DOCSLIB.ORG

An Economist's Perspective on Student Loans in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Economist's Perspective on Student Loans in the United States ES Working Paper Series, September 2014 An Economist’s Perspective on Student Loans in the United States Susan Dynarski, Professor, University of Michigan; Nonresident Senior Fellow, the Brookings Institution; Faculty Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research Abstract In this paper, I provide an economic perspective on policy issues related to student debt in the United States. I lay out the economic rationale for government provision of student loans and summarize time trends in student borrowing. I describe the structure of the US loan market, which is a joint venture of the public and private sectors. I then turn to three topics that are central to the policy discussion of student loans: whether there is a student debt crisis, the costs and benefits of interest subsidies, and the suitability of an income-based repayment system for student loans in the US. I close with a discussion of the gaps in the data required to fully analyze and steer student-loan policy. * Comments welcome: [email protected]. This paper was prepared for the 2014 East-West Center/Korean Development Institute Conference on a New Direction in Human Capital Policy. This research was partially supported by a grant from the Spencer Foundation. All views and errors are my own. I. Introduction Forty million people in the United States hold student debt totaling $1 trillion. While other forms of consumer credit declined during the Great Recession (see Figure 1), student debt continued to rise. As a result, student loans are now, after mortgages, the largest source of household debt, outstripping credit cards and auto loans. Figure 1: Trends in Non-Mortgage Consumer Debt Source: Lee (2013), based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. “HELOC” indicates home-equity lines of credit. Defaults on student debt also rose during the Great Recession.1 Seven million student borrowers are now in default, with more behind on their payments. 2 Proposed policy responses 1 The US Department of Education, which administers the federal loan programs, defines default. This definition has varied over time, hindering the creation of a consistent measure of borrower distress. At present, default indicates a borrower has not made a payment in 270 days; in the past, this window has been narrower. 1 have included reductions in interest rates, forgiveness of student debt, more flexible repayment plans and increased regulation of college prices. In the latest effort to respond to widespread policy concern that there is a student debt crisis, President Obama signed in June 2014 an executive order expanding eligibility for the Pay As You Earn program, which offers reduced payments to borrowers in financial distress. In this paper, I provide an economic perspective on policy issues related to student debt in the United States. I begin by laying out the economic rationale for government provision of student loans. I show time trends in student borrowing and describe the structure of the US loan market, which is a joint venture of the public and private sectors. I then turn to three topics that are central to the policy discussion of student loans: whether there is a student debt crisis, the costs and benefits of interest subsidies, and the suitability of an income-based repayment system for the US. I close with a discussion of the gaps in the data required to fully analyze and steer student-loan policy. To preview, I argue that there is no debt crisis: student debt levels are not large relative to the estimated payoff to a college education in the US. Rather, there is a repayment crisis, with student loans paid when borrowers’ earnings are lowest and most variable (Dynarski and Kreisman, 2013). As a result, there is a mismatch in the timing of the arrival of the benefits of college and its costs. Ironically, this mismatch is the very motivation for providing student loans in the first place. 2 There were 6.5 million borrowers in default as of the third quarter of 2013. See http://studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/library/PortfoliobyLoanStatus.xls. 2 One solution is an income-based-repayment structure for student loans, with a longer window for repayment than the ten years that is currently the standard. While there exist income- based repayment options within the current system, few borrowers take them up. The administrative barriers to accessing these options are considerable, which may explain the low take-up rate. Further, the existing options do not adjust loan payments quickly enough to respond to the high-frequency shocks that characterize young people’s earnings, especially during a recession. A well-structured repayment program would insure borrowers against both micro and macro shocks. With an interest rate that appropriately accounts for the government’s borrowing and administrative costs, as well as default risk, this program could be self-sustaining. Designing such a program requires detailed data on individual earnings and borrowing, which are currently unavailable to researchers within and outside the government. If loan policy is to be firmly grounded in research, this gap in the data needs to be closed. II. The Economic Rationale for Government Loans to Students Education is an investment. Like all investments, education creates costs in the present but delivers benefits in the future. While students are in in school, expenses include both direct costs (tuition, books) and opportunity costs. Future benefits include increased earnings, improved health and longer life. To pay the current costs of their education, students need liquidity. In a business deal, a borrower would put up collateral in order to fund a potentially profitable investment. The collateral would typically include any capital goods used in the fledging enterprise, such as a building or machinery. Similarly, homeowners put up their home as collateral when they take out a mortgage. 3 Students cannot put themselves up for collateral: they cannot contractually commit to hand over their future labor to a lender in exchange for upfront cash, because indentured servitude is illegal. This is a market failure—there are good investments to be made, but private lenders cannot or are reluctant to make these loans, just as they are reluctant to make (and therefore demand higher interest rates for) other unsecured loans, such as credit cards. This market failure explains why governments play an important role in lending for education. While there have been occasional efforts to offer loans securitized by human capital (e.g., My Rich Uncle), none has moved beyond a small niche market. Indeed, the public sector of most developed countries and many developing countries provide loans to students. 3 Given their prevalence, there is remarkably little compelling evidence of the effect of student loans on educational investments. 4 Students choose to borrow, so estimating the effect of loans on outcomes is challenging: those who borrow likely differ from non-borrowers in ways that will bias naive comparisons of their educational attainment. A randomized trial would solve the selection problem, but there has been no experiment in which access to student loans is randomly manipulated.5 The best observational evidence comes from South Africa and Chile (Solis, 2012; Gurgand, et al, 2011). In these countries, students are offered loans only if they have a minimum credit score (South Africa) or test score (Chile). The papers that analyze these loan programs compare the college attendance of students right above and below these cutoffs, capturing the 3 In part, this is because it is very difficult for private parties to place a lien on (or confirm) individual earnings. By contrast, governments, through the income tax system, have the ability to both measure and collect from income. 4 See Dynarski and Scott-Clayton (2013) for a review of this evidence. 5 Field (2009) studies an experiment in which loan-repayment terms were randomly varied at a law school. 4 causal impact of loan availability. This research approach is referred to as “regression- discontinuity” design. In a well-designed regression-discontinuity study, that it is essentially random that someone ends up right above or right below the eligibility cutoff. A comparison of these two groups therefore yields a causal estimate of the effect of program eligibility. In Chile, right below the eligibility cutoff, 20 percent of students go to college. Right above, the figure is 40 percent. The difference — 20 percentage points — is the estimated causal effect of loan availability on college attendance for these students. The South African study reaches a similar conclusion. Right below the credit-score cutoff, 50 percent of students go to college, compared with 70 percent right above. Again, the estimated effect is a 20-percentage- point increase in college attendance. These are large effects, indicating that student loans make college possible for many students, at least in these two countries. While we would prefer to have evidence from the United States, these studies currently constitute the best available evidence on the causal impact of student loans on educational attainment. III. Trends in Student Borrowing As noted earlier, the stock of outstanding student debt now exceeds $1 trillion. The flow of debt has also increased, with annual borrowing doubling between 2001 and 2011 (from $56 billion to $113 billion, in constant 2011 dollars).6 Borrowing has increased, in part, because there are more students: college enrollment rose 32 percent in the decade between 2001 and 2011. 6 See Figure 6 in College Board (2012). 5 Figure 2: Aid per Full-Time-Equivalent Student Source: College Board (2013), Figure 1. But as the number of students increased, so too did annual borrowing per student, rising from $3,500 to $5,400, an increase of 54 percent. 7 This per-student increase in borrowing can be explained by one or both of two factors: an increase in the share of students taking out loans and/or an increase in the size of the loans borrowers take out.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 19-00368 Doc 26 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 20 Entered: June 21St, 2021 Signed: June 21St, 2021
    Case 19-00368 Doc 26 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 20 Entered: June 21st, 2021 Signed: June 21st, 2021 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND at Baltimore In re: * * Terry Lucille Randall, * Case No. 19-21815-MMH * Debtor. * Chapter 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Terry Lucille Randall, * * Plaintiff, * Adversary No. 19-00368-MMH v. * * Navient Solutions, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION A bankruptcy case generally offers the honest but unfortunate debtor a financial fresh start. This objective is implemented through the bankruptcy discharge, which allows most debtors to eliminate most of their prepetition debts upon completing their bankruptcy cases. Although the Bankruptcy Code1 reflects Congressional intent to provide debtors with as broad of a discharge as possible, Congress has expressly excepted certain kinds of debt from the bankruptcy discharge. One of the most significant categories of debt excepted from discharge, and at issue in this adversary proceeding, is student loan debt. 1 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (the “Code”). Case 19-00368 Doc 26 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 20 The debtor in this proceeding owes over $500,000 in general unsecured student loan debt, with approximately $190,000 of that being owed to the defendant. The debtor is 68 years old, does not own any meaningful assets, and is not incurring any unnecessary or excessive expenses. Despite holding various degrees, the debtor has been working for the past several years at a job paying approximately $13 per hour, with some opportunity for overtime. The debtor testified that she has tried to repay her student loan debt but that the money just is not there.
    [Show full text]
  • Its Perceived Effects on Behaviour and Life Choices – a Literature Review
    Centre for Global Higher Education working paper series Graduate indebtedness: its perceived effects on behaviour and life choices – a literature review Ariane de Gayardon, Claire Callender, KC Deane and Stephen DesJardins Working paper no. 38 June 2018 Published by the Centre for Global Higher Education, UCL Institute of Education, London WC1H 0AL www.researchcghe.org © the authors 2018 ISSN 2398-564X The Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE) is a research partnership of international universities, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and based at the UCL Institute of Education. CGHE’s research is focused on higher education and its future development and aims to inform and improve higher education policy and practice. CGHE’s three research programmes integrate local, national and global perspectives, and its researchers are based in nine countries across five continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and North America. The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is gratefully acknowledged. Graduate indebtedness: its perceived effects on behaviour and life choices – a literature review Ariane de Gayardon, Claire Callender, KC Deane and Stephen DesJardins Contents Abstract ........................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 6 2. Student loans
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Charter School Effectiveness†
    American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2013, 5(4): 1–27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.1 Explaining Charter School Effectiveness† By Joshua D. Angrist, Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters* Lottery estimates suggest Massachusetts’ urban charter schools boost achievement well beyond that of traditional urban public schools stu- dents, while nonurban charters reduce achievement from a higher baseline. The fact that urban charters are most effective for poor nonwhites and low-baseline achievers contributes to, but does not fully explain, these differences. We therefore link school-level charter impacts to school inputs and practices. The relative efficacy of urban lottery sample charters is accounted for by these schools’ embrace of the No Excuses approach to urban education. In our Massachusetts sample, Non-No-Excuses urban charters are no more effective than nonurban charters. JEL H75, I21, I28 ( ) growing body of evidence suggests that urban charter schools have the poten- A tial to generate impressive achievement gains, especially for minority students living in high-poverty areas. In a series of studies using admissions lotteries to iden- tify causal effects, we looked at the impact of charter attendance in Boston and at a Knowledge is Power Program KIPP school in Lynn, Massachusetts Abdulkadiro g˘ lu ( ) ( et al. 2009, 2011; Angrist et al. 2010, 2012 . Boston and Lynn charter middle schools ) increase student achievement by about 0.4 standard deviations per year in math (σ) and about 0.2 per year in English Language Arts ELA . Among high school stu- σ ( ) dents, attendance at a Boston charter school increases student achievement by about 0.3 per year in math and 0.2 per year in ELA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nondischargeability of Student Loans in Personal Bankruptcy Proceedings: the Search for a Theory
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2007 The ondiN schargeability of Student Loans in Personal Bankruptcy Proceedings: The eS arch for a Theory John A. E. Pottow University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/710 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Bankruptcy Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Education Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Pottow, John A. E. "The ondN ischargeability of Student Loans in Personal Bankruptcy Proceedings: The eS arch for a Theory." Canadian Bus. L. J. 44, no. 2 (2007): 245-78. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF STUDENT LOANS IN PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS: THE SEARCH FOR A THEORY John A.E. Pottow* I. INTRODUCTION In fiscal year 2002, approximately 5.8 million Americans borrowed $38 billion (USD) in federal student loans. This was more than triple the $11.7 billion borrowed in 1990.' As a rule of thumb, tuition has been increasing at roughly double the rate of inflation in recent years.2 This troubling trend of accelerating tuition, coupled with the fact that real income has stagnated for men and increased only modestly for women over the past two decades,' means that more and more students are going to need to turn to borrowed money to finance their degrees absent a radical restructuring of the post- secondary education system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation
    THE MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF STUDENT DEBT CANCELLATION Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton, Catherine Ruetschlin, and Marshall Steinbaum February 2018 Levy Economics Institute of Bard College 2 Student Debt Cancellation Report 2018 THE MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF STUDENT DEBT CANCELLATION Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton, Catherine Ruetschlin, and Marshall Steinbaum Levy Economics Institute of Bard College 3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 7 SECTION 1: THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OF STUDENT DEBT CANCELLATION 9 Social Investment in Higher Education 9 The current state of student debt 10 The social costs of student debt 12 The Distributional Consequences of Student Debt, Student Debt Cancellation, and Debt-Free College 13 The distribution of student debt and debt burden in the cross section 14 The evolution of the distribution of student debt burdens over time 15 What does the evolution of student debt tell us about the labor market? 16 How does student debt interact with longstanding economic disparaties? 16 The real distributional impact of student debt cancellation and free or debt-free college 17 SECTION 2: THE MECHANICS OF STUDENT DEBT CANCELLATION 18 The Mechanics of Student Debt Cancellation Carried Out by the Government 18 Current servicing of student loans from a balance sheet perspective 18 Possible methods of government-financed student debt cancellation 19 The government cancels the Department of Education’s loans all at once 20 The government cancels the Department of Education’s loans as borrowers’ payments come
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting FAFSA Simplification: Expanding Access to the IRS Data Retrieval Tool
    Revisiting FAFSA Simplification: Expanding Access to the IRS Data Retrieval Tool We describe how the complexity in the FAFSA hinders students’ ability to meet financial aid deadlines and examine the feasibility of using a simplified formula to determine aid eligibility. Authors Key Findings Susan Dynarski is a 1 Applying for federal aid for college is complex and slow. Information professor of public about aid eligibility arrives well after students have made crucial policy, education, decisions about preparation for college. Complexity in the aid process and economics at the undermines the intent of aid, which is to get more students into college. University of Michigan. 2 Efforts to simplify the aid process have fallen short of intent. Mark Wiederspan is 3 Students would benefit from a simplified process that automatically a doctoral candidate determines aid eligibility using tax information. This would allow in higher education students to receive information about aid eligibility early, when they are administration at the making key decisions about college. University of Michigan. 4 We show that a simplified process could closely replicate the current distribution of aid, with a much lower paperwork burden on families and colleges. EPI Policy Brief #1 | May 2015 page 1 A simplified aid application shows promise in determining students’ financial aid eligibility. In June 2014 Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) co- authored a bill that simplifies applying for financial aid. Based on research by EPI Co-Director Susan Dynarski and Judith Scott-Clayton of Columbia University,1 the bill would reduce the 100-question aid application to a postcard with two questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynarski, Joshua Hyman and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach∗ October 16, 2011
    Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Childhood Investments on Postsecondary Attainment and Degree Completion Susan Dynarski, Joshua Hyman and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach∗ October 16, 2011 Abstract This paper examines the effect of early childhood investments on college enrollment and degree completion. We use the random assignment in the Project STAR experiment to estimate the effect of smaller classes in primary school on college entry, college choice, and degree completion. We improve on existing work in this area with unusually de- tailed data on college enrollment spells and the previously unexplored outcome of college degree completion. We find that assignment to a small class increases the probability of attending college by 2.7 percentage points, with effects more than twice as large among blacks. Among those with the lowest ex ante probability of attending college, the ef- fect is 11 percentage points. Smaller classes increase the likelihood of earning a college degree by 1.6 percentage points and shift students towards high-earning fields such as STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), business and economics. We confirm the standard finding that test score effects fade out by middle school, but show that test score effects at the time of the experiment are an excellent predictor of long- term improvements in postsecondary outcomes. We compare the costs and impacts of this intervention with other tools for increasing postsecondary attainment, such as Head Start and financial aid, and conclude that early investments are no more cost effective than later investments in boosting adult educational attainment. ∗We thank Jayne Zaharias-Boyd of HEROS and the Tennessee Department of Education for allowing the match between the STAR and National Student Clearinghouse data.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Benefits from KIPP?
    Who Benefits from KIPP? Joshua Angrist, MIT Susan Dynarski, University of Michigan Thomas Kane, Harvard Graduate School of Education Parag Pathak, MIT Christopher Walters, MIT Education Policy Initiative Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy 735 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 EPI Working Papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by EPI co-Directors. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Education Policy Initiative or any sponsoring agency. EPI Working Paper 03-2010 | February, 2010 WHO BENEFITS FROM KIPP? Joshua D. Angrist Susan M. Dynarski Thomas J. Kane Parag A. Pathak Christopher R. Walters Originalyl posted as NBER Working Paper #15740 The authors are grateful to Josh Zoia and Esther Vargas at KIPP Academy Lynn and to Carrie Conaway at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for data, patience and assistance. We received valuable assistance from Sarah Cohodes and Jon Fullerton. We also thank Eric Bettinger for helpful comments. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Education Policy Initiative. © 2010 by Joshua D. Angrist, Susan M. Dynarski, Thomas J. Kane, Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Who Benefits from KIPP? Joshua D. Angrist, Susan M. Dynarski, Thomas J.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 James Kvaal President the Institute for College Access & Success
    James Kvaal President The Institute for College Access & Success Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor The Cost of College: Student Centered Reforms to Bring Higher Education Within Reach March 13, 2019 Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, and members of the committee: Thank you for the privilege of sharing my views on college affordability with you. I am the president of The Institute for College Access & Success. We combine research, policy design, and advocacy to promote affordability, accountability, and equity in higher education. Before joining TICAS, I served in the Obama Administration as deputy domestic policy adviser at the White House and deputy undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Education. Few, if any, American institutions can match our colleges, universities, and community colleges in their power to improve lives, promote equal opportunity and raise living standards. But they cannot serve this mission if they are priced out of reach. For college to be affordable, students must be able to both make ends meet while enrolled and successfully repay their loans after leaving school. Unfortunately, for many students, one or both of those goals are not possible today. Financial barriers still keep many students from earning college degrees and—while the returns to college are high for those who succeed— there is a crisis for the many students who struggle to repay their loans. A million students a year default. To make college affordable, I urge the Committee to: • Reinvigorate the most important federal commitment to college opportunity: the Pell Grant; • Build a new partnership with states dedicated to affordability; and • Offer all students a simpler, easier way to repay their loans on a sliding scale based on their income.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Loan Debt: Fiona Greig Who Is Paying It Down? Daniel M
    Diana Farrell Student Loan Debt: Fiona Greig Who is Paying it Down? Daniel M. Sullivan October 2020 Abstract American families carry more than spouses—in order to manage their and 7 percent of all borrowers not $1.5 trillion in student loan debt. This debt. In particular, we find that while in deferral are on track to never pay debt provided many with the oppor- the median borrower is not unduly off their loans. These dynamics of tunity to pursue higher education, but burdened by their debt, a significant repayment put Black borrowers at a remains for others a large, potentially minority of lower-income and younger disadvantage, who, relative to White crippling, financial burden. In this borrowers are heavily burdened, borrowers, have lower incomes and report, we explore how people of required to make payments that con- higher debt balances and are 4 times different socioeconomic groups are stitute more than 10 percent of their as likely to have no payments made managing their student debt. We do take-home income. We also find that against their loans, partly due to the this by linking administrative banking almost 40 percent of those involved fact that they are less likely to receive data, credit bureau records, and public in student debt repayment are making repayment help. This debt provided records on race and ethnicity to create payments on other people’s loans, many with the opportunity to pursue a unique data asset that includes the with 27 percent of those involved higher education with commensurate income, demographics, debt balances, holding no student debt whatsoever.
    [Show full text]
  • The Student Loan Bankruptcy Gap
    IULIANO IN PRINTER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 11/16/2020 7:37 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 70 DECEMBER 2020 NUMBER 3 THE STUDENT LOAN BANKRUPTCY GAP JASON IULIANO† ABSTRACT Each year, a quarter of a million student loan debtors file for bankruptcy. Of those, fewer than three hundred discharge their educational debt. That is a success rate of just 0.1 percent. This chasm between success and failure is the titular “Student Loan Bankruptcy Gap,” and it is a phenomenon that is unprecedented in the law. Drawing upon an original dataset of nearly five hundred adversary proceedings, this Article examines three key facets of the Student Loan Bankruptcy Gap. First, it establishes the true breadth of the gap. Second, it explores why the gap has persisted for more than two decades and, in doing so, uncovers a creditor case-selection strategy designed to deter debtors from bringing legitimate claims. And third, it identifies solutions that have the potential to close the Student Loan Bankruptcy Gap and bring debt relief to millions of individuals. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................ 498 I. The Student Loan Bankruptcy Framework .................................... 501 A. The Discharge Process ......................................................... 501 B. The Myth of Nondischargeability ....................................... 504 Copyright © 2020 Jason Iuliano. † Assistant Professor of Law, Villanova University. Ph.D. in Politics, Princeton University; J.D., Harvard Law School. Thanks to Laura Napoli Coordes, Seth Frotman, Jonah Gelbach, Melissa Jacoby, Ted Janger, John Pottow, Austin Smith, Madeleine Wanslee, Jay Westbrook, and the participants of the International Insolvency Institute’s Global Bankruptcy Workshop at Brooklyn Law School for valuable comments and discussions relating to this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Debt 101 Dorsa Djalilzadeh February 2019 • the Bell Policy Center
    STUDENT DEBT 101 DORSA DJALILZADEH FEBRUARY 2019 • THE BELL POLICY CENTER Introduction As of 2019, over $1.5 trillion is owed in student loan debt in the U.S., more than credit card debt and car loans, and second only to mortgage loans. While the nation has seen a 23 percent increase in student loan debt over the last three years, student loan debt in Colorado has grown 176 percent since 2007, reaching $26.4 billion.1 This rapid escalation is a sign student debt has reached a crisis level. It’s the result of a series of pressures: greater need for credentialization, rising costs of higher education, and lack of enforcement of student debt borrowers’ protections under federal law. Taking out a student loan is an easy, commonplace practice students and their families do based on assumptions about the value of an education, but it can result in devastating financial predicaments down the road. It impacts homeownership, racial inequality, labor markets, and even the important milestones in one’s life. In fact, some experts say the larger system facilitating the borrowing of student loans is designed precisely to fail us. In order to provide a foundational understanding of student debt, this brief will explore the basic components of student debt, which include a timeline of student loan development, national and Colorado specific data, the essential features of student loans and debt, and the ultimate problems with student debt. The issue of student debt is complex; this brief isn’t meant to be exhaustive. Rather, this is an introduction to the basic parts in preparation for a more in-depth conversation on the complementary issues and solutions to the student debt crisis.
    [Show full text]