Search

There is overwhelming evidence that pursuing a college education provides substantial economic and non-economic benefits to students. But how much a degree is worth depends heavily on the institution a student attends. Unfortunately, value also is still influenced by a student's race, income, and gender, due to inequities in our higher education and workforce systems. Institutional leaders, federal and state policymakers, and other stakeholders all have a role to play in delivering equitable value: the economic and non-economic benefits that accrue to students, their families, their communities, and society. This report assesses economic value for students by using publicly available data to estimate the number of colleges that provide a minimum economic return for students and explores policy interventions that would increase equitable value. This analysis builds on the work of the Postsecondary Value Commission, which sought to define postsecondary value, measure postsecondary value, and develop an action agenda to expand and improve value, all while centering equity in postsecondary policymaking. The Commission focused on equitable value for Black, Latinx and/or Hispanic, Indigenous, underrepresented Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) students, students from low-income backgrounds, and women--as well as the intersectional identities within and across these groups (e.g., low-income White students and men of color). Evidence shows that the postsecondary education system currently fails to ensure that these students receive returns on their investments through equitable access, completion, affordability, and workforce outcomes. As part of its work, the Commission developed a framework that conceptualizes the economic and non-economic benefits that postsecondary education can provide to students, their families, our workforce, and society. That framework includes six economic value thresholds that measure individual outcomes and return on investment. This paper focuses on students' minimum economic return as measured by the lowest threshold.

We cannot continue to ask students -- and their families -- to make one of the largest and most important investments of their lives without clearer information about what their time and money will yield. Fortunately, support is broad across the country and across the political spectrum for a federal student-level data network (SLDN), which would streamline data reporting and answer key questions about students' postsecondary outcomes. Anticipating the questions that would fall to the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to answer in building and maintaining an SLDN, RTI International (RTI), a nonprofit research institute, joined IHEP, the leader of the Postsecondary Data Collaborative, both acting in an independent capacity to host a series of expert convenings to outline issues surrounding the SLDN's construction and implementation. "Implementing a Student-Level Data Network (Part III): Insights from Financial Aid Experts" is the third brief in the series emerging from those convenings to support the modernization of our postsecondary data infrastructure. The is based on individual conversations with 20 experts and a convening of 9 expert panelists from diverse institutional backgrounds, all with extensive experience in financial aid data and policy. Today's brief shares expert insights on data elements, institutional burden, timing of reporting, and use of data. [For Part II, "Insights from Institutional Representatives," see ED612952.]

There are a number of ways that student investment can be measured, including full cost of attendance (COA, also known as sticker price), net price (COA minus grant aid), and opportunity costs in the form of forgone earnings. This paper explores those options and makes recommendations for how student investment should be measured with ideal data and with data that are currently available, including U.S. Department of Education (ED) data that are available for all colleges and nonpublic data that institutions may be able to access for their own students. The recommendations in this paper are based on an extensive review of research and analyses of publicly available data, as well as discussion with staff members at the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and members of the Postsecondary Value Commission Research Task Force. The paper also identifies issues that require more research and includes recommendations for improving publicly available data to allow colleges and policymakers to better measure student investment.

"Student Debt and the Class of 2017" is the thirteenth annual report produced by The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) on the student loan debt of recent graduates from four-year colleges, documenting the changes in student loan debt and variation among states as well as colleges. [For "Student Debt and the Class of 2016. 12th Annual Report," see ED587389.]

Student Debt and the Class of 2016 is the Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS') twelfth annual report on the student loan debt of recent graduates from four-year colleges, documenting the rise in student loan debt and variation among states as well as colleges. State averages for debt at graduation ranged from a low of $20,000 (Utah) to a high of $36,350 (New Hampshire), and new graduates' likelihood of having debt varied from 43 percent (Utah) to 77 percent (West Virginia). In 17 states, average debt was more than $30,000. Many of the same states appear at the high and low ends of the spectrum as in previous years. High-debt states remain concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest, and low-debt states are mainly in the West. At the college level, average debt at graduation covers an enormous range, from $4,600 to $59,100. This report includes federal policy recommendations to address rising student debt and reduce debt burdens, including the collection of more comprehensive college-level data. Other recommendations focus on reducing the need to borrow, keeping loan payments manageable, improving consumer information, strengthening college accountability, and protecting private loan borrowers. [For "Student Debt and the Class of 2015. 11th Annual Report" see ED570962.]

College has never been so necessary or so expensive for Americans. Rising costs, state disinvestment, declining household incomes, and grant aid that has not kept pace lead more students to borrow, and borrow more, to go to school. While federal student loans are the safest option for students who need to borrow, rising student loan debt has repercussions for both individuals and the broader economy. In addition to the severe consequences for those who default, student loan debt--even low debt when paired with low earnings--can hold borrowers back from starting a family, buying a home, saving for retirement, starting a business or farm, or saving for their own children's education. While not a solution for rising costs or debt, income-driven repayment (IDR) for federal student loans gained broad support over a decade ago from lenders, students, schools, and both Republicans and Democrats. Since Congress passed the first widely available plan in 2007, IDR has become an increasingly critical option for students who have to borrow to afford college, and it continues to have strong bipartisan support. IDR plans now help millions of borrowers stay on top of their loans and avoid default, providing the assurance of manageable monthly payments tied to their income and family size, as well as a light at the end of the tunnel so that student loan payments do not last the rest of their lives. In addition to providing repayment relief to borrowers struggling with low incomes relative to their debt, the availability of more affordable payments through IDR can help allay well-documented fears about college costs and debt that keep some students from ever attempting college and push others to drop out before completing. However, the range of IDR plans available today--five of them, each with varying eligibility requirements, costs, and benefits--is confusing and contributes to under-enrollment among the borrowers who may need IDR the most. To better serve both borrowers and taxpayers, IDR must be both streamlined and improved. Needed improvements include simplifying the annual income recertification process in IDR, better targeting the benefits of IDR, and preventing forgiven debt in IDR from being treated as taxable income. This report details a proposal to streamline the multiple IDR plans into one improved plan that caps monthly payments at 10% of income, provides tax-free loan forgiveness after 20 years of payments, targets benefits to borrowers who need help the most, and prevents borrowers with high incomes and high debt from receiving loan forgiveness when they could have afforded to pay more.

Student Debt and the Class of 2015 is the eleventh annual report on the student loan debt of recent graduates from four-year colleges, documenting the rise in student loan debt and variation among states as well as colleges. This report includes policy recommendations to address rising student debt and reduce debt burdens, including collecting more comprehensive college-level data. Other recommendations focus on reducing the need to borrow, keeping loan payments manageable, improving consumer information, strengthening college accountability, and protecting private loan borrowers. [To access the tenth annual report see "Student Debt and the Class of 2014: 10th Annual Report" ED570961.]

This white paper analyzes the potential effects of requiring income-driven repayment for all federal loans as well as relying on paycheck withholding for loan payments, with particular attention to the implications for low-income students and families. The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) also examines the relevance and evolution of mandatory IDR ["income-driven repayment"] systems in Australia and the United Kingdom, and the paper includes specific recommendations to streamline and improve student loan repayment options in the United States. Two appendices are included: (1) Citation List of Figure 2: "Key Comparisons of IDR Systems and Context: U.S., U.K., and Australia"; and (2) Borrower Example Details.

By providing early, individualized estimates of college costs and financial aid, net price calculators can help prospective college students and their families look past often scary "sticker prices" and start figuring out which colleges they might be able to afford. These online tools, currently available on almost all college websites, can help students discover that their dream school may be more (or less) affordable than they thought--"before" they have to decide where to apply. After entering information about their finances, academics, or other factors, students and their families can view the full cost of attendance, the amount of grants and scholarships they are likely to receive, and the "net price"--the remaining amount that they would have to save, earn, or borrow to attend a particular college. Nearly all U.S. colleges were required by law to post net price calculators on their websites by October 29, 2011. In a March 2011 issue brief, "Adding It All Up: An Early Look at Net Price Calculators," the author and her colleagues analyzed 16 calculators that were posted before the deadline. Now that the deadline has passed by nearly a year, this report takes a more in-depth look at the net price calculators from 50 randomly selected colleges. While they found some positive practices that were not evident at the time of their previous report, net price calculators are still not reliably easy for prospective college students and their families to find, use, and compare. Appended are: (1) List of Colleges in the Sample and Their Net Price Calculators; and (2) Profile of Fictional Students Used for Analysis. (Contains 12 figures, 2 tables and 40 footnotes.)

For students and their families, deciding whether and where to go to college is one of the most important financial decisions they will ever make. However, unlike buying a computer, house, or car, most prospective students do not know how much it will cost them to attend a particular school until many of their choices about college have already been made. While the "sticker price" for most colleges is relatively easy to find, students only receive individualized information about financial aid after they apply and are accepted. Having an early estimate of "net price"--the cost of attendance minus grants and scholarships--can help students and their families make more informed decisions at key points in this high-stakes process. Without clear and timely information about likely college costs and the availability of financial aid, students may inadvertently choose colleges that they cannot afford or price themselves out of higher education when it is actually within their reach. Net price calculators, which all colleges are required to post on their websites by October 2011, present a valuable opportunity for students and their families to receive early and individualized estimates of how much it will cost them to attend schools they are interested in. After entering information about finances, academics, or other factors, students and their families will be able to view the full cost of attendance, the amount of grants and scholarships they are likely to receive, and the "net price"--the remaining amount that they would be expected to cover with savings, work, and loans. To explore how net price calculators can best serve the needs of prospective college students and their families, the author and her colleagues took an early look at 16 colleges that had already posted calculators on their websites by January 2011. They found a great deal of variation in how easy these calculators would be for prospective college students and their families to find, use, and understand. Some calculators were prominently placed on their colleges' websites, made it simple for students and parents to get results, and clearly communicated likely costs, available financial aid, and net price. Meanwhile, many other calculators were difficult to locate, required detailed financial information that students and parents would have to look up, and presented results in ways that could lead users to believe that a particular college is more affordable than it likely would be for them. Their investigation also raised questions about the privacy and security of students' personal information. Based on their findings, they offer the following recommendations for colleges: (1) Make net price calculators easy for prospective students and their families to find; (2) Create net price calculators that allow prospective students and their families to easily get and view results; (3) Make the results from net price calculators easy for prospective students and their families to understand and compare; and (4) Protect prospective students' information and clearly communicate how that information will be used. They also recommend that the Department of Education strongly encourage colleges to create net price calculators that meet the criteria above. Although early adopters of net price calculators are not representative of all colleges, the author and her colleagues hope that insights from this early look will inform discussions and decisions while colleges still have time to modify their plans. (Contains 22 footnotes.) [This issue brief was researched and written with Matthew Reed. Geneva Sarcedo, Lauren Asher, and Seth Frotman also contributed to the research and writing.]