<p>
[quote]
America’s colleges and universities are quietly shifting the burden of their big tuition increases onto low-income students, while many higher-income families are seeing their college costs rise more slowly, or even fall, an analysis of federal data shows.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>lower-income and working-class students at private colleges and universities have seen the amount they pay, after grants and scholarships, increase faster than the amount their middle- and upper-income classmates pay</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>These factors [Loans] have helped push the proportion of their household earnings that the lowest-income families now spend on their net cost of attending college to more than 94 percent, compared to less than 20 percent for their highest-income counterparts
[/quote]
</p>
<p>but</p>
<p>
[quote]
if higher-income families have grown savvier in navigating the financial-aid system, it could be because they face financial pressures of their own, experts note.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Higher-income students paid more overall, but their costs rose more slowly—an inflation-adjusted average of about $850 for middle-income families and $1,200 for those in the top income group.
<p>Unless a low/ middle income student is going to attend a school that meets full need, a private school is likely going to gap.
Not news, but thats an interesting tool.
I was surprised that only 40% of students received aid at Ds private college, but size of grants has gone up as admission rate has gone down.
Doesnt list her private graduate school however.</p>
<p>I didnt think public schools attempt to meet need for anyone, but some states support them more than others, which translates to perhaps lower tuition.
Support for higher ed however has not kept pace with rising costs.
<a href=“Highereducation.org”>Highereducation.org;
<p>Remember, most college students are not the top end ones that these forums seem to be filled with. I.e. most of them are not going to pick up either the full ride merit scholarships or be admitted to highly selective schools with good financial aid. “Ordinary” college-bound students from low income families may have their need met if they live in a state with good in-state financial aid at the state universities or very low tuition at state universities and community colleges within commute range, but those who live in other states are likely to find rising costs not compensated by rising financial aid.</p>
<p>The available years for the data, listed income ranges, and other comments all imply that they are using the IPEDS database as their source. This database only includes students with title IV federal aid, which includes federal grants and federal loans. At income levels where most do not receive Pell grants, this introduces a huge bias. Iif a college has good financial aid, a large portion of the families with middle and higher incomes are not going to get federal grants or federal loans. This large portion isn’t included. Only the minority that gets federal loans will be included, which makes it an unmeaningful measure. Some specific numbers for HYPSM, as listed in the IPEDS database that I believe was used in the study are below:</p>
<p>The HYPSM schools that publish this figure all list completely different ranges since they include all who apply for aid instead of just those who took federal grants or loans, and the vast majority of middle and higher income students do not have federal loans. For example, Yale lists the following average parental contribution (does not include work study portion of net cost) among those who applied for FA for the 2011-2012 years used in the study:</p>
<p>Under $65k – $0
$65k to $100k – $3k
$100k to $150k – $11k
$150k to $200k – $22.5k</p>
<p>The original article is quite clear about that: There are shortcomings with these figures—most notably that they take into account only full-time, first-year students who receive federal financial aid.</p>
<p>…but wouldn’t that suggest that the FA situation is even worse for poorer families than the figures they use suggest?</p>
<p>Data10, most everyone qualifies for Federal loans, although the interest isnt subsidized for all.
Although I suppose if your grants took care of COA, you wouldnt be eligible.
But in that case, I expect you would be pretty happy.</p>
The study did not include those who qualified for loans. It included those who received federal loans. Most middle and upper income students at colleges with decent financial aid do not receive federal loans, even though they could qualify for them. For example, at Princeton only 3% of the student body receives federal loans. The study only includes this 3% of the student body, most of whom had unique financial situations, and lower income pell/federal grant students. For middle/higher income levels with hardly any federal grants, we are focusing on a tiny group that is composed of families with unique financial situations, so the results are near meaningless (at Princeton and other colleges with so few federal loans).</p>
<p>Most students (from high, middle, or low income families) have no chance of admission to HYPSM or other generous-with-financial-aid private schools, nor have many or any full ride merit scholarship options.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Universities of California meet need for in-state students (with approximately $9,000 student contribution). University of Washington meets need for in-state students (with approximately $10,000 student contribution). This appears comparable to University of Michigan.</p>
<p>California State Universities have a somewhat different formula from FAFSA EFC (but use only FAFSA information); low income commuter students will probably find them cheaper than Universities of California, but low income resident students will probably find them more expensive.</p>
<p>At the other end of the scale is Pennsylvania, where low income in-state students face large financial aid gaps and student loan debt.</p>
True, but they don’t make it clear that the nearly all of that aid is loans for middle and high incomes, but not the lowest income; which makes comparisons between the lowest income groups and other have little meaning. </p>
<p>Regarding the changes for the lowest income, there are many possible explanations. For example, in the first year measured in the study the most common income level group of Pell grant recipients was $9k to $15k. In the final year measured in the study, Pell grants were more generous, so the most common income level had increased to $20k to $30k. Suppose the median income level of Pell grant recipients in the $12k to $20k during the years of the study, then the average net cost is expected to increase by something similar to the difference in net price between the $12k and $20k income groups, which can be significant at colleges with bad FA. This would show up as the net price for the low income Pell grant group increasing more rapidly than the mid/high income federal loan group, which is exactly what they observed. I’m not saying this is what happened, only that the article data does not tell us whether families in 2012 are better or worse off than they were in 2008, or whether net costs have changed more for poor families than higher income families, due to the biased sample group.</p>
<p>Where did you find out what the sample group was, data, beyond " they take into account only full-time, first-year students who receive federal financial aid."?</p>
The range of years they list match the range of years available in the IPEDS database exactly. The income range divisions they list match the income range in the IPEDS database exactly. The comment about only including those who received federal aid is also consistent with the limitation of the IPEDS database. This gives me good confidence that their data source was the IPEDS database. The IPEDS database states that it only includes students who received one or more of the following in their net price by income level data:</p>
<p>“Federal Pell Grant, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG), National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant), Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant, Federal Work-Study, Federal Perkins Loan, Subsidized Direct or FFEL Stafford Loan, and Unsubsidized Direct or FFEL Stafford Loan”</p>
<p>Intuitively it makes sense that the federal database would only have information about income levels for those who received federal aid (and those who applied, but did not receive), which includes the categories listed above. IPEDS also prints the percentage who received different groups of aid for each college. This information shows that the bulk of the federal aid is in the form of Pell grants and loans.</p>
<p>I would think that everyone else would be full-pay then (or get merit only). I don’t know any colleges that give financial aid, even institutional aid, that don’t require FAFSA.</p>
<p>If the data doesn’t include “those who applied, but did not receive” then it is pretty much only taking into account fairly poor families. If it includes those who applied but didn’t receive, then that’s a much larger group.</p>
IPEDS defines the net cost by income level category as follows:</p>
<p>“Full-time beginning undergraduate students who paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate and were awarded Title IV aid by income…”</p>
<p>They may have information on those who applied, but they only include those were awarded in the actual data, not those who applied. This is consistent with the results being all over the map for colleges that have little federal loans for higher income level. I used Princeton as an example earlier and mentioned that only 3% have federal loans, which works out to ~40 families in the entering class. There are 5 income categories, so it’s expected that some of the income categories will include fewer than 10 families. Such a small sample size of a non-representative group leads to the observed huge changes from year to year, such the ~$100k income group having an average net cost of $18k in 2010, then $32k in the following year, as well as the numbers differing so drastically from internal publications from the college and estimations using their net price calculator. </p>
<p>The linked page doesn’t contain any data. In any case, the 3% figure comes from the IPEDS database that was used in the study for the 2011-2012 entering class. They define this category is as, “Percentage of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who received Federal loans”. I expect this corresponds to the title IV loan group that was included in the average net cost figures. Note that this percentage of entering students with federal loans figure is not equivalent to the percent of graduating students that took out any type of loans at any point during their time at college, which is I expect what you listed. According to the database used in the study, the percentage on entering first-year Princeton students with title IV federal loans for the years included in the study were as follows:</p>