Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Historical Look at Student Debt

July 6, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The landscape for student borrowing has changed significantly in the last 15 years, in several ways: The federal government now has different rules for who can borrow (and how much debt they can take on), and, of course, the price of college has continued to shoot ever skyward. For those and other reasons, it's difficult to fully gauge the implications for today's borrowers of a study on student indebtedness released Wednesday by the U.S. Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics. But the report found that most borrowers who finished college in the early 1990s were able to manage their student loan burden without enormous strain.

The report, "Dealing With Debt: 1992-93 Bachelor's Degree Recipients 10 Years Later," taps into one of the government's most vibrant databases of student outcomes, the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study, to examine the debt burdens and repayment histories of students who graduated with four-year degrees during the 1992-93 academic year.

It finds that 51 percent of all 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients had taken loans (an average of $10,200) to help pay for college. (About two in five graduates went on to enroll in a graduate or professional degree program by 2003, and 45 percent of them had borrowed for that education, with those who had borrowed averaging $36,900 in additional loans by 2003.)

Of those loan recipients who did not go on to get a degree beyond the bachelor's, "most appeared able to handle their debt," the study finds. About three-quarters had repaid all of their undergraduate student loans by the time they were interviewed as part of the study in 2003.

Those who had not paid off their debt within 10 years of graduating had a median debt burden (which the study defines as monthly loan payment divided by income) of 3.3 percent -- that proportion had declined over time, from 6.7 percent in 1994 to 4.8 percent in 1997, the study found. Not surprisingly, students who had borrowed the most had larger debt burdens -- those who had borrowed more than $15,000 for their undergraduate educations had a median debt burden of 4.5 percent, and those from the bottom quarter of the socioeconomic scale had a 6 percent debt burden (8 percent is considered reasonable, the study posits).

In addition, nearly 60 percent of those who did go on to get a graduate or first professional degree had also repaid all of their undergraduate debt by 2003, the report concludes.

The study's authors acknowledge that "the implications of these findings for current borrowers are difficult to assess," and on that point, policy makers who have been sounding the alarm about student loan debt agree wholeheartedly.

Robert Shireman, director of the Project on Student Loan Debt, said in an e-mail message that the federal report "shows that low and moderate levels of debt for higher education are manageable and appropriate, assuming the economy cooperates and provides graduates with jobs."

And if student debt had stayed constant with inflation since 1992, Shireman said, "we would have little to worry about today." But today, two-thirds of graduates have student loans, compared to about half 15 years ago, and the average debt is now double what it was then.   

"In short, the NCES report provides a useful analysis of an earlier generation of students," Shireman said. But "since then, there has been a sea change in tuition, financial aid policies, and how students pay for college. More recent generations, and future generations, are facing very different levels of debt and prospects for repayment."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Historical Look at Student Debt

  • In Hindsight....
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on December 12, 2007 at 7:30am EST
  • This report was characterized as having found that 1992 graduates were doing great. In fact, the opposite is true. The report found that 10 years after graduation, fully 20% of students borrowing $15,000 or more had defaulted.

    I wish this article had made mention of this fact, and others regarding default statistics. This was important.

    I'm glad that Inside Higher Ed came around, and reported on the more sinister findings of this report in October of this year. Still and all, I would have liked to known about it sooner.

  • Got this backwards?
  • Posted by A.D. on July 6, 2006 at 6:00am EDT
  • " .. assuming the economy cooperates and provides graduates with jobs .."

    Perhaps the speaker mis-spoke, but in any event, the output is as amusing as incumbent politicians who try to claim credit when the economy is good, then blame someone else when it is bad (Granholm, 2006).

    The modern U.S. economy is too diverse and complex for "cooperation." Recall, before some fell asleep in Econ 101 class, Adam Smith and the marketplace's "invisible hand" of competition? And to the Sweden-philes about to bleat "it's better in [Norway, England, New York, etc.]" -- even the North Koreans are looking at free trade zones.

    Jobs aren't "provided." In the real world, they are earned with skills that are in demand. The only real job security is having skills that are in demand. Critiquing film may be amusing at the "U.S. Out of North America" teach-in, but rarely provides a living wage.

    This is as opposed to the politicized world, where jobs can go to political hacks and suck-ups. Who wonder how long their charade of work will last.

  • Posted by Jim on July 6, 2006 at 9:25am EDT
  • This is an interesting article. Especially the assumption about getting a job to pay off the loans. Today students borrow money to live the life style that they want, not just to pay for college.

    It isn't enough anymore to be able to pay tuition, fees, room and board. The students must be able to "live" this results in larger and larger loan balances. This just doesn't involve the Federal loans but includes alternative education loans of every description. Banks have become "predators" on students. Offering more and more money in the disquise of financial aid. Colleges comply by increasing their cost of attendance so the "marginal" students can get enough money to attend. The government has "helped" by loosening the rules of who can get Federal loans, etc. This increases the debt burden of students who might have found another way to pay.

    Also, college cost keep going up. Students and families feel the squeeze and fall into the "easy money" trap. They normally borrow more money then what is needed. Because (to quote a famous movie) "tomorrow is another day."

    There is no easy answer or solution to the "debt burden" faced by todays college students...perhaps a required freshmen course on finance including debt management.
    (of course if this is done then the colleges would have to charge for it, thus running up the student's cost)

    We all expect students and their families to be prudent borrowers and as prudent borrowers they weigh the cost and the benefit of their decisions. But I am afraid, all to often, the student and families are acting on emotion.

  • College Costs and Student Dept
  • Posted by pat leonard on July 6, 2006 at 11:35am EDT
  • Colleges tend to have only a patina of concern for their student for their students when it comes to containing tuition costs. They speak of regret but still do little or nothing to contain their escalating core cost, salaries, of doing business. They annually increase their tuition and fees while their productivity actually declines. Students are paying more and tending to receive less. Enjoying their near monopoly status, what alternatives do students have, they raise tuition and fees. Greater burdens are placed on their students each year. With each increase our colleges continue to escape their responsibility to control their costs rather than depend on student debt and third party largess.

    Our colleges need to reexamine their production function, the mix of human and capital resources, employed in promoting learning. Continuing to rely on the sage on stage, in spite of volumes of research supporting greater student responsibility, will only lead to continuing increases in student debt.

    Pat Leonard

  • Make repayment rules more flexible
  • Posted by Shelley Saunders , VP, Strategic Services at American Student Assistance on July 6, 2006 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Robert Shireman is right when he says there has been a "sea change in how students pay for college." Given our society’s current reliance on student loans to finance college, the federal government has an obligation to help students and families successfully manage the education debt they incur. That's why the Project on Student Debt’s recent administrative petition to the Education Department, to give student loan borrowers more manageable ways to repay their debt, is so important. With both the actual number of students borrowing for college and their individual debt loads on the rise, now is the time to make sure that our student loan repayment rules meet the needs of today’s – and tomorrow’s – graduates. With more flexible repayment options, student loan borrowers can better avoid default, which ultimately saves money for the U.S. taxpayer.

  • Concern
  • Posted by CSL , grad student on July 6, 2006 at 6:45pm EDT
  • What is most disturbing is the rate at which college costs are rising. It is difficult to believe that there was once a time in which one could get a job during the summer and pay for a year's tuition with the money earned. Surely financial restrictions and the threat of potential financial burdens shouldn't determine the possibility of receiving an education, but that seems to be the way the tide is turning, not only for advanced degrees but also for BA's.

  • Credit woes
  • Posted by lauri wiss , Secretary at Brookhaven College Political Science Club on July 6, 2006 at 9:45pm EDT
  • Life happens. A divorce occurs. Bankruptcy is declared. Both parties credit is wrecked if one party ran up the bills.

    Another debt occurs when an online school bills and charges for the student who never attended the school. The school fails but the student is still listed as a default.
    The nightmare of paperwork needed to solve this hasnt stopped. A Congressman's caseworker will be needed to solve this bureaucratic mess.

    10 years later, a full scholarship to a graduate school materializes for the student. However,with marginal credit and a bankrupcy on her record, this potential student is unable to find a way to pay for room and board let alone lifestyle.

    There should in the best of all possible worlds be a higher risk credit pool so that she can at least apply for a loan.

  • Tony Soprano would be Jealous of Sallie Mae
  • Posted by Karen G. on July 7, 2006 at 9:00am EDT
  • Your story about the history of student debt and the problems students face now left out an alalysis of how Sallie Mae's obscene financial growth is in direct proportion to students struggles with loans and default. Sallie Mae has evolved into a government backed legal bully and has experienced such growth not from sound and ethical loan managment but instead on the backs of individuals who tried to better their lives through education. By the time they charge their fees, interest on interest, and other accounting money makers no other financial institution is allowed to charge, there is no way out for the borrower. Credit card companies, mortgage companies, banks can't charge what Sallie Mae charges because laws say they can't becuase it would be unfair to the consumer...there is no company which has the power that Sallie Mae does because they lobby for laws which benefit them ...not the students. Is it a wonder that Sallie Mae is the #2 most financially profitable company (Microsoft is #3) Hhhmmm...I wonder how they got that way?

  • Student Loans
  • Posted by JH on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT
  • As a married couple with about $100,000 in student loan debt we find this article very interesting. My husband attended law school after college and obtained his J.D. and I received my master's degree. All of this was done to provide a better life for our future family. We were not worried about the loans at the time because when we graduated, we would make enough money to pay them off. WRONG!

    We both found jobs but find that our disposable income equals that of friends that only have college degrees. They make $500.00 less per month and we pay $500.00 per month in loan payments. Sure after 30 years we will have paid off our loans and will be making more money but then it will be time to retire.

    Doesn't seem worth it to me.