Education Policy Program: All Related Content

Focusing the Student Loan Conversation on the Average Borrower, Not the Average Loan

  • By
  • Jennifer Cohen
  • Jason Delisle
May 15, 2012

These days, anyone who follows the news can recite statistics on student debt. The media has repeated countless times phrases like “there is $1 trillion in outstanding student debt” and “borrowers have an average of $23,300 in loans.” But do these numbers really mean what the media, policymakers and advocates think they mean? Which is, do these numbers tell how much debt the typical student carries? Not at all.

First and foremost, it’s important to clarify that “$1 trillion” refers to the total outstanding balance of the entire universe of student loans. That’s all loans from federal and private sources, for undergraduate or graduate students attending or who attended any type of school. The loans could have been taken out in September of 2011 for the current school year or they could have originated in 1995 but have not been repaid yet.

Similarly, that $23,300 number, which comes from a New York Federal Reserve Bank study of a representative sample of all outstanding loan balances as of 2011, refers to the average student loan balance only for students who took out loan. It excludes students who have already paid their loans off or who did not take out any loans.

Despite their ubiquity, these numbers don’t actually paint a picture of student borrowing as experienced by the typical borrower. Yet most press accounts imply that the average student loan balance for borrowers reflects the student loan balance for the average borrower.

In fact, most borrowers carry student loan balances well below the average. According to that same study, the median student loan balance is $12,800. This means that half of borrowers owe less than that amount and half owe more. Similarly, 75 percent of borrowers owe less than $28,000, and 90 percent owe less than $54,000 currently. While the press can certainly cite the average loan balance at $23,300, they should also make clear that most borrowers currently owe significantly less.

Now consider the discussion about debt owed by recent graduates. The most recent survey for the Baccalaureate and Beyond dataset, collected by the National Center on Education Statistics, provides data on cumulative student loan balances as of 2009 for the graduating class of 2008. These data show that the average student loan balance was $25,619 for students that took out loans.

But once again, the average borrower owed far less than that amount. Specifically, the data suggest that the typical borrower (the borrower with a loan balance at the 50th percentile) owed $19,857 one year after graduation. Seventy-five percent of borrowers owed less than $33,857 and 90 percent owed less than $50,000. On the other end, 25 percent of borrowers owed less than $10,000.

It is also important to note that the Baccalaureate and Beyond data show that 65.6 percent of students took out loans. So that means that 34.4 percent of graduates of the class of 2008 had no loans to begin with.

This is why the distinction between average and median student debt, and the distribution of debt among percentiles of borrowers matters. By focusing on average student debt, journalists, policymakers and advocates are skewing the discussion on student debt toward one extreme that affects a minority of borrowers. They’ve convinced their audience (and likely themselves) that the average loan balance (which is disproportionately affected by outlier loans with particularly large balances) should drive the discussion, not the debt of the average student borrower, nor the debt levels of the majority of borrowers.

As the discussion on student debt continues, journalists, policymakers and advocates should bear in mind what the data cited above say about the typical borrower: she is in less debt than the average loan size figures would have us believe.

Community College Students Unlikely to Benefit from Cheap Loans | U.S. News & World Report

May 14, 2012

"Targeting a precious $6 billion right now to borrowers who have jobs and incomes high enough to cover the higher rate seems out of touch, especially when the Pell Grant program needs approximately that much next year to stave off a massive cut to the aid it provides," writes Jason Delisle, director of the Federal Education Budget Project at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. Stafford borrowers already can postpone payments if they fail to find work or earn too little, he notes.

How the Common Core Standards Could Help Restore the Curriculum

  • By
  • Laura Bornfreund
May 14, 2012

More than 80 percent of elementary school teachers, grades 3 through 5, report that they are spending more learning time on math or language arts at the expense of other subjects. This is one of the most disconcerting findings from a recent survey of 1,000 3rd through 12th grade public school teachers commissioned by Common Core, a DC-based non-profit that promotes content-rich curricula and instruction.

Issues:

Podcast: Turning Around Elementary Schools

  • By
  • Maggie Severns
May 14, 2012
Publication Image

Two years ago, the federal government began distributing $3 billion in stimulus funds to some of the nation's lowest performing schools through the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. With SIG funds, states are expected to rapidly transform schools according to program guidelines put out by the Department of Education.

Podcast: Turning Around Elementary Schools

May 14, 2012

Two years ago, the federal government began distributing $3 billion in stimulus funds to some of the nation's lowest performing schools through the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. With SIG funds, states are expected to rapidly transform schools according to program guidelines put out by the Department of Education.

Student Loan Default Rates Rise In Chattanooga And Across The Country | Chattanooga Times Free Press

May 14, 2012

But Jason Delisle, director of the Federal Education Budget Project at the New America Foundation, said programs already are in place to help students who are unemployed or to lower payments based on income. The foundation is a public policy institute ...

What Mitt Romney Should Be Saying to Women Voters This Mother's Day

  • By
  • David Gray,
  • New America Foundation

Mitt Romney knows he has to do better in attracting women voters. After controversial comments by GOP leaders about contraception and Planned Parenthood during the heat of the primary season, polls show that Mr. Romney’s standing among women has been impacted and that he trails President Obama in critical swing states with female voters by a 2 to 1 margin (according to a a recent USA Today/Gallup survey).

Capped Variable Interest Rate Proposal Comes with a Hefty Price Tag

  • By
  • Jason Delisle
May 11, 2012

While Congress has debated extending the 3.4 percent interest rate on Subsidized Stafford loans issued this year to undergraduates, advocacy groups are gearing up for a debate on longer-term reforms. They know the odds don’t favor Congress adopting a one-year extension of the lower rate again next year. Besides, spending $6 billion to save college graduates $9 a month isn’t a great deal for borrowers or taxpayers. So it’s good that student aid advocates want a better plan. But they aren’t off to a great start. They are gathering support for an outrageously expensive proposal that turns a blind eye to far more worthy aid, like Pell Grants.

The student loan interest rate proposal that is dominating discussions among advocates and other stakeholders would provide borrowers with variable interest rates that would be capped at the current fixed rates of 6.8 percent on Stafford loans and 7.9 percent on PLUS loans for parents and graduate students.

The rate on all newly-issued federal loans would be adjusted annually based on interest rates on short-term (three month) U.S. Treasury debt, plus a markup of two to three percentage points to partially offset costs. Today, that would translate into an interest rate of about 3 percent. If short-term U.S. Treasury rates rise, the rate borrowers pay would too, though it would never exceed 6.8 percent. Such a proposal would represent a return to the policy of the 1990s and early 2000s, except the cap on the variable rate then was 8.25 percent.

This variable-rate-with-a-cap proposal would give borrowers a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” arrangement. If short-term rates stay low, borrowers benefit. If short-term rates rise, the loans convert to low, fixed rates and the borrower wins again. When short-term rates decline, the fixed-rate loan converts back to a variable rate, and the borrower wins again.

The policy effectively shelters borrowers from the financial tradeoffs that they would normally face when they choose between fixed and variable interest rates on loans in the private market. Variable rates are lower at first, but can go higher. Fixed rates might be higher on average, but they provide certainty.

The variable-rate-with-a-cap proposal doesn’t, however, make that fundamental tradeoff disappear. It just shifts the cost entirely onto taxpayers.

How much would taxpayers have to pay to provide borrowers with this no-lose insurance policy? According to sources on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Budget Office says it would cost $200 billion over 10 years.

To put this price tag in perspective, Congress could fund an $8,000 maximum Pell Grant (up from $5,550 today) for the next 10 years if it allocated an additional $200 billion to the program over that time period.

Still, there are other options for policymakers to modify student loan interest rates that would make meaningful improvements for borrowers without breaking the bank. One even generates savings (read more here).

Students and aid advocates would be wise to rally around some version of a more feasible interest rate reform proposal in the coming months. But if they really want to get behind a proposal that costs $200 billion, please make it one that supports the Pell Grant program rather than college graduates’ monthly budgets.

Friday News Roundup: Week of May 7-11

  • By
  • Clare McCann
May 11, 2012

Pennsylvania Senate approves alternative to governor’s budget

Missouri legislature sends budget to governor

Kansas House rejects state employee raises, allocates funds for disabled

University of Minnesota regents take wary look at proposed pay, tuition increases

Pennsylvania Senate approves alternative to governor’s budget
The Pennsylvania Senate this week passed a fiscal year 2013 budget plan that restores many of the cuts laid out in Governor Tom Corbett’s proposed budget. The budget, which must be signed by the governor by July 1 according to state law, passed the Senate and moved to the House for approval. It assumes state tax revenue will exceed earlier projections by about $900 million in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and uses that additional money to increase spending in fiscal year 2013 by about $500 million over the levels Corbett proposed. The increased spending would help to temper proposed cuts to public colleges and universities. It would also increase aid for low-income school districts by $50 million over Corbett’s request. Similarly, it would provide an additional $50 million for accountability block grants, which school districts frequently use to fund full-day kindergarten programs. More here…

Missouri legislature sends budget to governor
Missouri lawmakers voted this week to approve a budget for fiscal year 2013 totaling $24 billion. The budget, now awaiting Governor Jay Nixon’s approval before the start of the fiscal year on July 1, 2012 increases funding for higher education by $3 million from 2012 levels, split across 7 public universities. It also retains funding for one department at the University of Missouri-St. Louis that had been on the chopping block in negotiations earlier this week. The $3 million will be used to help balance funding disparities across the universities. Another bill passed this week diverts revenue earned through casino fees from early childhood education to veterans homes. Instead, funds for early childhood education will come from a settlement reached in a national tobacco lawsuit. Governor Nixon stated that he planned to look carefully at the budget over the next several weeks before signing it. More here…

Kansas House rejects state employee raises, allocates funds for disabled
The Kansas state House voted this week to move $50 million in fiscal year 2013 funding from the transportation department to public K-12 education. Under the funding plan proposed by the House, basic state aid to schools would increase in the 2013 school year by $37 per pupil over current-year levels; that provision will cost the state $25 million. An amendment to devote half of the $25 million to kindergarten-through-fourth-grade literacy efforts failed. Another $25 million taken from the Kansas Department of Transportation budget would provide supplementary property tax aid to school districts. In contrast, a Senate proposal would add $50 million for basic state aid to schools, or $74 per pupil more than the state paid out in fiscal year 2012, and $27 million for property tax funding. The Senate plan allocates the money from the state’s surplus, rather than moving it from another agency. The state legislative session is scheduled to end this week, but with numerous tasks still on its agenda, the legislature may extend the session. More here…

University of Minnesota regents take wary look at proposed pay, tuition increases
The University of Minnesota recently proposed a fiscal year 2013 budget that would increase faculty salaries by 2.5 percent, in-state undergraduate tuition by 3.5 percent, and total spending by 1.5 percent over fiscal year 2012 levels. The Board of Regents, though, is asking for more details on the proposed tuition hike before approving the plan. The tuition growth would raise the cost of attendance to $12,060 for in-state residents, not including fees, room, and board; additionally, out-of-state tuition would increase by 4 percent, up to $17,310. In total, the tuition increase would add $24.6 million to the university’s revenue next year. In addition to increasing salaries for staff and faculty, the extra spending would fund more merit scholarships, new hiring, and a new Center for Social Media at the university. State funding, meanwhile, has declined in recent years and will reach 1998 levels next year. When the university received a smaller cut to state funding than anticipated last year, it saved much of the money to apply to its fiscal year 2013 budget. More here…

Capped Variable Interest Rate Proposal Comes with a Hefty Price Tag

  • By
  • Jason Delisle
May 10, 2012

While Congress has debated extending the 3.4 percent interest rate on Subsidized Stafford loans issued this year to undergraduates, advocacy groups are gearing up for a debate on longer-term reforms. They know the odds don’t favor Congress adopting a one-year extension of the lower rate again next year. Besides, spending $6 billion to save college graduates $9 a month isn’t a great deal for borrowers or taxpayers. So it’s good that student aid advocates want a better plan. But they aren’t off to a great start. They are gathering support for an outrageously expensive proposal that turns a blind eye to far more worthy aid, like Pell Grants.

The student loan interest rate proposal that is dominating discussions among advocates and other stakeholders would provide borrowers with variable interest rates that would be capped at the current fixed rates of 6.8 percent on Stafford loans and 7.9 percent on PLUS loans for parents and graduate students.

The rate on all newly-issued federal loans would be adjusted annually based on interest rates on short-term (three month) U.S. Treasury debt, plus a markup of two to three percentage points to partially offset costs. Today, that would translate into an interest rate of about 3 percent. If short-term U.S. Treasury rates rise, the rate borrowers pay would too, though it would never exceed 6.8 percent. Such a proposal would represent a return to the policy of the 1990s and early 2000s, except the cap on the variable rate then was 8.25 percent.

This variable-rate-with-a-cap proposal would give borrowers a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” arrangement. If short-term rates stay low, borrowers benefit. If short-term rates rise, the loans convert to low, fixed rates and the borrower wins again. When short-term rates decline, the fixed-rate loan converts back to a variable rate, and the borrower wins again.

The policy effectively shelters borrowers from the financial tradeoffs that they would normally face when they choose between fixed and variable interest rates on loans in the private market. Variable rates are lower at first, but can go higher. Fixed rates might be higher on average, but they provide certainty.

The variable-rate-with-a-cap proposal doesn’t, however, make that fundamental tradeoff disappear. It just shifts the cost entirely onto taxpayers.

How much would taxpayers have to pay to provide borrowers with this no-lose insurance policy? According to sources on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Budget Office says it would cost $200 billion over 10 years.

To put this price tag in perspective, Congress could fund an $8,000 maximum Pell Grant (up from $5,550 today) for the next 10 years if it allocated an additional $200 billion to the program over that time period.

Still, there are other options for policymakers to modify student loan interest rates that would make meaningful improvements for borrowers without breaking the bank. One even generates savings (read more here).

Students and aid advocates would be wise to rally around some version of a more feasible interest rate reform proposal in the coming months. But if they really want to get behind a proposal that costs $200 billion, please make it one that supports the Pell Grant program rather than college graduates’ monthly budgets.

Syndicate content