Search News


Browse Archives

News

Default Rates, Maligned, Rise to 5.2%

September 17, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Nobody really likes the federal government's method of measuring and reporting student loan cohort default rates. Some members of Congress and advocates for students, arguing that the rates are no longer a realistic assessment of how individual institutions (and lenders) are faring in keeping student borrowers on track to repayment, want to extend to three years from two the period over which borrowers’ defaults are measured.

Their effort to do so during debate over renewing the Higher Education Act last winter was turned aside, though, by career college officials and others who agree that the default rates are flawed -- but for completely different reasons. They think the federal government should stop using them as an indicator of students' indebtedness or, more importantly, of colleges' malfeasance.

For now, though, the default rates -- imperfect as they are -- aren't going anywhere. In its annual report on the cohort default rates Tuesday, the Education Department said that the 2006 default rate -- the proportion of federal loan borrowers who began loan repayments between October 2005 and September 2006, and who defaulted on their loans by the end of September 2007 -- had risen to 5.2 percent, from 4.6 percent the year before. Increases were greatest among borrowers who attended for-profit colleges.

The previous three years' rates were 5.1 percent in 2004, 4.5 percent in 2003, and 5.2 percent in 2002. The rates have been fluctuating by a point or two each year in recent years, though even when they rise, as they did this year, they are a far cry from the double digit rates of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when Congress established the default rates on the theory that holding colleges accountable for the rates at which their students defaulted on loans would weed out fraudulent schools and force other institutions and lenders to take the issue of student debt more seriously.

Department officials attributed this year's rise to increases in part to the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, where significant numbers of student borrowers presumably defaulted after many of them were granted relief, in the form of six months of forbearance and deferments to those who suffered economic hardship and job loss.

But while states like Louisiana (5.8 percent and Mississippi (6.7 percent) did have higher than average default rates in 2006, so too did some states unaffected by the natural disasters: Arizona (9.2 percent), Colorado (7 percent), and Kentucky (9.7 percent), to name a few.

The table below shows default rates by type of institution:

Cohort Default Rates from 2003 to 2005, by Type of Institution

  2004   2005   2006  
Institution Type Default Rate No. of Borrowers Entering Repayment Default Rate No. of Borrowers Entering Repayment Default Rate No. of Borrowers Entering Repayment
Public 4.7% 1,488,978 4.3% 1,803,195 4.7% 1,988,185
2-3-year 8.1% 386,474 7.9% 463,007 8.4% 523,749
4-year 3.5% 1,095,696 3.0% 1,332,621 3.4% 1,456,258
Private 3.0% 741,372 2.4% 950,819 2.5% 1,055,567
2-3-year 7.4% 20,539 6.7% 21,819 6.1% 18,278
4-year 2.8% 716,952 2.3% 924,566 2.4% 1,033,700
Proprietary 8.6% 588,432 8.2% 730,385 9.7% 855,523
Less than 2-year 8.9% 130,810 8.9% 141,953 10.9% 140,302
2-3 year 9.9% 205,000 9.3% 240,545 11.1% 267,869
4-year 7.3% 252,622 7.2% 347,887 8.4% 447,352
Total 5.1% 2,825,462 4.6% 3,495,584 5.2% 3,911,640

Source: U.S. Education Department

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Default Rates, Maligned, Rise to 5.2%

  • Student loan default rates
  • Posted by feudi pandola on September 17, 2008 at 9:51am EDT
  • If it is true that the hurricanes of the past few years have caused a significnat rise in default rates, then the system should address that issue. It is unfair and foolish to punish people for acts of God, even if you don't believe in God.Maybe the Department really does need to re-examine the rules for student loans. Hell, if we can bail out AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and Bear Stearns, we ought to provide some sort of relief for students who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  • Maybe flawed, but ...
  • Posted by DDVA on September 17, 2008 at 10:40am EDT
  • Even if the methodology for the standard default rates can be questioned, even shown in one way or another not to be "accurate," the *trends* in them, computed the same way now as in the past, probably provide a very good picture of the directions (certainly, and probably the rates of change. They are rising, and rising more for students/institutions in certain sectors of high ed. than others. That much is clear.

  • Assigning blame?
  • Posted by collegeloanconsultant on September 17, 2008 at 2:00pm EDT
  • On the face of it, it seems bizarre that colleges and universities should be held responsible for their graduates' default rate. What about personal responsibility?

    And yet, shouldn't colleges do some screening? Aren't they responsible for loan counseling? Should a financial aid counselor simply rubber stamp (verify enrollment info) a $30,000 loan every year for a student who is majoring in something less profitable than basket-weaving?

  • COLLEGES NEED MORE CONTROL OVER BORROWING
  • Posted by John A. on September 17, 2008 at 3:50pm EDT
  • Because these loans are considered entitlements, the Dept of Ed. will not allow institutions to have policies that attempt to limit or reduce student debt in any way that is practical. You can limit borrowing on a 'case-by-case basis' with written explanation to the borrower, but an institution is out of compliance if it isn't awarding students their maximum student loan eligibility.

    Not many students have the discipline to turn down or reduce loans their college awards them. They take the money! Our system encourages maximum student debt, and punishes schools who would try and implement policies to discourage and reduce borrowing. Then we blame the school if they have a high default rate and a high percentage of federal aid used to pay tuition.

    Many community colleges have addressed the issue by choosing to make themselves ineligible for federal loans by just refusing to apply. We need a medium road where schools can easily implement policies to moderate borrowing.

  • Posted by DS on September 17, 2008 at 5:55pm EDT
  • Very true, this system is upside down in many ways. Colleges are portrayed in this model as the greedy money grubbers and therefore held responsible for what former students (who were very well counseled, thank you) do years later. Are car dealers held responsible for cars they sell but whose owners fail to make payment on the loans? Real estate agents for houses they sell that wind up in foreclosure?

    What's more, there's an apples and oranges method of comparative measure when it comes to default rates. Two schools, same size; a community college where 10% of the students borrow has a 7% default rate, and a 4-year private where 80% of the students borrow has a 6% default rate. Who has more defaulters? Not the school with the higher default rate. The Feds collect plenty of data, why not use some more of it to clarify these issues better?

  • Posted by sk on September 17, 2008 at 7:20pm EDT
  • The missing data is available here:

    http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/instrates.html

  • More stringent penalties for high CDRs needed
  • Posted by Dansuh on December 12, 2008 at 5:30am EST
  • Despite the recent HEA change to have the CDR calc span 3 years, the penalty thresholds do little to deter or make it less attractive for certain institutions to market to and admit financially unprepared students. Too many schools simply serve as redistribution mechanisms that transfer taxpayer money to investors in those schools. A student's not being able to repay 2 years down the line doesn't take any of the original money away from the school when he enrolled.