Nearly one million community college students nationwide — about 8.5 percent of the total — can’t take out federal student loans because their college doesn’t participate in the program, according to a report by The Institute For College Access and Success (TICAS).
Denied access to “the safest and most affordable way to borrow for college,” some students turn to “more costly and risky forms of borrowing such as credit cards or private loans,” reports At What Cost? Others reduce their “chances of graduating by working longer hours or cutting back on classes.”
“Most community college students still don’t use loans to pay for their education, but for those who need to borrow, federal student loans can make the difference between graduating and having to drop out,” said Debbie Cochrane, TICAS’s research director and the report’s lead author. “Only 17% of community college students take out loans, but 37% of community college associate’s degree graduates have federal loans.”
Native-American, African-American, and Latino community college students were the most likely to lack access, reports TICAS.
The report takes a closer look at California, Georgia, and North Carolina.
Community colleges can avoid defaults by helping students borrow wisely, argues TICAS, citing Albany Technical College in Georgia.
“Barring access to federal student loans doesn’t keep students from borrowing—it just keeps them from borrowing federal loans, which are the safest option,” said Cochrane.
Community college students could lose access to Pell Grants if their college has a high default rate, said the American Association of Community Colleges in astatement. “Some community colleges are faced with a loss of eligibility later this year.”
If a college participates in the federal loan program, financial aid officers can’t limit loans to students who are unlikely to be able to make loan payments.
If colleges could control overborrowing and not risk Pell eligibility, they’d be more willing to offer federal loans, AACC’s David Baime told Inside Higher Ed. “We strongly believe that the penalty of losing the Pell eligibility for nonpayment of loans doesn’t make much sense and we wish that policy would be changed,” he said. “The threat of that loss is tremendous, and it’s a very serious concern for colleges.”
Community colleges, along with other types of institutions of higher education, have been pressing Congress to give them the power to limit the amount their students can borrow in federal loans, as a tool to safeguard against overborrowing.
This year, colleges and universities face sanctions for high default rates. A community college in rural Texas could lose eligibility for federal student aid.
Community colleges are struggling to pay back their student loans, writes Andrew Kelly in Forbes. While two-year public colleges charge low tuition, the default rate is high.
Only about 20 percent of community college students borrow, and 70 percent borrow less than $6,000. But low graduation rates put even small borrowers at risk of owing more than they can repay.
“Unfortunately, less debt does not equal fewer defaults,” writes Kelly. “And default’s consequences, like wage garnishment and severe credit damage, can hurt borrowers even more than a bloated loan balance.”
Policymakers should turn their attention from total debt to students’ ability to repay, Kelly argues. Income-based repayment plans “try to do exactly this, but they are far too generous to graduate students,” who often have high debts and high incomes.
The “front-end problem” is that “student loan programs encourage attendance at any program, at any college, and at any price.”
That means we subsidize a lot of failure. According to my analysis of the most recent federal data, about 37 percent of loan disbursements in the Stafford and Parent PLUS programs (loans for undergraduates) in 2012-2013 went to colleges with six-year graduation rates that were 40 percent or lower. That’s a lot of loans to people whose chances of finishing a degree are worse than flipping a coin.
What we need are policies that push students toward more effective and affordable options on the front end: better consumer information, income-share agreements, and risk-sharing that gives colleges skin in the game.
The Student Loan Ranger has advice for community college students on how to avoid the debt trap.
A two-question postcard could replace the lengthy Free Application for Federal Student Aid (Fafsa) under a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate. Students would be asked their family size and household income two years earlier.
The Financial Aid Simplification and Transparency Act, introduced by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., also would let students know about their financial aid prospects before they apply to colleges, restore year-round Pell Grants and simplify student loans. Students would be offered two repayment options: income-based repayment and the standard 10-year repayment plan.
“Every year, 20 million students waste millions of hours and countless dollars on a 100-question application form that only needs to be the size of a postcard,” Alexander said in a statement.
Year-round Pell Grant would be paid for by eliminating subsidized loans,
Simplifying Fafsa Will Get More Kids Into College, argue Alexander and Bennet in a New York Times op-ed. Some students give up on going to college because they can’t handle the form, they write.
The two-question Fafsa would be accurate for 95 percent of students, argue Susan M. Dynarski and Judith E. Scott-Clayton in College Grants on a Postcard.
Students’ families would save almost 100 million hours a year — the equivalent of nearly 50,000 full-time jobs — with a simplified Fafsa, estimate Dynarski and Scott-Clayton.
Colleges, which now spend $432 million auditing aid applications, would see much lower administrative expenses, they write.
The Boomerang Kids Won’t Leave home, predicts the New York Times Magazine. With college loans and low-paying jobs, they can’t afford to pay rent.
One in five people in their 20s and early 30s is currently living with his or her parents. And 60 percent of all young adults receive financial support from them. That’s a significant increase from a generation ago, when only one in 10 young adults moved back home and few received financial support.
. . . Those who graduated college as the housing market and financial system were imploding faced the highest debt burden of any graduating class in history. Nearly 45 percent of 25-year-olds, for instance, have outstanding loans, with an average debt above $20,000. . . . And more than half of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed, meaning they make substandard wages in jobs that don’t require a college degree.
The photographer, who lives at home and freelances, was graduated from an art college with $120,000 in debt.
Alexandria Romo, 28, also a Loyola graduate, earned an economics degree but says she “had no idea what I was doing when I took out those loans” at the age of 18. She borrowed $90,000. Romo wishes she’d been taught about student loans, math and finance before borrowing at 12.5 percent interest. Romo lives at home in Austin and works at a security-guard company. Her dream is to be an environmentalist.
Community college students may struggle to graduate, but they don’t run up huge debts in the process.
Every year, $15 billion goes to “college dropout factories” and “diploma mills,” according to Tough Love, a new Education Trust report. These are four-year colleges and universities in the bottom 5 percent nationally in graduation rates and student loan repayment rates. In addition, some institutions — including some state universities — admit few low- and moderate-income students eligible for Pell Grants. Tough Love proposes linking federal aid, tax benefits and charitable deductions to minimum standards for access and success:
Pell, full-time freshman enrollment: 17 percent
Six-year, full-time freshman graduation rate: 15 percent
Student loan repayment rate (three-year cohort default rate: 28 percent)
Colleges would have three to four years to meet the standards, the report proposes.
“The federal government writes a $180 billion check annually to thousands of colleges and universities using taxpayer dollars to fund schools from the highest performing to the lowest, with virtually no consideration of institutional performance on access, success, or student loan repayment measures,” said Michael Dannenberg, director of higher education and education finance policy and a co-author of the report. “Schools falling beneath the bottom fifth percentile on these measures represent the ‘worst of the worst,’” said Mary Nguyen Barry, higher education policy analyst and co-author. “Establishing goals without consequences . . . won’t protect students from a lifetime of mounds of debt, a meaningless degree, or no degree at all.”
Many for-profit colleges enroll a high percentage of low-income, non-white and adult students. They tend to have low graduation rates and high default rates. However, also in the bottom 5 percent are a number of historically black colleges as well as “minority-serving” institutions with heavy Latino and Native American enrollments. Linking aid to student success would be politically difficult.
Elite universities and private colleges that can’t afford much financial aid tend to admit few Pell-eligible students. These “engines of inequality” have a lot of political clout too.
President Obama’s student loan plan, which limits repayment to 10 percent of the borrower’s disposable income, closes the barn door after the horse is gone, says Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce, on NPR. The fundamental question about college debt is whether students are “getting value for money,” says Carnevale.
Are we helping people cope with debts they never should have taken on in the first place?
Students and their parents don’t always think through what they’re spending for college and what they’re likely to get for it, says host Michel Martin. If students know they’ll only have to pay 10 percent of their income — with the unpaid balance forgiven in 10 to 20 years — might they be tempted to think “it’s not going to be that big of a deal?”
That’s a risk, says Carnevale. If the system isn’t linking loans to long-term earnings, it will continue to be ineffecient.
Ultimately, the taxpayer pays for that as do many of the students who find these loans still overwhelming. That is, it’s not as helpful if you’ve built the loan and it’s going to burden you for a number of years. Just have somebody help you with the burden. The real issue is ensuring that you minimize the burden in the first place by linking value — economic value — to the loan.
The loan policy will help some people, he says. More fundamentally, we need to “ensure the young people know what they’re getting into when they borrow and make sure they’re not borrowing trouble down the road.”
Stop telling 18-year-olds to follow their “passion” — and run up huge debts, writes economist Peter Morici in the Baltimore Sun.
Easy access credit has pushed up college tuition far faster than inflation generally and even health care costs. University presidents are happy to pad bureaucracies and indulge faculty who would rather undertake research than teach, if students can borrow money to pay for it all.
College primarily “is about acquiring skills that have value in the marketplace,” writes Morici.
President Obama’s executive order expanding Pay As You Earn (PAYE) will provide some debt relief to some borrowers, writes Diana Carew, director of the Young American Prosperity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute. But it also will boost subsidies for a “broken higher-education financing model” and reinforce the idea that college attendance is the only postsecondary option.
While everyone needs some form of post-secondary education to earn a living, not everyone needs a bachelor’s degree, writes Carew.
The wage premium for college graduates is growing not because the degree is worth so much more, but because high school diplomas as worth so much less. In fact, real earnings for recent college graduates have been falling over the last decade, and underemployment remains at record highs.
. . . Moreover, the new tools of digital learning — such as online courses — should be driving education costs down, yet tuition continues to climb. That suggests the entire financing model for higher education needs reform. And because there are too few viable pathways into the workforce after high school, our $100 billion per year federal student aid system is channeling people into four-year colleges who may be better suited for less expensive options.
Expanding PAYE may help some borrowers now, but it almost certainly “will exacerbate the burden on the federal student aid system in the long run, argues Carew. “Borrowers have less incentive to make smart borrowing decisions, or complete in a timely manner. And schools have less incentive to control costs.”
Expanding PAYE “won’t do much to make college more affordable,” writes Clare McCann on The Hill. It will affect only people who’ve left college and already are eligible for income-based repayment. They must be Direct Loan borrowers — but most pre-2007 borrowers used the now-defunct Federal Family Education Loan program instead.
Few borrowers have opted for income-based repayment so far because the plans are so complex, she writes. “Gimmicks like this one don’t help much — in fact, they make the system even more complex.”
For-profit colleges charge $35,000 for an associate degree, on average, more than four times the cost at the average community college, writes Ashlee Kieler in the Consumerist. Why does anyone go to a for-profit college? Flexibility and convenience draw many students, she writes. And for-profit colleges spend heavily on marketing.
In 2000, for-profit colleges enrolled 3 percent of postsecondary students. By 2009, that had soared to 9 percent, reports College Board. Community colleges’ share dropped from 43 percent to 40 percent.
For-profit college students see a more convenient and flexible learning experience, according to a report from Stanford’s National Center For Postsecondary Improvement. “Freed from the traditional academic schedules and even from many of the fixed costs of infrastructure and expensive facilities, the [school] is able to offer courses at more convenient times and in more convenient locations.”
For-profit colleges were leaders in offering online and evening courses to students with jobs and family responsibilities.
For-profit colleges also tend to have names that sound more like a traditional university — some even have “university” in their names — which has a certain aspirational appeal to it. The phrase, “I went to Heald College” may have a better ring to it than “I went to Bucks County Community College,” even if the student got the same or better education at the school with the clunkier name.
For-profit colleges rarely make students take remedial courses before taking courses than count for a credential. Instead, basic skills instruction is integrated into for-credit courses. That’s a policy some community colleges are trying.
Like community colleges, the for-profit sector enrolls many students who are 25 to 40 years old. However, for-profit college students are much more likely to be living in poverty, reports the Institute for Higher Education Policy. They use federal grants and loans to pay for college.
“Only 35 percent of community college students take out loans to pay for school,” says Suzanne Martindale, staff attorney at Consumers Union. By contrast, “86 percent of for-profit college students take out loans.”
However, Kieler doesn’t mention another reason students may choose a for-profit college. On average, two-year for-profit colleges, which focus on job training, have much higher completion rates than community colleges, which have academic and job training missions. For-profit vocational programs are very structured. Some community colleges are adding structured pathways to improve completion rates.
Another five million people with student loans will be able to limit payments to 10 percent of their discretionary incomes. Loans will be forgiven in 20 years — or 10 years if they take public-service (government) jobs.
President Obama issued an executive order Monday extending generous repayment terms to more debtors. He also urged Congress to approve a bill to let 25 million borrowers refinance student loans at lower rates.
The biggest winners will be people who took on debt to pay for graduate school, notes the Christian Science Monitor.
All student borrowers – including those 5 million likely to be affected by this change – already had access to some form of income-based repayment, notes Jason Delisle, director of the New America Foundation’s Federal Education Budget Project. Under the previous terms, those who didn’t have access to PAYE (Pay As You Earn) could still do income-based repayment where they paid 15 percent of their incomes, after a $17,500 exemption, and had their debt forgiven after 25 years. In many ways, he says, those terms made much more sense, and were more fair, especially for students borrowing large sums of money to go to grad school, who are very unlikely to be able to pay off their loans in 10 or 20 years even with high incomes.
“Income-based repayment is vital, and it’s important we have it, but it’s very important we get the terms right,” says Mr. Delisle. “The payments are too low and the terms are too short for someone who’s borrowed to go to grad school.”
Burdened with student loan debt, young people can’t buy their first home, Obama said.
That’s saying “we need to help [student loan debtors] with debt so they can go into even more debt” with a mortgage, Delisle said. Student loans already helped these borrowers consume beyond their means, he said.
Encouraging students to borrow more for college also enables colleges to keep raising tuition. “It’s dealing with the symptoms and not the disease,” says Richard Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability.
Some low-income, minority and first-generation students think their loans will be forgiven, reports Sophie Quinton on National Journal.
“A lot of students will take out loans because they hear that if you’re in a certain job it gets paid off. That’s not always the case,” says Lauren Ellcessor, 28, a counselor at the Educational Opportunity Center in Norfolk, Va.
. . . “I get the quote: ‘I’m here to get Obama’s plan to get rid of my student loans,’ ” Ellcessor says. It’s not that easy, she tells clients.
Loan forgiveness should be eliminated, argue Brookings’ researchers Beth Akers and Matthew Chingos. It encourages students to borrow more and stick the taxpayers with the bill. Frugality is not rewarded.
Nationwide, student loan debt tops $1 trillion.
The Gainful Employment Rule Is Coming For Everyone, warns Edububble. For now, the for-profit colleges are being forced to “generate a real return for their students,” but it won’t stop there, he writes.
Once the world starts getting the bill for Income-Based Repayment, this will be the only choice for the Republic. Come after the source of the pain and that means all of those twits studying cross-disciplinary BioTheater and other overpriced courses like English or even Bio.
. . . There are too many defaults and the government is just going to have to shut down the free money fountain.
The gainful-employment rule applies to career programs at public and private nonprofit colleges, as well as to for-profits. If too many students in a career program default on loans or run up a high level of debt relative to their earnings, that program’s students would lose access to federal student aid. Community colleges, which have a rising number of borrowers and high default rates, are plenty worried about it already.
The U.S. Education Department’s revised proposal is “flawed, arbitrary, and biased,” and will shut millions of students out of college, contends the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which represents the for-profit sector, reports the Chronicle of Higher Education.
A 100-age report by economists at Charles River Associates, funded by the for-profit trade group, attacked the regulations for using the level of students’ earnings rather than their earnings gains to measure a program’s effectiveness.
While the Education Department estimates 31 percent of students would be affected, potentially losing access to student aid, the report predicts as many as 44 percent would be enrolled in programs that fail the federal test.
Coupled with income-based repayment, the proposed rules would protect programs whose graduates have very low earnings, writes Ben Miller on EdCentral. “Allowing programs to pass solely based on the annual debt-to-earnings measure makes it possible for a program with sub-poverty wages to still avoid failing the metrics.”