Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
The Review

What Colleges Should Know About Students’ Borrowing Patterns

By Sandy Baum March 5, 2017
What Colleges Should Know 1
Adam Niklewicz for The Chronicle

The unconventional first month of the Trump Administration has diverted attention from the issue of student debt, which received more than its share of press during the campaign. But it’s not going to go away, and there is reason to believe that this is an area where there might actually be bipartisan agreement on some policy changes that need not have a major impact on the federal budget.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

The unconventional first month of the Trump Administration has diverted attention from the issue of student debt, which received more than its share of press during the campaign. But it’s not going to go away, and there is reason to believe that this is an area where there might actually be bipartisan agreement on some policy changes that need not have a major impact on the federal budget.

Democrats are worried about former students’ struggle to repay their education loans, the complexity of the student-aid system, fraud and abuse by for-profit colleges, loan servicers’ harassing and misleading borrowers, and inadequate funding for Pell Grants. Republicans are worried about former students’ struggle to repay their education loans, the complexity of the student-aid system, colleges and universities with large endowments charging students too much, excessive federal student aid, and the private sector being squeezed out of the student-aid business.

So there is some common ground. Congress is unlikely to revive federal guarantees for privately financed student loans, which would be very expensive. But it may well redesign the income-driven federal student-loan-repayment system, with an eye toward simplification for borrowers and lower costs for taxpayers. There is consensus on the need for changes, if not on the details of the best loan-repayment policies.

Designing effective student-loan policies, however, requires some understanding of who borrows, how much they borrow, why it makes sense to pay for a portion of college costs through loans, and when it makes sense for the government to relieve borrowers of the responsibility of repayment. Misunderstanding of those issues dominates much of the discussion of student debt and the problems associated with it. Knowing a few facts should help:

  • Difficulty in repaying loans is not associated with high debt levels. Among borrowers who began repaying their debt in 2010-11, 35 percent of those who owed less than $5,000 defaulted within three years, compared with just 4 percent of those who owed more than $40,000.
  • Despite a number of high-profile examples, few students borrow eye-popping amounts to pay for their undergraduate education. Among 2011-12 graduates, 10 percent of bachelor’s-degree recipients had as much as $50,000 in debt, while 37 percent of graduate-degree recipients had borrowed that much. In other words, much of the borrowing that is adding to the stock of outstanding debt comes from people earning advanced degrees — many of whom will have relatively high incomes.
  • The people struggling most with student debt are not the young four-year college graduates working at Starbucks, but older adults who went back to a community college or — at much greater expense — a for-profit institution. Many have left college without a degree and are struggling to make ends meet even without paying off student loans.
  • About half of the outstanding student debt is held by households in the top half of the income distribution. This is not surprising, since the students who accumulate the most education debt are those who stay enrolled; higher levels of education lead to higher earnings. Borrowing for college makes sense because higher education is an investment that pays off over a lifetime. Despite the fact that it doesn’t work out well for every individual, for most people, on average, the payoff is high. Most borrowers can repay a reasonable amount of debt and still have a higher standard of living than if they had not borrowed and had not gone to college.

All of this adds up to the reality that while student debt causes problems for some individuals, it is not the crisis commonly portrayed. Colleges and universities should certainly pay attention to borrowing patterns among their students. Even if average debt levels are reasonable, it is important to know if a significant minority of students borrows much more than average.

It is also important to monitor nonfederal borrowing: Federal loans come with legislated interest rates and considerable borrower protections, and income-driven-repayment plans ensure that required loan payments will be affordable. Private lenders don’t make the same promises.

But guarding against those pitfalls doesn’t mean steering students away from borrowing altogether. A few wealthy colleges promise students that their financial need will be met without loans, but there is no compelling reason for other colleges to aspire to such a policy. They should focus on providing the high-quality educational opportunities and support that will lead to satisfying and secure futures for their students. If their students succeed, a moderate amount of student debt will represent a good investment, not a burden that seriously limits life choices.

Still, improvements in federal student-loan policies have the potential to mitigate the very real problems that do exist for some student borrowers. A recent lawsuit against the student-loan servicer Navient highlights the problems faced by many struggling borrowers. Those problems must be fixed, of course, but a stronger repayment system would at least leave fewer vulnerable borrowers.

Perhaps members of Congress will get behind some real improvements in the system. They could automatically enroll borrowers in a clear income-driven-repayment plan that would base required payments on Internal Revenue Service data, withholding estimated amounts from borrowers’ paychecks.

ADVERTISEMENT

They could devise payment schedules and a loan-forgiveness program that would protect borrowers whose educations don’t pay off as expected without obligating taxpayers to take on the debts of people with strong earnings who borrowed for expensive graduate study.

And they could install reasonable restrictions on borrowing that would minimize the number of students who borrow to attend institutions that won’t serve them well.

Educators should encourage students to borrow cautiously to allow them to invest in themselves and their future. They should honestly assess the relationship between borrowing on their campuses and student outcomes. And they should urge Congress to come up with a rational, fair, and efficient system of student-loan repayment.

A version of this article appeared in the March 10, 2017, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

The Surprising Value That Need-Based Aid Brings

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin