Borrowers Who Drop Out

Borrowers Who Drop Out
A Neglected Aspect of the College Student Loan Trend
By Lawrence Gladieux and Laura Perna
May 2005
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
National Center Report #05-2
?2005 by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Material may be
duplicated with full attribution.
iii
Contents
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section I: Key Findings and Consequences of the Current
Financing System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Section II: Analysis of the Data on Dropouts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Section III: Policy Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix I: Data Sources and Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix II: Source Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. . . . . . . 54
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Foreword
Borrowers Who Drop Out is an important contribution to the National
Center?s and the nation?s understanding of students who aspire to earn
educational certificates and degrees, but do not achieve their goals?and yet
are saddled with significant debt to repay. It is the first report we know of that
compares students who borrow and then drop out of postsecondary education
with those who borrow and complete their degrees.
The authors are Lawrence Gladieux, an independent education policy
consultant, and Laura Perna, assistant professor of higher education at
the University of Maryland, College Park. These researchers utilized the
most recent and comprehensive data available from the U.S. Department
of Education on students who first enrolled in postsecondary education
in 1995?96, with a snapshot of the same students in 2001. The findings are
revealing, if not disturbing. Half of the students who enrolled in postsecondary
education borrowed in 1995?96; more than 20% of those students dropped out
of their educational programs, yet were burdened with significant debt. They
had, in effect, the worst of both worlds?they did not benefit from the higher
income associated with education beyond high school, and they accumulated
significant educational debt. Many of these students were unemployed in 2001
and defaulted on their loans, thus damaging their credit standing for the future.
Most students benefit from loans and are able to repay them when they
leave higher education. However, borrowing, combined with other risk
factors for not completing higher education (such as working too many
hours, lack of adequate preparation, and part-time attendance), puts many
students, especially low-income and first-generation students, at a particular
disadvantage. The authors raise important policy questions about whether
the system of financing higher education is appropriate. We believe that these
questions and the recommendations from the authors deserve serious attention.
There are, of course, many legitimate points of view about how to best support
students financially. However, requiring students to assume significant
financial risks so early in their educational careers poses a barrier to educational
opportunity for many low-income and first-generation students.
The National Center would like to thank The Lumina Foundation for
Education for its support of this project, as well as the advisory committee
members who reviewed drafts of this report: Jacqueline King, John Lee, Michael
iv
Borrowers Who Drop Out
McPherson, Derek Price, Richard Wagner, and Thomas Wolanin. In addition,
the National Center thanks Jerry Davis, retired program officer of the Lumina
Foundation, for his support and review of this report. The contents of this
publication do not necessarily represent the views of Lumina Foundation for
Education, its offi cers or staff.
Joni E. Finney
Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
v

Borrowers Who Drop Out
Introduction
Every investment involves an element of risk, and borrowing to pay for college
expenses is no exception. Borrowing remains a sound investment for most
students, but many who borrow and then drop out appear to have lost the bet.
Students who borrow money for college begin postsecondary education with
more academic and financial risk than other groups. Some of these students,
after borrowing and then dropping out of college, beat the odds and go on to
productive careers. Perhaps their courses and experience help them succeed,
even without a certificate or degree. Or perhaps they come from families
sufficiently well off that the accumulated debt is not burdensome.
Yet, along with those who do not finish high school and those who stop with
a high school diploma, many college dropouts fall into what has been called
?the forgotten half? of our nation?s young adult population.1 The findings in
this report, in providing a snapshot of students? experiences, suggest that many
borrowers who drop out of postsecondary education may be left behind in the
nation?s economy.
The growing reliance on loans to finance rising college tuition has drawn
widespread attention in the media and public policy debates. Much of the
publicity and concern focuses on students who pursue a four-year degree and
take on significant debt, averaging from $15,000 to $20,000 in debt by the time
they graduate. Some college graduates have borrowed much larger amounts,
and average debt burdens are especially high for low-income and minority
students who complete their programs of study.2 However, most students who
achieve their degrees reap sufficient economic benefits to pay off their loans.
For the first time, this study examines those who may be least well-served by
our current system of financing higher education: students who invest in their
own education by borrowing, but who do not complete their postsecondary
programs. A recent report by the Education Trust warned that ?hundreds of
thousands of young people leave our higher education system unsuccessfully,
burdened with large student loans that must be repaid, but without the benefit
of the wages a college degree provides.?3 This report examines the dimensions of
this problem and identifies ways to address it.
1
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Both individuals and society reap significant economic and other benefits
from investing in higher education, and loans have become a pervasive means
of financing student costs and consequently realizing these benefits. However,
there are serious negative consequences of the loan trend. For example, half of
entering freshmen borrow, and one-fifth of borrowers drop out.4 In 2001, this
meant that there were more than 350,000 ex-students who had begun college six
years earlier, but had no certificate or degree, and a debt to repay. For students
who began at four-year institutions and expected to attain a bachelor?s degree,
borrowers who dropped out were twice as likely to be unemployed as borrowers
who received a degree, and more than ten times as likely to default on their loan.
These findings provide an alert to policymakers and educational leaders,
who can hardly be satisfied when so many students leave school with no
credential, a debt to repay, and a high risk of defaulting on that debt?or with
no debt, no degree, and therefore little gain in earning power to offset the time
and money invested in postsecondary education. This report suggests the
need for policy and educational leaders to establish policies and programs to
better prepare, support, and guide students, especially low-income students,
in completing their degrees. In addition, public policymakers and educational
leaders must do all they can to assist students in making appropriate decisions
about the use of loans to finance the costs of their postsecondary education.
This report draws from the most recent and comprehensive data available:
family background, demographic, and other characteristics for the group of
students who first enrolled in postsecondary education in 1995?96, along with a
snapshot of data about what happened to them by 2001 (for example, enrollment
status, academic experience, cost of attendance, financial aid, loan obligations,
and employment status). The study provides a profile of students who borrow
and then drop out, and compares them with other groups, including those who
borrow and do receive a certificate or degree. The principal source of data is the
longitudinal Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) study, which the National
Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education inaugurated
in 1989 and repeated in the 1990s. (For extensive information about data sources,
limitations, and definitions, see Appendix I.)
Since minimal changes have occurred in federal student loan programs since
2001, it is likely that the findings in this report are relevant to recent groups of
students. In fact, since loan rates and debt burdens have been rising, the choices
and tradeoffs highlighted in this report may be more extreme now than they
were for students who first enrolled a decade ago?and the need for action
therefore even more vital today.
2
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Section I
Key Findings and Consequences of the Current
Financing System
The following findings and policy implications are drawn from the more
detailed analyses in Section II of this report, and the recommendations in
Section III.
HOW MANY STUDENTS BORROW?
Half of all entering freshmen borrow. Considering the entire population of
students who started postsecondary education in 1995?96 (more than three
million), half had borrowed to help pay for their undergraduate studies within
the next six years (see figure 1).
Freshmen who start at four-year colleges and expect to attain a bachelor?s
degree are even more likely to borrow. Of all students who first enrolled in a
four-year institution in 1995?96 and who reported that they aspired to earn at
least a bachelor?s degree, two-thirds (67%) had borrowed by 2001 (see figure 1).
Those who start at two-year colleges are less likely to borrow. Of those
students who first enrolled in a public two-year college in 1995?96, a third
(33%) had borrowed by 2001 (see figure 1).
A high percentage of students who start
at private, for-profit, less-than-four-year
institutions borrow. Of those students
who first enrolled for short-term skills
training in a private for-profit institution
of less than four years in duration, about
two-thirds (68%) had borrowed by 2001
(see figure 1).
3
Figure 1
Half of All Entering Freshmen Borrow
67%
50%
68%
67%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Freshmen at private, for-profit,
less-than-4-year institutions
Freshmen at public 2-year colleges
Freshmen at 4-year institutions who expect
to attain at least a bachelor's degree
Freshmen at all institutions
Percentage of first-time freshmen who
borrowed within 6 years of enrolling
Borrowers Nonborrowers
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in 1995-96, and their status in 2001.
Source: Calculated from Appendix II, tables 1, 2, 3, and 4.
32%
33%
33%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
HOW MANY STUDENT BORROWERS DROP OUT?
More than 20% of all borrowers drop out. Considering all students who
started postsecondary education in 1995?96, more than one-fifth (23%) of those
who borrowed did not complete their programs and were not enrolled in 2001
(see figure 2). That is, more than 350,000 beginning freshmen were left with no
certificate or degree, and a debt to repay. Of all borrowers who first enrolled
in a four-year institution in 1995?96 and who reported that they aspired to at
least a bachelor?s degree, 19% had
dropped out six years later.5 Of
those borrowers who first enrolled
in a public two-year college in
1995?96, 24% had dropped out. Of
those borrowers who first enrolled
for short-term skills training in a
private for-profit institution of less
than four years in duration, almost
a third (32%) dropped out. These
percentages suggest that no matter
what kind of institution students
enroll in, a large number of those
who borrow drop out.
DOES BORROWING INFLUENCE COMPLETION RATES?
The reality of higher education is that many need to borrow to complete
a bachelor?s degree. For first-time freshmen at public two-year institutions,
a much higher percentage of
nonborrowers (55%), compared
with borrowers (24%), drop out
(see figure 3). Also, a much higher
percentage of borrowers (21%),
compared with nonborrowers
(6%), complete a bachelor?s
degree. The low completion rates
for bachelor?s degrees (21% for
borrowers, 6% for nonborrowers)
cannot be solely traced to large
numbers of students who may be
enrolling in a two-year institution
without plans to continue to a
Figure 2
About One-Fifth of All Borrowers Drop Out
32%
19%
23%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Freshmen at private, for-profit,
less-than-4-year institutions
Freshmen at public 2-year colleges
Freshmen at 4-year institutions who expect to
attain a bachelor's degree
Freshmen at all institutions
Percentage of borrowers who had
dropped out 6 years after enrolling
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in 1995-96, and their status in 2001.
Source: Appendix II, tables 1, 2, 3, 4.
Figure 3
Borrowing and Completion for Freshmen at Two-Year Colleges
6%
13%
11%
15%
55%
21%
24%
8%
23%
24%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Attained bachelor's
Attained associate's
Attained certificate
Still enrolled
Dropped out
Percentage of borrowers and nonborrowers who attained the
identified status (along left side of chart) 6 years after enrolling
Borrowers Nonborrowers
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a two-year institution in 1995-96, and their
status in 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 3.
4
Borrowers Who Drop Out
four-year institution: 72% of first-time freshmen starting at public two-year
institutions expect to get a bachelor?s degree or higher. Within this context, the
lower dropout rates and the higher rates of bachelor?s degree completion for
those who borrow may suggest that borrowing promotes degree attainment.
It is likely, however, that the higher completion rates for those who borrow
portray the financial reality of higher education today: most of those who begin
at a two-year institution may need to borrow if they expect to be able to pay the
costs of completing their bachelor?s degree.
For freshmen who start at four-year colleges and expect to receive a
bachelor?s degree, borrowers and nonborrowers have similar completion
rates. By studying borrowing data for students who first enrolled in a four-year
institution and who reported that they expected to attain at least a bachelor?s
degree, it is possible to control for differences associated with type of institution
attended and educational expectations. Figure 4 reveals that for students
who enroll in a four-year institution and expect to receive at least a bachelor?s
degree, bachelor?s degree attainment
and dropout rates are comparable.
About 20% of borrowers and of
nonborrowers dropped out within
six years of enrolling, and about 60%
of each group attained a bachelor?s
degree within this time. This
suggests that borrowing?with these
two key factors being equal?does
not necessarily increase or decrease
a student?s chances of completion.
Rather (as the previous paragraph
revealed), borrowing is a reality for
many students if they expect to be
able to stay in college and finish
their degrees.
Known risk factors for dropping out appear to be more important than
borrowing in affecting a student?s chances for degree completion. Among
the known risk factors for dropping out are delaying entry into postsecondary
education after high school, attending college part-time, and working full-time
while enrolled. Of those who borrowed and dropped out, one-fourth delayed
their entry into college after high school, 12% attended college part-time, and
12% worked full-time (see figure 5). (These percentages are for students who
5
Figure 4
Borrowing and Completion for Freshmen at Four-Year Institutions
Who Expect to Attain a Bachelor's Degree
62%
3%
2%
13%
20%
60%
3%
2%
16%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Attained bachelor's
Attained associate's
Attained certificate
Still enrolled
Dropped out
Percentage of borrowers and nonborrowers who attained the
identified status (along left side of chart) 6 years after enrolling
Borrowers Nonborrowers
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution in 1995-96 and
expected to attain a least a bachelor's degree, and their status in 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 2.
Borrowers Who Drop Out
started at four-year institutions
and expected to complete at least
a bachelor?s degree.) For those
who did not borrow and dropped
out, the percentages are even
higher: 36% delayed entry into
college, 25% were enrolled parttime,
and 21% worked full-time.
By contrast, virtually all students
who received their bachelor?s
degree?whether they borrowed
or not?went on to college right
after high school, attended
full-time, and did not work or
worked part-time.
Academic preparation appears
to be more important than
borrowing status for bachelor?s
degree completion. Regardless
of borrowing status, more than
half of those who dropped out
had a grade point average of
less than 2.25 in the first year
they were enrolled (see figure
6). By contrast, about a tenth of
bachelor?s degree recipients?
whether they borrowed or
not?had a grade point average
of less than 2.25 in their first year
in college. Likewise, about onequarter
of those who dropped
out?whether they borrowed or not?took at least one remedial course in their
first year, while about a tenth of those who completed a bachelor?s degree took
a remedial course. (These percentages are for students who started at fouryear
institutions and expected to complete at least a bachelor?s degree, but the
patterns also hold for students who started at a public two-year institution.)
Whether they borrow or not, those who drop out are more likely to come
from lower-income backgrounds than those who complete their degrees, and
their parents are more likely to have lower levels of education. In addition,
6
Figure 6
Regardless of Borrowing Status, Those Who Drop Out Tend
to Be Less Prepared for College
12%
12%
11%
52%
23%
53%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Took at least one remedial
course in first year
Grade point average less
than 2.25 in first year
Borrowers who dropped out
Nonborrowers who dropped out
Borrowers who completed BA
Nonborrowers who completed BA
Note: To control for differences associated with type of institution attended and educational expectations, figure 6
portrays dropout and completion status in 2001 for freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution in 1995-96
and expected to attain at least a bachelor's degree.
Source: Appendix II, table 2.
25%
Note: To control for differences associated with type of institution attended and educational expectations, figure 5
portrays dropout and completion status in 2001 for freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution in
1995-1996 and expected to attain at least a bachelor's degree.
Source: Appendix II, table 2.
Figure 5
Regardless of Borrowing Status, Those Who Drop Out Are
More Likely to Have Known Risk Factors for Non-Completion
Worked full-time
Enrolled part-time
Delayed enrolling after
high school
5%
6%
5%
4%
10%
21%
25%
36%
12%
12%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Borrowers who dropped out
Nonborrowers who dropped out
Borrowers who completed BA
Nonborrowers who completed BA
8%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
7
compared with those who received bachelor?s degrees, larger percentages of
both borrowers and nonborrowers who dropped out were 20 years of age or
older when they enrolled in college, and had children of their own. All of these
are known risk factors for dropping out.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE WHO BORROW AND DROP OUT?
Borrowers who drop out and nonborrowers who drop out have equivalent
employment experiences six years after first enrolling, but borrowers
who drop out face greater economic hardship due to their debt burden.
Comparable percentages of borrowers who dropped out and nonborrowers
who dropped out were unemployed in 2001. For those who were working,
median annual salaries for borrowers who dropped out and nonborrowers
who dropped out were identical: $24,000. However, nonborrowers did not
have a student debt burden, while borrowers who dropped out had incurred
a median debt of $7,000 in undergraduate loans. Moreover, by 2001, nearly
one-fourth of borrowers who dropped out (about 90,000) had defaulted on at
least one loan, most likely resulting in a bad credit rating and other negative
consequences for the borrower. (These figures are based on all first-time
freshmen enrolling in 1995?96, and their employment and loan outcomes in
2001.)
Borrowers who drop out after first enrolling in a four-year institution
fall far short of realizing the economic rewards that are associated with
earning a bachelor?s degree.
Corroborating much previous
research on the benefits of a
bachelor?s degree, this finding
is based on students who
first enrolled in a four-year
institution in 1995?96 and said
that they expected to attain
at least a bachelor?s degree.
Compared with students
who borrowed and attained
a bachelor?s degree, those
who borrowed and dropped
out were more than twice as
likely to be unemployed six
years later (see figure 7). If they
were employed, they were
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution in 1995-96 and expected
to attain at least a bachelor's degree. Employment status and loan status are for 2001.
Source: appendix II, table 2.
Figure 7
Employment Status and Loan Status for Borrowers at
Four-Year Instititutions Who Expect to Attain a Bachelor's Degree
2%
7%
22%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30%
In default on loans
Unemployed
Borrowers who dropped out Borrowers who completed BA
$30,500
$10,000
$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000
Median salary
Median student
loan amount $17,000
$24,000
Borrowers Who Drop Out
8
much more likely to be in low-paying jobs. Those who attained a bachelor?s
degree borrowed more than those who dropped out, but 22% of borrowers
who dropped out were in default on at least one loan in 2001, while only 2% of
borrowers with bachelor?s degrees were in default.
Borrowers who drop out after first enrolling in a public two-year institution
likewise do not realize the economic benefits of an associate?s degree.
Among those who first enrolled in a public two-year institution in 1995?96,
those who borrowed and dropped out were less likely to be unemployed in
2001 than those who borrowed
and received an associate?s
degree (see figure 8). However,
among those who were
employed, median salaries were
higher for associate?s degree
recipients than for borrowers
who had dropped out. Those
who borrowed and received
an associate?s degree averaged
slightly higher amounts of debt
and monthly loan repayments
than those who borrowed
and dropped out, but the
economic hardship imposed
by borrowing was greater for
those who dropped out than
for associate?s degree holders.
Borrowers who dropped out
were four times as likely as associate?s degree recipients to be in default on
their loans.
Economic outcomes are strikingly parallel for borrowers who drop out and
students who earn a certificate for short-term training. Considering only
students who first enrolled in a private for-profit institution of less than four
years? duration, students who received a certificate?as a group?appear to
be no better off six years after first enrolling than borrowers who dropped
out (see figure 9). Borrowers who received a certificate were about as likely
as borrowers who dropped out to be unemployed in 2001. Neither median
earnings (for those who were employed) nor median loan amounts were
significantly different for borrowers who dropped out versus borrowers who
Borrowers who dropped out Borrowers who completed associate's
Figure 8
Employment Status and Loan Status for Borrowers
at Two-Year Colleges
6%
21%
25%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30%
In default on loans
Unemployed
$31,200
$6,000
$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000
Median salary
Median student
loan amount
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a two-year institution in 1995-96.
Employment status and loan status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 3.
$9,000
$22,000
Borrowers Who Drop Out
completed a certificate. Default rates on loans were high for both groups,
though somewhat higher for those who dropped out: a quarter of borrowers
who received a certificate and a third of borrowers who dropped out had
defaulted on a loan by 2001.
THE DOUBLE-BIND FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Borrow too much, or work
too much? Many students?
particularly low-income
students?are faced with a
double-bind: Borrowing can
cause long-term negative
financial consequences for
those who fail to complete their
programs. Yet avoidance of
borrowing may push students
to delay enrolling after high
school, to enroll part-time in
college, or to work full-time
while in college, each of which is
a known risk factor for dropping
out of college. For all 1995?96
entering freshmen, borrowers
who dropped out were less
likely than nonborrowers who
dropped out to: delay enrollment,
enroll part-time, or work fulltime
(see figure 10). In short, it
appears that borrowing can be a
pitfall, but so can enrolling parttime
or working too much while
in college, which may jeopardize
getting a degree.
9
Borrowers who dropped out Borrowers who completed certificate
Figure 9
Employment Status and Loan Status for Borrowers at
Private For-Profit Institutions of Less than Four Years
24%
34%
20%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
In default on loans
Unemployed
$23,400
$6,500
$25,000
$5,000
$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000
Median salary
Median student
loan amount
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in 1995-96 in a private for-profit institution of less
than four years. Employment status and loan status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 4.
Figure 10
Are Students Who Avoid Borrowing More Likely to
Engage in Risk Factors for Dropping Out?
40%
49%
51%
40%
0% 25% 50% 75%
Worked full-time
Enrolled part-time
Delayed enrolling after
high school
Borrowers who dropped out Nonborrowers who dropped out
Note: Percentages are for all first-time freshmen who first enrolled in 1995-96. Borrowing and dropout status
are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 1.
23%
21%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CURRENT FINANCING SYSTEM
The findings in this report suggest that there are some significant, negative, and
lasting consequences of the current system of financing higher education in the
United States, particularly for students from lower-income and lower-middleincome
families. While much of the policy and media attention concerning
student debt over the past decade has focused on the increasing debt burden
for students at high-priced colleges and universities, the potentially more
detrimental effect concerns the debt burden of those students who borrow and
do not complete their degrees, since it is the students without degrees who are
more likely to face economic hardships in the future.
Given the substantial public and private benefits that result from investing
in higher education, the principal message of this report is the importance of
providing all motivated students with a realistic chance of entering college
and persisting to degree completion. This study provides no basis for limiting
or discouraging loans to students who may enter postsecondary education
with risk factors for dropping out. On the contrary, it appears that providing
financial support for these students may improve their opportunities to stay in
school and complete their degrees.
Based on the findings of this study, policymakers and educational leaders
can improve the opportunities for students by focusing on the following
priorities:| Focus on policies that prepare students better for postsecondary
training and that help students understand their educational options,
including the appropriate use of loan financing. The findings in this
study suggest that those who drop out of college, whether they borrow
or not, tend to be less academically prepared than those who receive
a degree. Those who drop out also may be less knowledgeable about
college (including the implications of borrowing), as suggested by their
parents? lower levels of education.| Make college more affordable so as to reduce dependence on loan
financing and student employment, especially for those with the
greatest need. Regardless of the type of institution in which students first
enroll or whether they borrow, those who drop out are more likely to be
from low-income backgrounds than those who complete a degree.| Strengthen on-campus support for financially and academically at-risk
students, to ensure that all students who enter postsecondary education
have the resources to help them succeed in attaining a degree. Not
10
Borrowers Who Drop Out
surprisingly, borrowers who drop out tend to have lower salaries six
years after first enrolling than those who complete an associate?s or a
bachelor?s degree. Borrowers who drop out also tend to have much
higher default rates on their loans than borrowers who attain a degree.
Students who avoid borrowing by enrolling in a less than four-year
institution, by attending part-time, or by working full-time may also
realize lower economic attainment, as prior research suggests that
students following these patterns are less likely to complete a degree.
The new demography of the college-age population gives special urgency
to meeting these challenges. This study focuses on the group of students
who entered postsecondary education in 1995?96, many of whom came from
disadvantaged family backgrounds and took a nontraditional path to college.
The oncoming generation of graduating high school seniors promises to be
much larger than the previous group, and to be still more nontraditional
and economically disadvantaged. As a society, we need a wide and deep
commitment to preparing low-income students for education and training
beyond high school, and assuring that price is not a barrier to their success
in college. Based on the findings of this study and other pertinent research
identified in this report, our increasingly loan-dependent system of financing
higher education does not appear to be well suited to this task.
As a next step in improving opportunities for success in college, Section
III of this report provides specific recommendations for schools, colleges and
universities, the states, the federal government, and communities and the
private sector in striving toward the three priorities identified above. As with
other lasting educational challenges, reducing students? dependence on loans
and increasing their opportunities for success will require substantial efforts
across the educational and policy spectrum.
11
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Section II
Analysis of the Data on Dropouts
This section provides detailed analyses of the data shown in the four tables that
comprise Appendix II of this report. The data in all tables represent students
who first enrolled in postsecondary education in 1995?96 and their status and
other outcomes as of 2001.
The first subsection below, based on the data in table 1, compares the
characteristics and outcomes of borrowers and nonborrowers who dropped
out. Table 1 presents data for the entire cohort of students for the years
identified above. The second subsection, which relies on the data in table 2,
compares borrowers and nonborrowers who dropped out with borrowers
and nonborrowers who attained a bachelor?s degree; the data in table 2 are
restricted to students who first enrolled in a four-year institution. The third
subsection of the analysis compares borrowers and nonborrowers who dropped
out with borrowers and nonborrowers who attained an associate?s degree; it
is based on table 3, which includes only students who first enrolled in a public
two-year institution. The final subsection compares borrowers who dropped
out with borrowers who attained a certificate for short-term skills training; it is
based on table 4, which includes only students who first enrolled in a private,
for-profit, less-than-four-year institution.
DROPOUTS AND BORROWING (Appendix II, Table 1)
Most of the analyses in this subsection compare borrowers who dropped out
with nonborrowers who dropped out.
Borrowers who dropped out (see Appendix II, table 1, column 2) are similar
to nonborrowers who dropped out (see Appendix II, table 1, column 7) in terms
of several background characteristics and academic experiences. About half of
both borrowers who dropped out and nonborrowers who dropped out have
parents with no more than a high school education. About half of students
in both groups come from families with lower incomes (that is, with incomes
below 200% of the poverty level).6
The similarity of pre-college incomes of borrowers who dropped out
and nonborrowers who dropped out may appear to be an anomaly. One
12
Borrowers Who Drop Out
13
might expect that borrowers would have lower incomes. This finding may
be explained by differences between the two groups in terms of the type
of institution attended and other
enrollment characteristics. For example,
many low-income students may choose
to avoid borrowing by attending
low-cost community colleges. About
75% of nonborrowers who dropped
out enrolled first in a public two-year
college, compared with only 32%
of borrowers who dropped out (see
figure 11). Substantially larger shares
of borrowers who dropped out?
compared with nonborrowers who
dropped out?first attended a public
four-year college, a private four-year
college, or a private for-profit institution.
Compared with nonborrowers
who dropped out, borrowers who
dropped out were more likely to engage
in other behaviors that are generally
associated with degree completion (see
figure 12). Whereas 79% of borrowers
who dropped out were enrolled fulltime,
only 51% of nonborrowers who
dropped out were enrolled full-time.
Borrowers who dropped out were
also less likely to work full-time while
enrolled, compared with nonborrowers
who dropped out (23% versus 40%).
As a result of enrollment and financing patterns, the costs of attendance
are substantially lower for nonborrowers who dropped out than for borrowers
who dropped out. Sixty percent of nonborrowers who dropped out had
an attendance-adjusted student budget below $5,000, whereas only 21% of
borrowers who dropped out had a budget below this level.7
Despite differences in enrollment and financing patterns, borrowers who
dropped out and nonborrowers who dropped out had similar employment
experiences six years after first enrolling. Similar percentages of both groups
Figure 11
Borrowing and Types of College Attended
4%
11%
21%
30%
32%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Attended private
for-profit institution
Attended private
4-year college
Attended public
4-year college
Attended public
2-year college
Borrowers who dropped out Nonborrowers who dropped out
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in 1995-96, and their status in 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 1.
76%
15%
6%
Figure 12
Borrowers Appear to Be More Likely to Enroll
Full-Time and Less Likely to Work Full-Time
40%
51%
23%
79%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Worked full-time
Enrolled full-time
Borrowers who dropped out Nonborrowers who dropped out
Note: Percentages are for all first-time freshmen who first enrolled in 1995-96. Borrowing and dropout
status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 1.
Borrowers Who Drop Out
were unemployed, and similar percentages of both groups held a job that was
closely related to their coursework. Median annual salaries for those who were
working were identical: $24,000.
But borrowers who dropped out faced greater economic hardship from
their participation in postsecondary education than did nonborrowers who
dropped out. While both groups had similar labor market experiences in 2001,
borrowers who dropped out had additional costs. By 2001, borrowers who
dropped out had incurred a median debt from undergraduate loans of $7,000.
In addition, 25% of borrowers who dropped out had defaulted on at least one
loan.
For students who drop out, the economic hardship imposed by borrowing
appears to vary by race/ethnicity. Blacks represented a larger share of
borrowers who dropped out than of nonborrowers who dropped out (21%
versus 14%). Likewise, Asians represented 5% of borrowers who dropped out,
but only 2% of nonborrowers who dropped out. In contrast, whites represented
a smaller share of borrowers who dropped out than of nonborrowers who
dropped out; 61% of borrowers who dropped out were white, while 70% of
nonborrowers who dropped out were white.
Considering the costs of borrowing against the generally comparable
benefits of some college attendance for both borrowers and nonborrowers, it
appears that six years after first enrolling in college, borrowers who drop out, as
a group, may be worse off financially than nonborrowers who drop out. On the
other hand, the above data suggest that many students may avoid borrowing
by enrolling at low-cost, public two-year institutions, by attending part-time
rather than full-time, and by working full-time while enrolled. While borrowing
may have negative financial consequences for students who fail to complete
their programs, avoidance of borrowing (including working too much) may
jeopardize students? chances of getting a degree.
DROPOUTS AND BACHELOR?S DEGREE RECIPIENTS (Appendix II, Table 2)
Previous research using the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) survey
data has identified factors associated with low persistence, particularly in
relation to the goal of bachelor?s degree attainment.8 To control for differences
in two of these factors?type of institution attended and educational
expectations?this subsection is limited to students who first enrolled in a fouryear
institution in 1995?96 and who reported in 1995?96 that they expected to
attain at least a bachelor?s degree.
14
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Of all students who first enrolled in a four-year institution in 1995?96 and
who reported that they aspired to at least a bachelor?s degree, two-thirds (67%)
had borrowed by 2001. For both borrowers and nonborrowers, dropout rates
and bachelor?s degree attainment rates were comparable. By 2001, about 20%
of borrowers and of nonborrowers had dropped out and about 60% of both
groups had attained a bachelor?s degree (see figure 4, page 5).
Students who began postsecondary programs in 1995?96 but had not
received a degree and were not enrolled in 2001 (see Appendix II, table 2,
columns 2 and 7) generally came from less economically advantaged family
backgrounds and took a less traditional path to college than students who
attained at least a bachelor?s degree by 2001 (see Appendix II, table 2, columns
6 and 11). Borrowers who dropped out came from somewhat less privileged
family backgrounds than nonborrowers who dropped out (see Appendix II,
table 2, columns 2 and 7).
Students who dropped out were more likely than those who completed a
bachelor?s degree to have parents with low educational attainment levels (see
figure 13). Those who borrowed were also somewhat more likely than those
who did not borrow to have
parents with lower educational
attainment levels. Likewise,
students who dropped out were
more likely than students who
completed a degree to be below
the poverty level: Among both
borrowers and nonborrowers who
dropped out, about 1 in 5 came
from families below the poverty
level, compared with about 1 in
10 for borrowers who attained
a bachelor?s degree, and 1 in 20
for nonborrowers who attained a
bachelor?s degree (see figure 13).
Students who dropped out?whether or not they borrowed?were more
likely to be independent of their parents when they started their postsecondary
programs, compared with those who completed a bachelor?s degree. Likewise,
students who dropped out were also more likely to have already had children
of their own when they enrolled, compared with those who completed a
bachelor?s degree.
15
Figure 13
Those Who Drop Out Are More Likely to Have Parents with
Lower Educational Levels and to Be Below the Poverty Level
6%
11%
12%
25%
37%
42%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Below poverty level
Parents with high school
diploma or less
Borrowers who dropped out
Nonborrowers who dropped out
Borrowers who completed BA
Nonborrowers who completed BA
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution in 1995-96 and expected to
attain at least a bachelor's degree. Borrowing, dropout, and completion status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 2.
18%
19%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
It appears that borrowing may promote behaviors associated with degree
completion, and avoidance of borrowing may promote behaviors associated
with dropping out. Among the known risk factors for dropping out are
delaying entry into postsecondary education after high school, attending
college part-time, and working too much while enrolled. One-fourth of those
who borrowed and later dropped out delayed their entry into college after high
school, 12% attended college part-time, and 12% worked full-time (see figure 5,
page 6). For those who did not borrow and later dropped out, the percentages
are even higher: 36% delayed entry into college, 25% enrolled part-time, and
21% worked full-time. By contrast, virtually all students who received their
bachelor?s degree?whether they borrowed or not?went on to college right
after high school, attended full-time, and did not work or worked part-time.
The attendance-adjusted cost of attendance was higher for borrowers who
dropped out than for nonborrowers who dropped out. Twenty-two percent of
borrowers who dropped out had budgets of $15,000 or more, while only 8% of
nonborrowers who dropped out had budgets at this level or higher.
Regardless of whether or not they borrow, students who drop out appear
to be less academically prepared for college, and they average lower academic
performance in college than those who complete a bachelor?s degree. Nearly
all students who dropped out, as well as nearly all who completed a bachelor?s
degree, had received a regular high school diploma prior to enrolling in college.
However, higher shares of those who drop out than of those who attain a
bachelor?s degree took at least
one remedial course during their
first year of college enrollment
(see figure 14). Likewise,
regardless of borrowing status,
more than half of those who
dropped out had a grade point
average of less than 2.25 in the
first year they were enrolled.
By contrast, only about a tenth
of bachelor?s degree recipients
had a grade point average of less
than 2.25 in their first year of
college.
16
Figure 14
Regardless of Borrowing Status, Those Who Drop Out Tend
to Be Less Prepared for College
12%
11%
12%
52%
25%
53%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Grade point average less
than 2.25 in first year
Took at least one
remedial course in
first year
Borrowers who dropped out
Nonborrowers who dropped out
Borrowers who completed BA
Nonborrowers who completed BA
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution in 1995-96 and expected to
attain at least a bachelor's degree. Borrowing, dropout, and completion status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 2.
8%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
17
Not surprisingly, those students who completed a bachelor?s degree fared
better in the labor market than those who dropped out, as measured six years
after initial enrollment. In 2001, 15% of borrowers who dropped out and 11%
of nonborrowers who dropped out were unemployed, compared with about
7% of those who completed a bachelor?s degree. Those dropouts who were
employed had median incomes of $24,000 to $25,000, while bachelor?s degree
recipients who were employed had median incomes of $30,500 to $32,000.
Likewise, borrowers who dropped out averaged lower amounts of debt
and lower monthly repayments than borrowers who completed a bachelor?s
degree. Borrowers who dropped out had accumulated a median debt of
$10,000, while borrowers who completed a bachelor?s degree had accumulated
$17,000 in debt. Median monthly repayments for those who were repaying their
debts were $125 for borrowers who dropped out and $200 for borrowers who
completed a bachelor?s degree. Among borrowers with earnings, the median
debt-to-earnings ratio was lower for those who dropped out than for those who
attained a bachelor?s degree: 5.3% versus 7.3%.
Even with lower debt and repayment burdens, however, borrowers
who dropped out had substantially higher default rates on their loans than
borrowers who completed a bachelor?s degree. In 2001, 22% of borrowers who
dropped out, compared with only 2% of borrowers who completed a bachelor?s
degree, were in default on at least one loan.
Those who dropped out?whether they borrowed or not?were less likely
than those who completed a degree to realize the economic benefits associated
with attaining a bachelor?s degree. However, borrowers who dropped out, as
compared with nonborrowers who dropped out, experienced greater economic
hardship from their participation in postsecondary education. Median earnings
and employment rates were comparable for borrowers who dropped out
and nonborrowers who dropped out. But borrowers who dropped out were
faced with repaying a median debt of $10,000. In addition, blacks may be
disproportionately affected by these patterns, as they represented a higher share
of borrowers who dropped out (18%) than of nonborrowers who dropped out
(12%), borrowers who completed a bachelor?s degree (11%), or nonborrowers
who completed a bachelor?s degree (3%).
Borrowers Who Drop Out
DROPOUTS AND ASSOCIATE?S DEGREE RECIPIENTS (Appendix II, Table 3)
To control for the relationship between the type of institution attended and the
likelihood of receiving an associate?s degree, the analysis in this subsection is
limited to students who first enrolled in a public two-year institution in 1995?96.
In contrast to the extensive pattern of borrowing at four-year institutions,
only one-third of students who first enrolled in a public two-year institution in
1995?96 had borrowed by 2001. However, it may be that borrowing promotes
degree attainment, as a higher share of borrowers than of nonborrowers who
first enrolled in a public two-year institution attained an associate?s degree (24%
versus 13%) or a bachelor?s degree (21% versus 6%) by 2001 (see figure 3, page
4). Also, a much smaller share of borrowers than of nonborrowers dropped out
by 2001 (24% versus 55%). It is likely, however, that the higher completion rates
for those who borrow portray the financial reality of higher education today:
most of those who begin at a two-year institution need to borrow if they expect
to be able to pay the costs of staying in college and completing a degree.
Students who attained an associate?s but not a bachelor?s degree within
six years (see Appendix II, table 3, columns 5 and 10) came from backgrounds
fairly similar to those who dropped out and received no degree (see Appendix
II, table 3, columns 2 and 7). Their parents? educational attainment was likely to
be low, as well as their family income level. These students were more likely to
be financially independent of their parents than were students who attained an
associate?s degree, and they were
more likely to have children of
their own. Many delayed entry
into postsecondary programs
after high school, worked fulltime,
or attended college parttime.
Behaviors that are known to
promote degree attainment are
less common among borrowers
who dropped out than
borrowers who completed an
associate?s degree, but are more
common among borrowers who
dropped out than nonborrowers
who dropped out (see figure 15).
18
Figure 15
At Public Two-Year Colleges, Avoidance of Borrowing
May Promote Behaviors Associated with Dropping Out
21%
32%
52%
31%
43%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Worked full-time
Enrolled part-time
Delayed enrolling after
high school
Borrowers who dropped out
Nonborrowers who dropped out
Borrowers who completed associate's
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a two-year institution in 1995-96. Borrowing,
dropout, and completion status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 3.
45%
57%
39%
37%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
That is, as with borrowing among students at four-year institutions, borrowing
among students at two-year institutions may promote behaviors that lead to
degree completion, while avoidance of borrowing may promote behaviors
associated with dropping out.
Among those who first enrolled in a public two-year institution, about
three-fourths of borrowers who dropped out, and about three-fourths of
borrowers who received an associate?s degree, said they expected to attain at
least a bachelor?s degree when they first enrolled. In their first year, borrowers
who dropped out and borrowers who completed an associate?s degree took
remedial courses at nearly the same rate (33% versus 29%).
As with students at fouryear
institutions, however,
inadequate academic
achievement appears
to be a barrier to degree
completion for students at
public two-year colleges.
Grade point averages for
first-year students were
higher for those who went
on to complete an associate?s
degree within six years
than for those who dropped
out?regardless of borrowing
status (see figure 16).
In terms of employment and other economic benefits of attending college,
it appears that borrowers who drop out after first enrolling in a public twoyear
college do not realize the economic benefits associated with an associate?s
degree (see figure 8, page 8). In 2001, smaller shares of borrowers who dropped
out (12%) and nonborrowers who dropped out (15%) were unemployed,
in comparison with the share of associate?s degree recipients who were
unemployed (21%). However, for those who were employed, median salaries
appear to be higher for borrowers who attained an associate?s degree ($31,200)9
than for those who dropped out ($22,000). Median salaries appear to be
comparable for borrowers who dropped out ($22,000) and nonborrowers who
dropped out ($24,000).
Students who borrowed and attained an associate?s degree had higher
19
Figure 16
At Public Two-Year Colleges, Those Who Drop Out
Tend to Be Less Prepared for College
51%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Grade point average
less than 2.25 in
first year
Borrowers who dropped out
Nonborrowers who dropped out
Borrowers who completed associate's
Nonborrowers who completed associate's
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a two-year institution in 1995?6. Borrowing, dropout,
and completion status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 3.
29%
27%
47%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
20
median debt levels than those who borrowed and dropped out ($9,000 versus
$6,000); they also had higher monthly repayment obligations ($120 versus
$110). Among borrowers with earnings, the median debt-to-earnings ratio
was identical for those with an associate?s degree and those who dropped
out (4.8%). Nonetheless, default rates on loans were substantially higher for
borrowers who dropped out than for borrowers with an associate?s degree (25%
versus 6%).
Borrowers who dropped out not only faced greater risk of defaulting
on their loans than borrowers who attained an associate?s degree, but also
experienced greater economic hardship than nonborrowers who dropped out.
Unemployment rates and median salaries were comparable for borrowers
and nonborrowers who dropped out, but borrowers who dropped out faced a
greater cost: a median debt of $6,000. As with students at four-year institutions,
blacks may be disproportionately affected by these patterns, as they represented
a higher share of borrowers who dropped out (21%) than of nonborrowers who
dropped out (14%), borrowers who completed an associate?s degree (9%), and
nonborrowers who completed an associate?s degree (2%).
DROPOUTS AND CERTIFICATE RECIPIENTS (Appendix II, Table 4)
This subsection compares the profiles of students who borrow and drop out
(see Appendix II, table 4, column 2) with the profiles of students who borrow
and attain a certificate for
short-term skills training (see
Appendix II, table 4, column
4). This analysis is limited to
individuals who first enrolled
in a private, for-profit, lessthan-
four-year postsecondary
education institution in 1995?
96.
Of these students, more
than two-thirds (68%) had
borrowed by 2001 (see figure
1, page 3). Although similar
proportions of borrowers
(54%) and nonborrowers
(52%) attained a certificate
by 2001, a somewhat smaller
Figure 17
Borrowing and Completion for Freshmen at Private,
For-Profit, Less-Than-Four-Year Institutions
Attained bachelor's
Attained associate's
Attained certificate
Still enrolled
Dropped out
Percentage of borrowers and nonborrowers who attained
the identified status 6 years after enrolling
0%
5%
52%
4%
40%
1%
11%
54%
3%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Borrowers Nonborrowers
Note: Percentages are for first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a private, for-profit, less-than-four-year postsecondary
education institution in 1995-96, and their status in 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 4.
Borrowers Who Drop Out
21
share of borrowers (32%) than nonborrowers (40%) dropped out (see figure 17).
Among borrowers who first entered a private, for-profit, less-than-fouryear
institution in 1995?96, those who dropped out and those who earned
a certificate within six years shared similarly disadvantaged background
characteristics (see figure 18). (In fact, these characteristics generally described
all students who first enrolled in this type of institution.) Nearly half of
borrowers who dropped out, nonborrowers who dropped out, and borrowers
who completed certificates came from families below the poverty level. Well
over a majority of borrowers who dropped out, nonborrowers who dropped
out, and borrowers who
completed certificates had parents
with no more than a high school
education. Large percentages
of borrowers who dropped out,
nonborrowers who dropped out,
and borrowers who completed
certificates were single parents,
age 30 or older, and financially
independent. The vast majority
of borrowers who dropped out,
nonborrowers who dropped out,
and borrowers who completed
certificates delayed entry into
postsecondary education
after high school. Substantial
proportions of borrowers who
dropped out, nonborrowers who
dropped out, and borrowers
who completed certificates did
not have a regular high school
diploma when they enrolled.
Labor market outcomes are generally better for borrowers who attain an
associate?s degree or a bachelor?s degree, as compared with their counterparts
who drop out. However, this does not appear to hold true for students who
receive certificates, when considering the economic prospects of students
six years after they first enrolled (see figure 9, page 9). Borrowers who
earned a certificate were about as likely as borrowers who dropped out to
be unemployed in 2001 (about 20% were unemployed). For those who were
Figure 18
Similar Disadvantaged Characteristics for Those Who
Dropped Out and Borrowers Who Completed a Certificate
21%
32%
71%
30%
70%
44%
72%
22%
32%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
No regular high school
diploma
Delayed enrolling after
high school
Financially independent
Age 30 or older
Single parents
Parents with high school
diploma or less
Below poverty level
Borrowers who dropped out
Nonborrowers who dropped out Borrowers who completed certificate
Note: Figures are for all first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a private, for-profit, less-than-four-year postsecondary
education institution in 1995?6. Borrowing, dropout, and completion status are for 2001.
Source: Appendix II, table 4.
25%
75%
67%
49%
68%
25%
35%
64%
35%
68%
48%
Borrowers Who Drop Out
employed, median salaries were roughly comparable for borrowers who
dropped out and borrowers who completed certificates ($25,000 versus
$23,400).
The absence of an advantage in the labor market for borrowers who
completed certificates, as compared with borrowers who dropped out, may be
attributable to other differences between borrowers who completed certificates
and borrowers who dropped out. For example, borrowers who completed
certificates, as compared with borrowers who dropped out, were more likely to
be female (71% versus 59%) and Hispanic (26% versus 13%).
Borrowers who completed certificates accumulated similar amounts of
debt as borrowers who dropped out (median debt of $6,500 versus $5,000).
Likewise, median debt-to-earning ratios were not significantly different for
borrowers who completed certificates and borrowers who dropped out (5.5%
versus 4.7%). High percentages of both groups defaulted on their loans: 24% of
borrowers who completed certificates defaulted on at least one loan, and 34% of
borrowers who dropped out did so.
The generally parallel outcomes between borrower dropouts and certificate
recipients are based on broad indicators in the Beginning Postsecondary
Students (BPS) survey data. Examination of differences among specific types of
certificate training (or over longer periods of time) is limited due to the absence
of appropriate data. An exploratory analysis using the best available measures
in the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) study suggests that loan default
rates vary by program of study. Among borrowers who first enrolled in a
private, for-profit, less-than-four-year institution and who received a certificate,
loan default rates ranged from about 10% in technology and mechanical fields,
to 18% in cosmetology, 21% in nursing and allied health fields, and 30% in
business and secretarial fields.
22
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Section III
Policy Implications and Recommendations
BENEFITS OF A BACHELOR?S DEGREE
These analyses highlight a neglected aspect of loan financing in higher
education: students who borrow and do not complete their programs.
The findings also put in bold relief a compelling factor that has been well
documented: attaining a bachelor?s degree has significant economic benefits.
Students who fall short of a bachelor?s degree average significantly lower
rewards in terms of employment, annual salaries, and default rates than those
who persist and reach this educational goal.
This is not to say that the bachelor?s degree is the only ticket to success
for individuals or for the national economy. ?Going to college? means many
things and produces many outcomes. Our society needs a range of subbaccalaureate
opportunities, providing skills and credentials for surviving in a
changing world, and our culture needs to confer more status and value on nonbaccalaureate
education.10
Yet the findings in this report show that, at least as measured six years after
first enrolling, those who have a bachelor?s degree have considerably more
leverage in today?s job market than those who do not. This finding is consistent
with other data showing the persistent earnings gap over a lifetime between
bachelor?s degree recipients and individuals with a high school diploma or
less.11 Bureau of Labor Statistics data show, too, that our future economy will
require a workforce with increasingly high levels of skills and training. Millions
of new jobs are projected to require a four-year degree or more in the coming
decade.12
UNCERTAIN BENEFITS OF SHORT-TERM, FOR-PROFIT TRAINING
A more cautionary word is in order regarding the economic value of short-term
certificate training provided by for-profit schools. Our analyses reveal that a
large number of students who enrolled in private, for-profit, less-than-four-year
institutions defaulted on their loans?whether they dropped out or earned
their certificate. The economic returns and associated default rates appear to
23
Borrowers Who Drop Out
24
vary by types of certificate training, but students who consider enrolling in and
borrowing to pay for such programs should be aware of the possible risks and
of the best available estimates of career earning potential. Likewise, state and
federal governments have a responsibility to help insure the quality and utility
of such training, and thereby to protect consumer interests.
THE ONCOMING TIDAL WAVE OF STUDENTS
On grounds of both equity and economics, America must fulfill its promise
of opportunity through higher education. This means giving all motivated
students an equal shot at realizing their potential. It means narrowing the wide
socioeconomic gaps between those who do and those who do not successfully
attend and graduate from our nation?s colleges and universities. In particular, it
means improving the chances of success for low-income, first-generation, and
nontraditional students, since they face a wider array of obstacles than other
students, and therefore need additional assistance.
The new demography of college-age students gives special urgency to
meeting this challenge. The baby boom that followed World War II produced
an explosion of college enrollments in the 1960s and 1970s. Now, the children
of the baby boomers are arriving at college age; this group of high school
graduates will yield a somewhat smaller but still dramatic expansion in the
college-age population over the next 15 years. By one estimate there will be
2.6 million more undergraduates on campus in 2015 than there are today?a
product of the baby boom echo, rising immigration, and more adult learners.13
This study has focused on the cohort of students who entered
postsecondary education in 1995?96, many of whom came from disadvantaged
family backgrounds and took a nontraditional path to college. The oncoming
generation of students promises to be still more nontraditional and
economically disadvantaged. According to projections from the U.S. Census,
this generation will be more ethnically diverse than ever, and the fastest growth
will come from groups in our society that have traditionally been poorer than
the general population, and more educationally at-risk.14
As a society, we will need a much wider and deeper commitment to
reaching, motivating, and preparing low-income students for college?and
assuring that price is not a barrier for their persistence and success in college.
Based on the findings of this study and other pertinent research, our nation?s
increasingly loan-dependent system of financing higher education may not be
well suited to this task.
Borrowers Who Drop Out
25
As we have seen in this study, low-income students rely more heavily on
loans than do other students. Some low-income students appear to use loans
to make choices that are generally associated with higher rates of bachelor?s
degree attainment, including: initially enrolling in a four-year institution,
attending full-time, and working no more than part-time. Other low-income
students make choices that are known to reduce the probability of degree
completion, including: enrolling in a less-than-four-year institution, enrolling
part-time, and working full-time. When students are also inadequately
prepared for the academics of college, the likelihood of dropping out of college
increases. As a result of being inadequately prepared, significant numbers
of both groups?that is, borrowers and nonborrowers?wind up with no
credential. All students who fail to complete their degree programs incur the
costs that are associated with attending their programs, including the costs of
attendance and lost earnings. But in addition to these costs, those who borrow
have a student debt to repay and a risk of default.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings in this report suggest that there are some significant, negative,
and lasting consequences of the current system of financing higher education
in the United States, particularly for students from lower-income and lowermiddle-
income families. Given the substantial public and private benefits
that result from investing in higher education, the principal message of this
report is the importance of providing all motivated students with a realistic
chance of entering college and persisting to degree completion. This study
provides no basis for limiting or discouraging loans to students who may enter
postsecondary education with risk factors for dropping out. On the contrary, it
appears that providing financial support for these students may improve their
opportunities to stay in school and complete their degrees.
The most promising approach in remedying the problems encountered by
borrowers who drop out is to adopt policies and programs to help all students
who are at risk for dropping out. The findings of this research suggest that
policymakers and educational leaders should focus their efforts on three
important priorities:| Focus on policies that prepare students better for postsecondary
training, and that help students understand their educational options,
including the appropriate use of loan financing. The findings in this
study suggest that those who drop out of college, whether they borrow
or not, tend to be less academically prepared than those who receive
Borrowers Who Drop Out
a degree. Those who drop out also may be less knowledgeable about
college (including the implications of borrowing), as suggested by their
parents? lower levels of education.| Make college more affordable so as to reduce dependence on loan
financing and student employment, especially for those with the
greatest need. Regardless of the type of institution in which students first
enroll or whether they borrow, those who drop out are more likely to be
from low-income backgrounds than those who complete a degree.| Strengthen on-campus support for financially and academically at-risk
students, to ensure that all students who enter postsecondary education
have the resources to help them succeed in attaining a degree. Not
surprisingly, borrowers who drop out tend to have lower salaries six years
after first enrolling than those who complete an associate?s or a bachelor?s
degree. Borrowers who drop out also tend to have much higher default
rates on their loans than borrowers who attain a degree. Students who
avoid borrowing by enrolling in a less-than-four-year institution, by
attending part-time, or by working full-time may also realize lower
economic attainment, as prior research suggests that students following
these patterns are less likely to complete a degree.
Schools, colleges and universities, the states, the federal government, and
communities and the private sector can advance the above objectives through
the following commitments:
What High Schools Can Do| Prepare students to succeed in college. To address the problems
identified in this report concerning borrowers who drop out (and college
graduation rates in general), a large part of the responsibility rests with
the nation?s schools: to strengthen academic preparation and reduce the
wide gaps in achievement across socioeconomic groups. In turn, this
challenge presents a question of political will. In this rich nation of ours,
can we find the means and the will to set high standards for all students?
and help students meet them?| Inform, motivate, and counsel students about their postsecondary
options. College-bound students need to understand the risks and
benefits of investing in their college education and, if necessary, financing
the costs through loans and work.
26
Borrowers Who Drop Out
What Colleges, Universities, and For-Profit Institutions Can Do| Contain costs and prices. In Measuring Up 2004, the National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education concluded that higher education
was less affordable for students and their families in 2004 than in 1994, at
least in part because increases in the costs of attending college exceeded
increases in family income.15| Award the bulk of institutional grant and scholarship aid on the basis
of need. Institutional aid should be directed to academically qualified
but financially needy students, not those who can afford to pay without
assistance. While some low-income students forego higher education
because of inadequate financial resources, others attempt to pay the
costs of their education by borrowing or making choices that reduce the
probability of completing the degree (for example, enrolling in a lessthan-
four-year institution, attending part-time, or working full-time).| Invest more heavily in early guidance and partnerships with K?12
schools. It is in the enlightened self-interest of postsecondary institutions
to expand the pool of potential applicants who are academically qualified
for and knowledgeable about college. Reaching out to ensure that at-risk
students are academically and financially prepared for college is a longterm
investment that will pay off for higher education and for the nation.| Help students from all backgrounds adjust to campus life and persist
in their studies. Institutions need to allocate resources to help at-risk
students, and to intervene early when students may be having academic,
financial, and other problems. Where needed, schools should provide
intensive basic course work, especially in the freshman year, and establish
transfer policies that help students retain academic credit. For lessendowed
schools, funds from state, federal, and private sources may
be especially important for creating safety nets and support services on
campus.16| Help students understand the risks and benefits of their financing
options. Some students arrive on campus without the necessary financial
literacy or maturity to make sound choices about borrowing, credit
cards, work, housing, and academic course loads and selections. Colleges
should make a greater effort to link academic and financial advising,
thereby helping students to choose financing strategies that support their
academic goals.17
27
Borrowers Who Drop Out
What States Can Do| Emphasize need-based grant aid over no-need merit scholarships and
tax-advantaged tuition financing. State merit scholarships do not, by and
large, expand access or help those with the greatest need. Neither do state
tuition-tax incentives. State governments should examine the purposes
of state financial aid programs to ensure that financially needy students
have the resources that are necessary not only to enroll, but also to persist
in their degree programs.| Increase need-based grant aid in step with tuition increases. Too often,
tuition and fees end up as a filler or balancer in the state budget process,
and too often, student financial aid is an afterthought. Policymakers need
to look at these interrelated decisions and establish linkages among them
in relation to state policy goals.| Expand efforts to help at-risk students in middle and secondary
schools prepare for postsecondary education. For example, in the wake
of California?s Proposition 209, which eliminated affirmative action
programs in that state, California increased its investment in early
guidance and outreach in an effort to pursue the same broad goals of
access and campus diversity. State K?16 partnerships may also improve
academic preparation for college. All states need to make deeper and
wider commitments to ensure the successful transition of students from
K?12 schools to postsecondary education.| Increase support for Education Opportunity Programs (EOP) and other
state programs that provide resources to institutions to help students
stay on track to their certificate or degree. This support is especially
important for institutions that do not already have built-in, multiple
support services for students who may be at risk.
What the Federal Government Can Do| Restore the value of Pell Grants and other need-based grant assistance.
This is the most direct action the federal government can take to improve
the affordability of college for low- and moderate-income students and
reduce their dependence on loans and work.| Help students manage their debt. As the principal sponsor of student
loans, the federal government should build coalitions of schools,
colleges, lenders, loan guarantors, and state agencies to curb unnecessary
borrowing and ease repayment burdens, especially for borrowers facing
economic hardship. Students need help in evaluating how much they
28
Borrowers Who Drop Out
should borrow based on their career interests, likely career outcomes, and
potential ability to repay. Borrowers who are beginning the repayment
phase should be counseled on forbearance and deferment opportunities
and flexible repayment options, including income-based as well as
extended and graduated repayment plans.| Make borrowing less expensive by lowering or eliminating origination
fees. Students who borrow under federal programs do not benefit from
the entire amount borrowed, since, as authorized by federal law, the costs
of administering federal loans are paid in part by student fees.| Help to link financial aid with early guidance and mentoring. The
most successful early college awareness and intervention programs in
the private sector combine a promise to pay tuition with academic and
motivational support to keep students in school and on track for college.
Recent experience with the federal GEAR-UP Program suggests that
making this linkage on a large scale in a government program is not an
easy task. But federal policymakers should persist in supporting such
efforts.| Increase funding for on-campus Student Support Services. As with
similar programs at the state level, this federal program provides
resources to colleges to help low-income and nontraditional students
persist in their studies.18
What Communities and the Private Sector Can Do| Consider directing more scholarship assistance toward students with
the greatest financial need. Most private scholarships are awarded based
on merit with no consideration of financial need. Scholarship sponsors
should consider targeting aid on academically promising, low- and
moderate-income students?those who might not otherwise be able to
afford higher education, rather than on students who would likely be
able to finance the costs of college even without the scholarship aid.| Go beyond scholarships alone. Private and community-based efforts
should be comprehensive in fostering student access and success.
Financial aid should be combined with support for counseling and
outreach to help prepare students not only to enroll, but also to persist to
degree completion.
29
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Appendix I
Data Sources and Definitions
Borrowers who drop out have been overlooked, perhaps in part because data
have not been available to document the extent of the problem?until recently.
The principal source of data for our research is the longitudinal Beginning
Postsecondary Students (BPS) study, which the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education inaugurated in 1989
and repeated in the 1990s. The BPS:90/94 tracks degree attainment, enrollment
status, and financing patterns among a sample of students who were firsttime
freshmen in 1989?90 with follow-ups in 1992 and 1994 (five years after
the students matriculated). Tracking a sample of students who first enrolled
in some type of postsecondary education between May 1, 1995, and April 30,
1996, with follow-ups in 1998 and 2001 (six years after first enrolling), the BPS:
96/01 provides more recent and more useful information. With the application
of the appropriate NCES-derived longitudinal weight, the BPS:96/01 sample
is representative of the population of first-year students who first enrolled in
postsecondary institutions in the United States and Puerto Rico in 1995?96.19
One improvement in the BPS:96/01 over the BPS:90/94 is the incorporation
of data from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), which the
federal government has developed over the past decade. The NSLDS provides
data on each loan transaction for each member of the BPS sample who received
a loan. Although not perfect, NSLDS provides the best and most comprehensive
information available on borrowing, loan status, and repayment. While NSLDS
provides information on each loan transaction, we use data from the most recent
transaction to determine repayment status.
A strength of the BPS data sets is the inclusion of data from multiple sources,
including the NSLDS as well as institutional records and student interviews. A
related weakness, however, is that sometimes the data on borrowing conflict.
When student-reported data conflict with NSLDS data, we used NSLDS as the
source. When various student-reported data pertaining to loans conflict, we rely
on the BPS-derived composite of whether a student reported ever receiving a
loan.
30
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Students start out at many different places in postsecondary education
(in terms of their institution first attended, aspirations, backgrounds, and so
on), and likewise leave postsecondary education with a diversity of outcomes.
No database can pinpoint all the variables in this fluid process of educational
opportunity. Using the BPS, our analysis presents the best available proxy
indicators, at specific points in time.
Two further limitations of the data used in this study should be noted. One
is that the BPS includes only students who attended a postsecondary institution.
A useful policy question might be whether people who borrowed and dropped
out are better off than those who did not go to postsecondary education at all.
Unfortunately the data do not allow us to address that question directly.
Second, the data set we use has only minimal data on the pre-college
academic qualifications of students in the sample. Some of our results suggest
that dropping out may be correlated with pre-college qualifications, and the
level of pre-college qualifications is likely correlated with other variables, such
as socioeconomic status and the quality of high schools students attended.
Lacking controls on school quality, however, we are unable to disentangle these
effects. This is also an unavoidable limitation of the data set.
DEFINITIONS
Students Who Drop Out
In the BPS:96/01 data set, we assume that students who drop out are those
who, at the time of the second follow-up (six years after matriculating), had not
obtained a degree or certificate and were not enrolled (Appendix II, columns
2 and 7 in all tables). Some individuals in these categories may only be ?stop
outs.? That is, at some point some of these students may re-enroll and complete
their programs. To that extent, dropouts may be overstated. On the other hand,
some students who have not achieved a degree and are still enrolled (columns 3
and 8) may never attain that goal. To that extent, dropouts may be understated.
Due to lack of later follow-up data, we make the rough assumption that these
two effects offset each other.20 We refer to students who are not currently
enrolled and have not attained a credential or degree by 2001 as students who
have dropped out.
Default Status on Loans
Federal student loans are considered in default when a payment has not
been made after a certain number of days (270 days for loans with monthly
31
Borrowers Who Drop Out
payments, and 330 days for loans with less frequent payments). In this study,
we present default rates based on the number of borrowers who were in default
on at least one loan in 2001, six years after first enrolling. Using this marker
understates defaults to the extent that borrowers may have defaulted after
2001. Whenever they default, borrowers are subject to significant consequences,
including a damaged credit rating, ineligibility for additional federal student
aid, payment of collection costs, wage garnishment, and legal action. At the
same time, our data analysis overstates defaults to the extent that defaulted
loans in 2001 may have been ?rehabilitated? back into repayment status and
eventually repaid. Under federal rules, rehabilitation requires that the borrower
makes 12 on-time, full monthly payments, and rehabilitation removes the
default completely from the borrower?s credit record. The federal loan programs
include mechanisms that are designed to help borrowers avoid default,
including deferment of loan repayment for such reasons as unemployment,
military service, volunteer work, teaching full-time in an area with teacher
shortages, and disability. Borrowers who die or become totally and permanently
disabled may have their federal loans cancelled.
32
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Appendix II
Source Tables
33
Characteristic
Total Number
% of total number
% of borrowers
% of nonborrowers
Demographic characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific islander
American Indian/Alaskan native
Other
Non-resident alien
Total
Age in 1995
15 - 18 years
19 years
20 - 29 years
30 years or older
Total
Marital status in 1995
Single, no children (dependent)
Single, no children (independent)
Single with children
Married, no children
Married with children
Total
Parents' education
High school grad or less
Some postsecondary education
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Dependency status
Dependent
Independent
Total
Dependent family income in 1994
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $69,999
$70,000 and above
Total
3,237,582
100.0
45.3
54.7
100.0
70.1
12.0
11.8
4.5
0.7
0.3
0.6
100.0
58.3
12.5
18.0
11.2
100.0
73.5
6.5
9.0
4.5
6.6
100.0
41.0
21.8
21.5
15.7
100.0
73.5
26.5
100.0
25.6
24.0
25.3
25.1
100.0
368,934
11.4
22.6
46.0
54.0
100.0
60.8
20.5
11.5
5.4
1.4
0.3
--
100.0
52.5
16.1
21.6
9.8
100.0
69.9
7.6
11.6
3.9
7.0
100.0
50.2
23.0
15.2
11.6
100.0
69.9
30.1
100.0
29.0
27.7
25.3
18.0
100.0
260,893
8.1
16.0
46.3
53.7
100.0
64.4
14.6
15.9
4.0
0.9
0.1
0.1
100.0
64.9
15.3
14.4
5.3
100.0
79.2
4.6
6.5
2.7
7.1
100.0
37.1
29.8
19.9
13.2
100.0
79.2
20.8
100.0
29.8
30.7
26.7
12.8
100.0
191,760
5.9
11.8
34.9
65.1
100.0
57.9
18.5
18.8
4.2
0.4
0.2
--
100.0
29.2
13.5
38.1
19.1
100.0
40.8
16.5
24.4
8.9
9.4
100.0
65.1
20.0
12.1
2.8
100.0
40.8
59.2
100.0
41.9
28.3
23.3
6.5
100.0
183,159
5.7
11.2
55.6
44.4
100.0
73.8
9.2
12.4
4.1
0.5
--
--
100.0
55.3
16.3
16.0
12.5
100.0
74.5
5.9
13.2
2.0
4.3
100.0
46.5
22.5
22.3
8.7
100.0
74.5
25.5
100.0
37.6
26.1
26.9
9.4
100.0
625,373
19.3
38.4
41.9
58.1
100.0
74.9
9.3
7.5
6.8
1.2
0.1
0.2
100.0
85.3
8.8
4.5
1.4
100.0
94.3
1.6
2.2
1.1
0.9
100.0
27.0
17.4
28.9
26.6
100.0
94.3
5.7
100.0
20.6
22.9
29.3
27.2
100.0
706,688
21.8
44.0
45.9
54.1
100.0
69.7
13.7
13.5
2.1
0.4
0.6
--
100.0
41.0
12.0
25.3
21.8
100.0
59.9
8.7
12.3
7.7
11.5
100.0
51.0
27.1
15.7
6.2
100.0
59.9
40.1
100.0
31.6
25.2
25.3
17.9
100.0
214,437
6.6
13.3
56.1
43.9
100.0
71.5
8.8
11.2
6.7
0.3
--
1.5
100.0
52.9
15.5
24.1
7.4
100.0
74.7
9.6
4.0
6.1
5.6
100.0
33.9
22.4
25.3
18.4
100.0
74.7
25.3
100.0
19.9
21.0
22.6
36.5
100.0
206,472
6.4
12.8
40.8
59.2
100.0
68.3
15.7
12.0
1.9
0.7
0.8
0.5
100.0
22.2
9.8
38.5
29.5
100.0
38.6
12.3
19.9
11.9
17.3
100.0
63.8
19.6
13.4
3.2
100.0
38.6
61.4
100.0
39.9
36.1
9.3
14.7
100.0
147,953
4.6
9.2
42.4
57.6
100.0
73.9
3.3
14.5
5.0
--
0.4
2.9
100.0
54.6
22.1
13.9
9.4
100.0
77.5
5.2
7.6
4.2
5.5
100.0
43.7
19.2
29.5
7.6
100.0
77.5
22.5
100.0
31.1
19.8
27.5
21.5
100.0
331,913
10.3
20.6
46.6
53.4
100.0
80.4
3.0
8.1
5.3
0.3
0.3
2.6
100.0
90.6
7.4
2.0
--
100.0
98.9
0.8
--
0.1
0.2
100.0
14.0
14.0
30.8
41.2
100.0
98.9
1.1
100.0
10.8
15.8
21.3
52.1
100.0
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 1
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001 34
Percent of poverty level 1995
Less than 100% poverty level
100% to 199% poverty level
200% to 399% poverty level
400% to 599% poverty level
600% or higher poverty level
Total
Percent of poverty level 1995
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Parents paid tuition 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Academic and enrollment characteristics
Highest degree ever expected 1995-96
Don't know
Less than bachelor's
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Received diploma or passed GED
Received a high school diploma
Passed a general educational degree
Received a high school completion cert.
Did not complete high school
Total
First institution attended
Public 4-year
Private 4-year
Public 2-year
Private for-profit
Other
Total
Transfer status
Did not transfer
Transferred
Total
Delayed enrollment
No, did not delay
Delayed
Total
Worked while enrolled 1995-96
Did not work
Worked part-time
Worked full-time (35 hrs+/wk)
Total
20.7
21.1
31.4
15.3
11.6
100.0
244
300
236
47.8
52.2
100.0
12.1
14.2
27.7
46.0
100.0
90.7
6.0
0.4
2.9
100.0
26.4
15.1
44.9
10.8
2.8
100.0
67.4
32.6
100.0
64.3
35.7
100.0
30.6
46.9
22.6
100.0
27.7
23.5
30.5
11.8
6.4
100.0
193
248
206
55.3
44.7
100.0
14.9
15.1
27.5
42.5
100.0
85.9
9.7
0.1
4.3
100.0
29.8
15.4
32.1
20.7
2.1
100.0
67.5
32.5
100.0
59.7
40.3
100.0
30.0
47.0
23.0
100.0
23.7
25.0
33.8
11.7
5.9
100.0
208
245
192
58.2
41.8
100.0
10.4
2.4
25.7
61.6
100.0
93.5
5.5
0.4
0.6
100.0
39.6
13.4
43.0
3.1
0.9
100.0
40.6
59.4
100.0
70.9
29.1
100.0
23.3
58.6
18.0
100.0
44.0
30.3
18.4
5.8
1.5
100.0
108
154
147
69.6
30.4
100.0
16.9
33.4
25.4
24.2
100.0
75.6
13.2
2.1
9.0
100.0
8.0
2.7
19.5
64.1
5.8
100.0
66.0
34.0
100.0
34.7
65.3
100.0
38.7
36.4
24.9
100.0
23.8
25.4
36.5
10.4
3.9
100.0
203
232
162
58.7
41.3
100.0
11.1
14.7
44.2
30.0
100.0
90.9
5.3
1.8
2.0
100.0
12.5
6.1
63.0
14.2
4.2
100.0
40.0
60.0
100.0
64.2
35.8
100.0
27.9
51.6
20.5
100.0
11.8
17.1
35.4
22.1
13.6
100.0
316
351
230
35.3
64.7
100.0
9.0
0.3
17.3
73.4
100.0
98.7
1.1
0.1
0.1
100.0
44.3
38.3
16.1
0.8
0.4
100.0
71.4
28.6
100.0
88.1
11.9
100.0
32.0
60.8
7.2
100.0
21.3
24.4
32.9
12.4
9.1
100.0
216
274
218
57.6
42.4
100.0
13.7
25.2
35.2
25.9
100.0
87.0
7.6
0.3
5.1
100.0
11.3
3.6
75.6
6.3
3.2
100.0
83.7
16.3
100.0
48.8
51.2
100.0
24.0
36.4
39.5
100.0
15.0
12.8
34.1
20.9
17.3
100.0
307
361
246
42.6
57.4
100.0
7.7
8.2
43.2
40.9
100.0
93.1
5.2
--
1.7
100.0
21.3
5.1
69.3
1.9
2.4
100.0
44.5
55.5
100.0
60.5
39.5
100.0
18.6
46.1
35.3
100.0
30.9
30.0
27.3
8.5
3.3
100.0
165
206
176
74.8
25.2
100.0
18.6
37.3
24.8
19.4
100.0
78.9
15.4
--
5.7
100.0
4.3
1.8
52.8
27.7
13.5
100.0
77.8
22.2
100.0
25.0
75.0
100.0
34.7
28.3
37.0
100.0
24.0
17.8
30.4
15.8
12.0
100.0
253
299
244
38.9
61.1
100.0
7.9
23.8
30.0
38.3
100.0
93.4
4.2
0.5
1.9
100.0
9.8
1.7
82.9
4.1
1.6
100.0
56.1
43.9
100.0
64.6
35.4
100.0
27.7
58.2
14.1
100.0
6.3
9.1
25.3
24.0
35.2
100.0
465
503
283
18.0
82.0
100.0
11.1
1.1
17.4
70.4
100.0
99.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
100.0
53.6
29.4
16.5
0.1
0.3
100.0
75.3
24.7
100.0
91.9
8.1
100.0
51.3
43.9
4.8
100.0
35
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 1 (Continued)
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001
Enrollment intensity 1995-96
Full-time
Part-time
Total
GPA first year enrolled
Under 2.25
2.25 to 3.25
Over 3.25
Total
Remedial courses taken 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Cost of attendance and financial aid
Total student budget (attendance-adjusted)
Less than $5,000
$5,000 - $9,999
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 or more
Total
Total grant, 1995-96
None
Less than $1,500
$1,500 - $2,999
$3,000 or more
Total
Cumulative UG loans, 1995-2001
Less than $7,000
$7,000 - $14,000
$14,001 - $20,000
More than $20,000
Total
Total amount UG loans, 1995-2001
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Current employment status
Currently employed, 2001
Not employed
Employed
Total
Current job requires deg/cert 2001
No
Yes
Total
73.4
26.6
100.0
33.3
40.0
26.8
100.0
81.4
18.6
100.0
29.5
39.6
16.6
14.4
100.0
49.8
19.3
14.9
16.0
100.0
29.0
26.0
24.8
20.2
100.0
12,000
14,480
11,380
12.5
87.5
100.0
67.6
32.4
100.0
79.2
20.8
100.0
48.0
33.9
18.1
100.0
76.9
23.1
100.0
20.7
44.5
22.2
12.6
100.0
37.6
26.5
19.8
16.0
100.0
49.1
23.3
13.2
14.3
100.0
7,000
11,191
11,673
15.3
84.7
100.0
89.5
10.5
100.0
75.3
24.7
100.0
44.9
40.0
15.1
100.0
72.3
27.7
100.0
23.4
51.8
17.0
7.9
100.0
43.6
19.2
18.6
18.6
100.0
43.2
25.7
18.5
12.6
100.0
8,000
11,586
10,779
0.3
99.7
100.0
86.6
13.4
100.0
80.4
19.6
100.0
27.1
36.8
36.1
100.0
94.1
5.9
100.0
16.9
34.7
37.0
11.4
100.0
38.3
21.5
32.6
7.5
100.0
53.7
25.0
9.1
12.2
100.0
6,000
8,895
7,784
15.6
84.4
100.0
72.9
27.1
100.0
76.5
23.5
100.0
27.2
46.0
26.8
100.0
76.0
24.0
100.0
28.3
46.6
17.4
7.7
100.0
48.0
17.8
20.7
13.5
100.0
36.1
29.3
24.9
9.7
100.0
10,000
11,885
9,367
16.3
83.7
100.0
62.0
38.0
100.0
93.1
6.9
100.0
12.6
52.7
34.8
100.0
87.1
12.9
100.0
6.2
34.9
21.8
37.1
100.0
30.5
14.4
15.2
39.8
100.0
14.5
25.8
31.6
28.0
100.0
16,000
17,586
11,371
7.7
92.3
100.0
40.4
59.6
100.0
51.2
48.8
100.0
50.6
30.2
19.2
100.0
75.4
24.6
100.0
60.0
32.9
5.3
1.8
100.0
63.7
23.3
9.1
3.9
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
16.3
83.7
100.0
87.4
12.6
100.0
55.5
44.5
100.0
45.3
33.2
21.5
100.0
73.2
26.8
100.0
44.9
44.7
6.7
3.8
100.0
70.5
20.1
5.1
4.2
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2.4
97.6
100.0
90.9
9.1
100.0
61.3
38.7
100.0
28.8
32.1
39.1
100.0
91.2
8.8
100.0
42.9
42.8
12.0
2.3
100.0
55.0
23.3
15.9
5.9
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
13.0
87.0
100.0
77.9
22.1
100.0
66.4
33.6
100.0
30.2
42.6
27.2
100.0
78.2
21.8
100.0
39.0
50.5
9.8
0.7
100.0
63.0
12.2
14.0
10.8
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
16.9
83.1
100.0
61.9
38.1
100.0
90.4
9.6
100.0
14.5
46.9
38.7
100.0
91.6
8.4
100.0
9.4
36.0
23.6
31.0
100.0
60.4
11.9
10.6
17.0
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
8.4
91.6
100.0
33.9
66.1
100.0
36
Characteristic
Current job related to coursework
Closely related
Somewhat related
Not related
Total
First job title 2001
Clerical
Craftsman, repair, laborer
Sales or customer service
Legal, medical, education, human services
Engineering, scientist, technical, computer
Manager
Other
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Less than $20,000
$20,000 - $35,000
Over $35,000
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Repayment and Default
Currently repaying loans
No
Yes
Total
Average monthly loan repayment
Less than $75/month
$75 - $149 per month
$150 - $249/month
$250/month or more
Total
Monthly loan repayment
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Ratio: Debt to earnings
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
In default
No
Yes
Total
39.8
19.9
40.3
100.0
11.5
10.4
19.0
21.9
12.0
12.9
12.3
100.0
26.3
48.7
25.0
100.0
26,520
28,686
14,544
74.9
25.1
100.0
19.7
23.6
34.8
21.9
100.0
151
180
130
6.5
8.1
7.0
94.5
5.5
100.0
22.7
21.2
56.1
100.0
12.9
17.4
21.3
12.1
8.9
16.9
10.6
100.0
32.1
48.6
19.3
100.0
24,000
25,917
13,149
34.0
66.0
100.0
30.2
31.8
24.6
13.4
100.0
110
139
100
4.8
8.6
9.6
75.0
25.0
100.0
41.8
15.1
43.1
100.0
5.6
48.1
--
15.9
9.4
20.2
0.8
100.0
45.9
33.5
20.6
100.0
22,880
24,495
13,674
8.7
91.3
100.0
43.1
24.7
22.7
9.4
100.0
100
126
110
5.7
6.7
5.7
92.9
7.1
100.0
56.1
16.3
27.6
100.0
8.3
10.7
9.2
32.2
13.9
5.6
20.1
100.0
31.6
48.9
19.5
100.0
25,000
26,486
13,063
29.3
70.7
100.0
29.5
26.7
42.4
1.4
100.0
100
127
67
4.5
5.2
3.2
78.1
21.9
100.0
45.3
22.2
32.5
100.0
16.2
19.8
11.9
27.7
10.1
7.7
6.7
100.0
24.1
44.7
31.2
100.0
28,000
29,524
12,757
13.1
86.9
100.0
21.7
32.9
38.8
6.6
100.0
120
137
84
5.7
6.1
4.7
93.4
6.6
100.0
49.2
26.9
23.9
100.0
6.7
4.7
20.8
26.5
14.8
14.0
12.5
100.0
17.4
52.5
30.1
100.0
30,000
31,621
14,190
10.6
89.4
100.0
13.8
20.4
37.2
28.7
100.0
190
204
139
7.3
8.5
7.3
98.1
1.9
100.0
22.5
15.8
61.7
100.0
18.7
17.1
14.6
12.8
6.8
14.9
15.1
100.0
34.8
46.2
19.0
100.0
24,000
26,712
15,631
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
58.5
20.7
20.8
100.0
39.8
--
37.9
--
--
22.4
--
100.0
23.4
39.7
36.9
100.0
26,000
30,334
15,892
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
46.8
14.2
39.1
100.0
18.8
25.7
14.5
13.8
8.5
5.4
13.3
100.0
30.3
48.8
20.9
100.0
24,000
26,172
13,105
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
57.1
9.3
33.5
100.0
28.2
11.5
7.7
27.4
6.6
12.1
6.5
100.0
21.3
58.8
20.0
100.0
26,000
27,618
11,464
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
53.2
23.8
23.0
100.0
6.7
4.1
25.8
23.9
15.5
11.4
12.6
100.0
11.4
52.0
36.6
100.0
31,500
33,837
14,751
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
* ?Dropped out? is defined as not enrolled, no attainment at the time of the survey.
Source: Analyses of BPS:96/01.
Notes: Analyses weighted by B01LWT2. Borrowing defined by student self-reported borrowing by 2001 and loan status from National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) records. When self-reported and NSLDS data conflict, NSLDS data are used. When selfreported
data conflict, the BPS composite reflecting whether a student received a loan by 2001 is used. Poverty level is a variable calculated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) based on family size, total income, and dependency status.
Table cells without a value have a sample size too small for reliable estimation.
37
Characteristic
Total Number
% of total number
% of borrowers
% of nonborrowers
Demographic characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific islander
American Indian/Alaskan native
Other
Non-resident alien
Total
Age in 1995
15 - 18 years
19 years
20 - 29 years
30 years or older
Total
Marital status in 1995
Single, no children (dependent)
Single, no children (independent)
Single with children
Married, no children
Married with children
Total
Parents' education
High school grad or less
Some postsecondary education
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Dependency status
Dependent
Independent
Total
Dependent family income in 1994
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $69,999
$70,000 and above
Total
1,071,617
100.0
44.4
55.6
100.0
72.0
11.2
9.1
6.3
0.5
0.2
0.8
100.0
81.2
10.0
6.6
2.2
100.0
93.0
2.2
2.2
1.0
1.6
100.0
26.0
18.7
27.1
28.2
100.0
93.0
7.0
100.0
20.2
21.2
26.7
32.0
100.0
132,799
12.4
18.5
48.8
51.2
100.0
65.7
18.3
10.0
5.5
0.4
0.1
--
100.0
70.6
13.5
12.1
3.9
100.0
87.4
2.9
3.9
1.7
4.1
100.0
41.6
21.7
19.7
17.0
100.0
87.4
12.6
100.0
26.6
30.1
26.7
16.6
100.0
113,365
10.6
15.8
51.4
48.6
100.0
61.3
19.3
12.4
5.9
0.7
0.2
0.3
100.0
73.9
13.5
9.1
3.5
100.0
90.4
3.5
2.8
0.1
3.1
100.0
37.5
23.3
22.1
17.1
100.0
90.4
9.6
100.0
34.0
26.1
24.5
15.4
100.0
15,691
1.5
2.2
33.1
66.9
100.0
55.6
31.9
12.5
--
--
--
--
100.0
68.4
10.7
13.1
7.8
100.0
76.8
1.1
15.6
1.1
5.4
100.0
51.1
26.0
11.3
11.6
100.0
76.8
23.2
100.0
41.0
22.4
21.3
15.3
100.0
22,832
2.1
3.2
38.8
61.2
100.0
76.6
11.1
8.5
3.8
--
--
--
100.0
75.9
8.2
10.7
5.2
100.0
82.3
3.5
6.5
4.5
3.2
100.0
34.9
27.3
29.0
8.8
100.0
82.3
17.7
100.0
27.1
31.9
24.3
16.8
100.0
432,725
40.4
60.3
41.5
58.5
100.0
73.4
10.5
7.9
7.4
0.6
--
0.2
100.0
87.5
8.4
3.4
0.6
100.0
96.2
1.8
1.1
0.6
0.3
100.0
24.5
17.6
29.4
28.5
100.0
96.2
3.8
100.0
20.0
22.1
30.5
27.4
100.0
71,173
6.6
20.1
55.4
44.6
100.0
68.0
11.5
15.4
4.8
--
--
0.3
100.0
56.3
11.5
21.2
11.0
100.0
76.6
7.7
6.2
5.1
4.5
100.0
36.8
22.1
21.7
19.4
100.0
76.6
23.4
100.0
20.0
23.2
26.5
30.4
100.0
44,333
4.1
12.5
43.9
56.1
100.0
68.0
7.0
16.2
4.4
0.5
--
3.9
100.0
78.4
8.7
10.5
2.4
100.0
89.9
1.5
4.1
2.4
2.0
100.0
14.1
21.4
29.8
34.7
100.0
89.9
10.1
100.0
11.6
17.7
23.9
46.8
100.0
7,917
0.7
2.2
60.0
40.0
100.0
72.9
10.8
6.6
1.9
--
7.8
--
100.0
51.5
8.8
28.8
10.9
100.0
82.6
2.6
2.4
2.7
9.7
100.0
36.7
28.0
23.1
12.3
100.0
82.6
17.4
100.0
41.2
10.8
17.9
30.1
100.0
10,112
0.9
2.9
32.3
67.7
100.0
70.4
15.0
2.3
5.6
--
6.7
100.0
67.4
23.8
8.8
--
100.0
100.0
--
--
--
--
100.0
19.1
29.4
34.9
16.7
100.0
100.0
--
100.0
14.5
22.2
29.2
34.1
100.0
220,670
20.6
62.3
42.1
57.9
100.0
81.6
3.1
6.0
6.2
0.5
0.4
2.3
100.0
90.7
8.4
0.9
--
100.0
99.5
0.5
--
--
--
100.0
10.6
13.1
31.3
45.0
100.0
99.5
0.5
100.0
10.2
11.9
21.7
56.2
100.0
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 2
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution and expected to
attain at least a bachelor's degree by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001
38
Percent of poverty level 1995
Less than 100% poverty level
100% to 199% poverty level
200% to 399% poverty level
400% to 599% poverty level
600% or higher poverty level
Total
Percent of poverty level 1995
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Parents paid tuition 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Academic and enrollment characteristics
Highest degree ever expected 1995-96
Don't know
Less than bachelor's
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Received diploma or passed GED
Received a high school diploma
Passed a general educational degree
Received a high school completion cert.
Did not complete high school
Total
First institution attended
Public 4-year
Private 4-year
Public 2-year
Private for-profit
Other
Total
Transfer status
Did not transfer
Transferred
Total
Delayed enrollment
No, did not delay
Delayed
Total
Worked while enrolled 1995-96
Did not work
Worked part-time
Worked full-time (35 hrs+/wk)
Total
12.9
15.5
31.8
21.8
17.9
100.0
331
376
254
33.5
66.5
100.0
--
--
21.7
78.3
100.0
98.3
1.3
0.2
0.2
100.0
63.7
36.3
--
--
--
100.0
73.8
26.2
100.0
84.1
15.9
100.0
36.8
53.8
9.4
100.0
19.0
22.1
34.8
14.5
9.6
100.0
251
292
216
44.0
56.0
100.0
--
--
30.3
69.7
100.0
97.1
2.5
0.4
0.1
100.0
66.3
33.7
--
--
--
100.0
63.1
36.9
100.0
74.7
25.3
100.0
30.7
57.8
11.5
100.0
18.4
24.5
34.6
14.0
8.5
100.0
229
280
212
53.8
46.2
100.0
--
--
24.2
75.8
100.0
97.0
3.0
--
--
100.0
74.9
25.1
--
--
--
100.0
45.7
54.3
100.0
78.0
22.0
100.0
29.7
55.1
15.2
100.0
27.6
31.2
20.7
14.5
6.0
100.0
166
234
201
54.4
45.6
100.0
--
--
30.8
69.2
100.0
98.3
1.7
--
--
100.0
74.7
25.3
--
--
--
100.0
28.7
71.3
100.0
72.2
27.8
100.0
29.1
49.5
21.4
100.0
17.0
24.5
41.6
10.7
6.2
100.0
233
260
171
40.0
60.0
100.0
--
--
47.5
52.5
100.0
97.2
2.8
--
--
100.0
61.2
38.8
--
--
--
100.0
26.2
73.8
100.0
76.7
23.3
100.0
26.6
56.1
17.3
100.0
11.8
14.5
36.2
24.1
13.4
100.0
330
359
225
30.4
69.6
100.0
--
--
15.6
84.4
100.0
99.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
100.0
54.3
45.7
--
--
--
100.0
85.2
14.8
100.0
89.9
10.1
100.0
35.7
58.9
5.4
100.0
18.1
16.4
30.0
20.0
15.5
100.0
206
345
252
41.3
58.7
100.0
--
--
42.5
57.5
100.0
94.7
3.5
0.3
1.5
100.0
77.8
22.2
--
--
--
100.0
71.2
28.8
100.0
64.2
35.8
100.0
29.8
49.0
21.2
100.0
7.4
11.7
28.2
22.6
30.1
100.0
449
465
277
24.6
75.4
100.0
--
--
24.6
75.4
100.0
99.2
0.8
--
--
100.0
77.5
22.5
--
--
--
100.0
44.0
56.0
100.0
81.9
18.1
100.0
32.0
50.6
17.4
100.0
19.2
15.1
30.1
30.0
5.6
100.0
227
292
189
36.5
63.5
100.0
--
--
35.0
65.0
100.0
90.8
7.8
--
1.5
100.0
86.7
13.3
--
--
--
100.0
52.8
47.2
100.0
56.6
43.4
100.0
25.7
44.5
29.8
100.0
10.6
17.3
27.6
28.7
15.8
100.0
330
363
233
28.8
71.2
100.0
--
--
35.2
64.8
100.0
89.3
4.0
6.7
--
100.0
89.0
11.0
--
--
--
100.0
29.6
70.4
100.0
54.7
45.3
100.0
34.0
57.5
8.5
100.0
6.4
7.4
21.4
27.2
37.6
100.0
505
526
283
20.9
79.1
100.0
--
--
15.6
84.4
100.0
99.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
100.0
65.2
34.8
--
--
--
100.0
90.1
9.9
100.0
92.3
7.7
100.0
51.7
43.1
5.2
100.0
39
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 2 (Continued)
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a four-year institution and expected to
attain at least a bachelor's degree by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001
Enrollment intensity 1995-96
Full-time
Part-time
Total
GPA first year enrolled
Under 2.25
2.25 to 3.25
Over 3.25
Total
Remedial courses taken 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Cost of attendance and financial aid
Total student budget (attendance-adjusted)
Less than $5,000
$5,000 - $9,999
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 or more
Total
Total grant, 1995-96
None
Less than $1,500
$1,500 - $2,999
$3,000 or more
Total
Cumulative UG loans, 1995-2001
Less than $7,000
$7,000 - $14,000
$14,001 - $20,000
More than $20,000
Total
Total amount UG loans, 1995-2001
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Current employment status
Currently employed, 2001
Not employed
Employed
Total
Current job requires deg/cert 2001
No
Yes
Total
91.0
9.0
100.0
25.9
45.5
28.6
100.0
84.6
15.4
100.0
6.6
36.5
25.4
31.5
100.0
37.5
14.7
14.6
33.2
100.0
19.9
24.1
29.9
26.1
100.0
15,000
16,905
12,163
8.6
91.4
100.0
52.5
47.5
100.0
88.5
11.5
100.0
52.5
34.3
13.3
100.0
76.7
23.3
100.0
8.2
42.7
27.4
21.6
100.0
32.1
17.5
18.9
31.4
100.0
33.2
26.0
21.8
19.1
100.0
10,000
14,301
14,607
15.1
84.9
100.0
88.4
11.6
100.0
87.4
12.6
100.0
42.1
42.9
15.1
100.0
73.9
26.1
100.0
10.1
49.2
25.7
14.9
100.0
31.8
17.3
19.5
31.5
100.0
31.1
25.8
21.9
21.1
100.0
11,000
15,230
13,383
1.0
99.0
100.0
92.2
7.8
100.0
79.7
20.3
100.0
58.6
34.2
7.2
100.0
79.6
20.4
100.0
10.3
59.5
21.5
8.7
100.0
26.3
22.4
29.7
21.6
100.0
54.5
24.4
5.3
15.9
100.0
5,250
10,026
10,571
7.8
92.2
100.0
62.8
37.2
100.0
91.6
8.4
100.0
39.2
44.8
16.0
100.0
82.3
17.7
100.0
5.8
42.9
25.5
25.9
100.0
28.3
24.5
11.6
35.6
100.0
33.3
24.7
32.8
9.2
100.0
12,000
12,162
7,828
12.6
87.4
100.0
54.8
45.2
100.0
95.9
4.1
100.0
11.3
52.8
35.9
100.0
88.3
11.7
100.0
2.0
28.2
25.8
44.0
100.0
24.8
13.1
14.0
48.1
100.0
13.5
23.2
33.8
29.4
100.0
17,000
18,103
11,372
6.9
93.1
100.0
38.0
62.0
100.0
75.3
24.7
100.0
51.9
34.5
13.7
100.0
74.9
25.1
100.0
27.4
46.2
18.0
8.4
100.0
60.2
16.4
13.2
10.3
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
10.9
89.1
100.0
93.0
7.0
100.0
74.0
26.0
100.0
45.7
30.3
23.9
100.0
80.5
19.5
100.0
17.5
55.9
12.3
14.2
100.0
67.9
12.0
9.4
10.7
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
100.0
94.3
5.7
100.0
77.7
22.3
100.0
45.8
43.6
10.6
100.0
91.1
8.9
100.0
25.6
43.8
26.6
4.0
100.0
57.1
18.6
12.1
12.2
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
6.6
93.4
100.0
56.2
43.8
100.0
87.2
12.8
100.0
55.9
22.5
21.6
100.0
86.8
13.2
100.0
21.9
54.3
20.0
3.8
100.0
73.7
11.2
9.0
6.2
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
13.0
87.0
100.0
60.9
39.1
100.0
94.0
6.0
100.0
12.0
47.8
40.2
100.0
92.1
7.9
100.0
2.2
32.4
28.5
36.9
100.0
54.7
13.3
11.8
20.3
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
7.6
92.4
100.0
35.2
64.8
100.0
40
Characteristic
Current job related to coursework
Closely related
Somewhat related
Not related
Total
First job title 2001
Clerical
Craftsman, repair, laborer
Sales or customer service
Legal, medical, education, human services
Engineering, scientist, technical, computer
Manager
Other
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Less than $20,000
$20,000 - $35,000
Over $35,000
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Repayment and Default
Currently repaying loans
No
Yes
Total
Average monthly loan repayment
Less than $75/month
$75 - $149 per month
$150 - $249/month
$250/month or more
Total
Monthly loan repayment
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Ratio: Debt to earnings
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
In default
No
Yes
Total
44.1
23.2
32.7
100.0
8.3
6.1
21.7
24.0
15.2
12.6
12.1
100.0
19.3
50.3
30.4
100.0
30,000
31,698
15,469
57.1
42.9
100.0
16.2
20.7
36.2
26.9
100.0
183
197
138
6.9
8.4
7.0
95.3
4.7
100.0
22.1
16.7
61.2
100.0
16.8
14.8
21.1
12.3
7.0
15.3
12.7
100.0
30.6
49.8
19.5
100.0
24,000
26,843
13,724
22.1
77.9
100.0
28.9
26.2
27.9
17.0
100.0
125
154
118
5.3
7.7
6.4
78.2
21.8
100.0
44.9
26.5
28.6
100.0
--
--
--
68.2
31.8
--
--
100.0
29.6
45.0
25.4
100.0
25,740
27,464
12,770
11.2
88.8
100.0
43.3
28.7
17.1
10.8
100.0
100
123
119
3.3
5.0
4.9
92.8
7.2
100.0
67.2
8.1
24.7
100.0
12.4
8.2
7.0
39.6
9.5
7.7
15.4
100.0
21.4
63.3
15.3
100.0
25,000
26,575
9,712
15.5
84.5
100.0
28.8
34.9
28.5
7.9
100.0
100
117
74
4.4
5.7
4.6
78.7
21.3
100.0
60.5
14.3
25.2
100.0
7.6
10.9
13.6
36.9
16.0
6.5
8.5
100.0
20.2
59.8
20.1
100.0
25,500
29,109
12,528
8.7
91.3
100.0
27.6
25.5
34.9
12.0
100.0
105
142
93
6.5
6.5
5.1
96.3
3.7
100.0
51.0
27.1
21.9
100.0
7.0
4.1
22.3
27.3
15.7
11.9
11.6
100.0
14.4
52.9
32.7
100.0
30,500
32,773
14,665
10.8
89.2
100.0
12.0
19.0
38.8
30.2
100.0
200
211
140
7.3
8.6
7.1
97.9
2.1
100.0
17.1
17.0
65.9
100.0
10.4
20.5
18.2
6.7
6.3
20.0
17.9
100.0
38.5
39.4
22.1
100.0
25,000
28,261
17,583
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
30.6
18.6
50.8
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
35.1
34.9
30.0
100.0
24,960
32,137
22,284
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
51.6
16.6
31.8
100.0
2.6
24.0
30.4
25.1
9.8
2.2
6.0
100.0
18.0
42.6
39.4
100.0
27,040
35,387
19,335
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
50.4
2.4
47.2
100.0
6.6
22.1
25.5
24.6
--
6.8
14.3
100.0
31.0
39.8
29.2
100.0
27,000
29,530
14,453
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
51.4
25.0
23.6
100.0
7.2
2.7
22.8
23.3
19.9
12.3
11.8
100.0
11.4
50.1
38.4
100.0
32,000
35,022
16,258
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
* ?Dropped out? is defined as not enrolled, no attainment at the time of the survey.
Source: Analyses of BPS:96/01.
Notes: Analyses weighted by B01LWT2. Borrowing defined by student self-reported borrowing by 2001 and loan status from National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) records. When self-reported and NSLDS data conflict, NSLDS data are used. When selfreported
data conflict, the BPS composite reflecting whether a student received a loan by 2001 is used. Poverty level is a variable calculated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) based on family size, total income, and dependency status.
Table cells without a value have a sample size too small for reliable estimation.
41
Characteristic
Total Number
% of total number
% of borrowers
% of nonborrowers
Demographic characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific islander
American Indian/Alaskan native
Other
Non-resident alien
Total
Age in 1995
15 - 18 years
19 years
20 - 29 years
30 years or older
Total
Marital status in 1995
Single, no children (dependent)
Single, no children (independent)
Single with children
Married, no children
Married with children
Total
Parents' education
High school grad or less
Some postsecondary education
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Dependency status
Dependent
Independent
Total
Dependent family income in 1994
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $69,999
$70,000 and above
Total
1,452,864
100.0
48.5
51.5
100.0
71.9
11.6
11.3
3.7
0.7
0.3
0.6
100.0
47.9
14.7
22.8
14.6
100.0
67.0
7.2
10.0
6.4
9.4
100.0
45.5
26.0
19.9
8.7
100.0
67.0
33.0
100.0
28.3
27.2
24.8
19.7
100.0
118,319
8.1
24.4
43.4
56.6
100.0
55.1
20.8
11.9
8.2
3.2
--
0.8
100.0
46.7
21.7
22.1
9.6
100.0
67.4
7.5
11.1
3.0
11.1
100.0
46.5
29.6
12.8
11.2
100.0
67.4
32.6
100.0
23.4
24.7
27.4
24.5
100.0
112,279
7.7
23.2
39.7
60.3
100.0
70.8
8.2
18.0
2.9
--
--
--
100.0
57.7
17.8
16.8
7.7
100.0
69.4
4.4
8.2
5.9
12.1
100.0
29.8
41.9
18.8
9.5
100.0
69.4
30.6
100.0
21.7
40.0
28.9
9.4
100.0
37,357
2.6
7.7
53.2
46.8
100.0
76.6
14.0
--
9.4
--
--
--
100.0
49.2
9.4
21.5
19.9
100.0
49.9
9.3
7.1
22.2
11.5
100.0
54.0
23.7
22.3
--
100.0
49.9
50.1
100.0
38.0
12.8
43.8
5.4
100.0
115,437
7.9
23.9
60.9
39.1
100.0
75.8
9.4
9.7
5.1
--
--
--
100.0
53.0
17.8
14.4
14.8
100.0
75.5
4.5
15.0
0.7
4.4
100.0
46.4
22.7
21.2
9.8
100.0
75.5
24.5
100.0
39.6
23.7
29.6
7.2
100.0
100,565
6.9
20.8
39.9
60.1
100.0
82.9
3.8
4.7
3.5
5.1
--
--
100.0
77.0
10.6
7.8
4.6
100.0
84.8
--
8.2
3.7
3.3
100.0
30.4
17.5
30.3
21.8
100.0
84.8
15.2
100.0
20.6
26.5
23.6
29.3
100.0
534,091
36.8
55.1
46.4
53.6
100.0
71.0
14.3
12.3
1.8
0.1
0.5
--
100.0
40.1
11.6
26.1
22.2
100.0
60.3
8.7
11.3
8.0
11.7
100.0
51.3
28.8
15.4
4.5
100.0
60.3
39.7
100.0
32.2
26.6
25.6
15.7
100.0
148,554
10.2
15.3
60.7
39.3
100.0
75.1
9.2
8.4
6.2
--
--
1.0
100.0
43.2
18.7
29.6
8.5
100.0
70.3
12.0
3.3
7.3
7.1
100.0
40.2
22.4
24.3
13.1
100.0
70.3
29.7
100.0
22.4
22.6
21.1
33.9
100.0
108,933
7.5
11.2
45.8
54.2
100.0
66.4
19.1
13.2
1.4
--
--
--
100.0
26.0
10.8
44.8
18.4
100.0
46.8
9.4
17.9
11.4
14.4
100.0
59.9
21.2
15.5
3.4
100.0
46.8
53.2
100.0
39.6
43.8
4.8
11.8
100.0
122,634
8.4
12.7
44.3
55.7
100.0
76.4
2.0
13.2
5.6
--
--
2.7
100.0
52.7
23.5
14.4
9.4
100.0
76.2
5.6
8.8
3.0
6.3
100.0
45.0
18.1
30.6
6.3
100.0
76.2
23.8
100.0
31.7
19.5
27.8
21.0
100.0
54,695
3.8
5.6
66.5
33.5
100.0
78.8
2.9
10.4
1.4
--
--
6.5
100.0
88.5
4.2
7.3
--
100.0
97.4
1.2
--
--
1.3
100.0
29.2
19.7
28.4
22.7
100.0
97.4
2.6
100.0
7.4
34.6
19.0
39.0
100.0
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 3
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a public two-year institution by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001 42
Percent of poverty level 1995
Less than 100% poverty level
100% to 199% poverty level
200% to 399% poverty level
400% to 599% poverty level
600% or higher poverty level
Total
Percent of poverty level 1995
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Parents paid tuition 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Academic and enrollment characteristics
Highest degree ever expected 1995-96
Don't know
Less than bachelor's
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Received diploma or passed GED
Received a high school diploma
Passed a general educational degree
Received a high school completion cert.
Did not complete high school
Total
First institution attended
Public 4-year
Private 4-year
Public 2-year
Private for-profit
Other
Total
Transfer status
Did not transfer
Transferred
Total
Delayed enrollment
No, did not delay
Delayed
Total
Worked while enrolled 1995-96
Did not work
Worked part-time
Worked full-time (35 hrs+/wk)
Total
21.0
23.7
34.5
11.8
9.1
100.0
220
274
215
55.8
44.2
100.0
10.1
18.0
37.0
34.9
100.0
88.4
7.1
0.7
3.8
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
57.4
42.6
100.0
55.9
44.1
100.0
19.8
46.3
33.9
100.0
26.1
24.0
35.0
9.5
5.5
100.0
197
250
199
59.5
40.5
100.0
13.0
15.5
31.0
40.5
100.0
83.6
11.9
--
4.5
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
60.6
39.4
100.0
57.1
42.9
100.0
22.9
45.8
31.3
100.0
27.9
24.0
35.3
9.5
3.3
100.0
197
216
164
61.5
38.5
100.0
10.1
3.4
31.2
55.3
100.0
90.3
8.3
0.5
0.9
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
35.9
64.1
100.0
65.2
34.8
100.0
14.4
64.9
20.7
100.0
37.6
22.2
26.1
10.2
4.0
100.0
143
194
182
47.5
52.5
100.0
4.5
15.3
31.8
48.4
100.0
71.2
10.1
10.5
8.2
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
38.3
61.7
100.0
54.9
45.1
100.0
32.6
31.3
36.1
100.0
23.1
26.2
37.2
9.6
4.0
100.0
210
231
151
65.5
34.5
100.0
7.2
14.3
50.5
28.0
100.0
89.6
4.6
2.8
2.9
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
30.8
69.2
100.0
63.4
36.6
100.0
29.1
49.5
21.4
100.0
13.0
25.6
31.6
15.5
14.3
100.0
290
329
247
61.0
39.0
100.0
5.1
1.2
30.7
63.0
100.0
96.4
3.4
0.2
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
1.2
98.8
100.0
79.6
20.4
100.0
10.2
74.1
15.7
100.0
19.4
25.4
35.3
11.5
8.4
100.0
218
272
210
58.9
41.1
100.0
11.6
26.6
37.6
24.2
100.0
87.1
7.1
0.3
5.5
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
84.3
15.7
100.0
48.3
51.7
100.0
19.4
35.8
44.9
100.0
15.6
13.0
37.1
20.2
14.1
100.0
285
336
230
48.1
51.9
100.0
7.7
8.5
50.3
33.5
100.0
90.9
7.3
--
1.9
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
44.0
56.0
100.0
52.7
47.3
100.0
10.6
46.1
43.3
100.0
28.3
36.9
26.8
4.8
3.3
100.0
160
195
152
77.1
22.9
100.0
18.7
27.9
32.0
21.5
100.0
80.6
12.0
--
7.3
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
74.2
25.8
100.0
27.4
72.6
100.0
18.3
32.1
49.6
100.0
24.5
17.8
31.2
14.8
11.7
100.0
253
296
243
39.4
60.6
100.0
6.8
25.3
30.2
37.6
100.0
93.2
4.4
--
2.4
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
58.6
41.4
100.0
65.2
34.8
100.0
23.0
61.8
15.3
100.0
2.2
13.2
44.2
8.7
31.8
100.0
330
451
276
7.4
92.6
100.0
4.5
5.5
36.3
53.7
100.0
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
100.0
3.9
96.1
100.0
87.1
12.9
100.0
39.1
57.9
3.0
100.0
43
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 3 (Continued)
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a public two-year institution by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001
Enrollment intensity 1995-96
Full-time
Part-time
Total
GPA first year enrolled
Under 2.25
2.25 to 3.25
Over 3.25
Total
Remedial courses taken 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Cost of attendance and financial aid
Total student budget (attendance-adjusted)
Less than $5,000
$5,000 - $9,999
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 or more
Total
Total grant, 1995-96
None
Less than $1,500
$1,500 - $2,999
$3,000 or more
Total
Cumulative UG loans, 1995-2001
Less than $7,000
$7,000 - $14,000
$14,001 - $20,000
More than $20,000
Total
Total amount UG loans, 1995-2001
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Current employment status
Currently employed, 2001
Not employed
Employed
Total
Current job requires deg/cert 2001
No
Yes
Total
53.4
46.6
100.0
40.4
36.1
23.4
100.0
74.9
25.1
100.0
53.7
43.8
2.5
--
100.0
64.4
20.8
11.3
3.5
100.0
43.7
28.0
16.5
11.8
100.0
8,000
10,817
9,069
13.1
86.9
100.0
78.1
21.9
100.0
61.4
38.6
100.0
46.6
33.4
20.0
100.0
66.9
33.1
100.0
42.9
53.2
3.9
--
100.0
51.0
28.9
16.6
3.5
100.0
66.3
17.5
4.6
11.6
100.0
6,000
8,634
8,104
12.4
87.6
100.0
91.6
8.4
100.0
60.1
39.9
100.0
47.5
37.1
15.5
100.0
69.0
31.0
100.0
39.7
56.3
4.0
--
100.0
58.1
21.0
17.2
3.7
100.0
55.8
24.3
15.5
4.4
100.0
6,000
8,186
6,545
--
100.0
100.0
85.5
14.5
100.0
44.8
55.2
100.0
36.2
25.4
38.4
100.0
92.0
8.0
100.0
59.2
40.8
--
--
100.0
69.2
18.3
12.5
--
100.0
60.6
16.8
3.5
19.2
100.0
6,000
8,834
7,654
12.3
87.7
100.0
89.8
10.2
100.0
67.9
32.1
100.0
27.1
48.7
24.2
100.0
70.9
29.1
100.0
41.0
54.4
4.6
--
100.0
57.8
14.5
19.5
8.2
100.0
39.6
28.5
23.4
8.6
100.0
9,000
11,436
9,612
20.8
79.2
100.0
60.5
39.5
100.0
77.5
22.5
100.0
14.2
53.1
32.7
100.0
83.6
16.4
100.0
27.1
70.7
2.2
--
100.0
57.9
21.3
17.3
3.5
100.0
18.6
39.6
20.4
21.4
100.0
11,000
14,729
10,181
7.9
92.1
100.0
50.0
50.0
100.0
43.3
56.7
100.0
51.1
30.3
18.6
100.0
73.1
26.9
100.0
68.5
30.2
1.3
--
100.0
67.4
22.9
7.5
2.1
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
15.2
84.8
100.0
87.8
12.2
100.0
47.2
52.8
100.0
45.8
33.1
21.1
100.0
69.3
30.7
100.0
55.3
42.1
2.6
--
100.0
73.1
22.2
3.2
1.4
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2.8
97.2
100.0
90.9
9.1
100.0
45.1
54.9
100.0
30.2
35.1
34.8
100.0
88.1
11.9
100.0
57.5
41.9
0.5
--
100.0
59.1
23.2
16.1
1.6
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
12.5
87.5
100.0
80.1
19.9
100.0
61.6
38.4
100.0
29.2
44.6
26.2
100.0
77.4
22.6
100.0
42.4
51.1
6.5
--
100.0
65.0
11.3
13.2
10.4
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
15.6
84.4
100.0
63.0
37.0
100.0
66.2
33.8
100.0
23.0
35.4
41.6
100.0
87.7
12.3
100.0
47.9
52.1
--
--
100.0
84.8
8.5
3.2
3.5
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
10.5
89.5
100.0
21.5
78.5
100.0
44
Characteristic
Current job related to coursework
Closely related
Somewhat related
Not related
Total
First job title 2001
Clerical
Craftsman, repair, laborer
Sales or customer service
Legal, medical, education, human services
Engineering, scientist, technical, computer
Manager
Other
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Less than $20,000
$20,000 - $35,000
Over $35,000
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Repayment and Default
Currently repaying loans
No
Yes
Total
Average monthly loan repayment
Less than $75/month
$75 - $149 per month
$150 - $249/month
$250/month or more
Total
Monthly loan repayment
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Ratio: Debt to earnings
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
In default
No
Yes
Total
35.7
17.6
46.8
100.0
15.8
15.6
14.8
19.7
8.2
13.9
12.1
100.0
29.8
48.2
22.0
100.0
25,000
27,074
13,891
88.7
11.3
100.0
29.6
30.7
31.2
8.4
100.0
107
131
80
4.8
7.0
6.9
96.3
3.7
100.0
21.3
26.3
52.4
100.0
5.0
18.6
22.8
12.6
14.0
21.6
5.2
100.0
35.7
46.9
17.3
100.0
22,000
24,072
11,945
48.0
52.0
100.0
35.6
34.5
18.1
11.9
100.0
110
125
81
4.8
10.3
12.5
75.5
24.5
100.0
41.1
6.3
52.6
100.0
--
59.7
--
12.5
6.8
21.1
--
100.0
57.0
25.8
17.2
100.0
19,760
21,986
12,578
--
100.0
100.0
49.1
20.7
27.1
3.1
100.0
100
117
92
6.2
7.3
4.3
93.1
6.9
100.0
84.4
4.5
11.1
100.0
--
5.7
--
22.3
25.4
--
46.6
100.0
18.5
49.7
31.7
100.0
28,000
33,110
14,566
48.3
51.7
100.0
23.3
7.0
69.7
100.0
200
157
62
8.0
6.6
2.1
76.8
23.2
100.0
39.9
24.1
36.1
100.0
18.9
23.6
12.5
27.7
8.2
6.5
2.5
100.0
27.1
36.2
36.8
100.0
31,200
29,854
12,858
17.0
83.0
100.0
23.7
38.4
35.1
2.8
100.0
120
122
57
4.8
4.9
2.4
94.0
6.0
100.0
40.8
26.3
32.9
100.0
6.0
7.4
11.9
27.8
8.8
23.0
15.2
100.0
27.7
52.8
19.6
100.0
26,000
27,634
11,752
8.5
91.5
100.0
27.1
30.2
30.1
12.6
100.0
107
139
88
4.6
6.8
4.8
98.8
1.2
100.0
23.0
15.5
61.4
100.0
19.7
16.3
13.9
13.9
7.5
13.8
14.8
100.0
33.6
47.9
18.5
100.0
24,000
26,683
15,619
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
64.2
21.1
14.6
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
19.5
41.1
39.4
100.0
26,000
30,371
14,712
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
43.2
16.0
40.9
100.0
24.5
27.9
17.3
9.3
3.2
5.3
12.5
100.0
27.0
53.3
19.7
100.0
22,880
25,800
11,663
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
55.9
10.1
33.9
100.0
31.3
9.7
5.0
27.4
7.7
13.4
5.6
100.0
18.7
61.1
20.2
100.0
26,000
27,918
11,276
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
64.4
16.8
18.8
100.0
6.9
9.5
29.1
26.2
3.9
6.9
17.5
100.0
9.0
57.2
33.8
100.0
30,000
30,991
8,537
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
* ?Dropped out? is defined as not enrolled, no attainment at the time of the survey.
Source: Analyses of BPS:96/01.
Notes: Analyses weighted by B01LWT2. Borrowing defined by student self-reported borrowing by 2001 and loan status from National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) records. When self-reported and NSLDS data conflict, NSLDS data are used. When selfreported
data conflict, the BPS composite reflecting whether a student received a loan by 2001 is used. Poverty level is a variable calculated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) based on family size, total income, and dependency status.
Table cells without a value have a sample size too small for reliable estimation.
45
Characteristic
Total Number
% of total number
% of borrowers
% of nonborrowers
Demographic characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific islander
American Indian/Alaskan native
Other
Non-resident alien
Total
Age in 1995
15 - 18 years
19 years
20 - 29 years
30 years or older
Total
Marital status in 1995
Single, no children (dependent)
Single, no children (independent)
Single with children
Married, no children
Married with children
Total
Parents' education
High school grad or less
Some postsecondary education
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Dependency status
Dependent
Independent
Total
Dependent family income in 1994
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $69,999
$70,000 and above
Total
332,900
100.0
31.9
68.1
100.0
56.1
19.5
19.7
2.3
1.2
1.2
--
100.0
22.5
13.2
39.5
24.7
100.0
32.9
16.6
30.1
8.8
11.5
100.0
68.5
17.9
10.3
3.2
100.0
32.9
67.1
100.0
45.4
30.5
16.3
7.8
100.0
71,734
21.5
31.9
41.3
58.7
100.0
55.4
27.6
13.1
2.7
1.0
0.2
--
100.0
23.2
12.2
42.2
22.3
100.0
32.4
15.6
32.3
11.6
8.1
100.0
68.7
17.2
11.5
2.6
100.0
32.4
67.6
100.0
54.5
29.7
8.5
7.4
100.0
6,370
1.9
2.8
41.7
58.3
100.0
36.3
32.0
21.9
--
9.9
--
--
100.0
33.3
27.4
39.3
--
100.0
39.2
11.2
49.7
--
--
100.0
75.0
3.4
4.3
17.3
100.0
39.2
60.8
100.0
52.2
--
32.9
14.9
100.0
121,175
36.4
53.9
29.2
70.8
100.0
51.7
18.0
26.4
2.8
0.6
0.4
--
100.0
19.0
15.5
44.5
21.0
100.0
32.8
20.5
31.5
6.5
8.7
100.0
70.8
19.6
8.3
1.3
100.0
32.8
67.2
100.0
46.6
36.8
14.0
2.6
100.0
23,618
7.1
10.5
44.4
55.6
100.0
69.8
11.1
18.2
--
0.8
--
--
100.0
52.5
13.2
24.7
9.6
100.0
63.6
11.9
19.2
4.5
0.8
100.0
61.4
13.7
18.8
6.1
100.0
63.6
36.4
100.0
37.7
37.0
15.5
9.8
100.0
2,118
0.6
0.9
67.0
33.0
100.0
82.9
17.1
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
86.2
--
13.8
--
100.0
100.0
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
58.8
41.2
--
100.0
100.0
--
100.0
--
48.3
33.0
18.7
100.0
42,735
12.8
39.6
19.3
80.7
100.0
54.2
19.4
21.6
0.1
0.7
4.0
--
100.0
23.2
13.2
38.5
25.1
100.0
30.5
11.1
35.2
5.4
17.7
100.0
64.4
14.6
14.9
6.1
100.0
30.5
69.5
100.0
54.5
9.1
22.6
13.8
100.0
3,961
1.2
3.7
23.7
76.3
100.0
22.1
52.3
25.7
--
--
--
--
100.0
27.7
28.0
44.3
--
100.0
43.1
12.6
44.3
--
--
100.0
88.9
11.1
--
--
100.0
43.1
56.9
100.0
--
22.0
78.0
--
100.0
55,568
16.7
51.5
28.4
71.6
100.0
65.2
14.4
11.9
3.9
2.6
2.0
--
100.0
10.1
7.8
35.9
46.3
100.0
17.3
17.8
26.1
13.7
25.1
100.0
71.2
19.3
6.5
3.0
100.0
17.3
82.7
100.0
36.9
34.8
15.1
13.1
100.0
5,621
1.7
5.2
28.3
71.7
100.0
67.8
--
22.7
--
--
9.5
--
100.0
40.1
12.5
14.7
32.7
100.0
43.1
9.5
4.3
43.1
--
100.0
54.5
24.2
7.2
14.1
100.0
43.1
56.9
100.0
35.1
17.5
28.4
19.0
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 4
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a private, for-profit, less-than-four-year institution
by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001
46
Percent of poverty level 1995
Less than 100% poverty level
100% to 199% poverty level
200% to 399% poverty level
400% to 599% poverty level
600% or higher poverty level
Total
Percent of poverty level 1995
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Parents paid tuition 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Academic and enrollment characteristics
Highest degree ever expected 1995-96
Don't know
Less than bachelor's
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Total
Received diploma or passed GED
Received a high school diploma
Passed a general educational degree
Received a high school completion cert.
Did not complete high school
Total
First institution attended
Public 4-year
Private 4-year
Public 2-year
Private for-profit
Other
Total
Transfer status
Did not transfer
Transferred
Total
Delayed enrollment
No, did not delay
Delayed
Total
Worked while enrolled 1995-96
Did not work
Worked part-time
Worked full-time (35 hrs+/wk)
Total
45.3
28.2
19.4
5.1
2.1
100.0
114
156
158
74.7
25.3
100.0
21.5
42.5
23.0
13.1
100.0
74.3
15.7
0.1
9.9
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
82.0
18.0
100.0
28.7
71.3
100.0
45.7
31.8
22.4
100.0
47.9
28.8
17.1
4.0
2.2
100.0
106
145
157
75.5
24.5
100.0
24.8
41.0
24.3
9.8
100.0
64.7
21.1
--
14.2
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
85.3
14.7
100.0
27.7
72.3
100.0
37.7
30.2
32.1
100.0
59.7
29.0
5.8
--
5.6
100.0
60
120
142
68.8
31.2
100.0
15.5
17.1
11.6
55.8
100.0
82.9
8.6
--
8.5
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
14.7
85.3
100.0
40.3
59.7
100.0
31.7
40.9
27.4
100.0
49.2
32.4
15.7
2.7
--
100.0
100
126
110
77.8
22.2
100.0
20.7
44.5
23.9
10.9
100.0
74.9
13.3
--
11.8
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
82.0
18.0
100.0
24.7
75.3
100.0
42.4
36.7
20.9
100.0
33.0
22.6
36.5
5.6
2.3
100.0
179
196
155
54.5
45.5
100.0
22.8
22.5
29.2
25.5
100.0
89.1
10.9
--
--
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
83.0
17.0
100.0
62.3
37.7
100.0
18.5
51.8
29.7
100.0
--
--
81.3
18.7
--
100.0
248
294
103
32.5
67.5
100.0
--
--
84.2
15.8
100.0
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
--
100.0
100.0
86.2
13.8
100.0
34.5
51.7
13.8
100.0
44.3
28.3
16.6
6.0
4.9
100.0
116
171
191
74.6
25.4
100.0
27.5
42.0
19.2
11.3
100.0
70.4
18.7
0.5
10.4
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
92.0
8.0
100.0
31.6
68.4
100.0
60.9
26.6
12.5
100.0
28.6
25.2
10.0
36.2
--
100.0
158
248
171
81.8
18.2
100.0
31.5
56.6
11.9
100.0
84.0
--
--
16.0
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
25.5
74.5
100.0
33.0
67.0
100.0
18.4
33.0
48.6
100.0
41.4
23.4
24.8
7.8
2.5
100.0
128
185
179
82.4
17.6
100.0
17.4
55.7
15.2
11.6
100.0
77.0
17.6
--
5.4
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
85.2
14.8
100.0
14.9
85.1
100.0
65.6
18.0
16.4
100.0
34.4
12.5
22.9
12.2
17.9
100.0
275
298
285
51.3
48.7
100.0
11.1
34.0
15.7
39.1
100.0
95.7
4.3
--
--
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
75.4
24.6
100.0
45.0
55.0
100.0
59.9
19.5
20.7
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
47
(2)
Dropped
out*
(1)
Total
(4)
Attained
certificate
(3)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(6)
Attained
bachelor's
(5)
Attained
associate's
(8)
No attainment,
still enrolled
(7)
Dropped
out*
(9)
Attained
certificate
(11)
Attained
bachelor's
(10)
Attained
associate's
Borrowed by 2001 Did Not Borrow
Table 4 (Continued)
Characteristics of 1995/96 first-time freshmen who first enrolled in a private, for-profit, less-than-four-year institution
by enrollment attainment and borrowing status in 2001
Enrollment intensity 1995-96
Full-time
Part-time
Total
GPA first year enrolled
Under 2.25
2.25 to 3.25
Over 3.25
Total
Remedial courses taken 1995-96
No
Yes
Total
Cost of attendance and financial aid
Total student budget (attendance-adjusted)
Less than $5,000
$5,000 - $9,999
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 or more
Total
Total grant, 1995-96
None
Less than $1,500
$1,500 - $2,999
$3,000 or more
Total
Cumulative UG loans, 1995-2001
Less than $7,000
$7,000 - $14,000
$14,001 - $20,000
More than $20,000
Total
Total amount UG loans, 1995-2001
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Current employment status
Currently employed, 2001
Not employed
Employed
Total
Current job requires deg/cert 2001
No
Yes
Total
86.6
13.4
100.0
23.0
33.5
43.5
100.0
94.6
5.4
100.0
12.8
33.5
41.8
12.0
100.0
34.6
28.9
28.0
8.4
100.0
42.7
33.3
15.2
8.8
100.0
8,000
9,968
8,024
20.9
79.1
100.0
77.6
22.4
100.0
84.3
15.7
100.0
36.7
30.8
32.5
100.0
92.5
7.5
100.0
11.6
36.0
40.3
12.1
100.0
27.1
42.9
24.7
5.3
100.0
61.2
21.6
6.7
10.5
100.0
5,000
8,491
6,905
19.7
80.3
100.0
85.8
14.2
100.0
82.4
17.6
100.0
41.6
25.0
33.4
100.0
82.2
17.8
100.0
18.4
35.7
36.4
9.4
100.0
22.9
35.2
35.8
6.1
100.0
46.3
9.8
28.8
15.2
100.0
12,500
11,451
9,599
--
100.0
100.0
68.3
31.7
100.0
90.9
9.1
100.0
13.5
43.1
43.3
100.0
97.0
3.0
100.0
3.8
29.5
50.9
15.8
100.0
28.3
22.8
41.7
7.3
100.0
51.9
40.4
7.7
--
100.0
6,500
6,668
4,284
18.7
81.3
100.0
73.4
26.6
100.0
85.1
14.9
100.0
14.0
38.3
47.7
100.0
89.1
10.9
100.0
11.8
21.9
46.5
19.8
100.0
37.0
25.8
26.7
10.5
100.0
7.3
49.8
32.2
10.8
100.0
14,000
14,817
8,476
7.6
92.4
100.0
68.4
31.6
100.0
100.0
--
100.0
9.1
33.0
57.9
100.0
100.0
--
100.0
--
24.9
56.4
18.7
100.0
33.0
32.5
9.1
25.4
100.0
38.8
13.9
47.3
100.0
13,000
16,921
12,209
--
100.0
100.0
78.9
21.1
100.0
86.6
13.4
100.0
35.8
30.1
34.1
100.0
92.5
7.5
100.0
27.8
37.3
25.2
9.8
100.0
43.2
35.4
11.7
9.7
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
36.5
63.5
100.0
80.1
19.9
100.0
49.9
50.1
100.0
45.2
--
54.8
100.0
100.0
--
100.0
33.1
22.5
44.3
--
100.0
46.2
25.5
28.3
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
100.0
77.4
22.6
100.0
82.3
17.7
100.0
13.3
20.4
66.3
100.0
98.8
1.2
100.0
18.5
44.1
34.3
3.2
100.0
50.1
19.5
18.6
11.8
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
19.5
80.5
100.0
81.4
18.6
100.0
100.0
--
100.0
13.5
25.2
61.3
100.0
76.6
23.4
100.0
46.2
25.2
28.6
--
100.0
46.8
30.9
--
22.3
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
56.4
43.6
100.0
51.7
48.3
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
48
Characteristic
Current job related to coursework
Closely related
Somewhat related
Not related
Total
First job title 2001
Clerical
Craftsman, repair, laborer
Sales or customer service
Legal, medical, education, human services
Engineering, scientist, technical, computer
Manager
Other
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Less than $20,000
$20,000 - $35,000
Over $35,000
Total
Annual salary for current job,
2001 (those currently employed)
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Repayment and Default
Currently repaying loans
No
Yes
Total
Average monthly loan repayment
Less than $75/month
$75 - $149 per month
$150 - $249/month
$250/month or more
Total
Monthly loan repayment
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
Ratio: Debt to earnings
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
In default
No
Yes
Total
41.5
16.6
41.9
100.0
18.0
18.5
14.1
18.9
9.0
7.1
14.2
100.0
36.8
43.6
19.6
100.0
24,000
25,128
12,283
84.1
15.9
100.0
17.9
35.1
39.7
7.3
100.0
120
143
83
5.1
6.5
3.7
83.3
16.7
100.0
28.5
17.8
53.7
100.0
21.3
26.8
15.3
8.8
--
8.0
19.7
100.0
29.8
48.3
21.9
100.0
25,000
26,059
11,413
21.5
78.5
100.0
26.3
34.4
30.8
8.6
100.0
100
133
90
4.7
5.6
1.8
66.5
33.5
100.0
--
16.0
84.0
100.0
11.9
16.3
9.2
34.9
10.7
8.0
9.1
100.0
39.5
60.5
--
100.0
27,040
21,772
9,606
24.5
75.5
100.0
--
5.3
82.9
11.8
100.0
156
196
63
6.0
7.5
3.0
86.5
13.5
100.0
47.3
18.2
34.5
100.0
17.8
14.5
7.0
22.7
10.9
7.8
19.3
100.0
38.7
44.4
16.9
100.0
23,400
24,470
12,044
3.4
96.6
100.0
30.1
42.2
27.8
--
100.0
100
111
58
5.5
5.2
1.7
76.4
23.6
100.0
44.4
26.8
28.8
100.0
--
--
56.4
18.5
--
25.1
--
100.0
20.2
54.7
25.1
100.0
26,288
27,744
10,246
--
100.0
100.0
--
37.5
57.6
5.0
100.0
170
154
50
6.0
7.7
3.7
91.0
9.0
100.0
64.8
23.0
12.2
100.0
15.5
18.7
12.6
23.8
6.9
8.6
13.9
100.0
--
75.8
24.2
100.0
32,000
33,409
6,801
--
100.0
100.0
--
--
--
100.0
100.0
460
393
75
20.4
16.8
4.0
100.0
--
100.0
27.4
11.4
61.2
100.0
33.7
17.4
19.8
5.0
--
7.2
16.9
100.0
52.1
33.2
14.8
100.0
18,000
22,782
11,628
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
65.0
35.0
--
100.0
51.2
--
48.8
--
--
--
--
100.0
72.5
--
27.5
100.0
19,344
25,087
10,458
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
50.4
9.1
40.5
100.0
12.0
25.5
1.2
5.3
38.7
--
17.4
100.0
40.6
35.0
24.5
100.0
22,000
25,663
15,093
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
100.0
--
--
100.0
--
--
58.8
41.2
--
--
--
100.0
29.7
70.3
--
100.0
21,000
20,561
6,265
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100.0
--
100.0
* ?Dropped out? is defined as not enrolled, no attainment at the time of the survey.
Source: Analyses of BPS:96/01.
Notes: Analyses weighted by B01LWT2. Borrowing defined by student self-reported borrowing by 2001 and loan status from National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) records. When self-reported and NSLDS data conflict, NSLDS data are used. When selfreported
data conflict, the BPS composite reflecting whether a student received a loan by 2001 is used. Poverty level is a variable calculated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) based on family size, total income, and dependency status.
Table cells without a value have a sample size too small for reliable estimation.
49
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Endnotes
1 See William T. Grant Foundation, Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, The
Forgotten Half: Pathways to Success for America?s Youth and Young Families (Washington,
D.C.: 1988), and American Youth Policy Forum, The Forgotten Half Revisited (Washington,
D.C.: 1998).
2 Although most college graduates are able to pay off their loans, minority students and
students from low-income backgrounds take longer to do so, and have significantly
higher debt burden than do white students and students from more affluent families.
See Derek V. Price, ?Educational Debt Burden Among Student Borrowers,? Research in
Higher Education 45:7 (Nov. 2004).
3 Kevin Carey, A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year Colleges and
Universities (Washington, D.C.: Education Trust, 2004), p. 5.
4 For a full definition of dropouts, see Appendix I. We define students who have
dropped out as those who were no longer enrolled in 2001 and did not have a certificate
or degree.
5 For a full definition of dropouts, see Appendix I. We define students who have
dropped out as those who were no longer enrolled in 2001 and did not have a certificate
or degree.
6 Poverty levels are derived by the National Center for Education Statistics based on
family size, total income, and dependency status. For dependent students, the parent?s
family income is considered. For independent students, the student?s own family
income is considered. The following table displays poverty threshold by family size in
1995.
7 The attendance-adjusted budget is adjusted to reflect intensity of enrollment (e.g., fulltime
versus part-time, and length of year enrolled).
8 See Lutz Berkner, Shirley He, and Emily Forrest Cataldi, Descriptive Summary of
1995?96 Students: Six Years Later, National Center for Education Statistics Report 2003-
Poverty Threshold by Family Size
Family Size Poverty Threshold
1 $ 7,929
2 10,259
3 12,158
4 15,569
5 18,408
6 20,408
7 23,552
8 26,237
9+ 31,280
Source: Beginning Postsecondary Students Codebook
50
Borrowers Who Drop Out
151 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003).
9 A t-test suggests that the mean salaries for borrowers who drop out and borrowers who
complete an associate?s degree are statistically equivalent.
10 See A Young Person?s Guide to Learning and Earning (Washington, D.C.: Center for
Education Policy, and American Youth Policy Forum, 1998).
11 Sandy Baum and Kathleen Payea, Education Pays 2004: The Benefits of Higher Education for
Individuals and Society (New York: The College Board, 2004).
12 See Kevin Carey, A Matter of Degrees, p. 4.
13 Anthony P. Carnevale and Richard A. Fry, Crossing the Great Divide: Can We Achieve
Equity When Generation Y Goes to College? (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service,
2000), p. 13.
14 Samuel M. Kipp III, ?Demographic Trends and Their Impact on the Future of the Pell
Grant Program,? in Lawrence E. Gladieux, ed., Memory, Reason, Imagination: A Quarter
Century of Pell Grants (New York: College Board, 1998), pp. 109?132.
15 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Measuring Up 2004: The
National Report Card on Higher Education (San Jose, CA: 2004).
16 A recent national study on student retention found that institutions with high
graduation rates had a strong commitment, shared by dedicated administrators and
faculty, to helping students persist in their programs. However, the study also showed
that ?money trumped all other factors in the ability of institutions to engage and retain
students? While affluent institutions can pile resource after resource to make the
difference in who comes, who stays, and who completes college, many other institutions
settle for what they can muster from stretched budgets.? See Watson Scott Swail,
?Legislation to Improve Graduation Rates Could have the Opposite Effect,? The Chronicle
of Higher Education Review, January 23, 2004.
17 See Jacqueline E. King, Crucial Choices: How Students? Financial Decisions Affect Their
Academic Success (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 2002).
18 According to the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Postsecondary Education,
current funding is adequate to help only a small fraction of college campuses across the
country.
19 For more information on the BPS:96/01 methodology, please refer to J. Wine, R.E. Heuer,
S.C. Wheeless, T.L. Francis, J.W. Franklin, and K.M. Dudley, Beginning Postsecondary
Students Longitudinal Study: 1996?2001 (BPS:1996/2001) Methodology Report, NCES Report
2002-171 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, 2002).
20 A study of bachelor?s degree attainment within 10 years of graduating from high school
among 1982 high school graduates who expected to earn at least a bachelor?s degree,
first enrolled in a four-year institution, and completed at least 10 credits by September
1993 shows that degree attainment rates were substantially higher for those who were
continuously enrolled than for those who interrupted their enrollment (84% versus 42%).
Alexander C. McCormick and C. Dennis Carroll, Credit Production and Degree Progress
Toward the Bachelor?s Degree: An Analysis of Postsecondary Transcripts for Beginning Students
at 4-Year Institutions, NCES Report 1999-179 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, 1999).
51
Borrowers Who Drop Out
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Lawrence Gladieux is an independent education policy consultant in
northern Virginia. He has written widely on topics related to education
and government, including issues of equity, access, affordability, and
the impact of technology on the delivery of higher education. His
publications include: co-authoring (with Arthur M. Hauptman) The
College Aid Quandary: Access, Quality, and the Federal Role (Brookings
Institution, 1995); co-editing Memory, Reason, Imagination: A Quarter
Century of Pell Grants (College Board, 1998); and co-authoring (with
Scott Swail) ?The Virtual University and Educational Opportunity?
(College Board, 1999). In addition, Gladieux has written for the popular
press, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los
Angeles Times; for journals such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, and
Academe; and for organizations, including the Academy of Political
Science, the American Council on Education, and the Institute for
Educational Leadership. Gladieux served as executive director of the
Washington Office of the College Board from 1981 to 1993, and as the
organization?s executive director for policy analysis from 1993 to 2000.
He received his B.A. cum laude in government from Oberlin College,
and his master?s from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs at Princeton University.
52
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Laura Perna is an assistant professor of higher education at the
University of Maryland, College Park. Her scholarship uses an
integrated theoretical approach to understand the ways in which
individual characteristics, social structures, and public policies
separately and together enable and restrict the ability of women,
racial/ethnic minorities, and individuals of lower socioeconomic
status to obtain the economic, social, and political opportunities
that are associated with two aspects of higher education: access as
a student and employment as a faculty member. Her research has
been supported by grants from the American Education Research
Association, the Association for Institutional Research, the University
of Maryland General Research Board, and the Lumina Foundation for
Education. For her research she received the 2003 Promising Scholar/
Early Career Achievement Award from the Association for the Study
of Higher Education. She holds a B.A. in psychology and a B.S. in
economics from the University of Pennsylvania, and a master?s of
public policy and Ph.D. in education from the University of Michigan.
53
Borrowers Who Drop Out
54
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND HIGHER EDUCATION
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education promotes public
policies that enhance Americans? opportunities to pursue and achieve high-quality
education and training beyond high school. As an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization, the National Center prepares action-oriented analyses of pressing policy
issues facing the states and the nation regarding opportunity and achievement in higher
education?including two- and four-year, public and private, for-profit and nonprofit
institutions. The National Center communicates performance results and key findings
to the public, to civic, business and higher education leaders, and to state and federal
leaders who are poised to improve higher education policy.
Established in 1998, the National Center is not affiliated with any institution
of higher education, with any political party, or with any government agency; it
receives continuing, core financial support from a consortium of national foundations
that includes The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Atlantic Philanthropies, and The Ford
Foundation.
152 North Third Street, Suite 705, San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: 408-271-2699| FAX: 408-271-2697
www.highereducation.org
National Center Publications
The National Center publishes:| Reports and analyses commissioned by the National Center,| Reports and analyses written by National Center staff,| National Center Policy Reports that are approved by the National Center?s
Board of Directors, and| National CrossTalk, a quarterly publication.
The following National Center publications?as well as a host of other information
and links?are available at www.highereducation.org. Single copies of most of these
reports are also available from the National Center. Please FAX requests to 408-271-2697
and ask for the report by publication number.
Borrowers Who Drop Out: A Neglected Aspect of the College Student Loan Trend, by Lawrence
Gladieux and Laura Perna (May 2005, #05-2). This report examines the experiences of students
who borrow to finance their education, but do not complete their postsecondary programs. Using
the latest comprehensive data, this report compares borrowers who drop out with other groups
of students, and provides recommendations on policies and programs that would better prepare,
support, and guide students?especially low-income students?in completing their degrees.
Case Study of Utah Higher Education, by Kathy Reeves Bracco and Mario Martinez (April
2005, #05-1). This report examines state policies and performance in the areas of enrollment and
affordability. Compared with other states, Utah has been able to maintain a system of higher
education that is more affordable for students, while enrollments have almost doubled over the
past 20 years.
Borrowers Who Drop Out
55
Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education (September 2004). Measuring
Up 2004 consists of a national report card for higher education (report #04-5) and 50 state report
cards (#04-4) The purpose of Measuring Up 2004 is to provide the public and policymakers with
information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. For the first time, this
edition of Measuring Up provides information about each state?s improvement over the past
decade. Visit www.highereducation.org to download Measuring Up 2004 or to make your own
comparisons of state performance in higher education.
Technical Guide Documenting Methodology, Indicators, and Data Sources for Measuring
Up 2004 (November 2004, #04-6).
Ensuring Access with Quality to California?s Community Colleges, by Gerald C. Hayward,
Dennis P. Jones, Aims C. McGuinness, Jr., and Allene Timar, with a postscript by Nancy
Shulock (April 2004, #04-3). This report finds that enrollment growth pressures, fee increases,
and recent budget cuts in the California Community Colleges are having significant
detrimental effects on student access and program quality. The report also provides
recommendations for creating improvements that build from the state policy context and from
existing promising practices within the community colleges.
Public Attitudes on Higher Education: A Trend Analysis, 1993 to 2003, by John Immerwahr
(February 2004, #04-2). This public opinion survey, prepared by Public Agenda for the National
Center, reveals that public attitudes about the importance of higher education have remained
stable during the recent economic downturn. The survey also finds that there are some
growing public concerns about the costs of higher education, especially for those groups most
affected, including parents of high school students, African Americans, and Hispanics.
Responding to the Crisis in College Opportunity (January 2004, #04-1). This policy statement,
developed by education policy experts at Lansdowne, Virginia, proposes short-term emergency
measures and long-term priorities for governors and legislators to consider for funding higher
education during the current lean budget years. Responding to the Crisis suggests that in 2004
the highest priority for state higher education budgets should be to protect college access and
affordability for students and families.
With Diploma in Hand: Hispanic High School Seniors Talk about their Future, by John
Immerwahr (June 2003, #03-2). This report by Public Agenda explores some of the primary
obstacles that many Hispanic students face in seeking higher education, barriers which suggest
opportunities for creative public policy to improve college attendance and completion rates
among Hispanics.
Purposes, Policies, Performance: Higher Education and the Fulfi llment of a State?s Public
Agenda (February 2003, #03-1). This essay is drawn from discussions of higher education leaders
and policy offi cials at a roundtable convened in June 2002 at New Jersey City University on the
relationship between public purposes, policies, and performance of American higher education.
Measuring Up 2002: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education (October 2002, #02-7).
This report card, which updates the inaugural edition released in 2000, grades each state on its
performance in fi ve key areas of higher education. Measuring Up 2002 also evaluates each state?s
progress in relation to its own results from 2000.
Technical Guide Documenting Methodology, Indicators, and Data Sources for Measuring
Up 2002 (October 2002, #02-8).
State Policy and Community College?Baccalaureate Transfer, by Jane V. Wellman (July 2002, #02-
6). Recommends state policies to energize and improve higher education performance regarding
transfers from community colleges to four-year institutions.
Borrowers Who Drop Out
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education: The Early Years (June 2002, #02-5). The
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) attained remarkable success in
funding innovative and enduring projects during its early years. This report, prepared by FIPSE?s
early program offi cers, describes how those results were achieved.
Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education
(May 2002, #02-3). This national status report documents the declining affordability of higher
education for American families, and highlights public policies that support affordable higher
education. Provides state-by-state summaries as well as national fi ndings.
The Affordability of Higher Education: A Review of Recent Survey Research, by John
Immerwahr (May 2002, #02-4). This review of recent surveys by Public Agenda confi rms that
Americans feel that rising college prices threaten to make higher education inaccessible for
many people.
Coping with Recession: Public Policy, Economic Downturns, and Higher Education, by Patrick
M. Callan (February 2002, #02-2). Outlines the major policy considerations that states and
institutions of higher education face during economic downturns.
Competition and Collaboration in California Higher Education, by Kathy Reeves Bracco and
Patrick M. Callan (January 2002, #02-1). Argues that the structure of California?s state higher
education system limits the system?s capacity for collaboration.
Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education (November 2000,
#00-3). This fi rst-of-its-kind report card grades each state on its performance in higher education.
The report card also provides comprehensive profi les of each state and brief states-at-a-glance
comparisons.
Beneath the Surface: A Statistical Analysis of the Major Variables Associated with State
Grades in Measuring Up 2000, by Alisa F. Cunningham and Jane V. Wellman (November
2001, #01-4). Using statistical analysis, this report explores the ?drivers? that predict overall
performance in Measuring Up 2000.
Supplementary Analysis for Measuring Up 2000: An Exploratory Report, by Mario Martinez
(November 2001, #01-3). Explores the relationships within and among the performance
categories in Measuring Up 2000.
Some Next Steps for States: A Follow-up to Measuring Up 2000, by Dennis Jones and Karen
Paulson (June 2001, #01-2). Suggests a range of actions that states can take to bridge the gap
between state performance identifi ed in Measuring Up 2000 and the formulation of effective
policy to improve performance in higher education.
A Review of Tests Performed on the Data in Measuring Up 2000, by Peter Ewell (June 2001,
#01-1). Describes the statistical testing performed on the data in Measuring Up 2000 by the
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Recent State Policy Initiatives in Education: A Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Aims
McGuinness, Jr. (December 2000, #00-6). Highlights education initiatives that states have
adopted since 1997?98.
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes: A Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Peter Ewell
and Paula Ries (December 2000, #00-5). National survey of state efforts to assess student
learning outcomes in higher education.
Technical Guide Documenting Methodology, Indicators and Data Sources for Measuring Up
2000 (November 2000, #00-4).
56
Borrowers Who Drop Out
A State-by-State Report Card on Higher Education: Prospectus (March 2000, #00-1).
Summarizes the goals of the National Center?s report card project.
Great Expectations: How the Public and Parents?White, African American and Hispanic?View
Higher Education, by John Immerwahr with Tony Foleno (May 2000, #00-2). This report by Public
Agenda fi nds that Americans overwhelmingly see higher education as essential for success.
Survey results are also available for the following states:
Great Expectations: How Pennsylvanians View Higher Education (May 2000, #00-2b)
Great Expectations: How Floridians View Higher Education (August 2000, #00-2c)
Great Expectations: How Coloradans View Higher Education (August 2000, #00-2d)
Great Expectations: How Californians View Higher Education (August 2000, #00-2e)
Great Expectations: How New Yorkers View Higher Education (October 2000, #00-2f)
Great Expectations: How Illinois Residents View Higher Education (October 2000, #00-2h)
State Spending for Higher Education in the Next Decade: The Battle to Sustain Current Support,
by Harold A. Hovey (July 1999, #99-3). This fi scal forecast of state and local spending patterns
fi nds that the vast majority of states will face signifi cant fi scal defi cits over the next eight years,
which will in turn lead to increased scrutiny of higher education in almost all states, and to
curtailed spending for public higher education in many states.
South Dakota: Developing Policy-Driven Change in Higher Education, by Mario Martinez (June
1999, #99-2). Describes the processes for change in higher education that government, business,
and higher education leaders are creating and implementing in South Dakota.
Taking Responsibility: Leaders? Expectations of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr (January
1999, #99-1). Reports the views of those most involved with decision making about higher
education, based on a survey and focus groups conducted by Public Agenda.
The Challenges and Opportunities Facing Higher Education: An Agenda for Policy Research,
by Dennis Jones, Peter Ewell, and Aims McGuinness (December 1998, #98-8). Argues that due
to substantial changes in the landscape of postsecondary education, new state-level policy
frameworks must be developed and implemented.
Higher Education Governance: Balancing Institutional and Market Infl uences, by Richard C.
Richardson, Jr., Kathy Reeves Bracco, Patrick M. Callan, and Joni E. Finney (November 1998, #98-
7). Describes the structural relationships that affect institutional effectiveness in higher education,
and argues that state policy should strive for a balance between institutional and market forces.
Federal Tuition Tax Credits and State Higher Education Policy: A Guide for State Policy Makers,
by Kristin D. Conklin (December 1998, #98-6). Examines the implications of the federal income tax
provisions for students and their families, and makes recommendations for state higher education
policy.
The Challenges Facing California Higher Education: A Memorandum to the Next Governor
of California, by David W. Breneman (September 1998, #98-5). Argues that California should
develop a new Master Plan for Higher Education.
Tidal Wave II Revisited: A Review of Earlier Enrollment Projections for California Higher
Education, by Gerald C. Hayward, David W. Breneman, and Leobardo F. Estrada (September
1998, #98-4). Finds that earlier forecasts of a surge in higher education enrollments were accurate.
Organizing for Learning: The View from the Governor?s Offi ce, by James B. Hunt Jr., chair of the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and former governor of North Carolina
(June 1998, #98-3). An address to the American Association for Higher Education concerning
opportunity in higher education.
57
Borrowers Who Drop Out
The Price of Admission: The Growing Importance of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr
(Spring 1998, #98-2). A national survey of Americans? views on higher education, conducted and
reported by Public Agenda.
Concept Paper: A National Center to Address Higher Education Policy, by Patrick M. Callan
(March 1998, #98-1). Describes the purposes of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education.
www.highereducation.org
58