Search results

As students increasingly incur debt to finance their undergraduate education, there is heightened concern about the long-term implications of loans on borrowers, especially borrowers from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Drawing upon the concepts of cultural capital and habitus (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977), this research explores how student debt and social class intersect and affect individuals’ trajectory into adulthood. Based on 50 interviews with young adults who incurred $30,000–180,000 in undergraduate debt and who were from varying social classes, the findings are presented in terms of a categorization schema (income level by level of cultural capital) and a conceptual model of borrowing. The results illustrate the inequitable payoff that college and debt can have for borrowers with varying levels of cultural resources, with borrowers from low-income, low cultural capital backgrounds more likely to struggle throughout and after college with their loans.

The United States has been at the forefront of a global shift away from direct state funding of higher education and toward student loans, and student debt has become an issue of growing social concern. Why did student loans expand so much in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s? And how does organization theory suggest their expansion, and the growth of federal student aid more generally, might affect higher education as a field? In the 1960s and 1970s, policy actors worked to solve what was then a central problem around student loans: banks’ disinterest in lending to students. They did this so well that by 1990, a new field of financial aid policy emerged, in which all major actors had an interest in expanding loans. This, along with a favorable environment outside the field, set the stage for two decades of rapid growth. Organization theory suggests two likely consequences of this expansion of federal student loans and financial aid more generally. First, while (public) colleges have become less dependent on state governments and more dependent on tuition, the expansion of aid means colleges are simultaneously becoming more dependent on the federal government, which should make them more susceptible to federal demands for accountability. Second, the expansion of federal student aid should encourage the spread of forms and practices grounded in a logic focused on students’ financial value to the organization, such as publicly traded for-profit colleges and enrollment management practices.

The purpose of this chapter is to expand our understanding of the types of Black families that are using Parent PLUS, the types of institutions that rely on Parent PLUS the most, and the outcomes of students who use Parent PLUS to finance their first year of college.

I used descriptive analyses on several datasets collected by the U.S. Department of Education: IPEDS, BPS:04/09, and NPSAS.

The data revealed that (a) of Parent PLUS borrowers, greater shares of low-income Black families are borrowing than White families; (b) many institutions that serve Black students (including HBCUs) give out small amounts of institutional aid but also have much smaller endowments than non-Black-serving institutions; and (c) many families who borrow in their first year stop borrowing in their second year – and of those who stop borrowing, many transfer institutions.

Serving as a starting point in the conversation to Black families borrowing PLUS, this study is not causal and is limited by the unavailability of student-level data on PLUS borrowers. Estimating from nationally representative studies and examining Black-serving institutions is the next-best approximation.

The efforts to standardize financial aid award letters and provide better consumer information to parents must also include PLUS. Moreover, we need to find sustainable solutions for PLUS-reliant institutions to increase their capacity to provide institutional aid.

This chapter contributes to conversation around a controversial financial aid product that has been largely understudied, and in particular for Black families who borrow PLUS at the highest rates.

The purpose of this study is to examine the association between financial capability and informal bankruptcy, especially among families in which the respondent and/or spouse borrowed student loans to fund their own education and families that did not have such loans.

US nationally representative data were employed. Three family types were used, families with student loans borrowed to fund respondent and/or spouse's education and education was completed (type 1 holders) or not completed (type 2 holders), and families that did not borrow student loans for respondent and/or spouse's education (non-holders). Informal bankruptcy was measured by being insolvent and late in debt payment for 60 or more days. Financial capability was measured by both an index and its various components. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine associations between financial capability and informal bankruptcy.

Generally, financial capability was negatively associated with informal bankruptcy, and student loan holders were more likely to be informally bankrupt than non-holders. However, such negative associations were statistically significant for type 1 holders and non-holders but insignificant for type 2 holders. Two desirable financial behaviors (information search and online banking) reduced the chance of informal bankruptcy for type 2 holders.

First, cross-sectional data cannot establish a causal relationship. Second, findings using data from a single country may not be generalized to other countries.

Financial service professionals should help loan applicants evaluate the necessity of borrowing. Banking professionals can use the findings to develop products to meet different consumer needs. Financial educators should target different groups with different strategies in financial capability education. Policymakers should develop policies helping student loan holders complete education funded by student loans.

This study examines factors related to informal bankruptcy, providing insights to warning signs of bankruptcy. This study explores the potential effect of a new factor, financial capability, on informal bankruptcy, filling in a gap in the bankruptcy literature. This study recognizes differences in informal bankruptcy among various types of families and examines the different effects of financial capabilities on informal bankruptcy for different types of families.

The purpose of this paper is to measure the antecedents of students' attitude and the impact of students' attitude on the intention to repay study loans.

Primary data from 428 students in universities in Malaysia are collected and six constructs from theory are identified: perceptions that loan repayment will affect the quality of life after graduation; awareness of loan repayment issues created by media; perceptions towards loan agreement; parental influence; students' attitude towards loan repayment; and intention to repay loan. Structural equation modelling approach is adopted to analyze the data.

Constructs of parental influence and perceptions that loan repayment will affect the quality of life after graduation are found to have a direct relationship with students' attitude towards loan repayment; perceptions towards loan agreement is found to influence belief that loan repayment will affect the quality of life after graduation; and awareness of loan repayment issues created by media is found to affect parental influence. The relationship between students' attitude and intention is found to be statistically positive and significant.

The study has been conducted in aggregate form. Future studies could account for ethnic, gender, and regional differences.

The primary users of the results of this study would be the countries that provide education loans, and keen to cut down on student loan defaults.

The study is first of its kind to approach the issue of student loan defaults in a multi‐method manner and develop a comprehensive theoretical model that can be put to empirical test by future researchers.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between student loan debt and first-time home buying among college graduates aged 23 to 40 years old in the USA.

The authors use the Federal Reserve’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances data on American households to present descriptive statistics and run logistic regressions that measure the effects of student loan debt on first-time home buying. The authors also present original survey data of mortgage lenders that provides an industry-level perspective.

The authors find that having student loan debt does not by itself prohibit first-time home buyers. On the contrary, having student loan debt increases the likelihood of homeownership by 15.1%. People with student loan debt, however, buy homes that are 39.2% less expensive and have 58% less home equity compared to first-time home buyers without student loans. In addition, it is found that the amount of student loan debt is important. People with student loan debt above the median amount among people with student loan debt ($35,000) are 27% less likely to be first-time home buyers.

This paper provides public policy analysts and other researchers a different perspective on the correlation between student loan debt and home buying. This study focuses narrowly on first-time home buyers who are college graduates between 23 and 40 years. Thus, capturing the youngest cohort of first-time home buyers and examine the primary factors that influence their home buying decisions.

First-time homebuyers are historically the largest segment of home buyers making them an important subcategory to study. The rise in student loan debt is posited to explain declining homeownership among younger people. The current literature on student loan debt and home buying often studies samples that are too heterogeneous resulting in mixed findings. This paper adds to the existing literature by filtering the sample to study the effects of student loan debt and first-time home buying among people with at least a college degree who are between 23 and 40 years.

National student loans help solve the problem of tuition fees for students from poor families to a great extent. This paper aims to study the behavior of three main players involved in university student loans, namely, universities, banks and students and explores necessary conditions for promoting the steady development of student loans, as well as the sustainability of cooperation and coordination among players, thus promoting the further development of student loans.

First, from the perspectives of the three related players of banks, students and universities and their behavior, this paper establishes a three-player behavioral evolutionary game model, conducts a sustainable game analysis among the different players, and by replicating the dynamic equations with the Jacobian matrix solve the evolutionarily stable strategy. Finally, applying MATLAB tools, a sensitivity analysis of relevant impacting factors is carried out to explore the influencing mechanism of the sustainable development of student loans.

To achieve the mechanism of mutual coordination and cooperation between participants, banks need to be guided to actively issue student loans and conduct strict loan review. College students should be encouraged to establish good credit and strengthen penalties should be implemented for violations of regulations. Universities should be encouraged to help banks reduce information asymmetry, promote financial knowledge and student integrity education and promote the sustainable development of national student loans.

This research will help scholars better understand the interaction mechanism among universities, banks and students, and promote the sustainable development of national student loans.

Purpose – Drawing on a survey of over 1,000 Library and Information Science (LIS) professionals and over a dozen interviews, this chapter explores the student loan crisis from an LIS perspective and offers practical solutions for the field to decrease debt from LIS graduate programs, which has ballooned in recent years.

Design/Methodology/Approach – In April 2016, I sent a survey via email to approximately 10 library-affiliated listservs ranging from Code4Lib to the UMD iSchool discussion list. While I attempted to keep the reach small and controlled to only library-affiliated listservs, the survey link quickly spread to Twitter and other social media. The survey attracted 1,630 qualified responses and ran for two weeks in total. Using skip logic, all potential respondents who did not attend a library school (26 in total) were automatically disqualified. Email addresses were provided by 497 participants for interview post-survey. I received 215 partial responses. In September 2016, I conducted qualitative interviews with participants. Thirty-two telephone interviews were conducted extending for 15–20 minutes and I received 38 written questionnaires in response to my questions.

Findings – The findings are outlined in sub-chapter headings, including increased tuition does not equal increased aid, older students borrow less and take longer in programs tailored to their needs, new graduates unlikely to pay off their loans soon, and students with high undergraduate debt: a divided loan burden. Other findings include interview results, which are embedded within the chapter.

The final section offers recommendations for LIS programs to lessen the burden for students. These recommendations include better financing information and counseling for students; shorter, more flexible degree programs; apprenticeship model, more pathways for a paraprofessional to professional track; and expand public service loan forgiveness programs.

Originality/Value – This is the first comprehensive qualitative/quantitative study of the cost of library school as well as the debt burden for students. It provides actionable outcomes as well as an analytic framework through which to view the academic debt crisis. It features the voices of librarians from around the country as they struggle through a changing job market and increased monetary burden.

This paper aims to develop, refine and validate a multidimensional scale for measuring students’ attitude toward educational debt for higher studies in Punjab (India) and the impact of this attitude on the satisfaction of students.

The study uses interview and survey approach. The sample comprises 417 students from four public and four private universities of Punjab (India). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis have been used to develop and validate students’ attitude toward education loan scale (Morgado et al., 2017). Further, structural equation modeling (SEM) has been used to analyze the impact of factors of students’ attitude on their satisfaction.

The scale has been tested for both reliability and validity. Analysis has revealed six factors of students’ attitude toward educational debt, namely, economic empowerment, social empowerment, utility, procedural requirements, risk and stress. These, six independent variables and one dependent variable, i.e. students’ satisfaction, were entered into structural equation model. The structural equation model shows that procedural requirements, economic empowerment and utility have a positive, whereas stress has a negative and significant impact on the students’ satisfaction.

Education financing is a gigantic problem nowadays due to the high cost of self-financing courses in Punjab. To make higher education accessible to all students, education loan plays a vital role. Thus, the attitude of students is of great importance to policymakers to bring reforms in education loan scheme.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the foremost study for developing a validated tool to measure the students’ attitude toward educational debt in India.

This paper aims to investigate the determinants of taking out government‐funded student loans for university study in Australia.

The paper uses an ordered probit model to quantify the influence of the various factors which affect students' decisions on funding their tertiary study using student loans or through other means.

The study finds that the probability of taking out student loans for the full cost of university is largely influenced by students' socioeconomic status. Other major influences on this decision include students' demographic and university enrolment characteristics.

A limitation of the work is that only a neighbourhood (rather than an individual‐level) measure of socioeconomic status was available, and future research should seek to address this.

The research shows that the parameters of loan schemes do not seem to be able to over‐ride the influence that family background has on loan taking behaviour. That is, poor students use loans regardless of the parameters of the loans scheme in order to overcome short‐term credit constraints. In other words, these student loan schemes channel funds to those without other means of funding their higher education.

By showing the impact that income contingent provisions have on loan taking behaviour, the paper informs policy makers of potential impacts from modifying loans schemes to reflect this characteristic.