Dealing With Debt

1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree

Recipients 10 Years Later

Postsecondary Education

Descriptive Analysis Report

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2006-156
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

NCES 2006-156 

Dealing With Debt 

1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree 

Recipients 10 Years Later 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report 

June 2006 

Susan P. Choy 

Xiaojie Li 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider 

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, 

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional 

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education 

in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and 

significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical 

systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and highquality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, 

practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information contained 

herein is in the public domain. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating 

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or 

report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

June 2006 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov. 

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 

Suggested Citation 

Choy, S.P., and Li, X. (2006). Dealing With Debt: 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 10 Years Later 

(NCES 2006-156). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 ED Pubs 

 P.O. Box 1398 

 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org. 

Content Contact

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

Student loans have become an increasingly 

important source of financial aid for college 

students. Between 1992–93 and 2003–04, the 

proportion of all undergraduates borrowing in a 

given year to help pay for their education 

increased from 20 to 35 percent at the 

undergraduate level (Tuma and Geis 1995; 

Berkner 2005), and from 19 to 42 percent at the 

graduate level (Choy and Premo 1995; Choy and 

Cataldi 2006). As borrowing has increased, longstanding concerns about students’ ability to repay 

their loans and the effect of the debt on their lives 

after college have intensified. 

The first part of this report describes the 

undergraduate borrowing patterns of 1992–93 

bachelor’s degree recipients and their graduate 

enrollment and additional borrowing through 

2003. These graduates would have completed their 

undergraduate borrowing prior to the changes 

introduced by the 1992 reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act. At that time, only students 

with financial need could have participated in 

federal loan programs as undergraduates. 

The second part examines the repayment of 

undergraduate loans for bachelor’s degree 

recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment, providing details on how many had 

finished repaying their loans by 2003, who were 

still repaying and how much, what their debt 

burden was, and how they had managed their 

Stafford loan repayment over the 10-year period. 

The report uses data from the 1992–93 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

(B&B:93/03), a longitudinal study of students 

who earned a bachelor’s degree during the 1992–

93 academic year. Base-year information on this 

cohort was collected as part of the 1992–93 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:93). Graduates were interviewed again in 

1994, 1997, and 2003. These data were 

supplemented with data from the National Student 

Loan Data System (NSLDS), which contains 

detailed records on the repayment history and 

2003 status of Stafford loans taken out by the 

1992–93 graduates.1 All comparisons made in the 

text were tested using Student’s t statistic. All 

differences cited were statistically significant at 

the .05 level. 

Borrowers Compared With 

Nonborrowers 

Because only students with established 

financial need could borrow through federal 

student loan programs when the 1992–93 

bachelor’s degree recipients were undergraduates, 

borrowers were more likely than nonborrowers to 

have characteristics typically associated with 

financial need—that is, characteristics related to 

low income or a high price of attending, such as 

financial independence, low family income if 

dependent, parents with less than a bachelor’s 

degree, and graduating from a private not-forprofit institution (table 1). 

 

1 The NSLDS data have been incorporated into the 

B&B:93/03 Data Analysis System. 
Executive Summary 

iv 

Ten years later, however, there were no 

meaningful differences between borrowers and 

nonborrowers in educational, employment, and 

family formation outcomes such as the percentage 

who had enrolled in an additional degree program, 

average salary, or the percentage who were 

married or cohabiting. Borrowers were slightly 

more likely than nonborrowers to have children 

under 18 in their household, which may be related 

to the fact that borrowers tended to be older. 

Borrowing for Undergraduate and 

Graduate Education 

About half of all 1992–93 bachelor’s degree 

recipients (51 percent) borrowed at some point to 

help pay for their undergraduate education, 

borrowing an average of $10,200 (table 2). This 

includes borrowing from all sources, not just 

through student loan programs. Among financially 

dependent students in the lowest quarter of the 

family income distribution, 67 percent borrowed 

(figure A).2

 

2 Dependent students were divided into four equal-sized 

categories based on family income. The upper bound was 

$37,517 for the lowest income group, $55,000 for the lower 

middle group, and $74,036 for the upper middle group. 

Figure A.—Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate education 

Figure A.—from any source and, among borrowers, average amount borrowed, by dependency status 

Figure A.—and family income

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

62

25

38

47

67

0 20 40 60 80 100

 Independent

 Highest

 High middle

 Low middle

 Lowest

Percent

Dependent

Average amount 

borrowed

$10,200

9,100

11,500

12,600

9,800
Executive Summary 

v 

About 41 percent of the graduates had enrolled 

in a graduate or first-professional degree program 

by 2003, and of those who enrolled, 45 percent 

borrowed to help pay for that education (tables 3 

and 4). Those with loans only at the graduate or 

first-professional level had borrowed an average 

of $36,900 by 2003, while those with loans at both 

the undergraduate and graduate levels had 

borrowed an average of $41,700 (table 5). Among 

the subgroup of graduates with no further degree 

enrollment, 51 percent had borrowed, with loans 

averaging $10,000 (table 2). 

Repayment of Undergraduate Loans 

Bachelor’s degree recipients who do not 

immediately enter graduate school typically must 

begin making monthly payments on their loans 6 

months after they finish college. The standard 

repayment period is 10 years, with a minimum 

monthly payment of $50, but alternative 

repayment plans exist to help borrowers who have 

difficulty meeting their repayment obligations. 

Among bachelor’s degree recipients who did 

not enroll in a graduate or first-professional 

degree program, most appeared able to handle 

their debt: 74 percent had repaid all their 

undergraduate student loans by the time they were 

interviewed in 2003 (table 6). This group includes 

borrowers who had completed repayment in less 

than the standard 10 years because they had 

borrowed relatively small amounts and were 

required to repay a minimum of $50 per month, 

borrowers who graduated early in the 1992–93 

academic year and had used up their time to repay, 

and borrowers who, for reasons of their own, 

decided to pay their loans off early. While 26 

percent still owed, it is important to note that June 

graduates who were on the standard 10-year 

repayment plan for federal loans and had 

borrowed more than about $4,000 would not be 

expected to finish repaying their loans until 

December 2003 (i.e., after they were interviewed). 

The percentage who still owed ranged from 5 

percent among those who had borrowed less than 

$5,000 to about 42 percent among those who had 

borrowed $10,000 or more. The percentage who 

still owed also varied with income. For example, 

33 percent of those with salaries in the lowest 

income group in 2003 still owed, compared with 

19 percent of those with salaries in the highest 

income group. The average monthly payment was 

$150, but 11 percent were paying $250 or more 

(table 9). 

Debt Burden 

Among those who had not enrolled in graduate 

or first-professional degree programs and were 

still repaying their undergraduate loans, the 

median debt burden (defined as monthly loan 

payment as a percentage of monthly income) was 

3.3 percent (table 12). Because monthly payments 

were fixed throughout the repayment period but 

income generally rose over time, debt burden 

declined over time. Earlier studies of 1992–93 

bachelor’s degree recipients found a median debt 

burden of 6.7 percent in 1994 and 4.8 percent in 

1997 (Choy 2000; Choy and Li 2005). For those 

who had borrowed the largest amounts (more than 

$15,000), the median debt burden was 4.5 percent 

in 2003, and for those in the lowest income group 

(bottom quarter), it was 6.0 percent. By 2003, 

about 90 percent of borrowers were within the 8 

percent generally considered reasonable, but 3 

percent had debt burden of 12 percent or more 

(figure B). 
Executive Summary 

vi 

Debt Management (Stafford Loans) 

Among bachelor’s degree recipients with no 

further degree enrollment, 39 percent had taken 

out Stafford loans as undergraduates (table 14). 

Among this group, 12 percent had consolidated 

some or all of their loans (table 15). They may 

have chosen to take this step for convenience, to 

obtain a fixed interest rate, or to extend the 

payment period.3 Five percent of borrowers with 

no additional degree enrollment had ever taken a 

deferment because of a disability, volunteer 

service, or other approved reason (table 16);4 and 

 

3 Extending the payment period reduces monthly payments 

but increases total interest charges. 

4 The most common reason for a deferment is enrollment in 

graduate school, but this analysis group is limited to those 

who did not go on to graduate school. 

12 percent had ever been in forbearance due to 

financial hardship (table 17). 

Ten percent of bachelor’s degree recipients 

with no further degree enrollment who took out 

Stafford loans as undergraduates had defaulted at 

least once—that is, did not make any payments for 

9 months and had not been granted a deferment or 

forbearance (table 18). However, 45 percent of 

those who had defaulted later re-entered 

repayment. Graduates who defaulted had 

borrowed more, on average, than those who did 

not default ($10,000 vs. $7,600). 

Large loans were associated with default: 20 

percent of borrowers with $15,000 or more in 

Stafford loans defaulted at some point, compared 

Figure B.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and 

Figure B.—were repaying undergraduate loans, percentage distribution by debt burden: 2003

NOTE: Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income. Estimates include students from the 50 

states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

12 percent or more

(3%) 9–12 percent

(8%)

5–8 percent

(26%)

Less than 5 percent 

(63%)
Executive Summary 

vii 

with 7–8 percent of those who borrowed less than 

$10,000 (figure C). Those who started off with the 

highest salaries in 1994 were less likely than those 

with lower salary levels to have defaulted. 

The percentage who defaulted was also related 

to deferment and forbearance: 21 percent of those 

who had ever deferred and 20 percent of those 

who had ever been in forbearance defaulted, 

compared with 9 percent of those who had not 

deferred and 8 percent who had not been in 

forbearance. Nevertheless, about 80 percent of 

those with deferments or periods of forbearance 

did not default. 

Note that the federal government calculates 

cohort default rates based on the percentage of 

borrowers who enter repayment on a federal 

student loan during a particular federal fiscal year 

and default by the end of the next fiscal year. For 

fiscal year (FY) 2002, the cohort default rates 

were 4.0 percent for students who attended public 

4-year institutions and 3.1 percent for students 

who attended private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions (U.S. Department of Education 

2004a). One would expect the rate shown in this 

analysis (10 percent) to be higher because it 

covers a much longer time period. 

Figure C.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and took

Figure C.—out Stafford loans, percentage who defaulted, by total amount borrowed and 1994 salary: 2003

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

4

8

12

17

20

12

8

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

 Highest

 High middle

 Low middle

 Lowest

 $15,000 or more

 $10,000–14,999

 $5,000–9,999

 Less than $5,000

Percent

Total amount 

borrowed 

Salary in 1994
Executive Summary 

viii 

On average, students did not have difficulty 

dealing with their debt right away. The average 

length of time between graduation and the first 

deferment, forbearance, or default was 4–5 years 

(tables 16–18). 

Implications of the Findings for 

Current Borrowers 

The implications of these findings for current 

borrowers are difficult to assess. Undergraduates 

are borrowing more, which would suggest more 

repayment problems, but the characteristics of 

borrowers have changed. Now that borrowing is 

no longer restricted to students with financial 

need, more middle- and high-income students are 

borrowing. 

It is clear from this analysis, however, that the 

financial circumstances of bachelor’s degree 

recipients 10 years after graduation are not easy to 

predict. While loan payments remain constant, 

income, which is key to the ability to repay, does 

not. General economic conditions affect income 

over time, and career trajectories vary. The data 

show that students with high incomes soon after 

graduation are not necessarily those with the 

highest incomes 10 years later. On average, 

students did not have difficulty repaying their 

loans right away; problems came a number of 

years into repayment. For many, the problems 

were temporary, with about half of defaulters able 

to enter repayment again at a later date. In 

addition, most borrowers who deferred or had 

periods of forbearance were able to recover 

financially and did not default. This highlights the 

fact that when students and their families must 

make the decision to borrow, it is difficult for 

them to predict the actual burden of that debt. 
ix 

Foreword 

This report uses data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B) to 

examine the borrowing patterns of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients and the repayment of 

their student loans over the next 10 years. B&B includes students who were identified in the 

1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93) as having earned a bachelor’s 

degree during the 1992–93 academic year. NPSAS is based on a nationally representative sample 

of students enrolled in postsecondary education and provides detailed information on how 

students and their families pay for college, including the types and amounts of financial aid 

received. In the B&B Study, the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients were interviewed in 1994 

(B&B:93/94), 1997 (B&B:93/97), and 2003 (B&B:93/03) to learn about their education and 

employment experiences after graduation. To capture graduates’ loan repayment history and loan 

status in 2003, data from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) on federally 

sponsored Stafford loans were added to the B&B:93/03 file. 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the B&B:93/03 Data Analysis 

System (DAS). The DAS is a computer application that allows users to specify and generate their 

own tables and produces the design-adjusted standard errors necessary for testing the statistical 

significance of differences between numbers shown in the tables. It is available for public use on 

the NCES website at http://nces.ed.gov/das. Appendix B of this report contains additional 

information on the DAS. 
x 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to acknowledge important contributions to this report by many 

individuals. At MPR Associates, Lutz Berkner and Laura Horn provided guidance throughout the 

process, and Robin Henke made helpful comments on an early draft. Andrea Livingston edited 

the report, Annabelle Yang formatted the tables and prepared the figures, and Barbara Kridl 

managed the production process from beginning to end. 

At NCES, Dennis Carroll oversaw the development of the report and shepherded it through 

the review process. Paula Knepper and Marilyn Seastrom provided thorough technical, 

methodological, and substantive reviews. We are grateful for thoughtful comments from a 

number of other reviewers, including Daniel Goldenberg (Office of the Under Secretary), 

Kenneth Redd (National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators), Joan Burrelli 

(National Science Foundation), Ellie Greenberg (University of Colorado), and Clifford Adelman 

(Office of Vocational and Adult Education). Duc-Le To of the Institute of Education Sciences 

also provided thoughtful comments and gathered and synthesized helpful comments from two 

anonymous external reviewers. 
xi 

Contents 

Page 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iii

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... x

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xiii

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xvi

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 

Student Loan Programs ......................................................................................................... 1 

Loans and Access .................................................................................................................. 3 

Data ....................................................................................................................................... 3 

Organization of the Report.................................................................................................... 4 

Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients.................... 5 

Profile of 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients ............................................................... 5 

Borrowers Compared With Nonborrowers ........................................................................... 8 

Undergraduate Borrowing..................................................................................................... 8 

Additional Enrollment and Borrowing for Graduate Education ........................................... 11 

Combined Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing............................................................. 15 

Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No 

Additional Degree Enrollment................................................................................................. 19

Repayment Obligations and Options for Stafford Loans ...................................................... 19 

Interest Rates on Stafford Loans ........................................................................................... 21 

Amounts Still Owed and Being Repaid ................................................................................ 22 

Debt Burden .......................................................................................................................... 30 

Managing Stafford Loan Repayment .................................................................................... 35 

Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................... 49 

Summary of Key Findings..................................................................................................... 49

Implications for Current Borrowers ...................................................................................... 50 

References.................................................................................................................................. 53 
Contents 

xii 

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. B-1
xiii 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 By undergraduate loan status, student and institutional characteristics of 1992–93 

bachelor’s degree recipients ............................................................................................ 6 

2 Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate 

education from any source and, among borrowers, average amount borrowed and 

percentage distribution of amount borrowed, by student and institutional 

characteristics .................................................................................................................. 10 

3 Percentage distribution of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients’ additional degree 

enrollment, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003 ........................................ 12 

4 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with graduate degree enrollment, 

percentage who borrowed for graduate education and, among borrowers, average 

amount and percentage distribution of amount borrowed for graduate education, by 

student and institutional characteristics: 2003 ................................................................ 14 

5 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with graduate degree enrollment, 

percentage who borrowed for undergraduate and graduate education and average 

amounts, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003............................................ 16 

6 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and borrowed as undergraduates, percentages who owed and were 

repaying their undergraduate loans and average and median amounts borrowed, by 

student and institutional characteristics: 2003 ............................................................... 23 

7 By debt status, student and institutional characteristics of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree 

recipients who borrowed as undergraduates and had no additional degree enrollment: 

2003................................................................................................................................. 25 

8 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and still owed undergraduate loans, percentage repaying loans and, among 

those repaying, percentage distribution of repayment plans, by amount borrowed and 

salary: 2003 ..................................................................................................................... 28 
List of Tables 

xiv 

Table Page 

9 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and were repaying undergraduate loans, average monthly payment amount 

and percentage distribution of monthly payments, by amount borrowed and salary: 

2003................................................................................................................................. 29 

10 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment, percentage distribution of employment status and, among those employed, 

average and median annual salaries, by selected student characteristics: 2003 .............. 31 

11 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and were repaying loans, percentage distribution of 2003 salary, by earlier 

salaries............................................................................................................................. 32 

12 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and were repaying undergraduate loans, average and median debt burden 

and percentage distribution of debt burden, by selected student characteristics: 2003... 33 

13 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and were repaying undergraduate loans, percentage who were married or 

cohabiting and, among those married or cohabiting, spouse/partner loan status, 

average household amount borrowed, monthly payment, and annual income, by salary 

characteristics: 2003 ....................................................................................................... 35 

14 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment, percentage who took out loans and average amounts, by type of loan and 

student and institutional characteristics: 2003 ................................................................ 36 

15 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and took out Stafford loans, percentage who consolidated loans, average 

amount consolidated, and average Stafford loan amount, by selected student 

characteristics: 2003........................................................................................................ 38 

16 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and took out Stafford loans, percentage who ever deferred on those loans, 

average length of time until the first deferment, and average Stafford loan amount, by 

selected student characteristics: 2003.............................................................................. 41 

17 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and took out Stafford loans, percentage who had any periods of 

forbearance, average length of time until the first period, and average amount of 

loans, by selected student characteristics: 2003 .............................................................. 42 
 List of Tables 

xv 

Table Page 

18 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and took out Stafford loans, percentage who ever defaulted, average length 

of time until the first default, percentage who re-entered repayment, and average 

amount of loans, by selected student characteristics: 2003............................................. 43 

19 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and took out Stafford loans, percentage distribution of 1994 salary and 

Stafford loan amount, by selected student characteristics: 2003..................................... 45 

20 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment, took out Stafford loans, and did not consolidate any of their Stafford 

loans, percentage who had paid off all loans, average amount of loans, average length 

of time to repay, and percentage distribution of length of time to repay, by selected 

student characteristics: 2003 ........................................................................................... 46 

21 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate 

education, percentage who borrowed from all sources and through the Stafford loan 

program, and percentage of Stafford loan borrowers with various repayment histories 

for their undergraduate loans, by highest degree program: 2003 .................................... 48 

Appendix B 

B-1 Lowest weighted item response rates for variables used in this report ........................... B-5 

B-2 Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who 

borrowed for undergraduate education from any source and, among borrowers, 

average amount borrowed and percentage distribution of amount borrowed, by 

student and institutional characteristics........................................................................... B-7 
xvi 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary 

A Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate 

education from any source and, among borrowers, average amount borrowed, by 

dependency status and family income............................................................................. iv 

B Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and were repaying undergraduate loans, percentage distribution by debt 

burden: 2003.................................................................................................................... vi 

C Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and took out Stafford loans, percentage who defaulted, by total amount 

borrowed and 1994 salary: 2003 ..................................................................................... vii 

Text 

1 Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate 

education from any source and, among borrowers, average amount borrowed, by 

dependency status and family income............................................................................. 9 

2 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with graduate degree enrollment, 

percentage who borrowed for undergraduate and graduate education, by highest 

degree earned as of 2003 and level at which borrowed................................................... 17 

3 Average salary of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and borrowed as undergraduates, by 2003 debt status: 1994, 1997, and 

2003................................................................................................................................. 27 

4 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and were repaying undergraduate loans, percentage distribution by debt 

burden: 2003.................................................................................................................... 34 

5 Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

enrollment and took out Stafford loans, percentage who consolidated loans, deferred 

payment, had periods of forbearance, or defaulted as of 2003........................................ 39 
1 

Introduction 

Student loans have become an increasingly important source of financial aid for college 

students. Between 1992–93 and 2003–04, the proportion of students borrowing in a given year to 

help pay for their education increased from 20 to 35 percent at the undergraduate level (Tuma 

and Geis 1995; Berkner 2005), and from 19 to 42 percent at the graduate level (Choy and Premo 

1995; Choy and Cataldi 2006). These increases reflect both an increased need to borrow—tuition 

increases outpaced inflation (The College Board 2005a)—and increased access to federal loan 

programs resulting from provisions in the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 

(HEA) that expanded eligibility, increased loan limits, and introduced unsubsidized Stafford 

loans. This last provision opened up participation in the Stafford loan program to all students, 

regardless of income. Previously, only students with demonstrated financial need could take out 

Stafford loans. 

As borrowing has increased, long-standing concerns about students’ ability to repay their 

loans and the effect of the debt on their lives after college have intensified. Important ongoing 

policy questions related to keeping student debt manageable include how much student aid the 

federal government should provide in the form of loans versus grants, how much students should 

be allowed to borrow, who should qualify for subsidized loans, and what the repayment terms 

should be. 

This report examines the experiences of students who earned a bachelor’s degree during the 

1992–93 academic year. Earlier studies have examined their borrowing, repayment, and debt 

burden patterns in 1994 and 1997 (approximately 1 and 4 years after graduation) (Choy and Geis 

1997; Choy 2000). This analysis builds on these studies using more recent data to examine 

borrowing for graduate school and repayment of undergraduate debt over a 10-year period. While 

the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients would have done all their undergraduate borrowing 

before the 1992 reauthorization, their borrowing for graduate education would have been under 

the new rules. 

Student Loan Programs 

Federal student loan programs were originally designed to help students with financial need 

attend college. As the price of attendance increased during the 1970s and 1980s, Congress 
Introduction 

2 

responded by raising both loan limits and income ceilings. Since 1992, all postsecondary 

students, regardless of income or financial need, have been permitted to take out federally 

guaranteed student loans.1

The Stafford loan program is the major federal loan program for undergraduates. For 

students who qualify for need-based financial aid, the federal government pays the interest until 

the student begins repayment (usually 6 months after graduating or leaving school). Students who 

do not qualify for need-based aid may take out unsubsidized Stafford loans. In 2003–04, 

undergraduates borrowed a total of $17.6 billion in subsidized loans and another $13.4 billion in 

unsubsidized loans (The College Board 2005b). 

The maximum amount that students can take out in Stafford loans varies with their 

dependency status. In 1992–93, dependent students could borrow a maximum of $17,250 for 

undergraduate education, and independent students could borrow up to $37,250. The 1992 

reauthorization of the HEA raised the limits on the total amount that could be borrowed 

(subsidized plus unsubsidized) to $23,000 for dependent students and $46,000 for independent 

students (no more than $23,000 of which may be subsidized). These limits were still in effect in 

2003–04. 

The Perkins loan program, originated as the National Defense Student Loan (NDSL) 

program in 1958, is another federal loan program available to undergraduates. It is a much 

smaller program, providing loans only to students with exceptional need. Funds are limited, and 

financial aid administrators at the institutional level have considerable discretion in determining 

who receives them. In 2003–04, students (both undergraduate and graduate) borrowed $1.6 

billion in Perkins loans.2 That year, student loans from nonfederal sources totaled $10.4 billion. 

While students took out some of these loans through state loan programs, most of the loans came 

from banks and other private lenders (sometimes referred to as “alternative loans”). 

Parents of dependent undergraduates may borrow through the federally sponsored Parent 

Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program. The limit used to be $20,000, but since the 

1992 HEA reauthorization, parents have been permitted to borrow enough to cover the difference 

between the full price of attending and the amount of other aid received. In 2003–04, parents 

borrowed $7.1 billion through this program. 

 

1 The U.S. Department of Education website provides detailed information on each federal loan program, including loan limits, 

repayment options, interest rates, and eligibility requirements. This information is available at http://www.studentaid.ed.gov. 

2 Separate estimates for undergraduates are not available for Perkins loans. 
 Introduction 

3 

Loans and Access 

Loans increase student access to college by reducing the immediate financial outlay needed 

to enroll. However, loans (unlike grants) must be repaid, typically over a 10-year period after the 

student graduates or leaves school.3 In other words, loans do not reduce the price of attending 

college; they simply postpone paying the bill. While loans solve the immediate need for cash, 

they also entail risk. Families must make borrowing decisions without knowing what the interest 

rates will be during the repayment period and whether the students will graduate, get jobs, and 

earn enough to meet their repayment obligations. For students who do not perform well 

academically and are at risk of not completing college, borrowing is especially risky, but even 

students who are strong academically may have to drop out or stop out of college for any number 

of unforeseen personal or financial reasons. Borrowing is also especially risky for students whose 

families lack the financial resources to help them repay the loans if the students cannot do so by 

themselves. Because this analysis covers only students who completed bachelor’s degrees, it 

cannot address difficulties that borrowing may cause for students who drop out before finishing 

their education or who earn associate’s degrees or certificates rather than bachelor’s degrees. 

Among students who began their postsecondary education in 1995–96, some 23 percent of 

borrowers had not completed a degree or certificate by 2001 and were not enrolled then 

(Gladieux and Perna 2005). 

Data 

This report uses data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B) to 

examine how much bachelor’s degree recipients who earned their degrees between July 1992 and 

June 1993 borrowed and how they managed their debt over the next 10 years. Base-year 

information on this cohort was collected as part of the 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:93). Graduates were interviewed again in 1994, 1997, and 2003. The 

interview data were supplemented with data from the National Student Loan Data System 

(NSLDS), which contains detailed records on the repayment history and the 2003 status of 

Stafford loans taken out by the 1992–93 graduates.4

NPSAS:93 included about 1,100 institutions and was based on a nationally representative 

sample of all students enrolled in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, 

graduate, and first-professional students. One of a series of similar studies conducted every 4 to 5 

years since 1987, NPSAS:93 represents more than 16 million undergraduates who were enrolled 

at some time between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1993. The survey frames for NPSAS were built 

 

3 Repayment obligations and options are described later in this report. 

4 The NSLDS data have been incorporated into the B&B:93/03 Data Analysis System.
Introduction 

4 

from the 1990–91 “Institutional Characteristics Survey” of the Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS-IC); lists of students were obtained from each participating 

institution. The estimates presented in this report are based on the results of interviews with 

approximately 10,000 bachelor’s degree recipients each year from a sampling frame of about 

12,500; these bachelor’s degree recipients represent the approximately 1.2 million bachelor’s 

degree completers in the United States (U.S. Department of Education 2004b). Excluded from 

the final sample were 760 students who were determined during the B&B interview or from 

transcripts not to have earned a bachelor’s degree during the 1992–93 academic year (see 

appendix B for more detail). The weighted overall response rate was 74 percent, reflecting an 

institution response rate (in 1992) of 88 percent and a student response rate (in 2003) of 83 

percent. The data presented in this report cover the 50 states, District of Columbia (DC), and 

Puerto Rico. 

All comparisons made in the text were tested using Student’s t statistic. All differences 

cited were statistically significant at the .05 level. Appendix B provides information about the 

formula used and more detail on significance levels. Standard errors for all estimates are 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

The sample used for this analysis consists of the NPSAS:93 respondents who earned a 

bachelor’s degree in 1992–93 and participated in all three B&B interviews: 1994, 1997, and 

2003. Information that was missing in 1994 or 1997 was updated in 2003 when possible, and a 

panel weight was created based on respondents to all three surveys. Consequently, some 

estimates presented here may differ slightly from previously published data. 

Organization of the Report 

The first part of this report describes the undergraduate borrowing of bachelor’s degree 

recipients and examines their graduate enrollment and additional borrowing through 2003. The 

second part examines the repayment of undergraduate loans for bachelor’s degree recipients who 

had no additional degree enrollment, providing detail on how many had finished repaying their 

loans by 2003, who were still repaying and how much, what their debt burden was, and how they 

had managed their Stafford loan repayment over the 10-year period. 
5 

Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s 

Degree Recipients 

To provide context for the discussion of borrowing, this section begins with a brief profile 

of the 1992–93 cohort of bachelor’s degree recipients and describes some of the ways in which 

those who borrowed to help pay for their undergraduate education differed from those who did 

not borrow. It then describes undergraduate borrowing and additional enrollment and borrowing, 

ending with a description of combined undergraduate and graduate borrowing. 

Profile of 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

The 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients were more than half female (55 percent) and 

predominantly white (84 percent) (table 1). Just under one-third (31 percent) were firstgeneration college students (i.e., did not have a parent who had attended college). Most (72 

percent) were of traditional college age—24 years or younger when they earned their bachelor’s 

degree. Reflecting their age (most students under 24 years are considered financially dependent 

on their parents for financial aid purposes), 60 percent were categorized as financially dependent 

the year they graduated. 

About two-thirds (65 percent) graduated from a public college or university, and 31 percent 

graduated from a private not-for-profit institution. The remaining 4 percent graduated from a 

private for-profit or other type of institution. 

By 2003, some 31 percent of the bachelor’s degree recipients had enrolled in a master’s 

degree program, 5 percent in a doctoral degree program, 5 percent in a first-professional degree 

program, and 7 percent in a nongraduate degree program (technical diploma, associate’s degree, 

another bachelor’s degree, or a postbaccalaureate certificate program). The remaining 52 percent 

had either no enrollment at all after the bachelor’s degree they earned in 1992–93 or enrollment 

only in courses not leading to a degree or certificate. Graduates may have enrolled in more than 

one program; the percentages just cited represent the highest level at which they had ever 

enrolled. Twenty-six percent had earned at least one graduate or first-professional degree by 

2003. 
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

6 

Table 1.—By undergraduate loan status, student and institutional characteristics of 1992–93 bachelor’s 

Table 1.—degree recipients

Student and institutional characteristics Total Yes No

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 45.0 45.9 44.3

 Female 55.0 54.1 55.7

Race/ethnicity1

 White 83.6 81.3 86.2

 Black 6.0 7.7 4.3

 Hispanic 5.1 6.3 3.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 4.8 4.0 5.5

 Other 0.5 0.7 0.4

Parents’ highest education 

 High school graduate or less 31.1 36.3 25.5

 Some college 18.6 21.2 15.7

 Bachelor’s degree 24.3 21.7 26.9

 Advanced degree 26.0 20.8 31.9

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent

 Lowest 14.4 19.1 9.8

 Low middle 15.7 14.2 17.2

 High middle 14.9 11.0 18.7

 Highest 14.6 7.2 22.4

 Independent 40.5 48.6 31.9

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 or younger 71.8 66.3 78.0

 25–29 12.2 15.5 8.8

 30 or older 16.0 18.2 13.2

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 65.2 61.9 68.8

 Non-doctorate-granting 23.3 23.3 23.1

 Doctorate-granting 42.0 38.7 45.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 31.3 34.1 28.2

 Non-doctorate-granting 17.7 20.3 14.9

 Doctorate-granting 13.6 13.8 13.2

 Other 3.5 3.9 3.0

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 22.0 20.5 23.4

 Education 13.0 14.2 11.7

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 16.5 17.6 15.5

 Humanities or social sciences 23.7 22.4 25.0

 Other 24.8 25.4 24.4

See notes at end of table.

Undergraduate loans
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

7 

Table 1.—By undergraduate loan status, student and institutional characteristics of 1992–93 bachelor’s

Table 1.—degree recipients—Continued

Student and institutional characteristics Total Yes No

Highest enrollment after bachelor’s degree by 2003

 No additional degree enrollment2 52.1 51.7 52.9

 Nongraduate degree or certificate3 7.2 7.6 6.6

 Master’s degree 31.2 32.0 30.3

 Doctoral degree 4.5 4.3 4.8

 First-professional degree 5.0 4.4 5.4

Highest degree earned by 2003

 Bachelor’s degree 73.9 74.8 73.3

 Master’s degree 20.2 20.1 20.1

 Doctoral degree 2.0 1.8 2.2

 First-professional degree 3.9 3.4 4.5

Enrollment/employment status in 2003

 Enrolled and employed 7.1 8.3 5.8

 Enrolled only 1.1 0.9 1.3

 Employed only 79.9 79.9 79.9

 Not enrolled or employed 11.9 11.0 12.9

Marital status in 2003

 Married or cohabiting 72.6 71.6 73.4

 Not married 27.4 28.4 26.6

Number of dependent children under age 18 in household in 2003

 None 49.7 47.9 51.4

 One or more 50.3 52.1 48.6

Median annual salary

 1994 $20,000 $20,000 $20,400

 1997 30,000 29,500 30,000

 2003 49,000 48,000 49,900

Average annual salary

 1994 22,500 22,500 22,500

 1997 32,600 32,400 32,800

 2003 56,000 55,300 56,800

1 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Other refers to

American Indian or Alaska Native. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

2

 No enrollment after the bachelor’s degree earned in 1992–93 or enrollment only in courses not leading to a degree or 

certificate.

3

 Enrolled in a program leading to a technical diploma, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or postbaccalaureate certificate.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Undergraduate loans
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

8 

Most of the 1992–93 graduates were employed in 2003: 80 percent were employed only, 

and another 7 percent were combining school and work. A few (1 percent) were enrolled but not 

working, and 12 percent were neither working nor enrolled. The median annual salary for 

employed graduates was $49,000. The majority (73 percent) were married or cohabiting, and 50 

percent had children under 18 years old in their household. 

Borrowers Compared With Nonborrowers 

Because only students with established financial need could borrow through federal student 

loan programs when the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients were undergraduates, borrowers 

were more likely than nonborrowers to have characteristics typically associated with financial 

need—that is, characteristics related to low income or a high price of attending. For example, 

borrowers were more likely than nonborrowers to have been financially independent in their last 

year of college, to have come from families with the lowest incomes if they were dependent, and 

to have parents with less than a bachelor’s degree.5 In addition, borrowers were more likely than 

nonborrowers to have graduated from private not-for-profit institutions, which typically have a 

higher price of attending than public ones (Tuma and Geis 1995). 

Ten years later, however, there were no meaningful differences between borrowers and 

nonborrowers in their educational, employment, and family formation outcomes. For example, 

no meaningful differences existed between borrowers and nonborrowers in the percentages who 

had enrolled in an additional or graduate degree program by 20036 or in their average salaries 

that year. Eighty percent of both borrowers and nonborrowers were employed and not enrolled in 

2003. Furthermore, there were no measurable differences between borrowers and nonborrowers 

in the percentages who were married or cohabiting. Borrowers, however, were slightly more 

likely than nonborrowers to have children under 18 in their household (52 vs. 49 percent), which 

may be related to the fact that borrowers tend to be older. 

Undergraduate Borrowing 

The 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients were asked in 1994 how much they had 

borrowed from all sources to pay for their undergraduate education. About half (51 percent) had 

taken out loans at some point during college, borrowing an average of $10,200 (figure 1 and 

 

5 Dependent students were divided into four equal-sized categories based on family income. The upper bound was $37,517 for 

the lowest income group, $55,000 for the lower middle group, and $74,036 for the upper middle group. 

6 The difference between borrowers and nonborrowers in the percentage who had earned a first-professional degree by 2003 was 

statistically significant but substantively unimportant (3 vs. 4 percent). 
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

9 

table 2).7 This amount includes borrowing from all sources, not just through student loan 

programs, and the amounts that came from the various possible sources are unknown. Graduates 

may have borrowed through federal or state student loan programs, taken out loans from private 

sources such as banks, or borrowed from family, friends, or relatives. These data do not include 

borrowing by parents through the Parental Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program or 

from other sources. 

As indicated earlier, the major federal loan program (open at that time only to students with 

financial need) was the Stafford loan program. In 1992–93, the maximum that dependent 

undergraduates could borrow through the Stafford loan program was $2,625 per year for the first 

2 years and $4,000 per year after that, up to a maximum of $17,250 (Office of Student Financial 

 

7 To illustrate the increase in borrowing since this cohort graduated: 62 percent of graduating seniors in 2003–04 had borrowed 

(2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study [NPSAS:04]; not shown in a table). 

Figure 1.—Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate education 

Figure 1.—from any source and, among borrowers, average amount borrowed, by dependency status 

Figure 1.—and family income

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

62

25

38

47

67

0 20 40 60 80 100

 Independent

 Highest

 High middle

 Low middle

 Lowest

Percent

Dependent

Average amount 

borrowed

$10,200

9,100

11,500

12,600

9,800
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

10 

Assistance 1992).8 Because of the annual limits, however, a student completing a bachelor’s 

degree in 4 years would have been able to borrow only $13,250.

Reflecting the fact that participation in federal student loan programs in 1992–93 was need 

based, the percentage of dependent students who borrowed declined as family income increased 

(from 67 percent of students in the lowest income group to 25 percent of those in the highest). 

 

8 Financially dependent undergraduates are still limited to $2,625 in their first year, but since the 1992 reauthorization they have 

been able to borrow $3,500 their second year and $5,500 per year thereafter, up to a maximum of $23,000. Independent students 

can borrow twice as much as dependent students annually and cumulatively, but the additional amounts have to be unsubsidized.

Table 2.—Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate education 

Table 2.—from any source and, among borrowers, average amount borrowed and percentage distribution of

Table 2.—amount borrowed, by student and institutional characteristics

Percent Average 

Student and institutional who amount Less than $5,000– $10,000– $15,000

characteristics borrowed borrowed $5,000 9,999 14,999 or more

 Total 51.4 $10,200 29.1 26.9 20.8 23.2

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent

 Lowest 67.2 10,200 26.6 24.9 21.5 27.0

 Low middle 46.6 9,100 33.7 27.7 22.0 16.6

 High middle 38.3 11,500 28.7 23.6 21.0 26.7

 Highest 25.3 12,600 30.8 21.7 16.4 31.2

 Independent 61.7 9,800 28.3 29.3 20.8 21.7

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 48.7 8,800 33.7 29.2 19.5 17.7

 Non-doctorate-granting 51.5 8,300 36.1 30.6 17.2 16.1

 Doctorate-granting 47.2 9,100 32.2 28.3 20.9 18.6

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 56.1 12,600 20.9 23.1 23.2 32.8

 Non-doctorate-granting 59.0 11,600 22.1 26.0 23.8 28.1

 Doctorate-granting 52.5 14,000 19.2 18.8 22.3 39.7

 Other 58.0 11,000 28.0 25.9 18.8 27.2

Highest enrollment after bachelor’s degree by 2003

 No additional degree enrollment1 50.8 10,000 29.6 26.5 20.6 23.3

 Nongraduate degree or certificate2 54.9 9,900 31.0 24.7 25.4 18.8

 Graduate or first-professional degree 51.5 10,400 28.2 27.7 20.3 23.8

1

 No enrollment after the bachelor’s degree earned in 1992–93 or enrollment only in courses not leading to a degree or 

certificate.

2

 Enrolled in a program leading to a technical diploma, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or postbaccalaureate certificate.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Amount borrowed
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

11 

Independent students were less likely than dependent students from the lowest family income 

group (62 vs. 67 percent) to borrow, but more likely than dependent students in other family 

income groups to do so. The average amounts borrowed varied less by income than one might 

expect because the amount students could borrow was constrained by loan program limits. 

Reflecting the higher price of attending a private not-for-profit institution, graduates of 

those institutions were more likely than their counterparts at public institutions to have borrowed 

(56 vs. 49 percent). Among those who borrowed, graduates of private not-for-profit institutions 

borrowed more, on average, than graduates of public institutions ($12,600 vs. $8,800). 

It is important to keep in mind that the amounts reported for student borrowing do not 

necessarily represent all borrowing to pay for undergraduate education because they do not take 

into account parental borrowing. Some of the graduates’ parents may have borrowed through the 

federal Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program or privately from banks or 

other sources. 

Additional Enrollment and Borrowing for Graduate Education

Additional postsecondary enrollment may result in increased debt if students take out more 

loans to finance those studies. Additional enrollment may also affect the timing of repaying 

undergraduate loans because students can defer repayment if they enroll at least half time. 

By 2003, the enrollment status of the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients was as follows: 

52 percent had never enrolled in another degree program, 7 percent had enrolled in another 

undergraduate degree program or postbaccalaureate certificate program, and about 41 percent had 

enrolled in a master’s, doctoral, or first-professional degree program (table 3). The likelihood of 

pursuing another degree did not appear to be related to the amount that graduates had borrowed 

for their undergraduate education. The enrollment rates for nonborrowers and borrowers with 

less than $5,000 in loans (about 53 percent in each case) were not measurably different from the 

enrollment rates of graduates who had borrowed larger amounts (51–52 percent). Additional 

enrollment appears to be more closely linked to other factors, such as gender, race/ethnicity, age 

at bachelor’s degree receipt, parents’ education, undergraduate major, and grade point average 

(GPA). However, because some of these factors are related to each other and also to borrowing, 

the effect of undergraduate borrowing on subsequent degree enrollment cannot really be 

examined independently of these other factors. Nevertheless, the finding that undergraduate 

borrowing has little or no effect on graduate enrollment is consistent with other research on this 

cohort using multivariate techniques to control for other factors (Heller 2001). 
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

12 

Table 3.—Percentage distribution of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients’ additional degree enrollment,

Table 3.—by student and institutional characteristics: 2003

No additional Nongraduate Firstdegree degree or Master’s Doctoral professional

Student and institutional characteristics enrollment1 certificate2 degree degree degree

 Total 52.1 7.2 31.2 4.5 5.0

Gender

 Male 54.4 6.3 27.4 5.7 6.2

 Female 50.2 7.9 34.4 3.5 4.0

Race/ethnicity3

 White 53.0 7.0 31.1 4.4 4.5

 Black 46.3 7.5 35.7 5.4 5.1

 Hispanic 48.6 7.9 33.0 5.9 4.6

 Asian/Pacific Islander 49.9 7.5 25.7 3.4 13.4

 Other 49.7 20.4 23.3 3.8 2.8

Parents’ highest education 

 High school graduate or less 58.5 6.6 29.4 2.5 3.1

 Some college 52.9 7.3 32.3 3.3 4.3

 Bachelor’s degree 52.4 7.4 29.7 5.2 5.2

 Advanced degree 43.4 7.4 34.5 7.3 7.4

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent

 Lowest 52.4 7.0 30.0 5.4 5.2

 Low middle 48.9 7.9 32.4 4.8 6.1

 High middle 46.7 5.5 34.4 6.6 6.7

 Highest 43.9 7.1 32.6 7.3 9.1

 Independent 58.2 7.6 29.6 2.3 2.4

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 or younger 49.8 6.7 31.6 5.6 6.2

 25–29 62.2 8.4 25.6 2.0 1.8

 30 or older 55.5 7.8 33.0 1.8 1.9

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 52.9 8.5 29.9 4.4 4.3

 Non-doctorate-granting 54.1 9.6 31.7 2.1 2.5

 Doctorate-granting 52.2 8.0 28.9 5.6 5.3

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 49.4 4.9 33.9 5.2 6.7

 Non-doctorate-granting 52.2 5.7 33.3 4.3 4.4

 Doctorate-granting 45.6 3.7 34.7 6.3 9.7

 Other 61.3 2.7 31.9 1.9 2.3

See notes at end of table.
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

13 

Survey participants who enrolled in graduate and first-professional degree programs were 

asked about borrowing to finance that education.9 Although 1992–93 bachelor’s degree 

recipients would have completed their undergraduate borrowing before the 1992 reauthorization 

of the HEA, their graduate borrowing would have taken place under the new rules. As graduate 

students, they would have been able to take out unsubsidized loans regardless of financial need 

and to borrow up to $18,500 per year in Stafford loans.10 The total allowable outstanding debt for 

Stafford subsidized and unsubsidized loans (graduate and undergraduate) was $138,500. 

 

9 The 7 percent of the cohort members with additional undergraduate degree or postbaccalaureate certificate enrollment were not 

asked about borrowing to support that enrollment.

10 Students in 9-month health professions programs (medical, dental, etc.) may borrow a maximum of $38,500 each year. 

Table 3.—Percentage distribution of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients’ additional degree enrollment,

Table 3.—by student and institutional characteristics: 2003—Continued

No additional Nongraduate Firstdegree degree or Master’s Doctoral professional

Student and institutional characteristics enrollment1 certificate2 degree degree degree

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 68.1 6.0 23.0 0.6 2.3

 Education 40.8 7.5 46.5 3.0 2.3

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 43.6 5.9 29.3 12.9 8.3

 Humanities or social sciences 44.5 8.8 33.8 5.6 7.3

 Other 56.7 7.4 29.4 2.2 4.3

GPA for undergraduate major

 Less than 3.0 63.8 8.8 22.9 2.1 2.6

 3.0 or higher 50.1 6.5 32.9 5.1 5.4

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Did not borrow 52.9 6.6 30.3 4.8 5.4

 Less than $5,000 52.5 8.1 31.6 4.1 3.7

 $5,000–9,999 51.0 7.0 34.0 3.8 4.2

 $10,000–14,999 51.0 9.3 30.0 4.8 4.8

 $15,000 or more 51.9 6.2 32.1 4.6 5.3

1

 No enrollment after the bachelor’s degree earned in 1992–93 or enrollment only in courses not leading to a degree or 

certificate.

2

 Enrolled in a program leading to a technical diploma, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or postbaccalaureate certificate.

3 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Other refers to

American Indian or Alaska Native. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

14 

Forty-five percent of bachelor’s degree recipients who enrolled in graduate or firstprofessional degree programs took out loans to help pay for that education, borrowing an average 

of $33,200 by 2003 (table 4). Borrowing a large amount as an undergraduate does not appear to 

Table 4.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with graduate degree enrollment, percentage who 

Table 4.—borrowed for graduate education and, among borrowers, average amount and percentage 

Table 4.—distribution of amount borrowed for graduate education, by student and institutional 

Table 4.—characteristics: 2003

Percent

who Average Less than $10,000– $15,000– $30,000– $55,000

Student and institutional characteristics borrowed amount $10,000 14,999 29,999 54,999 or more

 Total 44.8 $33,200 23.2 10.3 27.0 20.1 19.4

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 44.4 31,200 25.5 10.2 26.9 19.3 18.1

 Non-doctorate-granting 40.0 25,000 27.3 11.3 32.4 18.3 10.7

 Doctorate-granting 46.5 33,900 24.7 9.7 24.6 19.8 21.2

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 45.9 36,600 20.3 10.3 25.7 21.8 21.8

 Non-doctorate-granting 46.1 31,300 24.8 8.9 27.5 21.6 17.1

 Doctorate-granting 45.7 42,300 15.5 11.8 23.8 22.1 26.8

 Other 41.3 31,900 11.2 11.2 43.2 15.7 18.8

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 34.3 28,700 28.1 7.1 28.9 19.4 16.5

 Education 34.3 23,000 37.4 12.5 25.5 12.9 11.8

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 47.1 47,400 19.1 8.7 19.2 19.7 33.4

 Humanities or social sciences 52.8 32,800 20.0 8.5 31.3 21.5 18.7

 Other 47.4 28,100 21.6 14.3 28.0 22.9 13.2

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Did not borrow 36.0 36,900 19.3 7.7 26.5 22.7 23.9

 Less than $5,000 45.7 30,300 29.7 9.5 28.4 17.3 15.2

 $5,000–9,999 56.3 29,200 28.0 13.0 31.0 12.9 15.1

 $10,000–14,999 54.7 28,700 25.7 16.1 23.6 19.4 15.3

 $15,000 or more 58.4 35,100 18.7 9.9 25.3 24.9 21.3

Highest enrollment after bachelor’s

 degree by 2003

 Master’s degree 37.9 19,900 30.0 13.2 33.5 18.9 4.5

 Doctoral degree 63.1 43,700 18.3 7.6 21.6 21.1 31.5

 First-professional degree 71.8 69,200 4.6 2.6 9.4 23.6 59.9

Highest degree earned by 2003

 Bachelor’s degree 32.3 23,300 36.2 11.6 26.6 14.4 11.4

 Master’s degree 45.4 22,900 23.9 12.6 34.9 22.7 5.9

 Doctoral degree 64.3 44,100 21.4 9.6 14.7 19.1 35.2

 First-professional degree 78.8 75,500 2.0 1.1 8.2 21.6 67.1

NOTE: Graduate includes first-professional. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from 

the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Amount borrowed
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

15 

have prevented additional borrowing for graduate study: those who borrowed $5,000 or more as 

undergraduates were actually more likely to borrow for graduate or first-professional education 

(55–58 percent) than those who borrowed less than $5,000 (46 percent) or not at all (36 percent). 

Among advanced degree completers, those whose highest degree was a master’s were the 

least likely to have borrowed to help pay for their graduate education (45 vs. 64 percent of 

doctoral degree recipients and 79 percent of first-professional recipients). In addition, they had 

borrowed the least (an average of $22,900 vs. $44,100 for doctoral students and $75,500 for firstprofessional students). This pattern reflects the fact that master’s degree programs are typically 

shorter than doctoral or first-professional degree programs and therefore less expensive and also 

that master’s degree students are more likely than others to attend part time (Choy and Cataldi 

2006). Variation in graduate borrowing patterns by undergraduate major reflects, at least in part, 

the types of graduate programs in which they enroll. 

Combined Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing 

Among bachelor’s degree recipients who had enrolled in a graduate degree program by 

2003, some 31 percent did not borrow at either the undergraduate or graduate level (table 5). 

Another 24 percent borrowed only as undergraduates and 18 percent only as graduates; the 

remaining 27 percent borrowed at both levels. Figure 2 shows the pattern by highest degree 

earned by 2003. Students might need to borrow at one level but not the other for a number of 

reasons. For example, the price of attending might differ because of a change in the type of 

institution attended, attendance status, or living arrangements. In addition, financial 

circumstances might change, with support from parents or a spouse available at one level but not 

the other. Finally, the availability of other types of financial aid such as grants or assistantships 

might mitigate the need to borrow at one level but not the other. 

Among those who earned advanced degrees, those who earned master’s degrees were the 

most likely to avoid borrowing at either level (32 percent, compared with 24 percent of those 

with doctoral degrees and 18 percent of those with first-professional degrees) (table 5). Among 

graduate degree earners who borrowed only for graduate education, first-professional degree 

recipients borrowed the most, on average ($73,900), followed by doctoral degree recipients 

($46,600) and then master’s degree recipients ($25,200). First-professional degree completers 

who borrowed at both levels had an average total debt of $88,900. 
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

16 

Table 5.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with graduate degree enrollment, percentage who 

Table 5.—borrowed for undergraduate and graduate education and average amounts, by student and

Table 5.—institutional characteristics: 2003

Average amount borrowed

Under- Undergraduate Graduate graduate Graduate

Student and institutional characteristics Neither only only Both only only Both

 Total 31.4 23.7 17.7 27.2 $9,600 $36,900 $41,700

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 32.6 23.0 19.5 24.9 8,100 36,500 36,900

 Non-doctorate-granting 34.4 25.6 15.9 24.1 7,800 29,100 31,900

 Doctorate-granting 31.7 21.7 21.3 25.2 8,200 39,300 39,300

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 29.7 24.2 15.3 30.8 12,500 37,500 48,900

 Non-doctorate-granting 27.5 26.1 14.5 32.0 12,000 31,500 43,200

 Doctorate-granting 32.1 22.3 16.1 29.5 13,000 43,200 55,500

 Other 26.9 31.8 7.1 34.2 ‡ ‡ 39,600

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 39.6 26.4 13.0 21.1 8,900 33,000 38,800

 Education 34.6 31.0 12.8 21.7 10,100 28,600 30,800

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 29.4 23.3 19.1 28.2 10,000 47,200 57,400

 Humanities or social sciences 28.6 18.4 21.8 31.1 9,600 38,200 40,000

 Other 29.3 23.4 17.8 29.5 9,500 31,000 37,400

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Did not borrow 64.0 † 36.0 † † 36,900 †

 Less than $5,000 † 54.4 † 45.7 2,700 † 32,700

 $5,000–9,999 † 43.7 † 56.3 6,900 † 36,200

 $10,000–14,999 † 45.3 † 54.7 11,300 † 40,200

 $15,000 or more † 41.6 † 58.4 22,400 † 57,700

Highest enrollment after bachelor’s degree by 2003

 Master’s degree 34.3 27.8 13.6 24.3 9,500 22,600 29,000

 Doctoral degree 23.6 13.2 28.3 34.9 10,400 44,300 54,900

 First-professional degree 20.4 7.6 33.6 38.5 ‡ 68,000 82,000

Highest degree earned by 2003

 Bachelor’s degree 35.5 32.0 10.8 21.7 9,500 25,500 32,500

 Master’s degree 31.8 22.8 17.5 27.9 9,500 25,200 32,500

 Doctoral degree 23.7 11.8 31.2 33.3 ‡ 46,600 52,900

 First-professional degree 17.8 3.5 37.6 41.1 ‡ 73,900 88,900

† Not applicable.

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

NOTE: Graduate includes first-professional. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error 

tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Percent who borrowed (by borrowers)
Undergraduate and Graduate Borrowing: All Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

17 

The amounts borrowed by students who had enrolled in a graduate or first-professional 

program but had not earned a degree by 2003 resembled those of students who had earned a 

master’s degree. There were no measurable differences between the two groups in terms of the 

average total amount borrowed, regardless of whether borrowing occurred at the undergraduate 

level only (about $9,500), at the graduate level only ($25,200–25,500), or at both levels (about 

$32,500). 

Figure 2.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with graduate degree enrollment, percentage who 

Figure 2.—borrowed for undergraduate and graduate education, by highest degree earned as of 2003 and 

Figure 2.—level at which borrowed 

1

 Enrolled in a graduate or first-professional degree program but did not complete one.

NOTE: Graduate includes first-professional. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

32

23

12

11

17

31

38

22 28

33 41

3 0

20

40

60

80

100

 Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Firstprofessional

Highest degree earned by 2003

Percent

Both

Graduate only

Undergraduate only

1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
19 

Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate 

Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

This section examines the repayment of undergraduate loans taken out by 1992–93 

bachelor’s degree recipients during the 10-year period following their graduation. To provide 

context for the analysis, the section begins with a discussion of repayment obligations and 

options and interest rates associated with Stafford loans. It then describes the amounts that 

graduates owed and were repaying, their debt burden, and the various strategies that they used to 

manage their debt. The discussion is limited to undergraduate borrowers with no additional 

degree enrollment to avoid complicating the picture with the implications of additional 

borrowing and deferments. 

It is important to keep in mind that the borrowing described in the previous section includes 

borrowing from all sources. The survey questions about repayment, in contrast, refer only to 

education loans; nothing was asked about repayment of loans from family or friends, which is 

more likely to be informal. The focus here is on Stafford loans because most undergraduate 

borrowing takes place through this program, and the information about repayment is most 

accurate for these loans. 

Repayment Obligations and Options for Stafford Loans 

Graduates with Stafford loans who do not immediately attend graduate school normally 

must begin making monthly payments 6 months after they finish college. The standard repayment 

plan gives borrowers 10 years to repay their loans. However, there is a minimum monthly 

payment of $50, which means that borrowers with relatively small loan amounts (less than about 

$4,000) usually need less than 10 years to repay. Borrowers with multiple loans (Stafford or 

other) can consolidate them into a single loan with one lender, even if they were originally from 

different lenders. If desired, the repayment period for a consolidated loan may be extended to as 

long as 30 years, depending on the size of the loan. 

Under the standard 10-year repayment plan, bachelor’s degree recipients graduating 

between July 1992 and June 1993 would have made their last payments sometime during 2003 

(as late as December 2003 if they had graduated in June). Graduates were interviewed between 

February and September of 2003. At the time they were interviewed, borrowers using the 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

20 

standard repayment schedule (and who had loans large enough to require the full 10 years to 

repay) would have either recently finished paying off their loans (if they had graduated early in 

the 1992–93 academic year) or been in the final months of repayment (if they had graduated near 

the end of the period). 

Borrowers who expect to have difficulty making the required payments may be able to 

select an alternative repayment plan, the specifics of which depend on the amount borrowed. 

These alternative plans have lower payments at the beginning, but greater interest charges 

accumulate over the life of the loan. With a graduated repayment plan, borrowers start with 

lower payments that increase gradually, typically every 2 years, over a repayment period ranging 

from 12 to 30 years. Under the income-sensitive repayment plan, payments are based on a 

percentage of gross monthly income and the amount borrowed, but must cover at least the 

interest due. 

Borrowers who are unable to make payments during the repayment period because they 

enroll for further education or face economic hardships may apply for a period of deferment or 

forbearance. The list of circumstances qualifying a borrower for a deferment has expanded over 

time, and not all the graduates in this analysis would have had exactly the same opportunities to 

defer payments. In general, borrowers could obtain a deferment for reasons such as enrolling at 

least half time in postsecondary education, participating in a medical internship or residency 

program (for a limited time), enrolling in a rehabilitation program for the disabled, being on 

active military duty or in the U.S. Public Health Service, serving in the Peace Corps or 

comparable volunteer service, being unemployed or unable to work due to disability, or caring 

for a disabled dependent or newborn child. Borrowers with approved deferments are not required 

to make payments; interest accrues, but in the case of subsidized loans is paid by the government. 

Borrowers who are unable to make payments but do not qualify for a deferment may 

request a period of forbearance, during which payments are temporarily postponed or reduced. 

Interest accrues at the out-of-school rate and is paid by the borrower, which makes forbearance 

less attractive than deferment. The amount of time to repay the loan is often extended, but 

interest is capitalized, increasing the loan balance. Forbearance may be granted for reasons such 

as having poor health, participating in a medical or dental internship or residency after the 

allowed deferment period is over, and having payment obligations that exceed 20 percent of 

monthly gross income. 

A borrower who does not make any payments for 270 days and has not been granted a 

deferment or forbearance is considered to have defaulted on the loan. At that point, the entire 

balance becomes due, and the borrower faces severe consequences, including credit problems 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

21 

and the loss of eligibility for any additional student financial aid. Under most circumstances, 

filing for bankruptcy does not discharge the obligation to repay federal student loans. Borrowers 

can remove loans from default by starting to make payments again and may be able to 

consolidate their loans to lower their monthly payments. 

Interest Rates on Stafford Loans 

All Stafford loans made to 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients for their undergraduate 

education were subsidized—that is, the government paid the interest during the in-school, grace, 

and deferment periods. Interest rates on Stafford loans are set through legislation and have 

changed over time. Borrowers whose first Stafford loans were made between September 1983 

and June 1988 paid 8 percent interest per year. Any additional loans issued to these borrowers 

while they had any outstanding Stafford loans were also at 8 percent. Borrowers among the 

1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who took 5 years or more to earn their degree may have 

taken out their first loan during this period. These borrowers would have paid an 8 percent 

interest rate on all their Stafford loans throughout the repayment period. 

For those whose first Stafford loans were issued to cover enrollment between July 1988 and 

July 1992 (which is when those who took less than 5 years to finish their degree probably first 

borrowed), interest rates were somewhat more favorable. Borrowers paid 8 percent per year for 

the first 4 years after they entered repayment status; at that time, the interest rates were supposed 

to increase to 10 percent. However, the 10 percent rate was subject to an annual adjustment 

linked to Treasury bill rates, and the actual interest rates have been lower: 6–9 percent up until 

July 2002 and 4–5 percent since then. This is the period during which most of the borrowing by 

this cohort probably took place. 

Any borrowers in this cohort who took out their first loans after October 1992 would have 

had variable interest rates. The rates are adjusted each July and are capped at 8.25 percent. 

Interest rates were at an all-time low in 2004–05 (2.77 percent for borrowers in school or during 

their grace period, and 3.37 percent for those in repayment), but they increased in 2005–06 (to 

4.70 and 5.30 percent, respectively). 

When borrowers consolidate their loans, they obtain a fixed interest rate based on the rates 

charged on the original loans. When interest rates are low, consolidation can result in 

considerable savings for the borrower as well as provide the convenience of having just one 

lender. Costs to the government are greater, however, because of lender subsidies (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 2003). 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

22 

Amounts Still Owed and Being Repaid 

When interviewed in 2003, the Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) participants were asked 

whether they still owed on their undergraduate loans, and if so, how much. They were also asked 

if they were currently making payments, and if so, the size of their monthly payments. However, 

the amounts they reported owing in 2003 tended to be too high when compared with the amounts 

they reported borrowing in the 1994 interview. For example, even though federal loan borrowers 

would have been in repayment for almost 10 years by 2003, about 10 percent of the borrowers 

with no further degree enrollment reported still owing amounts greater than the total amount they 

had reported borrowing in 1994 (sometimes by large amounts). This implies inaccurate reporting 

of either the amounts borrowed or the amounts owed (or possibly both). 

While information on the amounts borrowed and owed were both collected in a telephone 

interview and therefore subject to recall error, the information on borrowing seems more likely to 

be accurate, for two reasons. First, a recent study of the debt burden faced by this cohort a year 

after graduating observed that the reported monthly loan payments were, on average, consistent 

with the reported amounts borrowed (Choy and Li 2005). Second, knowing how much they still 

owed in 2003 would require graduates to know how their loan balances declined as payments 

were made, which they might not have reason to monitor. They would have more reason to be 

familiar with how much they had borrowed, how much they had to pay each month, and when 

they would be finished repaying. Consequently, the amounts graduates reported owing were not 

used in this analysis; instead, the amounts reported borrowed and being repaid, which were 

consistent with each other, were trusted. 

The amounts that graduates still owed can be estimated roughly, however, using a standard 

amortization schedule. For example, a student who graduated in June 1993 and took out $10,000 

in student loans (the average for graduates with no additional degree enrollment) at 8 percent 

would owe a total of $14,559, including interest. Such a student would be required to make 

monthly payments of about $120 per month. By June 2003, the student would have still owed 

about $725. 

Not all graduates would have owed the amount predicted by an amortization schedule, 

however. Some may have chosen to pay off their loans early (to reduce the total interest charges, 

for example); some may have consolidated their loans and extended the repayment period; others 

may have had periods of deferment or forbearance because of financial hardship; and still others 

may have defaulted either temporarily or permanently on their loans. 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

23 

Characteristics of Borrowers Who Still Owed and Were Repaying

When interviewed in 2003, some 74 percent of those who had borrowed for their 

undergraduate education and had not enrolled in an additional degree program had paid off their 

student loans (table 6). This group includes borrowers who had completed repayment in less than 

the standard 10 years because they had borrowed relatively small amounts and were required 

Table 6.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and

Table 6.—borrowed as undergraduates, percentages who owed and were repaying their undergraduate

Table 6.—loans and average and median amounts borrowed, by student and institutional characteristics: 

Table 6.—2003

Percent Percent Average Median

who who were amount amount

Student and institutional characteristics still owed repaying borrowed borrowed

 Total 25.9 22.6 $13,400 $11,600

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 21.6 19.3 11,500 10,000

 Non-doctorate-granting 23.3 19.4 11,400 10,000

 Doctorate-granting 20.6 19.3 11,600 10,000

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 32.6 27.8 15,600 14,000

 Non-doctorate-granting 34.9 28.7 14,700 12,300

 Doctorate-granting 28.5 26.4 17,100 15,000

 Other 40.6 33.3 ‡ ‡

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 23.2 19.8 13,300 11,000

 Education 29.8 27.0 12,900 10,000

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 18.8 16.9 14,000 14,000

 Humanities or social sciences 29.4 24.5 12,300 10,500

 Other 28.6 25.6 14,200 13,000

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 5.4 4.4 3,400 3,000

 $5,000–9,999 21.9 19.7 7,200 7,000

 $10,000–14,999 42.0 36.3 11,400 10,500

 $15,000 or more 42.8 37.7 20,600 18,000

Salary in 2003

 Lowest 33.1 24.4 12,100 10,000

 Low middle 30.0 27.5 14,000 14,000

 High middle 22.1 21.4 13,000 11,400

 Highest 19.4 18.7 14,700 11,500

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Among those repaying
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

24 

to repay a minimum of $50 per month, borrowers who graduated early in the 1992–93 academic 

year and had used up their time to repay, and borrowers who, for reasons of their own, decided to 

pay their loans off early. The other 26 percent still owed on their loans, but, as already indicated, 

an unknown number of them would have finished repaying them by the end of 2003. 

Twenty-three percent of the borrowers who had not enrolled in an additional degree 

program were making payments. Among those with federal loans but not repaying, some may 

have been enrolled in a nondegree postsecondary program and had a deferment for that reason 

(none of the graduates in the analysis sample were ever enrolled in a degree program after 

earning their bachelor’s degree). Others may have had a deferment for hardship reasons, been 

granted forbearance, or been in default or approaching default status. These situations are 

discussed later. 

The percentage of borrowers who still owed increased with the amount they had borrowed: 

5 percent of those who had borrowed less than $5,000 still owed, compared with 22 percent of 

those who had borrowed $5,000–9,999 and about 42 percent of those who had borrowed $10,000 

or more. 

The percentage of borrowers who still owed was also related to the salary they received at 

their current or most recent job, reflecting their capacity to repay. For example, 33 percent among 

those in the lowest income group still owed, compared with 19 percent of those in the highest 

income group. The median amount borrowed was not systematically related to their salaries, 

however, in part because of the loan limits imposed by the program, but also because their 

borrowing decisions were made more than 10 years earlier. Many undergraduates do not have 

well-formulated career plans and would be unable to base those decisions on anticipated salaries 

in 2003. 

The percentage of borrowers who still owed appeared to be related to their undergraduate 

major and type of institution attended. For example, graduates with engineering majors were less 

likely than those with education, humanities, or other majors to still owe by 2003. Similarly, 

graduates of public 4-year institutions were less likely to still owe than their counterparts from 

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. However, these relationships are most likely attributable 

to differences in salaries (in the case of majors) and in amounts borrowed (in the case of the type 

of institution). 

Borrowers Still Repaying Compared With Those Who No Longer Owed 

Of interest is whether there are any important differences between graduates who were still 

paying off their student loans and those who no longer owed. Borrowers who were free of 

education debt in 2003 were about 10 times as likely as those still repaying their loans to have 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

25 

borrowed less than $4,000 (2 vs. 28 percent) (table 7). This reflects the fact that those who had 

borrowed less than about $4,000 would have normally been required to repay their loans within 

the study period. 

Table 7.—By debt status, student and institutional characteristics of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients 

Table 7.—who borrowed as undergraduates and had no additional degree enrollment: 2003

Still owed and No longer

Student and institutional characteristics Total repaying owed

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 48.7 44.6 50.4

 Female 51.3 55.4 49.6

Race/ethnicity1

 White 82.9 80.1 85.4

 Black 6.7 10.4 4.3

 Hispanic 6.1 5.6 6.4

 Asian/Pacific Islander 3.6 3.1 3.4

 Other 0.7 0.8 0.5

Parents’ highest education 

 High school graduate or less 39.5 46.1 37.3

 Some college 20.6 20.1 20.9

 Bachelor’s degree 22.0 17.8 22.5

 Advanced degree 17.9 16.0 19.3

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent

 Lowest 18.9 23.6 17.2

 Low middle 12.8 9.1 14.4

 High middle 9.7 8.5 10.6

 Highest 6.3 3.3 7.5

 Independent 52.4 55.6 50.4

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 or younger 63.5 61.1 64.9

 25–29 18.5 17.8 18.1

 30 or older 18.0 21.2 16.9

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 63.2 54.4 67.3

 Non-doctorate-granting 24.2 20.7 25.0

 Doctorate-granting 39.0 33.6 42.3

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 32.7 39.9 29.6

 Non-doctorate-granting 20.4 26.1 18.1

 Doctorate-granting 12.4 13.8 11.5

 Other 4.1 5.8 3.1

See notes at end of table.
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

26 

Table 7.—By debt status, student and institutional characteristics of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients 

Table 7.—who borrowed as undergraduates and had no additional degree enrollment: 2003—Continued 

Still owed and No longer

Student and institutional characteristics Total repaying owed

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 26.8 23.6 27.9

 Education 11.8 14.2 11.3

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 15.9 11.7 17.2

 Humanities or social sciences 17.8 19.4 17.1

 Other 27.8 31.2 26.6

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 29.6 5.8 37.9

 $5,000–9,999 26.5 23.6 28.4

 $10,000–14,999 20.6 32.8 16.1

 $15,000 or more 23.3 37.8 17.7

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $4,000 21.3 2.4 28.1

 $4,000 or more 78.7 97.7 71.9

Current employment status

 Employed 87.5 92.5 86.5

 Not employed 12.5 7.5 13.5

Marital status in 2003

 Married or cohabiting 73.5 71.1 74.5

 Not married 26.5 28.9 25.5

Number of dependent children under age 18 in household in 2003

 None 45.3 46.4 46.0

 One or more 54.7 53.6 54.0

Median annual salary

 1994 $21,500 $19,800 $22,000

 1997 30,000 28,500 31,100

 2003 49,900 44,600 50,000

Average annual salary

 1994 24,200 21,600 25,300

 1997 34,900 31,500 35,900

 2003 56,600 50,700 58,900

1 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Other refers to

American Indian or Alaska Native. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

27 

Debt-free borrowers had higher average salaries at each follow-up (1994, 1997, and 2003) 

than those who were still repaying their loans (figure 3 and table 7). Those with higher incomes 

may have had less need to request hardship deferments or forbearance (and thus stretch out the 

repayment period), or they may have simply decided to pay off their loans early because they 

could afford to do so. Debt-free borrowers were more likely than those who still owed to have 

graduated from a public institution, which would have been related to the amount borrowed. 

Although debt status in 2003 is most directly related to the amount borrowed and current 

income, variation by demographic characteristics exists. For example, those who were still 

repaying their loans in 2003 were more likely than those who were debt free by then to be 

female, Black, and from the lowest income families, and to have parents who did not go to 

college. Without a multivariate analysis to control for the amount borrowed and current income, 

it is impossible to know if these characteristics had independent effects. 

There were no statistically significant differences in family status between those still 

repaying their loans and those who were debt free: 71 percent of those still repaying their loans 

were married or cohabiting, compared with 74 percent of those who no longer owed, and 54 

percent of each group had children under age 18. 

Figure 3.—Average salary of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree 

Figure 3.—enrollment and borrowed as undergraduates, by 2003 debt status: 1994, 1997, and 2003

Table 7.—

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

21,600

31,500

50,700

25,300

35,900

58,900

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

 1994 1997 2003

Average salary

Still owed and repaying No longer owed

$
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

28 

Type of Payment Plan 

Graduates who were repaying student loans in 2003 were asked what type of repayment 

option they were using. (The questions referred to repayment of student loans only, not family 

loans.) Among graduates who had no further degree enrollment and still owed money, 88 percent 

were repaying their loans and 12 percent were not making payments (table 8).11 

At each level of borrowing, at least 85 percent were repaying their loans. However, low 

income was associated with a lower percentage making payments: a lower percentage of 

graduates in the lowest income group in 2003 (which includes those with no income) were 

making payments (74 percent) than of those with higher incomes (93–97 percent). 

Among those in repayment, most (89 percent) were on the standard repayment schedule. 

Another 5 percent were using an extended payment plan, 4 percent were in a graduated 

repayment option, and 2 percent were making income-sensitive payments. Those with the lowest 

salaries in 2003 were more likely than their peers in the highest salary group to have been using 

one of the alternative repayment options (17 vs. 6 percent). 

 

11 Reasons why some may not have been making payments were discussed earlier. 

Table 8.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and still

Table 8.—owed undergraduate loans, percentage repaying loans and, among those repaying, percentage

Table 8.—distribution of repayment plans, by amount borrowed and salary: 2003

Percent

repaying IncomeAmount borrowed and salary loans Standard Graduated sensitive Extended

 Total 88.0 88.9 3.8 2.1 5.2

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 85.4 87.8 2.1 # 10.1

 $5,000–9,999 90.0 91.6 3.7 3.3 1.4

 $10,000–14,999 85.8 89.5 4.1 0.8 5.6

 $15,000 or more 89.2 87.0 3.8 2.8 6.4

Salary in 2003

 Lowest 74.5 82.6 5.7 4.3 7.3

 Low middle 92.9 89.5 1.8 2.9 5.9

 High middle 96.1 91.6 3.3 0.5 4.6

 Highest 97.4 94.2 3.9 # 1.9

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Repayment plan
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

29 

For comparison, among all Federal Direct Loan Program repayers in March 1997 (not just 

bachelor’s degree recipients), 80 percent had selected the standard repayment plan (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 1997). While these data are not directly comparable because they are limited 

to the Direct Loan Program and refer to a different time period, they suggest that bachelor’s 

degree recipients without any further degree enrollment (i.e., the population shown in table 8) 

may be more likely than average to select the standard repayment plan. 

Scherschel (1998) suggests several reasons why most borrowers have used the standard 

repayment plan: (1) the total amount paid is less than it would be under a graduated or incomesensitive repayment plan because of lower total interest charges over the life of the loans; (2) it is 

less complicated; (3) the flexible terms offered by alternative plans have not been needed given 

the amounts borrowed; and (4) borrowers have been unaware of the options.12

Size of Payments 

Among those making loan payments, the average payment was $150 per month, and the 

median was $130 (table 9). The average payment for a graduate who had borrowed less than 

 

12 The income-sensitive repayment plan did not become widely available until the mid-1990s; the graduated payment option has 

been available for years, but lenders were not always required to inform borrowers of this option.

Table 9.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and were 

Table 9.—repaying undergraduate loans, average monthly payment amount and percentage distribution of 

Table 9.—monthly payments, by amount borrowed and salary: 2003

Average Median

payment payment Less than $100– $150– $200– $250

Amount borrowed and salary amount amount $100 149 199 249 or more

 Total $150 $130 27.4 30.4 17.2 13.9 11.1

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 100 60 69.8 14.0 2.7 4.6 8.8

 $5,000–9,999 100 100 52.4 28.0 12.2 4.2 3.3

 $10,000–14,999 140 130 20.2 44.2 19.7 10.9 5.1

 $15,000 or more 200 180 11.3 22.7 20.5 24.0 21.6

Salary in 2003

 Lowest 130 120 33.7 31.8 13.4 13.3 7.8

 Low middle 160 150 24.4 21.3 19.4 25.3 9.6

 High middle 160 140 29.4 31.1 20.2 4.9 14.3

 Highest 150 120 20.0 41.4 15.5 10.6 12.5

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Amount of monthly payment
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

30 

$5,000 was $100 (median, $60), and for one who had borrowed more than $15,000, it was $200 

(median, $180). 

Debt Burden 

Understanding the burden imposed by making loan payments requires examining the 

payments in relation to the capacity to repay. Employment status and income are two important 

factors, as are other financial obligations (such as dependents) and other financial resources (such 

as a spouse’s salary or savings). 

Employment Status and Salary in 2003 

Among all bachelor’s degree recipients with no further degree enrollment (borrowers and 

nonborrowers combined), 86 percent were employed, 4 percent were unemployed, and 10 percent 

were out of the labor force in 2003 (table 10). The average salary was $58,000, ranging from 

$56,400 to $60,300 across borrowing levels, with no measurable differences among levels. 

Graduates who were repaying their loans in 2003 were more likely than those not repaying 

at that time to be employed (93 vs. 85 percent). Five percent of those repaying their loans were 

out of the labor force, and another 3 percent were unemployed. Presumably, these graduates had 

other financial resources, such as savings or help from a spouse, partner, or other family member. 

Salary History 

A comparison of salaries in 2003 with earlier salaries (in 1994 and 1997) shows that many 

graduates’ financial circumstances relative to others in their cohort changed over time. For 

example, of those in the lowest or highest salary group in 1994 (when they began repaying their 

loans), just 41 percent were still in the same group in 2003 (table 11). Similarly, among those in 

the highest income group in 1997, just about half (53 percent) were still in that group in 2003. 

While these percentages themselves are not very important—a small difference could easily 

move an individual from one category to the next—the overall pattern serves as a reminder that 

when borrowing decisions must be made, it is difficult to predict one’s financial circumstances at 

the time of repayment. 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

31 

Payments Relative to Income 

Debt burden is defined here as a borrower’s monthly loan payment divided by monthly 

salary income (using the April 2003 salary or salary from the most recent job). Thus, by 

definition, debt burden increases as the amount borrowed (and thus monthly payment) increases, 

and it decreases as salary increases. Because monthly payments are fixed throughout the 

repayment period but income generally rose over time, debt burden declined over time. Earlier 

studies of this cohort of bachelor’s degree recipients found a median debt burden of 6.7 percent 

in 1994 and 4.8 percent in 1997 (Choy 2000; Choy and Li 2005). 

Table 10.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment, 

Table 10.—percentage distribution of employment status and, among those employed, average and median

Table 10.—annual salaries, by selected student characteristics: 2003

Average Median

Out of the annual annual

Student characteristics Employed Unemployed labor force salary salary

 Total 85.8 4.1 10.1 $58,000 $50,000

Gender

 Male 94.9 3.9 1.2 68,200 59,500

 Female 77.7 4.3 18.1 46,900 42,000

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Did not borrow 83.8 4.4 11.8 57,700 50,300

 Less than $5,000 85.0 3.8 11.2 58,900 50,000

 $5,000–9,999 89.3 3.6 7.1 57,800 49,600

 $10,000–14,999 85.9 6.3 7.9 56,400 48,900

 $15,000 or more 90.0 2.2 7.8 60,300 53,500

Undergraduate debt status

 No longer owed 84.9 4.3 10.8 59,100 51,000

 Still owed 89.7 3.7 6.6 49,700 42,600

Payment status

 Not making payments 84.6 4.4 11.0 58,700 50,300

 Making payments 92.7 2.7 4.6 51,800 45,000

Salary in 2003

 Lowest 76.8 5.3 17.9 24,100 25,700

 Low middle 89.9 2.9 7.2 40,700 40,000

 High middle 92.6 3.4 4.0 56,600 56,800

 Highest 93.6 4.1 2.3 100,800 84,000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Employment status in 2003 Among employed
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

32 

The median debt burden in 2003 for those still repaying loans was 3.3 percent (table 12). 

About 11 percent exceeded the 8 percent benchmark generally considered reasonable (Scherschel 

1998) (figure 4 and table 12). For graduates who had borrowed the largest amounts ($15,000 or 

more), the median debt burden was 4.5 percent. For graduates in the lowest income group, the 

median debt burden was 6.0 percent. Among those whose debt burdens had been more than 12 

percent in 1994 or 1997, the median debt burden was 5 percent in 2003. 

Student Debt and Marriage 

During the 10-year period after graduation, many bachelor’s degree recipients marry and 

start families, and the effect of these changes on debt burden varies. For some graduates, 

marriage brings additional income and financial help in repaying loans; for others, it brings a 

nonworking spouse and/or dependents and increases the financial stress of student loans. For still 

others—such as those whose spouses also have student loans—it may bring additional debt. 

Table 11.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and 

Table 11.—were repaying loans, percentage distribution of 2003 salary, by earlier salaries

Salary Lowest Lower middle Upper middle Highest

 Total 28.0 26.9 23.7 21.4

Salary in 1994

 Lowest 40.5 31.1 17.7 10.8

 Low middle 42.6 32.4 15.9 9.1

 High middle 22.4 26.7 29.5 21.4

 Highest 9.6 21.0 28.0 41.4

Salary in 1997

 Lowest 59.8 25.6 6.5 8.1

 Low middle 28.7 44.4 20.3 6.6

 High middle 8.6 24.5 42.8 24.1

 Highest 9.1 3.5 34.2 53.1

NOTE: Lowest includes zero. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states,

DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Salary in 2003
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

33 

Table 12.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and were

Table 12.—repaying undergraduate loans, average and median debt burden and percentage distribution of 

Table 12.—debt burden, by selected student characteristics: 2003

Average Median

debt debt Less than 5–8 9–12 More than

Student characteristics burden1 burden 5 percent percent percent 12 percent

 Total 4.5 3.3 63.1 25.7 8.2 3.0

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 3.2 1.4 79.4 14.6 1.6 4.4

 $5,000–9,999 3.8 2.2 75.6 17.3 3.8 3.3

 $10,000–14,999 4.2 3.2 67.2 24.6 5.6 2.7

 $15,000 or more 5.4 4.5 48.6 33.9 14.5 3.0

Monthly loan payment in 2003

 Less than $100 2.5 1.9 95.9 2.3 # 1.8

 $100–149 3.6 3.0 76.0 20.8 2.0 1.2

 $150–199 4.7 4.3 51.4 42.9 4.1 1.8

 $200–249 6.7 6.1 20.9 50.5 25.7 3.0

 $250 or more 9.0 7.7 14.2 40.6 31.7 13.5

Salary in 2003

 Lowest 7.0 6.0 37.2 38.0 15.0 9.9

 Low middle 4.8 4.4 48.4 40.7 9.7 1.2

 High middle 3.3 2.8 81.9 12.9 5.2 #

 Highest 2.1 1.8 94.7 4.3 0.9 #

Debt burden in 19941

 Not making repayments 4.8 3.8 57.3 35.1 2.6 5.0

 Less than 5 percent 2.9 2.1 80.4 13.9 5.7 #

 5–8 percent 3.9 2.7 79.9 15.0 1.7 3.4

 9–12 percent 4.9 3.9 59.3 18.1 20.3 2.3

 More than 12 percent 5.5 4.6 49.4 33.8 14.4 2.4

Debt burden in 19971

 Not making repayments 4.6 3.4 61.8 26.6 7.0 4.6

 Less than 5 percent 3.5 2.4 77.6 11.5 9.1 1.7

 5–8 percent 4.1 3.8 60.8 33.6 5.6 #

 9–12 percent 5.7 4.6 43.0 49.3 4.1 3.6

 More than 12 percent 6.3 5.0 48.3 26.3 18.3 7.1

# Rounds to zero.

1

 Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Debt burden
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

34 

Among those who had no further degree enrollment and in 2003 were repaying 

undergraduate student loans, 70 percent were married or cohabiting (table 13). Among those who 

were married or cohabiting, a minority (37 percent) had a spouse/partner who had also taken out 

student loans for either undergraduate or graduate education. When both had borrowed, the 

average total amount borrowed was $37,400, and their average monthly payment in 2003 was 

$300. Their average annual income was $100,700. 

The majority of married or cohabiting students who were repaying student loans (63 

percent) did not have a spouse or partner with debt. For these students, the average monthly 

payment was $150 (i.e., about half the size of the payment when both had debt), but household 

income averaged $97,100, which was not measurably lower than the income of households in 

which both had debt. 

Figure 4.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and 

Figure 4.—were repaying undergraduate loans, percentage distribution by debt burden: 2003

NOTE: Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income. Estimates include students from the 50 

states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

12 percent or more

(3%) 9–12 percent

(8%)

5–8 percent

(26%)

Less than 5 percent 

(63%)
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

35 

Managing Stafford Loan Repayment 

The National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) contains information on all loans taken 

out through the Stafford loan program, the major source of loans for undergraduate education. 

Information from the NSLDS was merged with the B&B interview data to examine how the 

1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients managed their Stafford loan debt, including their use of 

consolidation, deferment, forbearance, and default. 

Stafford Loan Borrowing 

In the B&B interview, 51 percent of graduates with no additional degree enrollment 

reported having borrowed for their undergraduate education (table 14); according to the NSLDS, 

39 percent took out Stafford loans. The rest, then, borrowed only from other sources, such as 

banks, family, or friends. Among those with Stafford loans, the average amount was $7,800, 

about three-quarters of the average amount borrowed from all sources ($10,000). As with 

borrowing from all sources, graduates of private not-for-profit institutions did more borrowing 

through the Stafford loan program than graduates of public institutions (in terms of both the 

percentage who borrowed and the average amount). 

Table 13.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and

Table 13.—were repaying undergraduate loans, percentage who were married or cohabiting and, among 

Table 13.—those married or cohabiting, spouse/partner loan status, average household amount borrowed,

Table 13.—monthly payment, and annual income, by salary characteristics: 2003 

Percent Percent

spouse/ spouse/

Percent partner partner

Student married or had Amount Monthly Annual had no Amount Monthly Annual

characteristics cohabiting loans borrowed payment income loans borrowed payment income

 Total 70.5 37.1 $37,400 $300 $100,700 62.9 $13,900 $150 $97,100

Salary in 2003

 Lowest 62.9 34.1 ‡ ‡ ‡ 65.9 13,100 140 66,200

 Low middle 70.3 35.2 ‡ ‡ ‡ 64.8 14,200 160 80,600

 High middle 80.2 37.6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 62.4 14,200 170 107,900

 Highest 68.0 39.7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 60.3 14,100 130 130,700

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Married or cohabiting

average household average household

If spouse/partner had loans, If spouse/partner had no loans,
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

36 

Table 14.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment,

Table 14.—percentage who took out loans and average amounts, by type of loan and student and 

Table 14.—institutional characteristics: 2003

Student and institutional Average Average Less than $5,000– $10,000– $15,000

characteristics Percent amount Percent amount $5,000 9,999 14,999 or more

 Total 50.8 $10,000 38.8 $7,800 37.2 30.4 23.4 9.1

Gender

 Male 52.5 10,200 39.5 7,700 38.0 31.1 23.1 7.8

 Female 49.2 9,800 38.2 8,000 36.3 29.8 23.7 10.2

Race/ethnicity2

 White 49.7 10,300 37.6 7,900 35.7 32.7 22.6 9.0

 Black 64.2 8,800 53.2 8,300 37.5 26.3 24.4 11.9

 Hispanic 65.0 7,900 51.1 6,600 53.6 16.3 25.0 5.1

 Asian/Pacific Islander 40.5 10,200 31.4 8,800 38.3 17.2 30.4 14.0

 Other ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent

 Lowest 65.5 10,200 55.7 7,700 37.2 28.8 25.8 8.2

 Low middle 44.3 9,300 31.8 7,000 43.4 27.4 27.0 2.2

 High middle 37.0 9,500 25.3 6,600 47.9 29.5 19.4 3.3

 Highest 25.9 12,800 13.2 6,300 42.8 39.2 14.8 3.3

 Independent 59.1 9,900 46.7 8,400 33.7 30.9 23.0 12.4

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 48.4 8,600 34.5 6,900 45.3 29.6 17.1 8.0

 Non-doctorate-granting 50.9 7,800 36.6 6,300 50.2 28.4 16.3 5.1

 Doctorate-granting 47.0 9,100 33.3 7,200 42.2 30.4 17.7 9.8

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 55.9 12,500 47.1 9,100 25.4 31.7 32.7 10.3

 Non-doctorate-granting 58.4 11,200 50.0 9,100 28.3 30.5 28.7 12.5

 Doctorate-granting 52.3 14,600 42.8 9,100 20.3 33.7 39.6 6.3

 Other 51.5 12,200 48.8 10,200 26.6 29.9 30.5 13.0

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 100.0 2,600 65.3 3,000 93.8 4.5 1.4 0.3

 $5,000–9,999 100.0 6,800 76.8 6,200 32.2 62.8 4.9 0.2

 $10,000–14,999 100.0 11,500 87.1 10,300 8.8 29.9 55.2 6.1

 $15,000 or more 100.0 21,800 77.9 12,800 8.8 21.1 37.7 32.4

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1

 Including those who had borrowed through the Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS) program (0.5 percent), either with or 

without Stafford loans.

2 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. Other refers to

American Indian or Alaska Native. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

All loans Stafford loans1 Stafford loan amount
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

37 

Reflecting the need-based character of the program at the time this cohort borrowed for 

undergraduate education, the percentage who had taken out Stafford loans declined as family 

income increased for dependent students (from 56 percent of those in the lowest income category 

to 13 percent of those in the highest income category).13 Those from the lowest income families 

had taken out more in Stafford loans, on average, than those in the highest income group ($7,700 

vs. $6,300). 

Independent students were less likely than dependent students from the lowest income 

families to take out Stafford loans (47 vs. 56 percent), but there was no statistically significant 

difference between the two groups in the average amounts borrowed ($8,400 and $7,700, 

respectively). Compared with dependent students at other income levels, independent students 

were more likely to take out Stafford loans and to borrow more, on average. 

Consolidation of Stafford Loans 

As indicated earlier, borrowers can consolidate loans for convenience, to obtain a fixed 

interest rate, or to extend the repayment period. While extending the repayment period lowers 

monthly payments, it increases total interest charges.14 Twelve percent of borrowers had 

consolidated at least some of their Stafford loans by 2003 (table 15). Among those who had 

consolidated any loans, 36 percent had consolidated all of them. 

Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with undergraduate Stafford loans and no 

further degree enrollment, consolidation was related to borrowing large amounts and low 

income. Stafford loan consolidators had borrowed roughly twice as much, on average, as those 

who had not consolidated any of their loans ($13,000 vs. $7,100). The percentage who had 

consolidated any Stafford loans ranged from 2 percent among those who had borrowed less than 

$5,000 to 38 percent for those who had borrowed $15,000 or more (figure 5 and table 15). 

Borrowers with annual salaries in the lowest and lower middle groups in 1994 (when they were 

starting to repay their loans) were more likely than their counterparts with higher salaries at that 

time to have consolidated Stafford loans (17–21 percent vs. 8–9 percent). 

Consolidation was also related to other indicators of financial stress. For example, when 

their 1994 debt burden (which is related to both the amount borrowed and income) was more 

than 8 percent, 15–20 percent of borrowers consolidated. Finally, those who had ever deferred, 

had any periods of forbearance, or had ever defaulted were much more likely to have 

 

13 The apparent difference between the two middle-income groups was not statistically significant.

14 Low interest rates have provided current borrowers with an additional incentive to consolidate: to lock in a low fixed rate. 

However, the 1992–93 graduates did not have these low rates.
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

38 

Table 15.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and took

Table 15.—out Stafford loans, percentage who consolidated loans, average amount consolidated, and average

Table 15.—Stafford loan amount, by selected student characteristics: 2003

Average

amount

Any If any, consoli- If any If none 

Student characteristics loans all loans dated consolidated consolidated

 Total 12.0 35.8 $10,900 $13,000 $7,100

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 1.9 ‡ ‡ ‡ 2,800

 $5,000–9,999 9.3 17.0 7,400 8,200 7,400

 $10,000–14,999 21.4 27.5 10,800 12,300 12,200

 $15,000 or more 38.5 57.8 15,400 19,700 17,800

Salary in 1994

 Lowest 20.7 33.3 11,100 13,300 6,700

 Low middle 16.6 22.5 10,300 11,200 6,700

 High middle 8.1 30.1 10,800 12,900 7,100

 Highest 8.7 61.3 11,000 14,500 7,600

Debt burden in 19941

 Not making repayments 15.7 21.7 12,500 13,300 4,700

 Less than 5 percent 4.5 ‡ ‡ ‡ 5,000

 5–8 percent 8.8 43.4 9,700 12,100 7,800

 9–12 percent 15.4 ‡ ‡ ‡ 9,900

 More than 12 percent 19.9 31.7 11,300 12,500 10,300

Stafford loan deferments by 2003

 Any deferments 42.4 32.7 11,000 12,200 9,500

 No deferments 10.3 36.5 10,800 13,200 7,100

Stafford loan forbearances by 2003

 Ever in forbearance 38.9 24.5 12,300 13,900 9,800

 Never in forbearance 8.3 43.2 9,900 12,400 6,900

Stafford loan defaults by 2003

 Ever defaulted 41.4 39.3 11,500 13,700 7,400

 Never defaulted 8.9 34.0 10,500 12,600 7,100

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1

 Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Average (consolidated and

unconsolidated) Stafford

Stafford loans

Percent consolidating

 loan amount
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

39 

Figure 5.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and took

Figure 5.—out Stafford loans, percentage who consolidated loans, deferred payment, had periods of 

Figure 5.—forbearance, or defaulted as of 2003

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Consolidated

9

8

17

21

38

21

9

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

 Highest

 High middle

 Low middle

 Lowest

 $15,000 or more

 $10,000–14,999

 $5,000–9,999

 Less than $5,000

Percent

Total amount borrowed 

(undergraduate)

Salary in 1994

Deferred payment

4

4

7

10

13

8

5

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

 Highest

 High middle

 Low middle

 Lowest

 $15,000 or more

 $10,000–14,999

 $5,000–9,999

 Less than $5,000

Percent

Total amount borrowed 

(undergraduate)

Salary in 1994

Had period of forbearance

8

10

17

20

26

21

11

5

0 10 20 30 40 50

 Highest

 High middle

 Low middle

 Lowest

 $15,000 or more

 $10,000–14,999

 $5,000–9,999

 Less than $5,000

Percent

Total amount borrowed 

(undergraduate)

Salary in 1994

Defaulted

4

8

12

17

20

12

8

7

0 10 20 30 40 50

 Highest

 High middle

 Low middle

 Lowest

 $15,000 or more

 $10,000–14,999

 $5,000–9,999

 Less than $5,000

Percent

Total amount borrowed 

(undergraduate)

Salary in 1994
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

40 

consolidated loans than those who had not been in these positions (39–42 percent vs. 8–10 

percent). 

Stafford Loan Deferments 

Because this analysis is limited to bachelor’s degree recipients with no further degree 

enrollment, the deferments reported here would have been granted for one or more of the reasons 

described earlier other than graduate enrollment, such as military service or disability. Among 

1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with Stafford undergraduate loans and no further degree 

enrollment, deferments were relatively rare: 5 percent had ever deferred their loan payments, 

typically deferring for the first time about 4 years after they had graduated (table 16). 

Deferment was related to borrowing large amounts. Graduates who had ever deferred their 

loan payments had borrowed more, on average, than their peers who had not deferred ($10,600 

vs. $7,700). Those with loans of $15,000 or more were about four times as likely as those who 

had borrowed less than $5,000 to have deferred (13 vs. 3 percent) (figure 5 and table 16). Low 

salaries in the early years after graduation were also a factor: 10 percent of those with the lowest 

salaries in 1994 had deferred, compared with 4 percent of those who were in the high-middle or 

highest salary groups at that time. Deferment was also related to forbearance: 19 percent of those 

who had ever been in forbearance had also deferred, compared with 4 percent of those who had 

never been in forbearance. 

Stafford Loan Forbearance 

Forbearance is an option when a borrower is unable to make payments but does not qualify 

for a deferment. As was true for deferment, forbearance was related to high levels of borrowing 

and low income. Among bachelor’s degree recipients with Stafford loans and no additional 

degree enrollment, forbearance was more common than deferment (12 vs. 5 percent), most likely 

because deferment is permitted only if specific conditions are met (tables 17 and 16). On 

average, the first period of forbearance occurred about 5 years after graduation (table 17). 

Graduates with any periods of forbearance had borrowed more, on average, than their 

counterparts with none ($11,400 vs. $7,400). Graduates whose undergraduate Stafford loans 

totaled $10,000 or more were more likely than those who had borrowed less to have been in 

forbearance (21–26 vs. 5–11 percent) (figure 5 and table 17). Those in the lowest and low-middle 

salary ranges in 1994 were more likely than their counterparts at higher salary levels to have had 

a period of forbearance (17–20 vs. 8–10 percent). 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

41 

Among those with a debt burden of 9–12 percent or more than 12 percent in 1994, about 18 

percent had been in forbearance at some point. Those who had ever deferred repayment or 

defaulted on loans were more likely than their peers who had not done either to have had a period 

of forbearance on loans (25–43 vs. 10–11 percent). 

Table 16.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and took

Table 16.—out Stafford loans, percentage who ever deferred on those loans, average length of time until the

Table 16.—first deferment, and average Stafford loan amount, by selected student characteristics: 2003

Percent who Average number

ever deferred of years from

Stafford loan bachelor’s degree

Student characteristics repayment to first deferment If deferred If did not defer

 Total 5.5 3.9 $10,600 $7,700

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 3.1 ‡ ‡ 2,800

 $5,000–9,999 4.6 ‡ ‡ 7,500

 $10,000–14,999 7.6 4.4 12,100 12,200

 $15,000 or more 12.9 ‡ ‡ 18,500

 

Salary in 1994

 Lowest 10.1 3.6 11,500 7,700

 Low middle 7.2 ‡ ‡ 7,200

 High middle 3.8 ‡ ‡ 7,500

 Highest 4.1 ‡ ‡ 8,100

Debt burden in 19941

 Not making repayments 7.8 ‡ ‡ 5,500

 Less than 5 percent 4.4 ‡ ‡ 5,000

 5–8 percent 3.7 ‡ ‡ 8,100

 9–12 percent 7.1 ‡ ‡ 10,400

 More than 12 percent 4.5 ‡ ‡ 10,700

Stafford loan forbearances by 2003

 Ever in forbearance 19.4 4.3 12,000 11,200

 Never in forbearance 3.6 3.6 9,600 7,300

Stafford loan defaults by 2003

 Ever defaulted 11.7 ‡ ‡ 9,800

 Never defaulted 4.8 3.8 10,400 7,500

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1

 Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Average Stafford loan amount
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

42 

Stafford Loan Defaults 

As indicated earlier, default occurs when a borrower does not make any payments for 9 

months. Among bachelor’s degree recipients with Stafford undergraduate loans and no further 

degree enrollment, 10 percent had defaulted at least once (table 18). However, 45 percent of 

Table 17.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and took

Table 17.—out Stafford loans, percentage who had any periods of forbearance, average length of time until

Table 17.—the first period, and average amount of loans, by selected student characteristics: 2003

Average number

Percent of years from

with any bachelor’s degree

Student characteristics forbearance to first forbearance If forbearance If no forbearance

 Total 12.3 4.8 $11,400 $7,400

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 4.7 ‡ ‡ 2,800

 $5,000–9,999 10.8 4.7 7,900 7,400

 $10,000–14,999 20.9 4.8 12,500 12,200

 $15,000 or more 25.9 5.2 19,800 18,100

 

Salary in 1994

 Lowest 19.7 4.5 11,000 7,300

 Low middle 17.4 4.4 11,300 6,600

 High middle 9.9 5.5 10,600 7,200

 Highest 7.5 5.1 13,100 7,800

Debt burden in 19941

 Not making repayments 11.7 ‡ ‡ 5,000

 Less than 5 percent 4.3 ‡ ‡ 5,000

 5–8 percent 11.4 4.8 9,300 8,000

 9–12 percent 18.0 4.2 11,900 10,400

 More than 12 percent 18.9 4.3 13,800 10,000

Stafford loan deferments by 2003

 Any deferments 43.3 5.0 12,000 9,600

 No deferments 10.5 4.7 11,200 7,300

Stafford loan defaults by 2003

 Ever defaulted 25.0 4.7 13,000 9,000

 Never defaulted 10.9 4.8 10,900 7,200

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1

 Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Average Stafford loan amount
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

43 

those who had defaulted later re-entered repayment. Graduates who defaulted had borrowed 

more, on average, than those who did not default ($10,000 vs. $7,600). 

As with other repayment difficulties, large loans were associated with default: 20 percent of 

borrowers with $15,000 or more in Stafford loans defaulted at some point, compared with 7–8 

Table 18.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and

Table 18.—took out Stafford loans, percentage who ever defaulted, average length of time until the first 

Table 18.—default, percentage who re-entered repayment, and average amount of loans, by selected student 

Table 18.—characteristics: 2003

Average number Percent of

Percent of years from defaulters who

 who ever bachelor’s degree ever re-entered If did

Student characteristics defaulted to first default repayment If defaulted not default

 Total 9.7 3.9 44.5 $10,000 $7,600

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 7.0 3.2 65.5 2,700 2,800

 $5,000–9,999 8.1 3.8 30.0 7,500 7,500

 $10,000–14,999 12.5 4.6 46.1 11,800 12,300

 $15,000 or more 19.7 4.2 31.4 21,100 17,900

Salary in 1994

 Lowest 17.4 5.0 22.7 9,000 7,900

 Low middle 11.9 3.9 38.9 9,500 7,100

 High middle 7.6 3.3 58.8 8,500 7,500

 Highest 4.2 ‡ ‡ ‡ 7,900

Debt burden in 19941

 Not making repayments 12.6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 5,500

 Less than 5 percent 3.7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 5,100

 5–8 percent 7.3 ‡ ‡ ‡ 8,100

 9–12 percent 8.2 ‡ ‡ ‡ 10,500

 More than 12 percent 12.6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 10,600

Stafford loan deferments by 2003

 Any deferments 20.8 ‡ ‡ ‡ 10,400

 No deferments 9.1 3.7 47.2 9,800 7,500

Stafford loan forbearances by 2003

 Ever in forbearance 19.9 5.8 27.1 13,000 10,900

 Never in forbearance 8.3 3.3 50.3 9,000 7,200

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1

 Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

loan amount

Average Stafford
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

44 

percent of those who borrowed less than $10,000 (figure 5 and table 18). Those who started off 

with the highest salaries in 1994 were less likely than those with lower incomes to have 

defaulted. 

The percentage of borrowers who defaulted was also related to deferment and forbearance: 

21 percent of those who had ever deferred and 20 percent of those who had ever been in 

forbearance defaulted, compared with 9 percent of those who had not deferred and 8 percent who 

had not been in forbearance. Nevertheless, about 80 percent of those with deferments or periods 

of forbearance did not default. 

Note that the federal government calculates cohort default rates based on the percentage of 

borrowers who enter repayment on a federal student loan during a particular federal fiscal year 

and default by the end of the next fiscal year. For fiscal year (FY) 2002, the cohort default rates 

were 4.0 percent for students who attended public 4-year institutions and 3.1 percent for students 

who attended private not-for-profit 4-year institutions (U.S. Department of Education 2004a). 

One would expect the rate observed in this analysis (10 percent) to be higher because it covers a 

much longer time period. 

Salary and Amount Borrowed 

As described above, difficulty repaying loans is related to both low income and large 

Stafford loan amounts. Table 19 shows how borrowers with various levels of debt burden were 

distributed by their salaries in 1994 and the amount they had taken out in Stafford loans as 

undergraduates. Borrowers with the highest debt burden (more than 12 percent) were more likely 

than others to be in the bottom half of the income distribution, but the percentages at each 

borrowing level were not measurably different from those for graduates with a debt burden in the 

9–12 percent range. This suggests that low income may be a more common cause of very high 

debt burden. Borrowers with deferments, periods of forbearance, and defaults were more likely 

than those who did not encounter these difficulties to be in the lower half of the salary 

distribution and also more likely to have borrowed $10,000 or more. 

Stafford Loan Repayment Status in 2003 and Time Taken to Repay 

Among bachelor’s degree recipients with Stafford undergraduate loans and no further 

degree enrollment and who did not consolidate their loans, 70 percent had repaid their loans by 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

45 

2003 (table 20).15 The likelihood of having paid off all loans by 2003 declined with the amount 

borrowed, ranging from 90 percent among those with loans of less than $5,000 to 38 percent 

among those who had borrowed $15,000 or more. In addition, those who had the lowest salaries 

in 1994 were less likely than those with salaries in the high-middle or highest level to have paid 

off all of their loans by 2003 (58 vs. 73–76 percent). Among students who had not experienced 

difficulty repaying their loans (i.e., had never deferred, been in forbearance, or defaulted), about 

three-quarters had repaid them. 

 

15 These data from NSLDS are relatively consistent with the student-reported data in table 6, which show that 26 percent still 

owed on any student loans, not just Stafford loans, and, thus, that 74 percent had repaid all their student loans. Students who 

consolidated Stafford loans were excluded from table 19 because their consolidated loan may include other types of loans as 

well. Among those who had consolidated any of their Stafford loans, 2 percent had paid off all their loans by 2003. 

Table 19.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment and

Table 14.—took out Stafford loans, percentage distribution of 1994 salary and Stafford loan amount, 

Table 14.—by selected student characteristics: 2003

Student Lower Upper Less than $5,000– $10,000– $15,000

characteristics Lowest middle middle Highest $5,000 9,999 14,999 or more

 Total 15.7 25.2 31.8 27.4 37.2 30.4 23.4 9.1

Debt burden in 19941

 Not making repayments 8.1 36.1 27.1 28.7 56.4 22.0 13.8 7.8

 Less than 5 percent 0.2 10.8 38.9 50.2 62.1 30.1 5.5 2.3

 5–8 percent 4.4 24.9 41.2 29.5 27.7 39.5 25.2 7.6

 9–12 percent 2.2 34.5 44.3 19.0 14.9 31.1 38.8 15.2

 More than 12 percent 21.2 46.8 23.1 8.9 14.0 32.7 38.3 15.1

Stafford loan deferments by 2003

 Any deferments 27.6 31.6 21.2 19.6 20.8 25.5 32.4 21.4

 No deferments 15.0 24.8 32.5 27.8 38.1 30.7 22.9 8.4

Stafford loan forbearances by 2003

 Ever in forbearance 24.3 34.5 24.9 16.3 14.1 26.7 40.0 19.2

 Never in forbearance 14.4 23.8 32.8 29.0 40.4 30.9 21.1 7.7

Stafford loan defaults by 2003

 Ever defaulted 29.4 32.1 26.1 12.4 26.6 25.1 30.0 18.3

 Never defaulted 14.3 24.4 32.4 28.9 38.3 31.0 22.7 8.1

1

 Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Salary in 1994 Stafford loan amount 
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

46 

Table 20.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who had no additional degree enrollment, took out

Table 19.—Stafford loans, and did not consolidate any of their Stafford loans, percentage who had paid off

Table 19.—all loans, average amount of loans, average length of time to repay, and percentage distribution

Table 19.—of length of time to repay, by selected student characteristics: 2003

Percent Average Average

who had Stafford number More 

paid off loan of years 3 years 3.1–5 5.1–8 8.1–10 than 10

Student characteristics all loans1 amount to repay or less years years years years2

 Total 70.4 $6,500 5.7 25.1 17.3 27.3 22.7 7.7

Amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 Less than $5,000 90.1 2,800 4.5 37.0 19.9 26.2 13.3 3.6

 $5,000–9,999 69.6 7,400 6.8 11.6 13.7 31.8 31.4 11.5

 $10,000–14,999 52.8 12,100 6.8 15.8 15.6 22.0 34.4 12.1

 $15,000 or more 38.3 17,500 5.4 25.4 19.5 29.1 17.8 8.3

Salary in 1994

 Lowest 58.2 6,300 5.7 22.4 16.2 31.0 28.3 2.3

 Low middle 67.0 5,800 5.6 26.5 15.9 29.8 19.0 8.8

 High middle 76.3 6,700 5.4 28.9 17.3 25.5 21.3 6.9

 Highest 73.2 6,800 6.1 21.0 14.2 28.5 25.7 10.7

Debt burden in 19943

 Not making repayments 72.9 4,200 3.1 66.1 10.3 8.7 14.0 0.9

 Less than 5 percent 83.0 4,700 6.2 18.2 17.7 30.1 22.6 11.4

 5–8 percent 69.6 7,200 6.1 17.3 17.2 32.9 25.4 7.2

 9–12 percent 67.1 9,600 6.7 11.9 18.3 28.8 31.4 9.5

 More than 12 percent 55.4 9,100 6.1 14.5 17.6 39.6 19.8 8.6

Stafford loan deferments by 2003

 Any deferments 25.9 9,500 6.3 6.5 30.9 31.4 24.0 7.3

 No deferments 73.0 6,400 5.6 25.4 17.0 27.2 22.7 7.7

Stafford loan forbearances by 2003

 Ever in forbearance 25.8 7,500 7.5 8.9 10.6 26.3 40.4 13.8

 Never in forbearance 76.7 6,500 5.6 25.8 17.6 27.4 21.9 7.4

Stafford loan defaults by 2003

 Ever defaulted 33.5 7,000 5.4 29.2 25.2 18.1 24.6 2.9

 Never defaulted 74.4 6,500 5.7 24.9 16.9 27.8 22.6 7.9

1

 Among Stafford loan consolidators, 2 percent had paid off all loans by 2003.

2 Some borrowers may have started repaying their loans before 1992–93, either while still enrolled or during a stopout period. 3

 Debt burden is the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Among those who had paid off all loans

Time to repay
Repayment of Undergraduate Loans: Undergraduate Borrowers With No Additional Degree Enrollment 

47 

Among undergraduate borrowers with no further degree enrollment who did not 

consolidate any of their Stafford loans and had paid off all loans by 2003, the average amount of 

time taken to repay their Stafford loans was 5.7 years; 25 percent had repaid them within 3 years. 

As would be expected, periods of forbearance slowed them down. Graduates with any periods of 

forbearance on their Stafford loans took an average of 7.5 years to repay them, compared with 

5.6 years for other borrowers. 

Graduates who had deferred loan repayment (but still managed to repay their loans within 

10 years) took an average of 6.3 years to finish paying off all of their loans, which was not 

measurably longer than the time taken by those who had not deferred (5.6 years), despite the fact 

that they had borrowed more ($9,500 vs. $6,400). 

Graduate Enrollment and Undergraduate Loan Repayment 

The primary focus of this study is how the 1992–93 college graduates with no further 

degree enrollment managed their undergraduate loan repayment in the 10 years after graduation. 

Students with postbaccalaureate enrollment were omitted because deferments and additional 

borrowing make it difficult to compare experiences in any detail. Nevertheless, it is worth 

looking briefly at how the 41 percent with postbaccalaureate degree enrollment (table 3) fared in 

terms of repaying their undergraduate loans. 

While there were no measurable differences between graduates with and without further 

degree enrollment in the percentage who took out any undergraduate loans or any Stafford 

undergraduate loans or the average amounts borrowed, their repayment status differed (table 21). 

Among those with no further degree enrollment beyond a bachelor’s degree, 74 percent had paid 

off all their loans by 2003, and 72 percent had paid off all their Stafford loans. In contrast, 59 

percent of those with graduate or first-professional degree enrollment had paid off all their 

undergraduate loans, and 54 percent had paid off all their Stafford undergraduate loans. 

Those with graduate or first-professional enrollment were more likely than those with no 

further degree enrollment to have consolidated their undergraduate loans (25 vs. 12 percent).

Because enrollment in a graduate or first-professional program at least half time makes students 

eligible to defer loan repayment, they were also more likely than those with no further enrollment 

to have deferred (34 vs. 6 percent). There were no measurable differences in the undergraduate 

loan default rates of the two groups. 
Table 21.—Among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate education, percentage who borrowe

Table 20.—through the Stafford loan program, and percentage of Stafford loan borrowers with various repayment histories fo

Table 20.—loans, by highest degree program: 2003

Percent Percent who Percent 

who Percent Percent Average Percent who deferred who had 

borrowed with Average who had Stafford consolidated Stafford forbearance 

from any Stafford amount paid off loan Stafford loan on Stafford 

Highest degree program source loans all loans all loans amount loans repayment loans 

 Total 51.4 38.2 $10,200 67.0 $7,900 17.2 18.3 15.5 Highest enrollment after  bachelor’s degree by 2003 No additional degree 50.8 38.8 10,000 74.1 7,800 12.0 5.5 12.3  enrollment1

 Nongraduate degree or 54.9 40.7 9,900 59.6 7,800 13.9 23.9 15.7  certificate2 Graduate/first-professional 51.5 37.1 10,400 59.3 7,900 24.5 34.3 19.6 

1 No enrollment after the bachelor’s degree earned in 1992–93 or enrollment only in courses not leading to a degree or 

certificate.

2 Enrolled in a program leading to a technical diploma, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or postbaccalaureate certificate.

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93

from any source

Among borrowers

Among borrowers with Stafford loa
49 

Summary and Conclusions 

Summary of Key Findings 

Borrowing. About half of all 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients (51 percent) had 

borrowed to help pay for college, taking out an average of $10,200 in loans. About 41 percent of 

the graduates had enrolled in a graduate or first-professional degree program by 2003, and 45 

percent of them had borrowed for that education. Those with loans for graduate or firstprofessional education only had borrowed an average of $36,900 by 2003, while those with both 

undergraduate and graduate loans had borrowed an average of $41,700. Among graduates with 

no further degree enrollment (the focus of this analysis), 51 percent had borrowed an average of 

$10,000. 

Borrowers compared with nonborrowers. Because only students with established financial 

need could borrow through federal student loan programs when the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree 

recipients were undergraduates, borrowers were more likely than nonborrowers to have 

characteristics typically associated with financial need—that is, characteristics related to low 

income or a high price of attending, such as financial independence, low family income if 

dependent, parents with less than a bachelor’s degree, and graduating from a private not-forprofit institution. 

Ten years later, however, there were no meaningful differences between borrowers and 

nonborrowers in educational, employment, and family formation outcomes such as the 

percentage who had enrolled in an additional degree program, average salary, or the percentage 

who were married or cohabiting. Borrowers were slightly more likely than nonborrowers to have 

children under 18 in their household, which may be related to the fact that borrowers tended to be 

older. 

Repayment of undergraduate loans. Among bachelor’s degree recipients who did not go on 

to a graduate or first-professional degree program, most appeared able to handle their debt: 74 

percent had repaid all their undergraduate student loans by the time they were interviewed in 

2003. While 26 percent still owed, it is important to note that June graduates who were on the 

standard 10-year repayment plan for federal loans and borrowed more than about $4,000 would 

not be expected to finish repaying their loans until December 2003 (i.e., after they were 
Summary and Conclusions 

50 

interviewed). Although the analysis focuses on those with no additional degree enrollment, table 

20 shows the status of those who had enrolled in graduate or first-professional degree programs: 

59 percent of them had repaid all their undergraduate loans by 2003. 

Debt burden. Among those who did not enroll in a graduate or first-professional degree 

program and were still repaying their undergraduate loans, the median debt burden (defined as 

monthly loan payment divided by income) was 3.3 percent. Because monthly payments were 

fixed throughout the repayment period but graduates’ income generally rose over time, their debt 

burden declined over time. Earlier studies of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients found a 

median debt burden of 6.7 percent in 1994 and 4.8 percent in 1997. For those who had borrowed 

the largest amounts (more than $15,000), the median debt burden was 4.5 percent in 2003, and 

for those in the lowest income group (bottom quarter), it was 6.0 percent. By 2003, about 90 

percent of graduates were within the 8 percent generally considered reasonable, but 3 percent had 

debt burden of 12 percent or more. 

Debt management. Among bachelor’s degree recipients with no further degree enrollment, 

39 percent took out Stafford loans as undergraduates. Among this group, 12 percent consolidated 

some or all of their loans, 5 percent ever had a deferment, 12 percent ever had a period of 

forbearance, and 10 percent entered default at some point. However, 45 percent of those who 

ever defaulted later re-entered repayment. As one would expect, deferment, forbearance, and 

default were related. Many of the individuals exhibiting this type of difficulty consolidated their 

loans (presumably in some cases to stretch out the repayment period). Most borrowers who 

deferred or had periods of forbearance did not default. The average length of time between 

graduation and the first deferment, forbearance, or default was 4–5 years. 

Implications for Current Borrowers 

The implications of these findings for current borrowers are difficult to assess. Although 

contemporary undergraduates are borrowing more, which would suggest more repayment 

problems, the characteristics of borrowers have changed since the introduction of unsubsidized 

loans for students regardless of financial need. Now more students from middle- and highincome families are borrowing, and their families may be better equipped to help them if they run 

into difficulty repaying their loans. 

It is clear from this analysis, however, that the financial circumstances of bachelor’s degree 

recipients 10 years after graduation are difficult to predict. While loan payments remain constant, 

income, which is key to the ability to repay, does not: general economic conditions affect income 

over time, and the data show that students with the highest incomes soon after graduation are not 
Summary and Conclusions 

51 

necessarily those with the highest incomes 10 years later. On average, students did not run into 

trouble right away; repayment problems came later. For many, the problems were temporary, 

with about half of defaulters able to re-enter repayment at a later date. In addition, most 

borrowers who deferred or had periods of forbearance were able to recover financially and did 

not default. These findings highlight the fact that when students and their families must make the 

decision to borrow, it is difficult for them to predict the actual burden of that debt. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
53 

References 

Berkner, L. (2005). 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04): Student 

Aid Estimates for 2003–04 (NCES 2005-158). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Choy, S. (2000). Debt Burden Four Years After College (NCES 2000-188). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Choy, S., and Cataldi, E.F. (2006). Student Financing of Graduate and First-Professional 

Education, 2003–04 (NCES 2006-185). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Choy, S., and Geis, S. (1997). Early Labor Force Experiences and Debt Burden (NCES 97-286). 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Choy, S., and Li, X. (2005). Debt Burden: A Comparison of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 Bachelor’s 

Degree Recipients a Year After Graduating (NCES 2005-170). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Choy, S., and Premo, M. (1995). Student Financing of Graduate and First-Professional 

Education, 1992–93 (NCES 96-235). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

The College Board. (2005a). Trends in College Pricing: 2005. Washington, DC: The College 

Entrance Examination Board. 

The College Board. (2005b). Trends in Student Aid: 2005. Washington, DC: The College 

Entrance Examination Board. 

Gladieux, L., and Perna, L. (2005). Borrowers Who Drop Out: A Neglected Aspect of the College 

Student Loan Trend. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher 

Education. 
References 

54 

Green, P.J., Myers, S.L., Giese, P., Law, J., Speizer, H.M., and Tardino, V.S. (1996). 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study: 1993/94 First Follow-up Methodology 

Report (NCES 96-149). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Green, P., Myers, S., Veldman, C., and Pedlow, S. (1999). Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study: 1993/97 Second Follow-up Methodology Report (NCES 1999-159). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Heller, D. (2001). Debts and Decisions: Student Loans and Their Relationship to Graduate 

School and Career Choice. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. 

Loft, J.D., Riccobono, J.A., Whitmore, R.W., Fitzgerald, R.A., and Berkner, L.K. (1995). 

Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1992–93 (NCES 95-

211). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Office of Student Financial Assistance. (1992). The Federal Student Aid Handbook, 1992–93.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Scherschel, P.M. (1998). Student Indebtedness: Are Borrowers Pushing the Limits? Indianapolis, 

IN: USA Group Foundation. 

Tuma, J., and Geis, S. (1995). Student Financing of Undergraduate Education, 1992–93 (NCES 

95-202). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2004a). Official Cohort Default Rates for Schools. Retrieved 

December 9, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/cdr.html. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004b). Digest of 

Education Statistics 2003 (NCES 2005-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Direct Student Loans: Analyses of Borrowers’ Use of 

the Income Contingent Repayment Option. Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Student Loan Programs: As Federal Costs of Loan 

Consolidation Rise, Other Options Should Be Examined. Washington, DC: Author. 
References 

55 

Wine, J.S., Cominole, M.B., Wheeless, S., Dudley, K., and Franklin, J. (2006). 1993/03 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03) Methodology Report (NCES 

2006-166). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
A-1 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables come from the NCES 1993/03 Baccalaureate 

and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03) Data Analysis System (DAS), a software application developed by 

NCES to generate tables from the survey data. The B&B:93/03 DAS includes data collected in the base year (1992–

93) and the three follow-ups conducted in 1994, 1997, and 2003. Appendix B contains descriptions of both the DAS 

software and the B&B surveys. 

In the index below, the variables are organized by general topic and, within topic, listed in the order in which they 

appear in the tables. The glossary items are listed in alphabetical order by the variable name (displayed in capital 

letters to the right of the variable label). Data listed below under “Undergraduate Stafford loan repayment history” 

were originally obtained from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) in 2003; all other data for 2003 

were collected in student interviews; data for 1994 were collected from student interviews and institutional records; 

and data for 1997 were collected in student interviews. Variables created from the NSLDS (indicated with labels 

beginning with “N”) were created for all bachelor’s degree recipients, regardless of whether they attended graduate 

school. However, the variables refer only to undergraduate borrowing. The analysis of the NSLDS data used in this 

report was limited to bachelor’s degree recipients who had no further degree enrollment. 

Glossary Index 

STUDENT/INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Gender ...........................................................GENDER 

Race/ethnicity .............................................. RETHNIC 

Parents’ highest education .......................... PAREDUC 

Dependency status and family income........INCQUTIL 

Age received bachelor’s degree .................AGEATBA 

Type of degree-granting institution............SECTOR_B 

Undergraduate major ..................................BAMAJOR 

GPA for undergraduate major........................GPAMAJ 

Marital status in 2003 ......................................B3MAR 

Number of dependent children under age 18 in 

household in 2003 ......................................B3CHDEP 

BORROWING AND DEBT BURDEN

Amount borrowed for undergraduate 

education......................................................B3UGLN 

Amount borrowed for graduate education 

by 2003 ...................................................... B3GRLN2 

Borrowing status in 2003 ...........................B3LNSTAT 

Amount borrowed for undergraduate and 

graduate education by 2003 .....................B3TOTLN2 

Undergraduate debt status in 2003............. B3UGOWE 

Repayment plan in 2003 ............................B3RPYTYP 

Monthly loan payment in 2003 ................ B3RPYAMT 

Debt burden in 1994 ...................................... EDPCTR 

Debt burden in 1997 .....................................B2EDPCT 

Debt burden in 2003 .....................................B3EDPCT 

Spouse/partner loan status in 2003 ...............B3SEDLN 

Amount borrowed by household by 2003.... B3HHLN2 

Household monthly payment in 2003 ..........B3HHRPY 

UNDERGRADUATE STAFFORD LOAN REPAYMENT 

HISTORY

Undergraduate Stafford loan amount......... NSTFAMT 

Loan consolidation status in 2003 .............NSTFCALL 

Amount consolidated by 2003 ..................NSTFCAMT 

Deferments by 2003..................................... NDEFEST 

Years until first deferment ........................NMTFDEFE 

Forbearances by 2003.................................. NFORBST 

Years until first forbearance .....................NMTFFORB 

Defaults by 2003.......................................... NDEFAST 

Repayment after default status by 2003 ... NDEFATRP 

Years until first default .............................NMTFDEFA 

Years to repay........................................... NMTLPAID 

POST-BACCALAUREATE EDUCATION

Highest enrollment after bachelor’s degree 

by 2003 ......................................................B3HDGPG 

Highest degree earned by 2003.....................B3HDG03 

Enrollment/employment status in 2003 .......B3EMPEN 
Appendix A—Glossary 

A-2 

EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME

Salary in 1994 .......................... APRANSAL, SALPCT 

Salary in 1997 ........................................... B2SALARY 

Salary in 2003 .............................................. B3CRSAL 

Employment status in 2003............................ B3LFP03 

Household income in 2002 ......................... B3OINC02 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-3 

Age received bachelor’s degree AGEATBA 

Indicates the respondent’s age at the time the bachelor’s degree was received. The age categories used in this report 

are: 

24 or younger 

25–29 

30 or older 

Salary in 1994, 1997, and 2003 APRANSAL 

SALPCT 

B2SALARY 

B3CRSAL

For each year, respondents were divided into four categories based on their annual salary, with each group 

representing one-quarter of the salary distribution. The lowest category includes respondents who were unemployed. 

In current dollars, the ranges for each group are as follows: 

 1994 1997 2003 

 

Lowest $9,594 or less $22,400 or less $34,000 or less 

Lower middle $9,595–$17,992 $22,401–$29,992 $34,001–$48,000 

Upper middle $17,993–$25,771 $29,993–$40,888 $48,001–$66,900 

Highest Greater than $25,771 Greater than $40,888 Greater than $66,900 

In 1994, respondents reported the annual salary or rate of pay for the job they held in April 1994 (APRANSAL). 

Where the salary in 1994 appears as a row variable, it is based on SALPCT, which is the percentile ranking of 

APRANSAL. Salary in 1997 (B2SALARY) is the respondent’s annual salary for the job held in April 1997 (except 

for teachers, for whom the academic-year salary was used). Salary in 2003 (B3CRSAL) is the respondent’s annual 

salary for his or her current (interview date) or most recent job (including teachers). In 2003, respondents who 

reported salaries greater than $500,000 were recoded to $500,000. 

B2SALARY has a weighted item response rate below 85 percent when the entire survey sample is considered (as in 

table 1), thus requiring a bias analysis according to NCES publication standards; see appendix B for details on how 

this report’s findings might have been biased due to missing data on B2SALARY. 

Debt burden in 1997 B2EDPCT

Monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income, created by dividing the monthly student loan payment 

amount by monthly income and multiplying by 100. The percentages were multiplied by 100 to achieve higher 

precision—specifically, to be able to show median debt burden to one decimal place rather than an integer. 

Respondents with unrealistically high values (i.e., a debt burden of more than 50 percent) were excluded from the 

analysis of debt burden in this report; less than 1 percent were excluded for this reason. This variable includes 

payments for both undergraduate and graduate loans in 1997. However, when used in this report, the amount refers 

to payments on undergraduate loans only because only bachelor’s degree recipients with no additional degree 

enrollment were included in the analysis of debt burden. 

The monthly income refers to income from all sources in 1996, the year prior to the follow-up survey. Thus, 

B2EDPCT differs from its counterparts for both 1994 (EDPCTR) and 2003 (B3EDPCT); for the other years, income 

refers to salary income in the survey year (see details under “EDPCTR” and “B3EDPCT” in this glossary). The 

impact of this difference on findings in this report is minimal because B2EDPCT was used only in table 12 and was 

used only as a row variable. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-4 

Salary in 1997 B2SALARY

See APRANSAL 

Number of dependent children under age 18 in household in 2003 B3CHDEP 

Number of dependent children under age 18 who were living in the household in 2003. 

Salary in 2003 B3CRSAL 

See APRANSAL 

Debt burden in 2003 B3EDPCT

Monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income, created by dividing the monthly student loan payment 

amount by monthly income and multiplying by 100. The percentages were multiplied by 100 to achieve higher 

precision—specifically, to be able to show median debt burden to one decimal place rather than an integer. 

Respondents with unrealistically high values (i.e., a debt burden of more than 50 percent) were excluded from the 

analysis of debt burden in this report; less than 1 percent were excluded for this reason. This variable includes 

payments for both undergraduate and graduate loans in 1997. However, when used in this report, the amount refers 

to payments on undergraduate loans only because only bachelor’s degree recipients with no additional degree 

enrollment were included in the analysis of debt burden. Monthly income refers to income from salary only and both 

the numerator and denominator refer to the survey year (2003). (See also EDPCTR and B2EDPCT.) 

Enrollment/employment status in 2003 B3EMPEN

Respondent’s enrollment and employment status at the time of the interview. Enrollment includes enrollment at 

either the graduate or undergraduate level. Categories include: 

 Enrolled and employed 

 Enrolled only 

 Employed only 

 Not enrolled or employed 

Amount borrowed for graduate education by 2003 B3GRLN2

Amount borrowed to support enrollment in a graduate degree program after earning a bachelor’s degree. 

Highest degree earned by 2003 B3HDG03

Highest degree the respondent had earned by 2003. Since all respondents had earned a bachelor’s degree in 1992–

93, the bachelor’s degree is the lowest possible degree attained. 

 Bachelor’s degree 

 Master’s degree 

 Doctoral degree 

 First-professional degree 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-5 

Highest enrollment after bachelor’s degree by 2003 B3HDGPG

Describes additional enrollment after the bachelor’s degree. For students who enrolled in more than one program, 

this variable indicates the highest level at which they enrolled. 

No additional degree enrollment No enrollment after the bachelor’s degree earned in 1992–93 or 

enrollment only in courses not leading to a degree or certificate. 

Nongraduate degree or certificate Enrolled in a program leading to a technical diploma, associate’s 

degree, bachelor’s degree, or postbaccalaureate certificate. 

Master’s degree Enrolled in a program leading to a master’s degree or post-master’s 

certificate. 

 Doctoral degree Enrolled in a program leading to a doctoral degree. 

First-professional degree Enrolled in a program leading to a first-professional degree (medicine, 

chiropractic, dentistry, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, 

podiatry, veterinary medicine, law, or theology).

Amount borrowed by household by 2003 B3HHLN2 

Total amount borrowed by the respondent and his or her spouse/partner. The respondent’s portion refers to amounts 

borrowed for all undergraduate enrollment and for graduate degree enrollment (see B3TOTLN2), whereas the 

spouse/partner’s portion does not have this constraint and includes loans for any type of postsecondary education. 

Because the analysis of household borrowing is limited to graduates with no additional degree enrollment, this 

variable includes only undergraduate loans for the respondent in this report.

Household monthly payment in 2003 B3HHRPY 

Monthly payment amount for the respondent’s household. This amount was calculated by combining the 

respondent’s and spouse/partner’s monthly student loan payments. 

Employment status in 2003 B3LFP03

Labor force participation status in 2003. This variable indicates the number of jobs held and, for those with one job, 

whether the job was full or part time. Respondents who were not working were classified as unemployed or out of 

the labor force. For this report, respondents were grouped into three categories: employed, unemployed, and out of 

the labor force. 

Borrowing status in 2003 B3LNSTAT

Indicates whether respondents had borrowed for undergraduate education only, graduate degree programs only, both, 

or neither. 

Marital status in 2003 B3MAR

Respondents’ marital status at the time of the 2003 interview (unmarried or married/cohabiting). Those who 

responded that they were “cohabiting/living with a partner” were grouped with “married” in this report. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-6 

Household income in 2002 B3OINC02

Respondents’ reply to the question: “What was your/your spouse/partner’s total income earned from all sources, 

prior to taxes and deductions, for 2002?”

Monthly loan payment in 2003 B3RPYAMT 

Respondents’ reply to the question: “How much do you pay each month on your education loans?” Because the 

analysis of loan repayment in this report is limited to those with no graduate degree enrollment, payments would be 

associated with undergraduate loans only. 

Repayment plan in 2003 B3RPYTYP 

Type of plan being used to repay student loans at the time of the interview in 2003: standard, graduated, incomesensitive, or extended. Details about the terms and conditions for each type of plan are included in the text of the 

report. 

Spouse/partner loan status in 2003 B3SEDLN 

Respondents were asked: “Other than any money your spouse/partner may have borrowed from family or friends, 

how much did he/she borrow to pay for his/her education?” For this report, this variable was used only to indicate 

whether or not the spouse/partner had borrowed (yes/no). 

Amount borrowed for undergraduate and graduate education by 2003 B3TOTLN2 

The sum of the amount borrowed for undergraduate education (B3UGLN) and the amount borrowed for graduate 

degree programs after earning the bachelor’s degree (B3GRLN2). 

Amount borrowed for undergraduate education B3UGLN 

Respondents’ reply to the question: “Other than any money you may have borrowed from family or friends, how 

much did you borrow in education loans for your undergraduate education?” 

Undergraduate debt status in 2003 B3UGOWE 

Derived from the responses to the questions: “How much do you borrow for your undergraduate education?” and 

“How much of that amount do you still owe?” This variable was used to determine the percentage who still owed. As 

explained in the text, the amounts reportedly owed appeared unreliable.

Undergraduate major BAMAJOR

Graduate’s self-reported major field of study for the bachelor’s degree using 12 categories, which were collapsed 

into 5 categories in this report: 

Business and management Business and management 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-7 

Undergraduate major—continued BAMAJOR

Education Education 

Engineering/math/science Engineering, mathematics and physical science, biological 

sciences 

Humanities and social sciences Humanities, history, psychology, and social science 

Other Health professions, public affairs/social services, and other 

fields not listed above 

Debt burden in 1994 EDPCTR

Monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly income, created by dividing the monthly student loan payment 

amount by monthly income and multiplying by 100. The percentages were multiplied by 100 to achieve higher 

precision—specifically, to be able to show median debt burden to one decimal place rather than an integer. 

Respondents with unrealistically high values (i.e., a debt burden of more than 50 percent) were excluded from the 

analysis of debt burden in this report; less than 1 percent were excluded for this reason. This variable includes 

payments for both undergraduate and graduate loans in 1997. However, when used in this report, the amount refers 

to payments on undergraduate loans only because only bachelor’s degree recipients with no additional degree 

enrollment were included in the analysis of debt burden. Monthly income refers to income from salary only and both 

the numerator and denominator refer to the survey year (1994). (See also B2EDPCT and B3EDPCT.) 

Gender GENDER 

Respondent’s gender (male or female). 

GPA for undergraduate major GPAMAJ 

Student-reported grade point average in their undergraduate major on a 4.0 scale—collected in the 1994 follow-up 

survey. If students indicated a grading scale other than a 4-point scale, their grades were converted to a 4-point scale. 

The resulting 4-point scale grades were multiplied by 100 in the DAS to produce an integer scale ranging from 0 to 

400. 

Dependency status and family income INCQUTIL 

Respondents’ family income category, determined separately for dependent and independent students. All students 

who are 24 years or older are considered independent. Students under 24 are considered independent if they are 

veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces; enrolled in a graduate or professional program beyond a bachelor’s degree; 

married; an orphan or ward of the court; or if they have legal dependents other than a spouse. All other students 

under 24 are considered dependent unless they demonstrate that they are receiving no parental support and are 

classified as independent by a financial aid officer using professional judgment. For financial aid purposes, “family 

income” refers to parents’ income for dependent students and the student’s income (including a spouse’s income if 

married) for independent students. For this report, graduates were divided into five groups based on their family 

income and their dependency status in 1992–93. The categories for dependent students represent one-quarter of the 

family income distribution for dependent students. All independent students were combined into one group. In 

current dollars, the ranges covered by each of the family income groups for dependent students are as follows: 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-8 

Dependency status and family income—continued INCQUTIL 

 Lowest $37,517 or less 

 Lower middle $37,518–$55,000 

 Upper middle $55,001–$74,036 

 Highest More than $74,036 

Defaults by 2003 NDEFAST

Indicates whether respondents had ever defaulted on any undergraduate Stafford or consolidated loans. Borrowers 

may consolidate Stafford and other federal loans (such as Perkins) and may consolidate graduate and undergraduate 

loans. However, the analysis of repayment in this report includes only bachelor’s degree recipients with no graduate 

degree enrollment; thus, their consolidated loans would include only undergraduate loans. 

The variable has six categories, which were collapsed into a dichotomous classification of “Yes” and “No” for this 

analysis. The “Did not borrow” category could include respondents who had borrowed Stafford loans for education 

other than that of the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree (see NSTFAMT for details). 

Yes Defaulted on undergraduate Stafford loans only; defaulted on consolidated loans only; defaulted 

on both undergraduate Stafford and consolidated loans; did not borrow undergraduate Stafford 

loans but defaulted on consolidated loans. 

No Defaulted on neither; did not borrow Stafford undergraduate loans; no default on consolidated 

loans. 

Repayment after default status by 2003 NDEFATRP

Indicates whether respondents who had ever defaulted on Stafford undergraduate or consolidated loans later 

reentered repayment (yes/no). 

Deferments by 2003 NDEFEST

Indicates whether respondents had deferred payment for any undergraduate Stafford or consolidated loans by 2003. 

The variable has six categories, which were collapsed into a dichotomous classification of “Yes” and “No” for this 

study (shown below). The “Did not borrow” category could include respondents who had borrowed Stafford loans 

for education other than that of the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree (see NSTFAMT for details). 

Yes Deferred on undergraduate Stafford loans only; deferred on consolidated loans only; deferred on 

both undergraduate Stafford and consolidated loans; did not borrow undergraduate Stafford loans 

but deferred on consolidated loans. 

No Deferred on neither; did not borrow Stafford undergraduate loans; no deferment of consolidated 

loans. 

Forbearances by 2003 NFORBST

Indicates whether respondents had forbearance for any undergraduate Stafford or consolidated loans. The variable 

has six categories, which are collapsed into a dichotomous classification of “Yes” and “No” for this study (shown 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-9 

Forbearances by 2003—continued NFORBST

below). The “Did not borrow” categories could include respondents who had borrowed Stafford loans that are for 

education other than that of the 1992–93 bachelor’s degree (see NSTFAMT for details). 

Yes Had forbearance on undergraduate Stafford loans only; had forbearance on consolidated loans 

only; had forbearance on both undergraduate Stafford and consolidated loans; did not borrow 

undergraduate Stafford loans but had forbearance on consolidated loans. 

No Had forbearance on neither; did not borrow Stafford undergraduate loans; no forbearance of 

consolidated loans. 

Years until first default NMTFDEFA

Number of years from bachelor’s degree receipt until the first default date for undergraduate Stafford or consolidated 

loans. 

Years until first deferment NMTFDEFE

Number of years from bachelor’s degree receipt until the first deferment date for undergraduate Stafford or 

consolidated loans. 

Years until first forbearance NMTFFORB

Number of years from bachelor’s degree receipt until the first forbearance date for undergraduate Stafford or 

consolidated loans. 

Years to repay NMTLPAID

Number of years from bachelor’s degree receipt until the date that the last loan was paid off. This variable applies 

only to respondents who had borrowed undergraduate Stafford loans, of which none had been consolidated and all 

had been paid off. 

Undergraduate Stafford loan amount NSTFAMT

Amount borrowed in undergraduate Stafford loans. Refers to all Stafford loans taken out for undergraduate 

education between 1985 and the date of bachelor’s degree receipt in 1992–93. 

Loan consolidation status in 2003 NSTFCALL

Indicates if none, any, or all of respondents’ undergraduate Stafford loans were consolidated by 2003. The variable 

has four categories: 

 

Consolidated some 

Consolidated all 

Consolidated none 

Did not borrow undergraduate Stafford loans 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-10 

Amount consolidated by 2003 NSTFCAMT 

Amount of Stafford undergraduate loans consolidated. 

Parents’ highest education PAREDUC

Response to the question: “What is the highest grade or level of education completed by either of your parents?” The 

variable identifies 14 mutually exclusive categories that were aggregated into four groups for this report: 

High school or less Less than high school; GED; high school graduation. 

Some postsecondary education Vocational/technical training (less than 1 year, 1 year but less 

than 2 years, 2 or more years); less than 2 years of college; 

associate’s degree; 2 or more years of college. 

Bachelor’s degree Bachelor’s degree. 

Advanced degree Master’s degree or equivalent; first-professional degree; other 

advanced professional degree; doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D.). 

Race/ethnicity RETHNIC

Respondents’ race/ethnicity, including Hispanic/Latino. The variable gives priority to Hispanic/Latino regardless of 

race. 

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. 

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine 

Islands, India, Vietnam, Hawaii, and Samoa. 

Black A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of 

Africa. Includes African Americans. 

White A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. 

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of 

race. Includes Latino. 

Other American Indian (a person having origins in any of the original 

peoples of North America and who maintains cultural 

identification through tribal affiliation or community 

recognition). Includes Alaska Natives and any other race not 

included above. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-11 

Type of degree-granting institution SECTOR_B 

Type of the institution (level and control) granting the bachelor’s degree. This variable differentiates between nondoctorate-granting and doctorate-granting 4-year institutions. Non-doctorate-granting institutions include colleges 

with a major emphasis on baccalaureate programs and also colleges and universities that offer both baccalaureate 

programs and graduate education through the master’s degree. Doctorate-granting institutions offer baccalaureate 

programs and graduate education through the doctoral degree. Institutions that offer first-professional degrees are 

considered doctorate-granting institutions. “Other” institutions include for-profit institutions and a small number of 

less-than-4-year institutions that grant bachelor’s degrees. The categories used in this report are: 

Public 4-year non-doctorate-granting 

Public 4-year doctorate-granting 

Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctorate-granting 

Private not-for-profit 4-year doctorate-granting 

Other 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
B-1 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

The 1993–2003 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

The estimates and statistics reported in the tables and figures of this report are based on 

data from the first, second, and third follow-ups of the 1993–2003 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03). This study tracks the experiences of a cohort of college 

graduates who received a baccalaureate degree during the 1992–93 academic year and were first 

interviewed as part of the 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), 

conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. 

NPSAS is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in postsecondary education 

institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. For NPSAS:93, 

information was obtained from about 1,100 postsecondary institutions on approximately 53,000 

undergraduates and about 13,000 graduate and first-professional students who were enrolled at 

some time between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1993. 

For B&B:93/03, those members of the NPSAS:93 sample who completed a bachelor’s 

degree between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1993, were identified and contacted for a 1-year 

follow-up interview in 1994. The second follow-up of the B&B cohort occurred in 1997, 

approximately 4 years after graduation. The final follow-up survey 10 years after graduation, in 

2003, is the focus of this report. However, the estimates in this report are based on the 

approximately 8,100 bachelor’s degree recipients who participated in all four surveys—the 

NPSAS base-year survey and the three follow-ups—representing about 1.2 million bachelor’s 

degree completers (U.S. Department of Education 2004b, table 252). 

The NPSAS:93 sample, while representative and statistically accurate, was not a simple 

random sample. Instead, the survey sample was selected using a more complex three-step 

procedure with stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection at each level. First, 

primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected within the geographic coverage of NPSAS (the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). Second, for each selected PSU, individual 

postsecondary institutions—organized into 22 strata by control (i.e., public, private not-for-profit, 

or private for-profit) and level of degree offering (less-than-2-year, 2- to 3-year, 4-year nondoctorate-granting, and 4-year doctorate-granting)—were selected. Finally, eligible students were 

selected within the responding sample institutions. The NPSAS:93 survey sample yielded an 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-2 

overall weighted institutional response rate of 88 percent. For more information about the 

NPSAS:93 survey, refer to the Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study, 1992–93 (Loft et al. 1995). 

For the first follow-up B&B interview in 1994, a total of about 10,100 eligible individuals 

completed the interview between June and December—using computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI), with field interviewing when necessary—which corresponds to a weighted 

response rate of 90 percent (from the NPSAS:93-identified B&B eligible sample of about 11,000 

cases). Data collection for the second follow-up interview of the B&B cohort took place between 

April and December 1997; about 10,100 individuals completed the interview, yielding a 

weighted response rate of 90 percent. For more information on procedures for the first and 

second follow-ups, consult the respective methodology reports (Green et al. [1996] for the first 

follow-up and Green et al. [1999] for the second follow-up). 

Between February and September 2003, the third and final follow-up of the 1992–93 cohort 

of bachelor’s degree recipients was conducted. For the first time, students were offered the 

opportunity to conduct their own B&B interview via the Internet. A single, Web-based interview 

was designed and programmed for use as a self-administered interview, a telephone interview, 

and an in-person interview. All respondents to the 1997 interview were included for participation 

in the 2003 follow-up; a subsample of about one-third of nonrespondents from 1997 was also 

included, resulting in a final sample of about 10,400 individuals. Almost 9,000 members of this 

final sample responded, yielding a weighted response rate of 83 percent. For more details about 

the third follow-up survey procedures, consult the B&B:93/03 methodology report (Wine et al. 

2006). 

Except for having all graduated in the same academic year, the 1992–93 graduate cohort 

members could be as diverse as possible in other aspects (e.g., the degree recipients could have 

been enrolled sporadically over time or had been enrolled continuously; some might have 

delayed their entry to postsecondary education while others perhaps had gone to college right 

after completing high school). Therefore, the B&B:93/03 data provide the first opportunity to 

examine how a nationally representative, cross-sectional group of college graduates handled their 

undergraduate debt over a period of 10 years after graduation, the standard length of time 

allowed for paying off federal student loans. The B&B dataset contains comprehensive data on 

post-baccalaureate graduate enrollment, attainment, student demographic characteristics, and 

labor force participation and finances (including education loans). However, the student debt 

information collected through B&B refers only to the snapshot time point at the interviews, 

rather than a complete history of debt management, which was obtained using data from the 

National Student Loan Data System. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-3 

The National Student Loan Data System 

The National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) is the U.S. Department of Education’s 

central database for student aid. It receives data from schools, agencies that guarantee loans, the 

Direct Loan program, the Pell Grant program, and other U.S. Department of Education programs. 

NSLDS provides a centralized, integrated view of Title IV loans and Pell Grants that are tracked 

through their entire cycle, from aid approval through closure. The NSLDS records indicate when 

each federal loan is disbursed to the student, at what academic level (e.g., first-year 

undergraduate, first-year graduate), the amount of the loan disbursed, the time period covered, 

and the history of the loan. The history part tracks each change in the status of the loan, such as 

when it is consolidated, deferred, defaulted, in repayment, or paid off, and the date of each 

change. The last entry of a loan in the NSLDS records shows the most recent outstanding balance 

of the loan. Thus, the September 2003 NSLDS dataset, which was used to add information to 

B&B:93/03 file, provides detailed information about the repayment history of each loan, 

including debt status and amount still outstanding at that time. 

Although NSLDS contains information on all federal loans, this study examines only 

Stafford loans, the most commonly used federal loans.1 Also excluded are loans covering periods 

ending before January 1985 on the grounds that they were most likely irrelevant to the attainment 

of the bachelor’s degree earned in the 1992–93 academic year.

Weighting 

All estimates in this report are weighted to compensate for unequal probability of selection 

into the survey sample and to adjust for nonresponse. The specific weight variable used in this 

report is WTC00, which was constructed as the panel weight for analyzing those students who 

responded to all four surveys: NPSAS:93 and the 1994, 1997, and 2003 B&B follow-up 

interviews. For more information on weighting, consult chapter 6, “Weighting and Variance 

Estimation,” of the B&B:93/03 methodology report (Wine et al. 2006). 

Overall Response Rates 

As discussed earlier in this appendix, the overall weighted institution response rate for 

NPSAS:93 was 88 percent. The overall weighted student response rate was 90 percent for both 

the first (in 1994) and second (in 1997) follow-up B&B interviews and 83 percent for the final 

B&B follow-up interview (in 2003). 

 

1 Examples of federal loans excluded from this study include PLUS loans—because they are taken out by parents—and Perkins 

loans—because of concerns that early NSLDS records tend to underreport Perkins loans.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-4 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are made on only samples of students, not entire populations. Nonsampling errors 

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. 

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete 

information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions 

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous 

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct 

information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, 

sampling, and imputing missing data. Readers interested in efforts to minimize nonsampling 

errors for estimates used in this report should consult the methodology reports referenced earlier 

in this appendix. Below is a discussion on possible bias on statistics for a couple of variables 

presented in the tables/figures of this report that had low item response rates. 

Item Response Rates and Bias Analysis 

Weighted item response rates were calculated for all the variables used in this report by 

dividing the weighted number of valid responses by the weighted population for which the item 

was applicable. Overall, most of the items had very high response rates. Items with weighted 

item response rates at 90 percent or below are shown in table B-1. 

Only two variables had weighted item response rates below 85 percent. In one of these 

cases (B3RPYTYP, type of loan repayment in 2003), the low weighted response rate—18 

percent—is due largely to the fact that this variable was applicable to a small proportion of the 

sample population (i.e., those who were in repayment in 2003), hence leaving a large proportion 

of the sample population with incomplete interviews. Such cases are considered to have 

indeterminate responses, as are respondents who give invalid responses (such as “Refused” or 

“Don’t know”). Incomplete interviews thus make up a relatively high proportion of the 

indeterminate responses for this item. However, it is highly likely that the majority of 

indeterminate responses would have been excluded from the item had their information been 

gathered, considering that the item applies only to a small proportion of the sample population. 

When incomplete interviews were excluded from the calculation of the item response rate, the 

response rate for B3RPYTYP indeed increased from 18 to 81 percent, a big improvement but 

nonetheless still below the NCES threshold of 85 percent. However, the only incidence where 

this variable was used in this report is when the focus is on those who had no additional degree 

enrollment and were in repayment in 2003 (table 8), a subgroup of the sample population, for 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-5 

which the item response rate for B3RPYTYP is actually 99 percent. Thus, it is very unlikely that 

statistics presented in table 8 and relevant statements made in the text are biased because of 

missing data. 

The only other variable with a weighted item response rate below 85 percent is 

B2SALARY (annual salary at April 1997 job) when it was used to compute the median and 

average salaries in 1997 in table 1 for the entire applicable sample (rather than a subgroup of the 

sample). A bias analysis was conducted to determine whether the cases missing values for this 

variable differed from those with positive values in aspects that are associated with salary 

income. Cases with missing and positive responses were compared with each other for four 

demographic variables: GENDER (gender), RETHNIC (race/ethnicity), BAMAJOR 

(undergraduate major), and SECTOR_B (degree-granting institution type). Each of these 

comparison variables had a response rate of 96 percent or higher and was related to B2SALARY. 

Table B-1.—Lowest weighted item response rates for variables used in this report

Incomplete

interviews Incomplete

assumed interviews

Variable name Variable label applicable excluded1

Variables with response rates lower than 85 percent:

 B2SALARY April 1997 annual salary 80.5 †

 B3RPYTYP Type of loan repayment 18.32 80.7

Variables with response rates between 85 and 90 percent:

 APRANSAL April 1994 annual salary 85.7 †

 B2EDPCT Debt burden in 1997 87.7 †

 B2SALARY3 April 1997 annual salary 87.2 †

 B2SALARY4 April 1997 annual salary 90.1 †

 B3HHLN2 Household amount borrowed 89.0 †

 B3SEDLN Amount borrowed by spouse 85.9 †

† Not applicable.

1

 Only if the variable has a nonapplicable proportion of 70 percent or above.

2

 However, when limited to those who had no additional degree enrollment, had borrowed as undergraduates, and were in 

repayment in 2003, the subgroup for which B3RPYTYP was used only once in this report (table 8), the weighted item response 

rate was 99 percent, not requiring bias analysis. 

3

 When its use is limited to those who had no additional degree enrollment and borrowed as undergraduates (table 7).

4

 When its use is limited to those who had no additional degree enrollment, had borrowed as undergraduates, and were in 

repayment in 2003 (table 11).

NOTE: Weighted item response rates were calculated by dividing the total weighted number of valid responses by the weighted

total population for whom the question was applicable. Bias analyses were conducted for variables with a weighted item 

response rate below 85 percent unless noted otherwise.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Item response rate
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-6 

Results show that there were no measurable gender-associated differences between 

respondents who had positive values on B2SALARY and those with missing values for this 

variable—e.g., the percentage of males was 45 and 44 percent, respectively. However, those with 

missing values for B2SALARY were more likely than those with valid data to have been 

Asian/Pacific Islander (8 vs. 4 percent) but less likely to have been White (80 vs. 84 percent) and 

more likely to have graduated from private not-for-profit doctoral institutions (17 vs. 13 percent), 

characteristics associated with higher salary income ($37,500 for Asian/Pacific Islander vs. 

$32,500 for White; $36,400 for private not-for-profit doctoral institutions vs. $30,400–$33,100 

for others). This suggests the possibility that the statistics reported in the table might have been 

underestimated—that is, the average and median salary would likely have been higher if the 

response rate for B2SALARY had been higher. However, respondents with unknown values for 

B2SALARY were more likely than those with known values to have majored in humanities and 

social sciences (27 vs. 23 percent) and less likely to have majored in the “Other” category (22 vs. 

25 percent), which would likely lead to estimates lower than those presented in table 1, because 

humanities and social sciences majors earned, on average, less than those whose major was in the 

“Other” category ($29,700 vs. $33,400). Nonetheless, in neither direction of potential bias were 

the differences between respondents and nonrespondents considerable in magnitude, meaning 

that if there were any biases, they would have had a very limited effect on the overall sample. 

When combining this with the fact that among all sample cases, only 19 percent of them had a 

missing value on B2SALARY, it is unlikely that the estimates reported in table 1 would be 

seriously biased. 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the B&B:93/03 Data Analysis 

System (DAS). (The data from the 1994, 1997, and 2003 interviews were incorporated into one 

DAS.) The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own tables. 

The DAS also contains a detailed description of how each variable was created, and includes 

question wording for items coming directly from an interview. 

With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this report. In 

addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates the proper standard errors2 and weighted 

sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B-2 contains standard errors that correspond 

 

2 The B&B samples are not simple random samples, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating sampling 

error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and calculates 

standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves 

approximating the estimator by balanced repeated replication of the sampled population. The procedure is typically referred to as 

the “balanced repeated replication technique.” 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-7 

to estimates in table 2 in the report. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable 

estimate (fewer than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate. All 

standard errors for estimates presented in this report can be viewed at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a 

correlation matrix of selected variables to be used for linear regression models. Included in the 

output with the correlation matrix are the design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. 

Since statistical procedures generally compute regression coefficients based on simple random 

sample assumptions, the standard errors must be adjusted with the design effects to take into 

account the stratified sampling method used in the NPSAS surveys. 

Table B-2.—Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed

Table B-2.—for undergraduate education from any source and, among borrowers, average amount borrowed

Table B-2.—and percentage distribution of amount borrowed, by student and institutional characteristics

Percent Average 

Student and institutional who amount Less than $5,000– $10,000– $15,000

characteristics borrowed borrowed $5,000 9,999 14,999 or more

 Total 0.86 $210 0.94 0.83 0.75 1.02

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent

 Lowest 1.58 440 2.07 1.73 1.63 2.56

 Low middle 1.73 370 2.78 2.52 1.99 1.54

 High middle 1.46 770 2.72 2.50 1.80 2.91

 Highest 1.33 630 2.45 2.22 2.35 2.70

 Independent 1.39 240 1.38 1.73 1.20 1.36

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year 1.08 220 1.42 1.08 1.04 1.10

 Non-doctorate-granting 2.10 470 2.68 1.75 1.58 2.07

 Doctorate-granting 1.29 210 1.54 1.22 1.48 1.35

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 1.43 320 1.28 1.66 1.27 1.89

 Non-doctorate-granting 2.04 440 1.65 2.59 1.46 2.37

 Doctorate-granting 2.10 550 2.02 1.69 2.35 2.92

 Other 6.36 1,190 6.60 6.15 6.34 5.56

Highest enrollment after bachelor’s degree by 2003

 No degree 1.26 320 1.38 1.22 1.11 1.47

 Nongraduate degree 2.69 640 3.03 2.88 3.48 3.14

 Graduate or first-professional degree 1.13 260 1.46 1.47 1.18 1.38

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03).

Amount borrowed
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-8 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/das. For more information 

about the Data Analysis System, contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

Postsecondary Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006–5652 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov

Statistical Procedures 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,3 or significance 

level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the 

differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables 

of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing (p < .05). 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

t =

1 2

2

2

2

1

1 2

se + se - 2(r)se se

E - E (2) 

 

3 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-9 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.4 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

t =

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

se se 2 p se

E E

+ −

− (3) 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.5 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in using statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons based on 

large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of respondents would produce a large t statistic. 

A second hazard in using statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this report 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced no more than one 

time out of 20 when there was no actual difference in the quantities in the underlying population. 

When researchers test hypotheses that show t values below the .05 significance level, they treat 

this finding as rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two quantities. 

Failing to reject the null hypothesis (i.e., finding no difference), however, does not necessarily 

imply that the values are the same or equivalent. 

 

4 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 

5 Ibid.