Dongbin Kim Cindy Otts The Effect of Loans on Time to Doctorate Degree: Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Field of Study, and Institutional Characteristics Introduction Graduate schools prepare students not only for fu- ture careers in academia, but also for leadership positions in govern- ment, business, non-profit organizations, and other industries. Given the likelihood of doctoral degree recipients being active in research or lead- ership positions, they may have considerable opportunity to influence public policy. In a global, knowledge-driven economy, the need for a highly educated workforce is vital to maintaining the nation’s status and economy. Doctoral-granting institutions, therefore, play an important role in educating academicians and professionals alike who can take the lead in this highly interdependent world. Unfortunately, the nation’s graduate schools fail to fully educate many students who enter doctoral programs because the programs are plagued by high attrition rates. This material is based upon work supported by the Association for Institutional Re- search, the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Science Foundation, and the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative under Association for Institu- tional Research Grant Number 223. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom- mendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association for Institutional Research, the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Science Foundation, or the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Authors thank the anonymous reviewers for comments and encouragements on ear- lier drafts. Dongbin Kim is an assistant professor in the department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Kansas. Cindy Otts is a doctoral student in the department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Kansas. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 81, No. 1 (January/February 2010) Copyright © 2010 by The Ohio State University 2 The Journal of Higher Education According to the Council of Graduate Schools (2008), about half of all students pursuing a doctorate actually complete it. In this context, Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) argue that time to degree is an important component of doctoral degree completion. Although relatively few stud- ies have examined time to doctoral degree, it has been found to nega- tively affect degree completion (Bair & Haworth, 2004; De Valero, 2001). The longer it takes to complete a doctorate, the more prone stu- dents are to attrition. During the 2005 academic year, over 400 U.S. col- leges and universities awarded doctorates to over 43,000 students (Hof- fer et al., 2006). Of those, just over half were female (Hoffer et al.). Underrepresented minority students accounted for 20% of earned doc- torates, the largest percentage to date (Hoffer et al.). The number of de- grees conferred in 2005 represents a 2.9% increase over the previous year which demonstrates not only significant interest among institutions in offering doctorate degrees but also interest among students in pursu- ing terminal degrees (Hoffer et al.). It also elucidates the need for heightened awareness of the time it takes students to earn doctoral de- grees (Hoffer et al.). From the student perspective, the decision to pursue a doctoral degree cannot be taken lightly. In addition to the academic responsibilities, pur- suing doctoral study often means a lengthy delay in entering, or a tem- porary stop out from, the workforce. Moreover, doctoral study can be stressful and may lead to role conflicts with other obligations, such as family and job responsibilities. Although it is true that individuals with doctorate degrees are more likely to have higher earnings and lower un- employment rates than those with bachelor’s or master’s degrees (Bu- reau of Labor Statistics, 2003), financing doctoral studies is challenging for many graduate students. A recent report from the Council of Gradu- ate Schools (CGS) (2006) indicates that the average cost of education for doctoral programs increased more than 50% from 1995 to 2003, re- gardless of institutional control. For instance, the average price of at- tending private institutions at the doctoral level in 2003 was $29,703, a 79% increase from $16,631 in 1995 (CGS, 2006). Nevertheless, the amount of financial assistance provided through grants or assistantships has not kept pace with the increased educational expenses, thereby lead- ing to increases in student loan borrowing among graduate students dur- ing the same time period. Among White doctoral students, the percent- age of borrowers increased from 21% in 1995 to 34% in 2003 (CGS). The percentage of borrowers increased more significantly among under- represented minority students, jumping nearly 20%, from 25% to 43% over the same time period (CGS). The median accumulative federal loans for doctorate recipients was $44,743 in 2003/04, more than triple The Effect of Loans on Time to Doctorate Degree 3 the amount of $12,310 in 1995/96. This increase was higher than that for associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, or professional degrees (American Council on Education, 2005). It is noteworthy that percentages of borrowers and average loan amounts are substantially different by field of study and race/ethnicity (Hoffer et al., 2006). Among doctorate recipients in 2005, graduates in engineering and physical sciences were the least likely to borrow while graduates in social sciences and humanities were the most likely to have loans (Hoffer et al.). Black, Hispanic, and American Indian doctorate re- cipients had substantially higher education-related debts than Whites and Asians (Hoffer et al.). In 2005, Asian doctorate recipients outnum- bered Blacks in physical sciences (241 to 84) and engineering (242 to 85), and Black doctorate recipients outnumbered Asians in social sci- ences and humanities (296 to 198 and 172 to 140, respectively) (Hoffer et al.). Given that many federal research grants and other funding oppor- tunities have been targeted toward science and engineering, it is clear that the differences in loan amounts by race/ethnicity are partly due to the disparities in the distribution of different racial/ethnic groups across fields of study. However, even among those in the same field, Black and Hispanic doctorate recipients were still more likely to have higher levels of debt than their Asian and White counterparts, and this pattern is con- sistent across all broad fields of study (Hoffer et al.). Similarly disturbing racial/ethnic group differences in the same field exist in differing time to doctorate degrees (Hoffer et al., 2006). Among 2005 doctorate recipients in physical sciences, for instance, the median number of years from baccalaureate to doctorate award for Asians and Whites was 7.5 and 7.0 years respectively, compared to 8.0 years for Blacks (Hoffer et al., 2006). Despite the significant disparities in the lev- els of debt and time to degree by race/ethnicity even among students in the same field, little is known about the specific factors that affect time to doc- torate degrees and the reasons for such significant disparities by race/eth- nicity. Much of the focus of research on the impact of financial aid (debt in particular) has focused on undergraduate students. It is equally impor- tant to understand the impact of financial aid on graduate students, partic- ularly since graduate students incur much higher levels of debt due to their prolonged time in higher education and because the rate of increase in debt level is significantly higher for graduate than undergraduate students. Research Questions This study seeks to examine factors that affect time to doctorate de- gree and to discern whether any significant differences exist among 4 The Journal of Higher Education various fields of study, with a particular emphasis on the effect of debt level. The research questions in the study are: 1. What are the factors that affect time to doctoral degree? Are there sig- nificant disparities by race/ethnicity, field of study, and institution? 2. What are the impacts of undergraduate and graduate debt levels on time to doctorate degree? Are there significant disparities by race/ethnicity, field of study, and institution? Theoretical Background Biglan (1973) provides a framework for explaining differences in aca- demic fields. He suggests that academic fields are distinguished along three dimensions: (a) paradigm consensus in which all members sub- scribe to a particular body of theory, (b) degree of practical utility (hard versus soft or basic versus applied fields), and (c) concern with life as opposed to inanimate objects. The first two are of interest to this study. Regarding the first dimension, Biglan posits that the social and behav- ioral sciences, humanities, and other nonscience fields have less well es- tablished paradigms than the hard sciences (i.e., physical and biological sciences). In terms of utility, he identifies fields such as engineering, computer science, education, and health as having practical application. As such, those fields have specific requirements that must be included within academic programs. Furthermore, he indicates that because norms, structure, and output of the academic fields vary, student experi- ences are also likely to vary (Biglan, 1973). Such differences may result in variable times to doctoral degrees. It is expected that time to doctoral degree for students who enter fields that have well established para- digms will be shorter than for students who enter less delineated fields. Because there is general consensus regarding content and research de- sign in fields with established paradigms, students become acculturated to the accepted research methodologies and practices. Students in the “softer” fields such as social sciences and humanities may have more options available in terms of what to study and what methodologies they can use. The greater flexibility and openness may lead to lengthier time to select a research topic and/or design, and ultimately, longer time to doctoral degree.