthened to provide meaningful protections for students and taxpayers.

To illustrate:  Of the 4,420 programs in the dataset with complete data (meaning that both students’ debt burdens and default rates are calculated), there are 114 programs where the data show more defaulters than graduates.  In other words, students receiving federal aid to attend these programs are more likely to find themselves unable to repay their debt than they are to complete the credential they sought.  It’s also important to understand that this very much understates the problem at these programs.  That’s because, due to the way that debt burden and defaults are measured, these figures represent the defaults from one cohort year (those who entered repayment in 2009) compared to two years’ worth of completers (those who completed in either 2008 or 2009).

Here are a few facts about these 114 programs with more defaulters than graduates:

  • All 114 are at for-profit colleges, and most (82) are associate degree (AA) programs.
  • They include a sizable share of measurable programs in some fields. Seven of the 13 AA programs in ‘securities services administration/management’ have more defaulters than graduates.  Six of the 17 ‘accounting technology/technician and bookkeeping’ AA programs have more defaulters than graduates.  And the same is true for all three of the AA programs in ‘criminalistics and criminal science.’
  • Almost two dozen of them (23 of the 114) fully pass the proposed rule’s modest standards. Of the others, 14 are “in the zone” – a program limbo for those not good enough to pass and not bad enough to fail outright – and 77 fail.

The fact that 20% of the programs leaving more students in default than with credentials pass the Department’s proposed tests clearly shows that the tests aren’t strong enough. And even the 68% of programs that fail outright would remain eligible for federal funding under the proposed rule unless they failed again. What is also crystal clear from the data is that the stakes for students are high:

  • Many of the programs are huge: 33 of the 114 programs had more than 1,000 students who entered repayment in a single year, and 6 of them had more than 5,000 borrowers who entered repayment in that year.
  • There are seven programs where the number of defaulters exceeded the number of completers by more than 1,000.  All seven are at the University of Phoenix.

These are parasitic programs, consuming resources to the detriment of students and taxpayers. Reasonable people may disagree on certain aspects of the Department’s proposal, but the need to strengthen the rule so programs like these must shape up should not be one of them. Click here for a sortable list of the 114 programs with more defaulters in one year than graduate over two years. To read the New York Times editorial on our May blog post, click here. - Debbie Cochrane

Posted in

| Tagged

Last December, we wrote about three ways the U.S. Department of Education could and should be supporting colleges –low-borrowing colleges in particular – in offering federal loans. A recent letter from the Department addresses one of these requests head-on, and was particularly timely because it was sent just after colleges received their draft cohort default rates for borrowers entering repayment in 2011. The letter emphasizes the importance of student access to federal loans, and the participation rate index appeal for low-borrowing colleges:

Access to federal student financial aid, including low-cost Federal student loans, increases the likelihood that students will have the financial resources to successfully complete the postsecondary education needed to build a better future for themselves, their families, and their communities.

We encourage institutions to provide access to the full range of student financial aid options available that enable millions of students to enroll and succeed in college….

We believe that the availability of the Participation Rate Index Challenge and Participation Rate Index Appeal could mitigate some institutions’ consideration of withdrawing from the Direct Loan Program due to sanctions triggered by high cohort default rates.

This letter will help keep colleges in the federal loan program, but more is needed.  The Department should still publish borrowing rates alongside default rates and allow low-borrowing colleges to appeal their rates in any year, as we previously recommended.  And now that they have published this letter, they should promote it at conferences and meetings with colleges. Nonetheless, the Department’s recent action to help colleges understand the importance of federal loans and available appeals is an important step in the right direction.  As G.I. Joe famously says, “Knowing is half the battle,” and now colleges will be more likely to know.

Posted in

| Tagged

In the last three months, the U.S. Department of Education has struck out on clarifying what cohort default rates (CDRs) mean for students and colleges, prompting some colleges to stop offering federal student loans. The Department needs to provide better guidance to colleges on how to lower their CDRs while providing timely assurances to colleges with low borrowing rates so they do not needlessly pull out of the loan program, denying their students the safest way to borrow. A new proposal to use program-level CDRs only increases the urgent need for action by the Department.

Strike One: A Murky Scorecard

In September, the Department released new CDRs for the nation's colleges. But once again, it failed to provide the information necessary to interpret what the rates mean.

CDRs are the primary measure of college accountability. They measure the share of colleges’ federal student loan borrowers who default soon after entering repayment, an important measure of student outcomes. For colleges where most or all students borrow, CDRs can tell you a lot: high CDRs are a clear sign that students who attended that college are not faring well, and suggest that the college may not be a good investment for students or taxpayers. But for colleges where only a handful of students borrow, CDRs give fewer clues about how the colleges’ students are doing.

The problem is that the Department once again did not pair CDRs with colleges’ borrowing rates, as we have long asked them to do. That means that students from a particular college may appear very likely to default when, in fact, they are very unlikely to default because they are very unlikely to have to borrow at all. This is not helpful to students, journalists, or college leaders.

Strike Two: A Confusing Rulebook

Federal law acknowledges the importance of the borrowing rate in evaluating CDRs: colleges with high CDRs may lose eligibility for federal grants and loans, but colleges with few borrowers can avoid sanctions under what’s called a ‘participation rate index (PRI) appeal.’

Nonetheless, misunderstandings about CDRs and the PRI have sparked unnecessary fears in some colleges – particularly community colleges – that they will be sanctioned, leading some institutions to pull out of the federal loan program entirely. This is most obvious (but certainly not only true) in California, where borrowing rates at the vast majority of community colleges are in the single digits – well within the range eligible to appeal CDR sanctions.

Without access to federal loans, students who need to borrow to attend college must either drop out or turn to more expensive and riskier forms of debt, including private loans or credit cards. Yet community colleges in California continue to stop offering loans, citing fears of CDR sanctions as their rationale. We have long encouraged the Department to issue public guidance to colleges describing the appeals options available to them, and underscoring the importance of federal loan access for students, but to date it has not done so.

Strike Three: Silent Umpires

The type of sanction community colleges fear most is the loss of federal Pell Grants, which can occur after three consecutive CDRs at or above 30 percent. Colleges subject to this sanction lose Pell Grant eligibility immediately, but they can appeal the sanction if their borrowing rate in any one of the three consecutive cohorts is sufficiently low.

However, the Department will not confirm that the colleges’ borrowing rates are low enough to appeal sanctions until the college’s third consecutive high CDR, which is very late in the game. It is so late, in fact, that at that point there is no other way for the college to avoid sanctions, should its appeal be rejected, since it cannot influence default rates for years past. By year three, the college faces sanctions within mere months. With the stakes so high, it is no wonder that some colleges opt to stop offering loans long before a third consecutive high CDR. Simply put, colleges need to understand their risks and options on an annual basis so that they can work to reduce defaults and continue to offer federal loans.

The Department could easily inform colleges whether their CDRs will count towards sanctions, as we have recommended. Unfortunately, the Department has declined to do so, claiming that it would impose an “unmanageable workload” on its staff. However, the annual burden on the Department would be minimal, as few schools with borrowing rates low enough to qualify for the PRI have CDRs that would trigger sanctions in the first place. The Department also argued that colleges have sufficient time to avoid losing Pell Grant eligibility, since they can currently appeal when their third high CDR is in draft, rather than final, form. But this misses the point and ignores what we already know: without the right assurances from the Department earlier in the process, colleges will stop offering federal loans after their first or second year with high default rates.

The Next At Bat: Gainful Employment

While the Department has struck out when it comes to CDRs, it is still in the game, and the ongoing gainful employment discussions – which continue next week – underscore the need for them to act.

The Department’s latest gainful employment proposal would expand CDRs to measure program-level default rates (pCDRs) for career education programs, and cut off eligibility for programs where default rates are too high.  Existing protections – like the PRI appeal option – would carry over from CDRs to pCDRs, but that is little consolation for colleges given the current confusion and concern about PRI appeals. Most career education programs are located at community colleges, where borrowing rates are low and fears of sanctions are high. The Department needs to improve the PRI process to prevent more of these colleges from exiting the loan program – a trend that risks pushing more students to drop out or take out private loans, and reducing affordable career education program options instead of ensuring them.

- Debbie Cochrane and Matthew La Rocque

Posted in

| Tagged

Net price calculators, required on almost all college web sites since October 2011, can help prospective students and families look past often scary "sticker prices" and gain a better understanding of which schools they might be able to afford, before they have to decide where to apply. Unfortunately, our research has found that many of these online tools are difficult to find, use, and compare.

To make net price calculators more useful and accessible for students and families, we strongly support the bipartisan Net Price Calculator Improvement Act (HR 3694), introduced by Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX). This legislation builds on existing Department of Education guidance for where the calculators should be located on college web sites, how they incorporate military and veteran benefits, and what results they must provide. Additionally, the bill protects students’ privacy by prohibiting any personally identifiable information from being sold or made available to third parties.

The bill also allows the Department of Education to create a web site that lets students answer one set of questions and obtain net price estimates for multiple colleges at once. This would dramatically simplify the current time-consuming process of finding and filling out a different calculator on each college’s web site. The content and design of that central web site would be reviewed and consumer-tested before going live, to ensure that it meets the needs of students and families. Colleges would still be able to create their own customized net price calculators, as long as they meet the minimum requirements.

By making these tools easier to find, use, and compare, the Net Price Calculator Improvement Act will help students and families make more informed decisions about which colleges to apply to and attend.

For more information about net price calculators, visit our resource page.

Posted in

| Tagged

Much of the information we have on college costs, financial aid, enrollment, and completion comes from the U.S. Department of Education’s annual surveys of colleges, collectively called IPEDS. Researchers and policymakers rely heavily on IPEDS data, and the Department’s own consumer tools like College Navigator and College Scorecards do, too.

As important as IPEDS is, the data collected are far from perfect and opportunities to improve IPEDS as a whole are few and far between. But there is one such opportunity now – the federal government is asking the public for comments on how to improve IPEDS for the next three years. Here are some of our biggest asks:

  • Collect data on cumulative debt at graduation for completers of undergraduate certificates, associate's degrees, and bachelor's degrees. The only currently available data on cumulative debt by institution are voluntarily reported, and as a result are incomplete. For example, the vast majority of for-profit colleges choose not to report these data. Better data could immediately be put to use in consumer tools like the College Scorecard and the President’s proposed rating system.
  • Collect graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients. This should be an easy ask of colleges since they’re already required by law to calculate graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients for the purposes of disclosure, and some are already reporting these rates voluntarily to U.S. News. But many colleges don’t comply with this disclosure requirement, and, even for those that do, there’s no easy way for consumers, researchers, journalists, or policymakers to find colleges’ Pell graduation rates across the board because the rates aren’t reported via IPEDS. Reporting the rates would create no extra burden on colleges and would serve as a check on noncompliant schools.
  • Collect graduation rates for part-time and non-first-time students immediatelyCurrently available graduation rates include only first-time students who enroll full time, leaving out substantial shares of entering students. The Department is finally poised to begin collecting graduation rates for part-time and non-first-time students, too, but has recently proposed delaying their collection until 2015-16. This delay is unnecessary.
  • Collect data on veterans' outcomes. IPEDS already includes questions on veterans’ enrollment and access to services, so collecting information on these students’ outcomes – in the same way other students’ outcomes are tracked – is reasonable and the fastest way to obtain data on veteran students’ outcomes.
  • Collect better data on for-profit colleges’ spending. The Department’s proposed changes to IPEDS already include increasing the level of detail in for-profit colleges’ reporting of revenues, expenses, assets, and liabilities, as recommended by a technical review panel focused on improving the finance survey for for-profit colleges. While this represents a good first step, IPEDS should also collect data on expenditures for recruiting, advertising, and marketing.
  • Make it easier to combine IPEDS data with other federal data. The Department provides important data about colleges outside of IPEDS (such as cohort default rates, or CDRs). However, it is difficult to view IPEDS data side-by-side with data from other federal sources that use a different system for identifying colleges. Adopting common identifiers for colleges across all data sets would address this problem. In the interim, the Department should provide tools that help users combine these data sets, for both research and consumer information purposes.

TICAS outlined these and other recommended changes in the first and second rounds of comments to improve IPEDS collection. So far, the Department’s responses to these suggestions have focused primarily on the additional burden they would impose on colleges. In some cases – like the Pell graduation rate reporting, discussed above – this is simply not true. But in the cases where new reporting requirements might in fact increase burden, why not offset the burden by eliminating reporting requirements that are duplicative or have become obsolete?

The Department needs to hear from others that these changes to IPEDS are important and urgently needed. The proposed IPEDS collection is out for comment for the third time, with comments due November 14, 2013 at www.regulations.gov.

Posted in

| Tagged

The U.S. Department of Education announced this week that it’s reaching out to about 3.5 million federal student loan borrowers who are carrying higher than average debt or showing signs of financial distress. The goal of the Department’s email campaign is to make sure these borrowers know about income-driven repayment options that might make their monthly payments more affordable and keep them from defaulting.

We’re thrilled that this piece of President Obama’s college affordability plan is being put into action. With rising student loan default rates and a job market still recovering from the financial crisis, the need is clearly urgent. Our Project on Student Debt developed the policy framework and spearheaded the coalition to create Income-Based Repayment (IBR), which became available to federal loan borrowers in 2009. We have since repeatedly called on the Department to do more to make sure borrowers are aware of IBR, including targeted outreach along the lines of this new effort.

Simply put, people can’t benefit from IBR and related plans like Pay As You Earn unless they know about them. They need timely, accurate, and usable information before extended forbearances cause their debts to balloon, delinquencies damage their credit scores, or defaults lead to even more severe consequences.

With that in mind, we think the Department could easily increase the impact of its outreach by taking the following steps. We suggest a couple of improvements that should make borrowers more likely to act on the important emails they’re getting from the Department:

Tell borrowers about the light at the end of the tunnel. The Department’s sample outreach email fails to mention that after 20 or 25 years of repayment in an income-driven plan, any remaining debt can be discharged.  This is a crucial feature of income-driven plans. But the sample email makes it sound like there is no time limit on payments, unless you qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. It says, “When you make payments based on your income, your loans are paid off over a longer period of time than the standard 10-year plan. While this reduces your monthly payment amount, it also increases the total amount you pay over time. But if you work in public service, you may qualify to have your remaining loan balance forgiven after 10 years of payments.” The fix? The Department’s outreach should tell borrowers that income-driven plans not only lower your payments, they also cancel any debt remaining after 20 or 25 years in repayment.

Make it easier to for borrowers to get income-driven payment estimates. The sample email also provides a link for borrowers to view estimates of payments in income-driven plans. But when you click on “repayment estimator” you find yourself on the Department’s generic home page for federal loan borrowers: studentloans.gov.  The only way to see your estimated payments under all plans at once is to sign in to this site using your PIN, but there is no mention of a “repayment estimator.” If you don’t know what you’re supposed to do, you can easily get lost. The fix? Make the link go directly to the repayment estimator, and ultimately make the estimator available for prospective borrowers who don’t have PINs.  

Posted in

| Tagged

The U.S. Department of Education has released new final regulations that strengthen key protections for distressed borrowers with federal student loans. The regulations also make conforming revisions to reflect legislative changes related to student loans.

The new regulations will make it easier for borrowers to get out of default and repay their loans by ensuring that “reasonable and affordable” payments to rehabilitate a loan are, in fact, reasonable and affordable. Consistent with the law, the final regulations specify that the rehabilitation payment amount must not be a required minimum payment, a percentage of the borrower’s total loan balance, or an amount based on other criteria unrelated to the borrower’s total financial circumstances.

In response to public comments on the draft rules submitted this summer by TICAS and others, the final rules require that borrowers seeking to rehabilitate defaulted loans be initially offered a payment amount based on what they would pay in Income-Based Repayment (IBR), which caps monthly payments at 15 percent of a borrower’s discretionary income. The draft rules would have allowed payments based on the IBR formula only after borrowers were offered and then rejected a different amount calculated by servicers and based on a long and complex form. In a change of course, the Department ultimately required payments based on the IBR formula to be offered first, in response “to the numerous comments we received expressing concerns about the amount of personal financial information a borrower requesting loan rehabilitation would [otherwise] have to provide.”

In addition, the final regulations permit borrowers who have been delinquent on their loans for at least 270 days to be placed in forbearance based on an oral rather than a written request. Borrowers in forbearance don’t have to make payments, but their interest keeps accruing and then capitalizes when the forbearance ends, leaving them owing even more.

To try to prevent institutions from pressuring borrowers to request oral forbearances during the period when institutions are held accountable for student loan defaults, the rules limit any forbearance granted based on an oral request to 120 days and prohibit consecutive 120-day forbearances. In another improvement over the draft proposal, borrowers who are placed in forbearance based on an oral request will receive written information, as well as an oral explanation, of their repayment options and how they can exit forbearance, as TICAS had recommended. The Department is allowing loan holders, colleges, and guaranty agencies to implement this rule on November 1, even though they are not required to comply until next July.

The Department publicly acknowledges the evidence “that some institutions are aggressively pursuing their former students to compel them to request forbearance on their loans, primarily during the cohort period when the institution is accountable for student loan defaults.” As detailed in our public comments, it’s well documented that some for-profit colleges have engaged in such abuses at borrowers’ expense while receiving billions of dollars in federal student aid. TICAS has identified steps the Education Department should immediately take to prevent such abuses.

Soon to be published in the Federal Register, the new rules also improve students’ access to loan discharges when schools shut down before they can finish their studies.  

Posted in

| Tagged

As the possibility of Congress failing to raise the debt limit and the federal government defaulting on its obligations becomes more real, we looked at what impact this might have on federal student loans.

Since the U.S. government has never defaulted before, we cannot know for sure what impact it 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 concludes 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.

Enacted in August, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013 ties federal student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note yield (as of the May auction) plus a fixed increment. 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 2014, 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 2016, a 50 basis point increase would cost him about $5,000 more and a 100 basis point increase would cost him about $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.

Undergraduate borrower taking out annual maximum subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loan amounts, starting college in        2014-15 and graduating in four years

Scenario Amount entering repayment  Total payments over 10 overs Total interest paid over 10 years
Based on current CBO FY projections for 10-Yr T-Note yields  $28,100  $37,150  $10,150
If 10-Yr T-Note yields increase by 50 BPs  $28,200  $38,150  $11,150
 Difference from current projections ($)  $100  $1,000  $1,000
 Difference from current projections (%)  0%  3%  10%
If 10-Yr T-Note yields increase by 100 BPs  $28,300  $39,150  $12,150
  Difference from current projections ($)  $200  $2,000  $2,000
  Difference from current projections (%)  1%  5%  20%


Graduate borrower taking out annual maximum unsubsidized Stafford loan amounts, starting college in 2014-15 and graduating in two years

Scenario Amount entering repayment Total payments over 25 overs Total interest paid over 25 years
Based on current CBO FY projections for 10-Yr T-Note yields  $45,100  $91,100  $50,100
If 10-Yr T-Note yields increase by 50 BPs  $45,450  $96,050  $55,050
 Difference from current projections ($)  $350  $4,950  $4,950
 Difference from current projections (%)  1% 5%  10%
If 10-Yr T-Note yields increase by 100 BPs  $45,750  $101,150  $60,150
  Difference from current projections ($)  $650  $10,050  $10,050
  Difference from current projections (%)  1% 11%  20%

Calculations by TICAS based on February 2013 CBO fiscal year projections of 10-Year Treasury Note yields from "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013-2023,” http://1.usa.gov/162YKgi. The dependent undergraduate student takes out a total of $27,000 in Stafford loans ($19,000 subsidized and $8,000 unsubsidized) and the graduate student takes out a total of $41,000 in unsubsidized Stafford loans. Figures in the table are rounded to the nearest $50 and 1%.Pauline Abernathy, Diane Cheng and Jessica Thompson

Posted in

| Tagged


Subscribe to RSS - Federal and State Policy