How to Improve Income-Driven Repayment Plan Cost Estimates

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) took the U.S. Department of Education (ED) behind the proverbial woodshed in a new report that was extremely critical of how ED estimated the cost of income-driven repayment (IDR) programs. (Senate Republicans, which asked for the report, immediately piled on.) Between fiscal years 2011 and 2017, ED estimated that IDR plans would cost $25.1 billion. The current estimated cost is up to $52.5 billion, as shown in the figure below from the GAO report.

gao_fig1

The latest estimate from the GAO—and the number that got front-page treatment in The Wall Street Journal—is that the federal government expects to forgive $108 billion of the estimated $352 billion of loans currently enrolled in income-driven repayment plans. Much of the forgiven loan balances are currently scheduled to be taxable (a political hot topic), but some currently unknown portion will be completely forgiven through Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

gao_fig2

The GAO report revealed some incredible concerns with how ED estimated program costs. Alexander Holt of New America has a good summary of these concerns, calling them “gross negligence.” In addition to the baffling choices not to even account for Grad PLUS loans in IDR models until 2015 (!) and to not assume borrowers’ incomes increased at the rate of inflation (!!), ED ran very few sensitivity analyses about how different reasonable assumptions would affect program costs. As a result, the estimates have not tracked tremendously closely with reality over the last several years.

But there are several reasonable steps that could be taken to improve the accuracy of cost estimates within a reasonable period of time. They are the following:

(1) Share the current methodology and take suggestions for improvement from the research community. This idea comes from Doug Webber, a higher ed finance expert and assistant professor at Temple University:

ED could then take one of two paths to improve the models. First, they could simply collect submissions of code from the education community to see what the resulting budget estimates look like. A second—and better—way would be to convene a working group similar to the technical review panels used to improve National Center for Education Statistics surveys. This group of experts could help ED develop a set of reasonable models to estimate costs.

(2) Make available institutional-level data on income-driven repayment takeup rates and debt burdens of students enrolled in IDR plans. This would require ED to produce a new dataset from the National Student Loan Data System, which is no small feat given the rickety nature of the data system. But, as the College Scorecard shows, it is possible to compile better information on student outcomes from available data sources. ED also released information on the number of borrowers in IDR plans by state last spring, so it’s certainly possible to release better data.

(3) Make a percentage of student-level loan data available to qualified researchers. This dataset already exists—and is in fact the same dataset that ED uses in making budget projections. Yet, aside from one groundbreaking paper that looked at loan defaults over time, no independent researchers have been allowed access to the data. Researchers can use other sensitive student-level datasets compiled by ED (with the penalty for bad behavior being a class E felony!), but not student loan data. I joined over 100 researchers and organizations this fall calling for ED to make these data available to qualified researchers who already use other sensitive data sources.

These potential efforts to involve the research community to improve budget estimates are particularly important during a Presidential transition period. The election of Donald Trump may lead to a great deal of turnover within career staff members at the Department of Education—the types of people who have the skills needed to produce reasonable cost estimates. I hope that the Trump Administration works to keep top analysts in the Washington swamp, while endeavoring to work with academics to help improve the accuracy of IDR cost projections.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Nominees Wanted for the 2016 Top Ten and Not Top Ten Lists

It’s safe to say that 2016 will go down in the history books as a pretty important year for higher education. I like to commemorate each year with two lists on this blog. The “top ten” list includes the most newsworthy events of the year, regardless of whether they are good or not for higher education or the public as a whole. Meanwhile, the “not top ten” list also includes some events that are important and newsworthy, but the primary focus is on decisions that look pretty silly in hindsight or show the underbelly of greed and jockeying for power that is often present in higher education.

The previous year’s winners are below:

2015: Student protests shake up higher education (top ten), the University of Akron’s $556.40 olive jar (not top ten)

2014: Collapse of Corinthian Colleges (top ten), Kean University’s $219,000 conference table (not top ten)

2013: President Obama’s proposed college ratings (top ten), Georgetown Law’s Loan Repayment Assistance Program (not top ten)

I’m looking for nominees for this year’s lists, which will be posted during the week of December 12. I’ve been keeping a running list of potential candidates all year long, but I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on some of the most important (and zaniest) happenings in the higher education world this year. Please leave any suggestions in the comments area below or send them to me via Twitter (@rkelchen). I look forward to sharing the results!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Five Higher Education Suggestions for President-Elect Trump

It’s pretty safe to say that Donald Trump wasn’t the candidate of choice for much of American higher education. Hillary Clinton received nearly 100 times as much in donations from academics as Trump, and the list of academics supporting Trump doesn’t have a lot of well-known names. But the typical American saw the election in a far different way than your average New York Times reader (as evidenced by the big divide in support by educational attainment), and Trump is now the president-elect after a stunning victory.

Here are my recommendations for Trump in the realm of higher education policy as he prepares to move from Trump Tower to the White House in just over two months.

(1) The Department of Education won’t go away, but certain functions could be reassigned. Although the Republicans kept control of the House and Senate, the margins are razor-thin—perhaps a four-vote margin in the Senate and a tenuous grip on the House thanks to divides between establishment and activist Republicans. This makes getting rid of the Department of Education extremely unlikely. Some functions, such as handling student loans, could go to the Department of the Treasury. Others could possibly go to states in the form of block grants. Yet there will still be a need for some administration in Washington to handle basic functions.

(2) Reach out to career staff members at the Department of Education. Trump ran on the concept of “draining the swamp,” but replacing longtime Washington staffers all at once comes at a risk. Career staff members who have served in multiple administrations have knowledge about how programs work that is difficult to replace, so it is essential to keep some of those staff members to help ensure a smooth transition across administrations. Will longtime staffers want to work for Trump? It’s anyone’s guess, but Trump’s transition team should make a good-faith effort to reach out.

(3) Make Higher Education Act reauthorization a priority. With unified (but tenuous) Republican control, Higher Education Act reauthorization suddenly looks more plausible than it did last week. A Trump administration should focus on the HEA in an effort to govern through the legislative branch rather than using executive orders and administrative rules—policies that conservatives have despised. 2017 reauthorization is probably unlikely given the administration’s other priorities, but 2018 or 2019 could work.

(4) Make more higher education data available to the public. The Obama administration made some good strides in the area of consumer information, culminating in the College Scorecard. Yet they also didn’t make data on a range of outcomes (such as PLUS loan default rates or program-level data) available to either the public or researchers. I signed onto a letter along with over 100 researchers last month calling for the Department of Education to release additional data on the federal student loan portfolio, and the Trump administration should release the data. Even if Trump wants to back down in terms of high-stakes accountability, consumer information is important.

(5) Visit a number of colleges across the higher education spectrum. Like most presidents, Trump is a product of high-prestige colleges (attending Fordham and Penn). I’d love to see him experience the great diversity of American higher education, including rural community colleges, HBCUs, technical institutes, and the workhorse regional public university sector. I hope that some colleges extend invitations to Trump—and that he accepts them.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations: The Obama Administration’s Greatest Higher Education Legacy?

President Obama famously said in 2014 that “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Although he has used his pen to sign some substantial changes in federal higher education policy (such as ending the bank-based student loan program in favor of federal Direct Loans), his pen has been used more frequently to authorize the Department of Education to start implementing new regulations without going through Congress. The regulatory process has been used to expand income-driven repayment programs, implement gainful employment rules for students in select vocationally-oriented programs, and tie federal TEACH grants to some measure of teachers’ effectiveness. These efforts have been generally opposed by congressional Republicans, which have held a majority in at least one chamber of Congress since 2011.

But from the perspective of colleges, the newest set of regulations may end up being the most influential. The Department of Education recently unveiled the final regulations known as “borrower defense to repayment” in a response to concerns about colleges defrauding students or suddenly closing their doors. These wide-ranging regulations, which will take effect on July 1, 2017 (a summary is available here) allow individuals with student loans to get relief if there is a breach of contract or court decision affecting that college or if there is “a substantial misrepresentation by the school about the nature of the educational program, the nature of financial changes, or the employability of graduates.”

The language regarding “substantial misrepresentation” could have the largest impact for both for-profit and nonprofit colleges, as students will have six years to bring lawsuits if loans are made after July 1, 2017. Notably, this language treats intentional misrepresentation and honest errors in the same way, and also does not define what “substantial” is. For example, if a student enrolls in a program with a posted job placement rate of 98% and later finds out that college administrators e-mailed each other about how to hide a 48% placement rate, most courts would probably consider this to be substantial misrepresentation. But what if a well-meaning person accidentally transposed an 89% placement rate to get 98%? These errors do happen in data submitted to the federal government, and currently there is no penalty for this type of mistake.

As some have warned, the ambiguity of the language will likely open up the door for more lawsuits against colleges with a wide range of misrepresentations—particularly as the regulations allow for class-action lawsuits that colleges could previously restrict. Courts across the country vary considerably in their friendliness toward plaintiffs relative to defendants, meaning that colleges located in more plaintiff-friendly states such as California and Illinois may be more at risk of lawsuits than colleges in defendant-friendly states such as Delaware and Iowa. But even if a college can prevail in a lawsuit, it still has to pay its legal fees and also may be subject to bad publicity.

Although these new regulations are a clear and needed victory for students who attended undeniably fraudulent colleges, the ripple effects regarding the definition of “substantial” misrepresentation could affect a broad group of well-intending nonprofit colleges that either made honest mistakes or happened across a sympathetic judge or jury. Eventually, a series of court cases—perhaps in conjunction with additional federal guidance—should help settle the legal landscape, but in the meantime colleges will be watching these regulations with a great deal of anxiety.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Clinton and Trump Proposals on Student Debt Explained

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The high price of attending college has been among the key issues concerning voters in the 2016 presidential election. Both Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump have called the nearly US$1.3 trillion in student debt a “crisis.” During the third presidential debate on Oct. 19, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton raised the issue all over again when she said,

“I want to make college debt-free. For families making less than $125,000, you will not get a tuition bill from a public college or a university if the plan that I worked on with Bernie Sanders is enacted.”

Republican nominee Donald Trump has also expressed concerns about college affordability. In a recent campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio, Trump provided a broad framework of his plan for higher education should he be elected president.

In a six-minute segment devoted solely to higher education, Trump proceeded to call student debt a “crisis” – matching Clinton’s language. He also called for colleges to curb rising administrative costs, spend their endowments on making college more affordable and protect students’ academic freedom.

The highlight of Trump’s speech was his proposal to create an income-based repayment system for federal student loans. Under his proposal, students would pay back 12.5 percent of their income for 15 years after leaving college. This is more generous than the typical income-based plan available today (which requires paying 10 percent of income for 20 to 25 years). The remaining balance of the loan is forgiven after that period, although this amount is subject to income taxes.

As a researcher of higher education finance, I question whether these proposals on student debt will benefit a significant number of the over 10 million college-going voters struggling to repay loans.

How student loan interest rates work

Typically, students pay interest rates set by Congress and the president on their federal student loans.

Over the last decade, interest rates for undergraduate students have fluctuated between 3.4 percent and 6.8 percent. Rates for federal PLUS loans have ranged from 6.3 percent to 8.5 percent. Federal PLUS loans require a credit check and are often cosigned by a parent or spouse. Federal student loans do not have those requirements.

While students pay this high a rate of interest, rates on 15-year mortgages are currently below three percent.

It is also important to note the role of private loan companies that have recently entered this market. In the last several years, private companies such as CommonBond, Earnest and SoFi as well as traditional banks have offered to refinance select students’ loans at interest rates that range from two percent to eight percent based on a student’s earnings and their credit history.

However, unlike federal loans (which are available to nearly everyone attending colleges participating in the federal financial aid programs), private companies limit refinancing to students who have already graduated from college, have a job and earn a high income relative to the monthly loan payments.

Analysts have estimated that $150 billion of the federal government’s $1.25 trillion student loan portfolio – or more than 10 percent of all loan dollars – is likely eligible for refinancing through the private market.

Many Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have pushed for years, for all students to receive lower interest rates on their federal loans. In the past Republican nominee Donald Trump too has questioned why the federal government profits on student loans – although whether the government actually profits is less clear.

Issues with refinancing of loans

The truth is that students with the most debt are typically college graduates and are the least likely to struggle to repay their loans. In addition, they can often refinance through the private market at rates comparable to what the federal government would offer.

Struggling borrowers, on the other hand, already have a range of income-driven repayment options through the federal government that can help them manage their loans. Some of their loans could also be forgiven after 10 to 25 years of payments.

Furthermore, the majority of the growth in federal student loans is now in income-driven plans, making refinancing far less beneficial than it would have been 10 years ago. Under income-driven plans, monthly payments are not tied to interest rates.

So, on the face of it, as Clinton has proposed, allowing students to refinance federal loans would appear to be beneficial. But, in reality, because of the growth of private refinancing for higher-income students and the availability of income-driven plans for lower-income students, relatively few students would likely benefit.

Focus needed on most in need students

In my view, Clinton’s idea of allowing students to refinance their loans at lower rates through the federal government is unlikely to benefit that many students. However, streamlining income-based repayment programs (supported by both candidates) has the potential to help struggling students get help in managing their loans.

Nearly 60 percent of students who were enrolled in income-driven repayment plans fail to file the annual paperwork. That paperwork is necessary if students are to stay in those programs. And failure to do so results in many students facing higher monthly payments.

At this stage, we know many details of Clinton’s college plan. Her debt-free public college proposal (if enacted) would benefit families in financial need, but her loan refinancing proposal would primarily benefit more affluent individuals with higher levels of student debt.

In order to access Trump’s plan we need more details. For example, the current income-based repayment system exempts income below 150 percent of the poverty line (about $18,000 for a single borrower) and allows students working in public service fields to get complete forgiveness after ten years of payments. The extent to which Trump’s plan helps struggling borrowers depends on these important details.

The Conversation

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Price and Cost of College Are Different Things

As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about some of the wonkier issues of higher education finance, there are some common statements that just drive me nuts. For example, people who refer to the U.S. Department of Education as the “DOE” (it’s “ED” and the Department of Energy is “DOE”) or pronounce the FAFSA as “FASFA” might as well be screeching their fingernails on a chalkboard. But, as much as those things annoy me, they’re examples of inside baseball at their finest—they don’t affect students, but they’re still deviations from the norm. So I’ll try to hide my grimaces in those situations going forward.

However, I will say something every time someone erroneously refers to the cost of college when they truly mean the price of college, as these are two distinctly different concepts. Here are the definitions of the two terms:

Price: This represents how much money a student and/or their family has to pay for college.

Cost: This represents how much money it takes to provide an education.

With the presence of federal, state, and institutional financial aid as well as direct state appropriations to colleges, the price that many students pay can be far below the true cost of providing the education. On the other hand, due to the tangled web of subsidies present in the “awkward economics” of higher education, some students (such as full-freight international students and master’s students as well as those enrolled in large lecture classes) may be paying far more than it costs to provide their education.

From a policymaker’s perspective, it if far easier to propose bringing down the price of college than the cost of college—even though these proposals have large price tags and finding funding can be difficult. (An exception is so-called “last dollar” programs at community colleges, which often leverage other grant aid sources instead of using much of their own money.) Bending the cost curve is a far more difficult endeavor, as technology generally hasn’t done much to reduce costs (a promising master’s degree program at Georgia Tech notwithstanding) and other options such as increasing class sizes or spending less on facilities frequently run into opposition.

Efforts to bring down the price of college have become increasingly popular over the last several years, but they must be accompanied with a willingness to reduce costs in order for these programs to be financially feasible in the long run. To this point, cost control has remained a distant goal for most policymakers—a perfectly reasonable position given the shorter time horizons of most politicians. Bringing down prices today gets attention, while the crucial step of bringing down costs in the future is nowhere near as exciting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Relationship Between Student Debt and Earnings

Note: This piece first appeared on the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center Chalkboard blog.

Student loan debt in the United States is now over $1.25 trillion, nearly three times as much as just a decade ago. The typical student graduating with a bachelor’s degree with debt (about 70 percent of all students) now owes between $30,000 and $40,000 for their education, about twice as much as a decade ago. Although taking on modest amounts of debt in order to pay for college is generally a good bet in the long run, colleges with similar admissions standards and resource levels leave students with different amounts of debt.

College Scorecard data highlight the large amount of variation in what high-debt undergraduate students borrow across colleges with similar admissions criteria.1 The figure below shows the distribution of the 90th percentiles of debt burdens (in 2016 dollars) for students who left 1,156 four-year public and private nonprofit colleges in 2006 or 2007, broken down into three selectivity categories.2 Not surprisingly, the most selective colleges, which have the resources to offer more scholarships and fewer students with financial need, have lower debt burdens than somewhat selective or less selective colleges. These differences in borrowing by selectivity are larger than by type of college, as median debt at public colleges was only about $2,400 more than at private nonprofit colleges.

brookings_fig1_sep16Attending college and taking on $40,000 or even $50,000 in debt can be an outstanding investment in a student’s future—but only if students from that college actually end up getting good jobs. I then examined the relationship between 90th percentile debt burdens upon leaving college in 2006 and 2007 and the median earnings of students in 2011 and 2012 who began college in 2001 and 2002.3 The figure below shows that colleges that tend to have higher amounts of student debt also tend to have lower earnings in later years, which is in part due to student characteristics and their prior family income rather than the causal impact of the college. The correlation coefficient between debt and earnings is about -0.35 overall, but between -0.10 and -0.20 within each selectivity group. This suggests that colleges with higher debt burdens also have higher earnings, but much of the relationship between debt and earnings can be explained by selectivity.

brookings_fig2_sep16An old rule of thumb in paying for college is that students should not borrow more for a bachelor’s degree than they expect to earn one year after graduation. Although the presence of income-driven repayment programs allows students to repay their federal student loans even if they make less money, the debt-to-income ratio is still a useful way to judge colleges. The final figure shows the distribution of colleges’ debt-to-income ratios using the initial debt upon leaving college for high-debt students and annual earnings approximately five years later. A ratio over 1 at this point is a major concern, as earnings should grow considerably during a student’s first few years after college.

brookings_fig3_sep16Few high-debt students at the most selective colleges likely have issues making enough money to repay their loans, as just one of the 191 colleges in this category had a debt-to-earnings ratio above 1. Just under 15 percent of the somewhat selective colleges had ratios above 1, while about one-third of the least selective colleges had ratios above 1. This reflects the fact that financially-struggling students who attend less selective colleges (roughly 13% of the undergraduates in my sample, or about 800,000 students) take on more debt and earn less money than high-debt students at highly-selective colleges.

With student debt being a growing concern among Americans and playing a key role in the presidential campaign, students and their families are wise to consider the likely return on their investment in higher education. As the data show, some colleges do leave their former students with less debt than other similar colleges. But among less-selective colleges that enroll large numbers of lower-income or minority students, some amount of debt is almost unavoidable. Students should not seek to avoid all debt, but they should be mindful that even among broad-access institutions, colleges vary in how much debt their students take on.

———————————————————-

1 Debt and earnings data from the College Scorecard combine students who graduate with those who dropped out.

2 Colleges in the Barron’s categories of special, noncompetitive, and less competitive are in my lowest selectivity tier (n=195), colleges in the competitive, competitive-plus, and very competitive categories are in the middle tier (n=770), and all others are in the highest tier (n=191).

3 The College Scorecard does not track debt burdens by when students started college (only when they left), so I estimated that students either graduated or left college in about five years.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Do Presidential Debates Increase Student Applications?

Tonight is the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election season, and this clash between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump could top 100 million viewers. (I won’t be one of them, as I’m teaching tonight.) The host site, Hofstra University, is actually the second choice—as Wright State University pulled out over the high price tag this summer. Hofstra is paying about $5 million to host the debate, with the costs generally covered through three donors.

Hosting a presidential debate is undoubtedly a great public relations opportunity for a university, similar to making a big run in the NCAA basketball tournament or making a big football bowl game. Some research has shown that big-time athletics success is associated with increased student applications in the following year, so the media circus following a presidential debate (Hofstra is trending on Twitter as I write this post) could have similar results.

Hofstra also hosted a presidential debate in 2012, so I looked at what happened to the number of applications they received before and after the debate compared to their defined group of peer institutions. The data are below:

Name 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Pct increase, 2012-13 to 2013-14
Adelphi University 8278 9184 8654 -5.8%
American University 18706 17039 17545 3.0%
Boston University 38275 41802 44006 5.3%
Drexel University 48450 40586 43945 8.3%
Fordham University 31792 34070 36189 6.2%
George Washington University 21433 21591 21756 0.8%
Hofstra University 18909 21376 22733 6.3%
Ithaca College 13436 13813 15658 13.4%
LIU Post 7369 7209 6001 -16.8%
Marist College 11399 11466 10351 -9.7%
New York University 41243 42807 45779 6.9%
Northeastern University 43255 44208 47364 7.1%
Pace University-New York 10623 11778 12885 9.4%
Quinnipiac University 18651 18825 20699 10.0%
Seton Hall University 6436 10180 10735 5.5%
St John’s University-New York 54871 52972 51634 -2.5%
Syracuse University 25884 25790 28269 9.6%

 

Hofstra did see a 6.3% increase in applications between 2012-13 and 2013-14, compared to a 4.6% increase across its peer institutions. But other peers, such as Ithaca, Quinnipiac, Syracuse, and Pace saw even larger increases. So it appears that the debate brought plenty of pride to Hofstra, but there was not an unusual jump in applications after the debate aired.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Students Shouldn’t Be Terrified of Borrowing for College

I wrote the below letter to the editor of the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, in response to a truly woeful editorial piece that they recently published on student loan debt. (Note: They eventually ran the letter, but here is a slightly revised version for your enjoyment.)

—————————————————————————

As a college professor who researches the implications of student loan debt, I was dismayed to read the Star-Ledger Editorial Board’s recent piece titled “Why we should all be terrified of student loans.” Yes, the $1.25 trillion in outstanding student loan debt is a concern, but the typical amount borrowed for a bachelor’s degree is more manageable—about $30,000 per student. Students who borrow from the federal government can also enroll in income-driven repayment programs that allow them to make small or no payments if their income is low.

The “terrified” headline has the potential to scare students and their families away from making a worthwhile investment in college. Research shows that low-income, first-generation, and minority students are particularly averse to borrowing for college, even when borrowing a reasonable amount of money would help them attend and graduate college. Students and their families should be careful about taking on too much debt, particularly from programs like New Jersey’s state student loan system that do not allow payments to be tied to the student’s income. But students should not be terrified of taking out modest loans from the federal government to make college a reality.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

How Did ITT Tech’s Outcomes Compare to Other For-Profit Colleges?

Last week, ITT Technical Institute announced that it would close all of its colleges, affecting approximately 40,000 students and 8,000 employees. This closure was expected after the chain of for-profit colleges stopped enrolling new students in late August after the U.S. Department of Education cut off federal financial aid dollars for new students a few days earlier. This closure, which could cost taxpayers up to $400 million through forgiven loans, has generally been celebrated by those on the political left while conservatives and those in the for-profit sector are concerned that the federal government is trying to severely restrict the for-profit college industry.

Given that some of the concerns about ITT Tech were about poor student outcomes, I examined ITT Tech’s outcomes relative to other degree-granting for-profit colleges on three important metrics: median debt burdens of former students who took out loans, the percentage of students seven years after entering repayment, and median earnings of former students ten years after entering college.1 I restricted my analysis to the 415 degree-granting for-profit colleges that reported data on all three of the outcomes, combining branch campuses that reported the same outcomes as other colleges in the same system.2

Median debt

The median debt burden of all former ITT Tech borrowers was $12,473 (as indicated by the red line on the below chart), slightly above the median amount of $11,993. This suggests that among for-profit colleges granting associate and/or bachelor’s degrees, ITT Tech’s debt burden was fairly typical.

itt_fig1

Loan repayment rates

Seven years after entering repayment, 58.2% of former ITT Tech students paid down at least $1 in principal on their federal student loans. This is slightly worse than the median rate of 61.3% across similar for-profit colleges.

itt_fig2

Earnings

On this metric, ITT Tech looks pretty good relative to other for-profit colleges. ITT Tech students who received federal financial aid had median earnings of $38,400 ten years after college entry, well above the median of $29,200 and close to the 90th percentile among similar institutions. However, these data are based on students who entered college in the early 2000s, when ITT Tech looked much different than it did in recent years.

itt_fig3

Based on financial outcomes, ITT Tech’s former students (at least those who enrolled at least several years ago) did as well or better than other for-profit colleges. This does lend some credence to defenders of ITT Tech who were concerned about the Department of Education targeting the institution. However, others have noted that ITT Tech’s closure may have been self-inflicted through an ill-advised private loan program that led to fraud charges. In any case, other for-profit college chains are likely to face additional scrutiny in the future—from politicians and accreditors alike.

——————————————————————————————————–

1 I did not examine graduation rates, as many for-profit colleges have very few students in the first-time, full-time cohort of students that are currently used to calculate graduation rates for the federal government.

2 ITT Tech had 143 branch campuses in the College Scorecard data, and 141 of them had the same reported outcomes. I analyzed those campuses as a single institution, dropping the two small campuses that had different reported outcomes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment