Debt Burden

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2005–170

A Comparison of 1992–93 and 

1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree 

Recipients a Year After 

Graduating

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Reports
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2005–170 

Debt Burden 

A Comparison of 1992–93 and 

1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree 

Recipients a Year After 

Graduating 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Reports 

March 2005 

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

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Acting 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 high quality 

data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, 

practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

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 

March 2005 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page 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. (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, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

For ordering information on this report, write: 

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS 

Content Contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

Two important changes during the 1990s had 

major implications for borrowing for 

undergraduate education. First, the price of going 

to college increased faster than inflation (The 

College Board 2003a). Second, the 1992 

Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 

increased loan limits for the Stafford loan 

program, expanded eligibility for need-based aid, 

and introduced unsubsidized Stafford loans for 

undergraduates regardless of their financial need. 

The resulting increase in federal borrowing was 

immediate and dramatic. After adjusting for 

inflation, the federal loan volume for 

undergraduate and graduate borrowing increased 

by 35 percent the first year after the change 

(1992–93 to 1993–94) (The College Board 

2003b). Between 1992–93 and 2002–03, it grew 

from $20.7 billion (in constant 2002 dollars) to 

$49.1 billion, an increase of 137 percent. 

This report uses the 1994 and 2001 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

(B&B) to compare the borrowing patterns of 

1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree 

recipients. It also examines their repayment 

situations and resulting debt burdens (defined as 

monthly loan payments as a percentage of monthly 

salary income a year after they graduated). 

Members of the earlier cohort finished their 

undergraduate borrowing before the changes in 

the Stafford loan program were implemented, and 

most members of the later cohort would have done 

all of their borrowing under the new rules. 

The major finding of the analysis was that 

although both the percentage of graduates who 

had borrowed for their undergraduate education 

and the average total amount borrowed (adjusting 

for inflation) increased, the median debt burden 

(as defined in the previous paragraph) a year after 

graduating was about the same for both cohorts. 

Higher salaries (after adjusting for inflation) and 

lower payments relative to the amount borrowed 

for the later cohort (whose payments were kept 

down by declining interest rates) appear to be the 

major reason why there was no increase in the 

later cohort’s debt burden. Various alternative 

payment options could have lowered the payments 

for some members of either cohort, but 

comparable data on how the two cohorts used 

these alternatives are not available. 

The data presented in this report are nationally 

representative of bachelor’s degree recipients in 

1992–93 and 1999–2000. They cover the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 

except for the first row in each table, which 

excludes Puerto Rico. The comparisons made in 

the text were tested using the Student’s t statistic. 

All differences cited are statistically significant at 

the .05 level. The amounts borrowed by 1992–93 

graduates were adjusted to 1999 constant dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index for all urban 

dwellers (CPI-U) to make them comparable to the 

amounts borrowed by 1999–2000 graduates; the 

amounts owed, monthly payments, and earnings a 

year later (in 1994) were adjusted to 2001 

constant dollars. 
Executive Summary

iv 

Undergraduate Borrowing 

The percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients 

who had borrowed from any source to finance 

their undergraduate education increased from 49 

percent in 1992–93 to 65 percent in 1999–2000 

(tables A and 2). Among borrowers, the average 

amount borrowed increased from $12,100 (in 

constant 1999 dollars) to $19,300. 

The increase in the percentage who borrowed 

occurred for males and females and each 

racial/ethnic1 and age group. It also occurred for 

 

1The apparent increase for American Indians was not 

statistically significant. 

all categories of enrollment characteristics such as 

where they first enrolled, where they earned their 

degree, how long they took to earn their degree, 

and undergraduate major. Finally, the increase 

occurred for graduates who had been either 

dependent or independent and at all family income 

levels for dependent students. Among graduates 

who were dependent students, the percentage who 

borrowed increased from 67 to 72 percent for 

those in the lowest family income group and 

roughly doubled (from 24 to 46 percent) for those 

in the highest income group (figure A). 

Table A.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for undergraduate education,

Table A.—average amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars) and among those repaying their loans a year later,

Table A.—average monthly salary and loan payment (in 2001 dollars) and median debt burden, by type of

Table A.—degree-granting institution: 1994 and 2001

All graduates Borrowers

Percent Average Average Average Median

who had amount annual monthly loan debt

Type of degree-granting institution borrowed borrowed salary payment burden

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 49.3 $12,100 $28,300 $170 6.7

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 49.3 12,100 28,300 160 6.7

Public 4-year non-doctoral 48.0 9,800 25,000 140 6.6

Public 4-year doctoral 45.5 10,600 29,400 150 5.9

Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 57.5 14,100 27,300 180 7.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral 49.5 16,800 28,900 220 8.5

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 65.5 $19,400 $34,100 $210 6.9

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 65.4 19,300 34,100 210 6.9

Public 4-year non-doctoral 63.1 15,000 32,500 170 5.8

Public 4-year doctoral 63.6 17,500 34,300 200 6.7

Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 71.5 20,900 32,300 230 8.0

Private not-for-profit doctoral 65.4 28,000 37,500 260 7.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Borrowers in repayment

 1992–93 1994

 1999–2000 2001
Executive Summary

v 

The increase in the average cumulative amount 

borrowed occurred at all types of institutions, at 

each income level, and across all other student and 

institutional characteristics just mentioned.2 The 

percentage of graduates who had borrowed 

$25,000 or more for their undergraduate education 

increased from 7 percent in 1992–93 to 26 percent 

in 1999–2000 (table 3). 

Debt did not seem to discourage graduates 

from enrolling in graduate or first-professional 

education in any major way. In fact, despite their 

higher debt, 1999–2000 graduates were more 

 

2Again, the apparent increase for American Indians was not 

statistically significant. 

likely than their 1992–93 counterparts to have 

enrolled in a graduate or first-professional 

program a year later (21 vs. 16 percent) (table 5).

Among 1999–2000 graduates who had not 

enrolled by 2001 but were expecting to attend 

graduate school later, 5 percent cited 

undergraduate debt as the primary reason for 

postponing their enrollment (table 6). Debt also 

did not appear to discourage the later cohort from 

entering teaching: despite their greater average 

debt, they were slightly more likely than the 

earlier cohort to have taught within a year of 

graduating (12 vs. 10 percent) (table 7). Nor did 

higher debt appear to force graduates to take jobs 

unrelated to their career goals: about 29 percent 

Figure A.—Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their undergraduate

Figure A.—education, by family income and dependency status

1

Refers to status during 1992–93 or 1999–2000. Dependency status and income may not have been the same throughout students’

undergraduate education.

NOTE: Includes education loans and loans from family or friends. Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

67

45

34

24

60

72 68

62

46

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lowest

income

Lower middle

income

Upper middle

income

Highest

income

Independent

Family income and dependency status1

Percent

1992–93 1999–2000

Dependent
Executive Summary

vi 

reported taking such jobs, with no detectable 

increase related to the amount borrowed (table 8). 

Loan Repayment 

Borrowers usually must begin repaying their 

education loans 6 months after they graduate, 

although they may be able to postpone repaying if 

they are enrolled in postsecondary education at 

least half time, are unemployed, are participating 

in a qualifying service program (e.g., volunteering 

in the Peace Corps), or have an approved medical 

or economic hardship.3 The standard repayment 

period for Stafford loans is 10 years, but 

alternative repayment options—graduated, 

extended, income-based—are available to some, 

depending on the specific loan program and 

amount borrowed. These alternatives reduce the 

monthly payment in the early years, but increase 

total interest charges. One option is for borrowers 

to consolidate their loans and obtain a fixed rate 

as well as extend the repayment period. When 

interest rates are low, as they are now, students 

who exercise this option can save substantial 

amounts over the life of the loan. 

Just under two-thirds of the borrowers in each 

cohort were repaying their loans a year after 

graduating (table 10). Because 1999–2000 

graduates had borrowed more, on average, than 

their 1992–93 counterparts, they also had larger 

average monthly loan payments a year later ($210 

vs. $160 per month in constant 2001 dollars) 

(tables A and 11). A comparison of the payments 

relative to the amounts borrowed for the two 

cohorts suggests that the later cohort had more 

favorable repayment terms a year after they 

 

3The 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. 

graduated: the average amount borrowed 

increased by 60 percent, but the average monthly 

payment increased by 30 percent.4 For the later 

cohort, lower interest rates helped to keep monthly 

payments down. Interest rates on Stafford loans 

disbursed before 1992 were fixed and ranged from 

8 to 10 percent (although borrowers were 

permitted to convert them to variable rates later). 

Interest rates are now variable; they are set 

annually on July 1 and cannot exceed 8.25 

percent. In 2001, the interest rate on Stafford 

loans was between 6 and 7 percent, depending on 

the date of the loan.5 

The later cohort also benefited from higher 

salaries, even after adjusting for inflation. The 

1999–2000 graduates had an average salary of 

$34,100 in 2001, compared with an average of 

$28,300 (in constant 2001 dollars) for 1992–93 

graduates in 1994 (tables A and 13). 

Debt Burden 

Debt burden is defined here as the monthly 

loan payment as a percentage of monthly income. 

While this is a commonly used indicator, there is 

no widely recognized standard of what constitutes 

an acceptable level of debt burden (Greiner 1996). 

Scherschel (1998) noted that mortgage lenders 

frequently recommend that student loan payments 

 

4While not based on a nationally representative sample of 

students, a similar pattern of discrepancy was reported by 

Baum and O’Malley (2003) in the rate of growth in 

undergraduate debt level and monthly repayments based on 

data from the 2002 National Student Loan Survey conducted 

by the Nellie Mae Corporation. 

5While both the amounts borrowed and the monthly loan 

payments are student reported in a telephone interview and 

therefore subject to recall error, the two appear to be 

consistent. The monthly payment on a 10-year loan for 

$12,100 (the average borrowed by 1992–93 graduates) at 8–

10 percent interest would be $147–160; the payment on a 10-

year loan for $19,300 (the average for 1999–2000 graduates) 

at 6–7 percent interest would be $214–224. 
 Executive Summary 

vii 

should not exceed 8 percent of their pre-tax 

income. 

A comparison of the debt burden of the two 

cohorts reflects differences not only in how much 

they borrowed but also in the salaries they were 

able to command, the prevailing interest rates, and 

the repayment options they selected. Although the 

later graduates had borrowed more, on average, 

than the earlier graduates, the combination of 

higher salaries and apparent better repayment 

terms resulted in a median debt burden that was 

similar for both cohorts (7 percent) (tables A and 

14). Goldenberg (2004) estimated comparable 

levels of debt burden for all borrowers (not only 

bachelor’s degree recipients) in their first year of 

repayment in all years from 1997 through 2001 (6 

to 7 percent) using loan data from a random 

sample of borrowers in the National Student Loan 

Data Base and income data from the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

Even though the median debt burden did not 

increase, graduates with large loans or low 

salaries faced relatively high debt burdens. For 

example, 1999–2000 graduates who had borrowed 

$25,000 or more had a median debt burden of 10 

percent in 2001, compared with 3 percent for their 

peers who had borrowed less than $10,000. Also, 

low salaries understandably make repaying loans 

more burdensome. For both cohorts, the lower the 

income category, the greater the median debt 

burden was. Those with the lowest salaries had a 

median debt burden of 18 percent in 1994 and 15 

percent in 2001, and those with middle and high 

incomes had median debt burdens in the 4–9 

percent range. 

While the relationship between loan payments 

and earnings is probably the most important 

indicator of debt burden, it is useful to look at 

other details of graduates’ financial circumstances 

and life choices for any signs that undergraduate 

debt may be creating hardships. Considering 

graduates who were not enrolled for further 

education, no systematic differences were detected 

between those who borrowed various amounts and 

those who had not borrowed in terms of their 

living arrangements (table 16) or propensity to 

marry (table 18). 

However, as debt burden increased (i.e., as 

student loan payments used up an increasing 

proportion of their salaries) graduates’ ability or 

willingness to take on other financial obligations 

was affected. For both cohorts, among graduates 

repaying their loans, those with a debt burden of 

less than 5 percent were more likely than those 

with a debt burden of 17 percent or more to have 

mortgage, rent, or auto loan payments, and when 

they did, the amounts they paid were generally 

larger. 

It is important to understand that these data 

represent debt burden a year after graduation but 

that debt burden can change during the repayment 

period. Interest rates on federal loans are variable 

and therefore may go up or down, and income and 

employment status can change because of 

personal circumstances or changing economic 

conditions. Thus, the extent to which any group of 

borrowers is likely to have difficulty repaying 

their loans depends not only on the size of their 

loans but also on conditions during the repayment 

period that are difficult to predict when students 

and their families make decisions about 

borrowing. Students whose academic success is 

uncertain or whose families lack the financial 

resources to help them repay their loans if they 

run into difficulty are especially vulnerable to 

these uncertainties. 

Finally, it is important to note that although 

median debt burden a year after graduating has not 
Executive Summary

viii 

increased, the amount that the average bachelor’s 

degree recipient borrowed, and thus will have to 

repay, has increased. Although loans help students 

gain access to undergraduate education by 

reducing the necessary immediate outlay, they do 

not decrease the total price of going to college; 

they simply postpone paying the bill. 
ix 

Foreword 

This report compares the borrowing patterns of two cohorts of bachelor’s degree recipients 

and examines their debt burdens (defined as monthly payments as a percentage of monthly salary 

income) a year after they graduated, using data from the 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and 

Beyond Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01). The participants in these studies were first 

interviewed as part of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies conducted in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000, which are based on nationally representative samples of students enrolled in 

postsecondary education and are designed to provide detailed information on how students and 

their families pay for college. The earlier cohort was interviewed again in 1994, and the later one 

in 2001. The 1992–93 graduates were interviewed again in 1997 and 2003, but data collected 

then were not used for this analysis. For most respondents, this next interview took place 

approximately 1 year after they graduated, although the time frame was somewhat longer for 

those who graduated early in the academic year. 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the B&B:93/97 and 

B&B:2000/01 Data Analysis Systems (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 would like to thank C. Dennis Carroll, the NCES Project Monitor, and Lutz 

Berkner, Laura Horn, and Robin Henke of MPR Associates, for their valuable guidance and 

reviews at various stages. Other valuable contributions were made by Barbara Kridl, who 

supervised production of the report, Andrea Livingston, who edited it, Francesca Tussing, who 

formatted the tables and prepared the figures, and Patti Gildersleeve, who prepared the final 

layout. 

At NCES, Paula Knepper and Marilyn Seastrom, Chief Statistician, provided 

comprehensive technical and methodological reviews of the draft. Members of the PEDAR 

Technical Review Panel reviewed and commented on the preliminary findings, draft report, or 

both, including Richard C. Richardson, Jr. of New York University, Mike Cohen of the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics, Dongbin Kim of the National Association of Independent Colleges 

and Universities, Daniel Goldenberg of the Budget Service (Office of the Deputy Secretary), 

Melanie Corrigan of the American Council on Education, Ken Redd of the National Association 

of Student Financial Aid Administrators, and Tricia Grimes of the Minnesota Higher Education 

Services Office. Duc-Le To of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and two anonymous 

outside reviewers provided the final substantive and methodological reviews. 
xi 

Table of Contents 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Loan Programs ......................................................................................................... 2 

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

Data ....................................................................................................................................... 4 

Organization of the Report ................................................................................................... 7 

Borrowing for Undergraduate Education .............................................................................. 9

Who Borrows and How Much .............................................................................................. 9 

Loan Sources ......................................................................................................................... 15 

Graduate and First-Professional Enrollment and Plans ......................................................... 20 

Careers .................................................................................................................................. 24 

Amounts Owed a Year Later ................................................................................................ 27 

Loan Repayment ....................................................................................................................... 31

Repayment Status ................................................................................................................. 31 

Monthly Payments ................................................................................................................ 33 

Debt Burden .............................................................................................................................. 39

Employment Status and Salaries ........................................................................................... 39 

Monthly Payments as a Percentage of Monthly Salary ......................................................... 44 

Parental Help With Payments ............................................................................................... 47 

Other Indicators of Debt Burden ........................................................................................... 47 

Graduates With High Levels of Debt or Debt Burden........................................................... 55 

Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 61

References .................................................................................................................................. 63
Table of Contents

xii 

Page 

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 67

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. 79

 
xiii 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

Executive Summary 

A Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for 

undergraduate education, average amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars) and 

among those repaying their loans a year later, average monthly salary and loan 

payment (in 2001 dollars) and median debt burden, by type of degree-granting 

institution: 1994 and 2001 ............................................................................................... iv 

Text 

1 Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by 

selected student and institutional characteristics ............................................................. 6 

2 Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for 

their undergraduate education and among those who borrowed, average amount (in 

1999 constant dollars), by selected student and institutional characteristics................... 10 

3 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their 

undergraduate education, percentage distribution of the amount borrowed (in 1999 

constant dollars), by selected student and institutional characteristics............................ 16 

4 Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their 

undergraduate education and among those who borrowed, average amount (in 1999 

constant dollars), by type of loan and selected student and institutional 

characteristics................................................................................................................... 18 

5 Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had enrolled 

in a graduate or first-professional program, and among 1999–2000 graduates who had 

not yet enrolled, percentage expecting to do so in the future, by selected student and 

institutional characteristics: 1994 and 2001 .................................................................... 21 

6 Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had considered graduate or firstprofessional education but had not yet enrolled, percentage distribution of their 

primary reason for postponing enrollment, by selected student and institutional 

characteristics: 2001 ........................................................................................................ 25 
List of Tables

xiv 

Table Page 

7 Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught at 

any K–12 school, by total amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars): 1994 and 

2001 ................................................................................................................................. 27 

8 Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who did not consider their 

current job to be the start of a career in that occupation or industry and, among those 

with jobs, percentage distribution of their primary reason for taking the job, by total 

amount borrowed: 2001................................................................................................... 28 

9 Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had borrowed federal loans or 

from family or friends, percentage who still owed, and if still owed, average amount 

owed (in 2001 constant dollars), by type of loan and selected student and institutional 

characteristics: 2001 ........................................................................................................ 30 

10 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their 

undergraduate education, percentage repaying their loans, by total amount borrowed 

and student enrollment status: 1994 and 2001................................................................. 32 

11 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying 

their loans, percentage distribution of the amount of their monthly payment (in 

constant 2001 dollars) and average monthly payment, by selected student and 

institutional characteristics: 1994 and 2001 .................................................................... 34 

12 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying 

their undergraduate loans, percentage distribution of their employment status, by 

selected student and institutional characteristics: 1994 and 2001 ................................... 40 

13 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed 

and repaying their undergraduate loans, percentage distribution of their annual salary 

(in constant 2001 dollars) and average annual salary, by selected student and 

institutional characteristics: 1994 and 2001 .................................................................... 42 

14 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed 

and repaying their undergraduate loans, percentage distribution of their debt burden 

and their median debt burden, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 

1994 and 2001.................................................................................................................. 45 

15 Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their 

undergraduate loans, percentage distribution of whether parents were helping with 

repayment, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2001 ........................... 48 
List of Tables 

xv 

Table Page 

16 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not enrolled, 

percentage distribution of their living arrangement, by selected student characteristics: 

1994 and 2001.................................................................................................................. 50 

17 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not enrolled, 

percentage with monthly payments for mortgage or rent and auto loans and among 

those with payments, average amounts (in constant 2001 dollars), by selected student 

characteristics: 1994 and 2001......................................................................................... 52 

18 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not enrolled, 

percentage who were married as of and after graduation, by selected student 

characteristics: 1994 and 2001......................................................................................... 54 

19 Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying loans, married, 

and not enrolled, percentage whose spouse also was repaying, average payment 

amount by such spouse, and average monthly payment by household, by respondents’ 

monthly repayment amount: 2001 ................................................................................... 55 

20 Percentage distribution of selected student characteristics and institutional 

characteristics, by borrowing status: 1992–93 and 1999–2000 ....................................... 56 

21 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients, percentage distribution 

of selected student and institutional characteristics, by debt burden status: 1994 and 

2001 ................................................................................................................................. 58 

Appendix 

B-1 Lowest weighted item response rates for variables used in this report: 1993/94 and 

2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and 

B&B:2000/01) ................................................................................................................. 82 

B-2 Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree 

recipients who borrowed for their undergraduate education and among those who 

borrowed, average amount (in 1999 constant dollars), by selected student and 

institutional characteristics .............................................................................................. 86 
xvi 

List of Figures 

Figures Page 

Executive Summary 

A Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for 

their undergraduate education, by family income and dependency status....................... v 

Text 

1 Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for 

their undergraduate education, by type of degree-granting institution ............................ 11 

2 Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for 

their undergraduate education, by family income and dependency status....................... 12 

3 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their 

undergraduate education, average amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars), by 

type of degree-granting institution................................................................................... 13 

4 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their 

undergraduate education, average amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars), by 

family income and dependency status ............................................................................. 14 

5 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their 

undergraduate education, percentage distribution by the amount borrowed (in 1999 

constant dollars)............................................................................................................... 15 

6 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients repaying their loans, 

percentage distribution by the amount of their monthly payment (in constant 2001 

dollars): 1994 and 2001 ................................................................................................... 37 

7 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed 

and repaying their undergraduate loans, average annual salary (in constant 2001 

dollars), by undergraduate major: 1994 and 2001 ........................................................... 41 

8 Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed 

and repaying their undergraduate loans, percentage distribution of debt burden: 1994 

and 2001........................................................................................................................... 46 
1 

Introduction 

Two important changes during the 1990s had major implications for borrowing to finance 

undergraduate education. First, the price of going to college increased faster than inflation (The 

College Board 2003a). Second, the 1992 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act increased 

loan limits for the Stafford loan program (the major source for undergraduate loans), expanded 

eligibility for need-based aid, and introduced unsubsidized loans for undergraduates regardless of 

their financial need. The resulting increase in federal borrowing was immediate and dramatic. 

After adjusting for inflation, the federal loan volume for undergraduate and graduate borrowing 

increased by 35 percent the first year after the change (1992–93 to 1993–94) (The College Board 

2003b). Between 1992–93 and 2002–03, it grew from $20.7 billion (in constant 2002 dollars) to 

$49.1 billion, an increase of 137 percent. 

This increase in borrowing has fueled long-held concerns about potentially negative 

consequences of students’ borrowing. In addition to their concerns about default, many 

educators, policymakers, and others have worried that student debt may limit borrowers’ choices 

with respect to graduate or first-professional education, restrict their ability to choose careers 

such as teaching that are important to society but have low earnings potential relative to other 

careers open to college graduates, or cause them to alter their family or lifestyle goals (Hansen 

1987; Davis and Merisotis 1998; Joyner 1998). 

This report describes the borrowing patterns of two cohorts of bachelor’s degree recipients 

(1992–93 and 1999–2000) and examines their repayment situations and resulting debt burdens a 

year after they graduated (i.e., in 1994 and 2001). Debt burden is defined here as monthly loan 

payments as a percentage of monthly salary income. The report also looks at the relationship 

between borrowing and teaching, enrollment in graduate and first-professional degree programs, 

job choices immediately after college, and selected lifestyle choices once the graduates begin 

repaying their loans. 

It is interesting to compare these two cohorts because members of the earlier cohort 

finished their undergraduate borrowing before the changes in the federal loan programs were put 

into place, and most members of the later cohort would have done all of their borrowing under 

the new rules. The major finding of the analysis was that although both the percentage of 

graduates who had borrowed for their undergraduate education and the average total amount 

borrowed (adjusting for inflation) increased, the median debt burden a year after graduating was 
Introduction

2 

about the same for both cohorts. Higher salaries (after adjusting for inflation) and lower 

payments relative to the amount borrowed for the later cohort (whose payments were kept down 

by declining interest rates) appear to be the major reason that debt burden did not increase. 

Various alternative payment options also may have lowered the payments for some members of 

either cohort, but comparable data on how the two cohorts used these alternatives are not 

available.1

Student Loan Programs 

The federal government helps students borrow by guaranteeing the loans and, for students 

who qualify for need-based aid, by paying the interest while they are enrolled.2 After students 

graduate, the federal government helps lighten students’ repayment burden by providing 

deferments for hardships and offering various alternatives to the usual repayment schedule of 

equal payments over 10 years that reduce payments in the early years. The alternative repayment 

options provide a short-term solution for students who have difficulty making payments, but they 

increase the total interest charges the borrower must eventually pay. In addition, the federal 

government has programs that forgive a portion of students’ debt in exchange for working in 

certain occupations or geographic areas. 

The Stafford loan program is now the major federal loan program for undergraduates. (Its 

forerunner was the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program established by the Higher Education 

Act of 1965.) Federal student loan programs were originally designed to help students with 

financial need attend college, but as the price of attendance increased during the 1970s and 

1980s, Congress responded by raising both loan limits and income ceilings. Since 1992, all 

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

guaranteed student loans. 

For a student who qualifies for need-based aid, the federal government pays the interest on 

the loan 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. 

Interest on these loans starts accruing as soon as the loans are disbursed, but students may 

postpone paying the interest until they leave school. Of the $49.1 billion borrowed through 

federal student loan programs in 2002–03, $42.3 billion was borrowed (by undergraduates and 

graduates) through the Stafford loan program ($22.4 billion as subsidized loans and $19.9 billion 

as unsubsidized loans) (The College Board 2003b). 

 

1The major options available to the two cohorts were similar. 

2The 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. 
Introduction 

3 

The maximum Stafford loan limits vary by undergraduate class level and dependency 

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

students could borrow up to $37,250. The 1992 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 

raised the limits on the total amount borrowed to $23,000 (subsidized plus unsubsidized) for 

dependent students and to $46,000 for independent students (no more than $23,000 of which may 

be subsidized). These limits are still in effect. 

The reauthorization currently under consideration has stimulated vigorous debate about 

Stafford loan limits (Burd 2003). Proponents of higher loan limits argue that students and their 

families have greater financial need now than they did a decade ago and are being forced to 

borrow from private sources that provide less attractive terms than federal student loan programs. 

Those opposed to raising the loan limits argue that students are already borrowing large amounts 

and that any increased federal aid should be distributed in the form of grants rather than loans. 

The Perkins loan program, originally the National Defense Student Loans (NDSL) 

established in 1958, is the smallest federal loan program for undergraduates. It provides loans to 

students with exceptional need. Funds are limited, and institutional financial aid administrators 

have considerable discretion in determining who receives them. In 2002–03, students 

(undergraduate and graduate) borrowed $1.3 billion in Perkins loans (The College Board 2003b). 

Parents of dependent undergraduates may borrow through the federally sponsored Parent 

Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program. Before the 1992 reauthorization, the loan 

limit was $20,000; since the reauthorization, parents have been permitted to borrow up to the full 

price of attending (minus any other aid). In 2002–03, parents borrowed $5.4 billion through this 

program (The College Board 2003b). 

Nonfederal student loans totaled $7.6 billion in 2002–03 (The College Board 2003b). Some 

of this borrowing was through state loan programs, but most of it was through banks and other 

private lenders. 

Loans and Access 

Loans, unlike grants, must be repaid, typically over a 10-year period after the student 

graduates or leaves school. Therefore, unlike grants, loans do not reduce the price of going to 

college. They increase a student’s access to college by reducing the immediate outlay needed to 

attend, but they simply postpone paying the bill. Therefore, the decision to borrow has long-term 

implications that can affect a student for many years after leaving school. 
Introduction

4 

While loans promote access, they also entail risk. Families must make decisions about 

borrowing without knowing what the interest rates will be during the repayment period. They 

also cannot be certain that the students will graduate, get jobs, and earn enough to meet their 

repayment obligations. For students who do not perform well academically (and thus are at risk 

of not completing college) or whose families lack the financial resources to help them if they 

cannot meet their financial commitments during the repayment period, borrowing is more risky 

than it is for students who are academically and financially secure. Because this analysis covers 

only students who completed bachelor’s degrees, it cannot address the difficulty 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. 

Data 

This report uses the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B) conducted in 

1994 and 2001 to examine the borrowing patterns and debt burdens of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree recipients. The B&B Studies tracked the experiences of two cohorts of 

bachelor’s degree recipients after they graduated. They are the most recent nationally 

representative longitudinal studies of bachelor’s degree recipients. All participants were first 

interviewed as part of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies conducted in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000 (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000). The earlier cohort was interviewed again in 1994, 

and the later one in 2001 (B&B:93/94 and 2000/01).3 For most respondents, the B&B interview 

took place approximately 1 year after they graduated, but the time frame was somewhat longer 

for those who graduated early in the academic year. For convenience, the terms “a year later” or 

“after a year” are used in this report, although the actual time frame is not exactly 12 months for 

all graduates. 

The NPSAS studies included about 1,100 institutions and were based on a nationally 

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

undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students; each NPSAS study represents more than 

16 million undergraduates who were enrolled at some time between July 1 and June 30 of the 

respective survey year. The survey frames for NPSAS were built from the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems Institutional Characteristics file (IPEDS-IC) for 1990–91 

and 1998–99; 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 sampling frames of about 12,500 in 1992–93 and 

11,600 in 1999–2000. These bachelor’s degree recipients represent the approximately 1.2 million 

 

3The 1992–93 cohort was also interviewed in 1997 and 2003, but those data are not analyzed here. 
Introduction 

5 

bachelor’s degree completers in each of the 2 years (U.S. Department of Education 2003). 

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

from transcripts not to have earned a bachelor’s degree during the relevant academic year (760 in 

1992–93 and 70 in 1999–2000). See appendix B for more detail. 

The weighted overall response rate for B&B:2000/01 was 74 percent (taking into account 

an institution response rate of 90 percent from NPSAS:2000). The weighted response rate for 

B&B:93/94 was 81 percent (taking into account an institution response rate of 88 percent for 

NPSAS:1993). The data presented in this report cover the 50 states, District of Columbia (D.C.), 

and Puerto Rico, except the first row in each table, which includes only the 50 states and D.C. 

(excluding Puerto Rico). 

In most cases, comparable data exist for both cohorts of bachelor’s degree recipients. In a 

few cases where the definition of a variable is not exactly the same for both cohorts, the 

discrepancy is noted along with an explanation of the expected direction of any bias. When 

comparable questions were not asked of both cohorts, data for the 1999–2000 cohort are 

presented. The glossary in appendix A provides a complete description of each variable presented 

in the tables. 

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

cited were statistically significant at the .05 level. The formula used and more detail on 

significance levels are provided in appendix B. 

Dollar amounts for the earlier cohort were adjusted for inflation. The amounts borrowed by 

1992–93 graduates were adjusted to 1999 constant dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all 

urban dwellers (CPI-U) to make them comparable to the amounts borrowed by the 1999–2000 

graduates; the amounts owed, monthly payments, and earnings a year later (i.e., 1994) were 

adjusted to 2001 constant dollars.4 Dollar amounts cited in this report from other sources 

describing loan limits or loan volumes were not adjusted for inflation. 

The two B&B cohorts had relatively similar student and institutional characteristics, but a 

few statistically significant shifts occurred. Members of the later cohort were more likely than the 

earlier one to be female, to be from a minority racial/ethnic group,5 to have majored in the 

humanities or social science or in “other” fields, and to have graduated from a public 4-year 

doctoral institution (table 1). Correspondingly, they were less likely to be male, to be White, to 

 

4Specifically, the 1992–93 amounts were multiplied by 1.1887455 to adjust to 1999–2000 dollars, and the 1994 amounts by 

1.195007 to adjust to 2001 dollars. 

5The apparent increase for American Indians was not statistically significant. 
Introduction

6 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by selected student

Table 1.—and institutional characteristics

Student and institutional characteristics 1992–93 1999–2000

 Total 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 45.4 42.6

 Female 54.6 57.4

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 0.6 0.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 4.9 6.8

 Black 6.1 8.3

 White 83.3 75.2

 Hispanic 5.1 9.0

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 71.7 65.9

 25–29 12.4 16.3

 30 and above 16.0 17.8

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree

 Within 4 years 35.5 38.7

 More than 4, up to 6 years 38.9 33.4

 More than 6 years 25.6 28.0

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 22.0 20.2

 Education 12.8 8.2

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 16.4 15.6

 Humanities or social sciences 24.3 29.4

 Other 24.5 26.6

Dependency status

 Dependent 58.9 56.4

 Independent 41.2 43.6

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 23.2 19.2

 Public 4-year doctoral 42.0 44.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 17.9 19.2

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 13.4 13.8

 Other 3.5 3.1

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).
Introduction 

7 

have majored in business and management or education, and to have earned their degree from a 

public 4-year non-doctoral institution. 

Organization of the Report 

The next section describes borrowing for undergraduate education, including who 

borrowed, how much, and from what sources. It also examines how undergraduate borrowing is 

related to graduate and first-professional enrollment and career plans, ending with a description 

of the amounts owed a year after graduating. The report looks next at the loan repayment status a 

year after graduation and the size of the monthly payments being made. Finally, the report 

describes debt burden a year after graduation—specifically, the amounts borrowed in relation to 

salaries and other aspects of graduates’ financial circumstances. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
9 

Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

The 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients were asked how much they had 

borrowed from all sources, including both student loans and loans from family and friends. The 

1999–2000 graduates were also asked to indicate how much they had borrowed through any 

education loan program (including federal programs), through federal programs specifically, and 

from family and friends. Because this detail is lacking for the earlier cohort, only the total 

amounts borrowed by the two cohorts can be compared. This section first describes 

undergraduate borrowing (with more detail for the later cohort) and then examines the 

relationship between borrowing and various outcomes a year after graduating, such as enrolling 

in graduate or first-professional degree programs, teaching, and taking jobs unrelated to their 

career goals. Note that the borrowing described here does not include borrowing by parents and 

consequently does not represent the total amount families borrowed to pay for undergraduate 

education. 

Who Borrows and How Much 

Whether students borrow and how much they borrow depends on their financial need 

(which, in turn, depends on the price of attending their chosen institution and their financial 

resources), their willingness to borrow, and the availability of loans. Reflecting the increased 

price of attending and changes in the federal loan programs, the percentage of bachelor’s degree 

recipients who borrowed to pay for their undergraduate education and the average amount 

borrowed both increased. The percentage who had borrowed at any time during their 

undergraduate years increased from 49 percent for 1992–93 graduates to 65 percent for 1999–

2000 graduates (table 2). Among those who borrowed, the average cumulative amount borrowed 

(adjusted for inflation) rose from $12,100 to $19,300.

The percentage who borrowed increased among both males and females and for all 

racial/ethnic6 and age groups. It also increased at all types of institutions where graduates first 

enrolled or earned their degree (figure 1), for each of time-to-degree category, and for all 

undergraduate majors. The increase also occurred among graduates who had been either 

dependent or independent in the year they graduated and at all family income levels for 

 

6The apparent increase for American Indians was not statistically significant. 
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

10 

Table 2.—Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Table 2.—undergraduate education and among those who borrowed, average amount (in 1999 constant

Table 2.—dollars), by selected student and institutional characteristics

Student and institutional characteristics 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 49.3 65.5 $12,100 $19,400

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 49.3 65.4 12,100 19,300

Gender

 Male 49.7 64.7 12,400 19,100

 Female 48.9 65.9 11,800 19,500

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 66.2 78.4 13,300 16,800

 Asian/Pacific Islander 42.7 60.5 13,500 17,900

 Black 64.1 79.8 11,400 19,800

 White 47.8 63.7 12,300 19,700

 Hispanic 60.7 70.6 9,500 17,000

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 45.3 63.3 12,300 19,400

 25–29 65.2 72.4 11,400 19,700

 30 and above 55.1 66.6 11,500 18,800

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree

 Within 4 years 41.4 60.3 13,100 20,500

 More than 4, up to 6 years 50.1 67.8 12,000 18,300

 More than 6 years 59.4 69.9 11,000 18,800

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 46.1 60.2 12,200 17,200

 Education 54.0 71.2 11,800 18,100

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 53.5 62.9 11,800 19,500

 Humanities or social sciences 44.9 66.5 11,700 20,500

 Other 51.3 68.0 12,600 20,000

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 42.7 61.9 12,600 19,700

 Lowest 66.7 72.1 12,700 17,800

 Lower middle 45.1 68.1 10,800 19,100

 Upper middle 34.3 61.9 12,700 20,100

 Highest 24.3 45.6 15,300 23,300

 Independent, total 59.8 69.8 11,500 18,900

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 48.0 63.1 9,800 15,000

 Public 4-year doctoral 45.5 63.6 10,600 17,500

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 57.5 71.5 14,100 20,900

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 49.5 65.4 16,800 28,000

First postsecondary institution attended

 Public 2-year 52.8 69.9 11,000 17,500

 Public 4-year 45.9 61.5 10,700 17,300

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 53.2 70.7 14,800 23,900

 Other 58.1 70.1 12,500 19,800

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic 

includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Includes education loans and loans from family or friends, but not borrowing by parents.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Percent who borrowed

Among borrowers,

average amount borrowed
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

11 

dependent students (figure 2). Among graduates who were dependent students in the year that 

they graduated, the percentage who borrowed increased from 67 to 72 percent for those in the 

lowest family income group and roughly doubled (from 24 to 46 percent) for those in the highest 

income group. The increase in the average cumulative amount borrowed occurred at all types of 

institutions (figure 3), at each income level (figure 4), and across all other student and 

institutional characteristics shown in table 2 except among American Indians, whose apparent 

increase was not statistically significant and possibly associated with a small sample size or large 

standard errors, or both. 

In both cohorts, the relationship between borrowing and student characteristics followed 

the same patterns. For example, White and Asian bachelor’s degree recipients were less likely 

than Black or Hispanic graduates to have borrowed, which is consistent with the fact that Blacks 

and Hispanics are more likely to have financial need (Berkner et al. 2002). Bachelor’s degree 

recipients 25–29 years old were more likely than those who were younger or older to have 

Figure 1.—Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Figure 1.—undergraduate education, by type of degree-granting institution 

NOTE: Includes education loans and loans from family or friends. Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

48 45

58

50

63 64

71

65

0

20

40

60

80

100

Public 4-year

non-doctoral

Public 4-year

doctoral

Private

not-for-profit

4-year non-doctoral

Private

not-for-profit

4-year doctoral

Type of degree-granting institution

Percent

1992–93 1999–2000
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

12 

borrowed: 65 versus 45–55 percent for 1992–93 graduates and 72 versus 63–67 percent for 

1999–2000 graduates. 

Bachelor’s degree recipients in both cohorts who took more than 6 years to finish college 

were more likely than those who completed within 4 years to have borrowed: 59 versus 41 

percent for 1992–93 graduates and 70 versus 60 percent for 1999–2000 graduates. However, the 

graduates who took more than 6 years to finish borrowed less, on average, than those who 

finished within 4 years: $11,000 versus $13,100 for 1992–93 graduates and $18,800 versus 

$20,500 for 1999–2000 graduates. 

Graduates who had been dependent students from families with the highest incomes were 

less likely than their counterparts from lower income families or those who had been independent 

Figure 2.—Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Figure 2.—undergraduate education, by family income and dependency status

1

Refers to status during 1992–93 or 1999–2000. Dependency status and income may not have been the same throughout

students’ undergraduate education.

NOTE: Includes education loans and loans from family or friends. Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

67

45

34

24

60

72 68

62

46

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lowest

income

Lower middle

income

Upper middle

income

Highest

income

Independent

Family income and dependency status1

Percent

1992–93 1999–2000

Dependent
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

13 

students to have borrowed: 24 versus 34–67 percent for 1992–93 graduates and 46 versus 62–72 

percent for 1999–2000 graduates. However, when graduates from higher income families did 

borrow, they borrowed larger amounts, on average, than other graduates: $15,300 versus 

$10,800–$12,700 for 1992–93 graduates and $23,300 versus $17,800–$20,100 for 1999–2000 

graduates. The greater amounts borrowed by students from high-income families reflect, in part, 

the fact that these students are more likely to attend institutions with higher prices and are less 

likely to be eligible for need-based grants. 

Bachelor’s degree recipients from private not-for-profit non-doctoral institutions were more 

likely than those who graduated from other types of institutions to have borrowed: 58 versus 45–

50 percent in 1992–93 and 71 versus 63–65 percent in 1999–2000. However, among borrowers 

in both cohorts, graduates of private not-for-profit doctoral institutions borrowed the largest 

amount, on average. Graduates who began their postsecondary education at public 4-year 

institutions were the least likely to have borrowed. Among borrowers, those who had begun at 

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions borrowed the most, on average. 

Figure 3.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Figure 3.—undergraduate education, average amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars), by type of

Figure 3.—degree-granting institution

NOTE: Includes education loans and loans from family or friends. Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

9,800 10,600 14,100 16,800 15,000 17,500 20,900

28,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Public 4-year

non-doctoral

Public 4-year

doctoral

Private

not-for-profit

4-year non-doctoral

Private

not-for-profit

4-year doctoral

Type of degree-granting institution

Average

amount

1992–93 1999–2000

$
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

14 

Consistent with the larger average amounts borrowed in 1999–2000 than in 1992–93, the 

distribution of borrowers by the amount borrowed also shifted over time. Between 1992–93 and 

1999–2000, the percentage of graduates who had borrowed less than $10,000 (in 1999 constant 

dollars) decreased from 52 to 23 percent, and the percentage who had borrowed $25,000 or more 

increased from 7 to 26 percent (figure 5 and table 3). 

Among borrowers in both cohorts of graduates, Hispanics were more likely than Whites or 

Asians to have borrowed less than $10,000. In addition, graduates of private not-for-profit 

doctoral institutions were more likely than those at any other type of institution to have borrowed 

$25,000 or more (16 vs. 3 to 10 percent in 1992–93 and 42 vs. 17 to 27 percent in 1999–2000).

This difference is consistent with the higher average price of attending this type of institution 

(Berkner et al. 2002). 

Figure 4.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Figure 4.—undergraduate education, average amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars), by family income

Figure 4.—and dependency status

1

Refers to status during 1992–93 or 1999–2000. Dependency status and income may not have been the same throughout

students’ undergraduate education.

NOTE: Includes education loans and loans from family or friends. Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

12,700 10,800 12,700 15,300

11,500

17,800 19,100 20,100 23,300

18,900

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Lowest

income

Lower middle

income

Upper middle

income

Highest

income

Independent

Family income and dependency status1

Average

amount

1992–93 1999–2000

$

Dependent
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

15 

As already indicated, the borrowing described here does not include borrowing by parents. 

Although graduates were not asked about parental borrowing, information on PLUS loans is 

available through federal records. Among 1999–2000 graduates, 14 percent of their parents had 

taken out PLUS loans, up from 6 percent for the 1992–93 cohort.7 Among those whose parents 

used this program, the average cumulative amount borrowed increased from $7,500 for the 

earlier cohort to $14,900 for the later one. The amount parents may have borrowed from other 

sources is unknown. 

Loan Sources 

The 1999–2000 graduates were asked how much they had borrowed in education loans in 

total (including federal loans), in federal loans specifically, and from family and friends. 

Education loan programs set limits on the amounts students can borrow and establish the 

repayment terms. In contrast, loans from family and friends are likely to be more informal. 

Students may borrow from family and friends on a short-term basis to help cover immediate cash 

 

7Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:1993/94 and B&B:2000/01), Data Analysis Systems. Not shown in table. 

Figure 5.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Figure 5.—undergraduate education, percentage distribution by the amount borrowed (in 1999 constant

Figure 5.—dollars)

NOTE: Includes education loans and loans from family or friends. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates

include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

23

20

17

12

19

16

7

52

8 26

0

20

40

60

80

100

1992–93 1999–2000

Percent

$25,000 or more

$20,000–24,999

$15,000–19,999

$10,000–14,999

Less than $10,000
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

16 

Table 3.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Table 3.—undergraduate education, percentage distribution of the amount borrowed (in 1999 constant

Table 3.—dollars), by selected student and institutional characteristics

1992– 1999– 1992– 1999– 1992– 1999– 1992– 1999– 1992– 1999–

Student and institutional characteristics 93 2000 93 2000 93 2000 93 2000 93 2000

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 52.0 22.2 20.4 17.1 12.5 19.0 8.0 15.7 7.2 26.0

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 52.2 22.6 20.3 17.1 12.4 18.8 8.0 15.7 7.1 25.9

Gender

 Male 51.0 23.9 20.2 17.1 13.7 17.9 7.7 16.2 7.5 25.0

 Female 53.3 21.6 20.4 17.1 11.2 19.5 8.2 15.3 6.9 26.5

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 50.3 27.6 7.8 10.3 18.1 24.0 4.8 18.4 19.1 19.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 43.1 21.3 31.9 27.9 9.0 15.7 6.8 15.8 9.1 19.3

 Black 53.5 18.7 20.8 15.0 13.9 17.9 6.5 19.8 5.3 28.6

 White 51.7 21.7 20.2 16.6 12.5 19.5 8.3 15.8 7.3 26.4

 Hispanic 64.2 31.9 14.5 17.7 9.8 17.4 6.9 10.4 4.6 22.6

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 51.4 21.4 20.5 17.7 12.4 20.8 8.4 16.7 7.3 23.4

 25–29 50.6 22.5 23.3 15.2 14.2 16.9 6.4 14.0 5.6 31.4

 30 and above 56.7 26.7 16.7 16.8 10.4 14.1 8.2 13.8 8.1 28.7

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree

 Within 4 years 49.2 19.5 20.5 16.7 13.0 24.3 8.7 14.9 8.7 24.6

 More than 4, up to 6 years 52.2 23.2 20.3 18.3 12.7 17.2 8.2 18.3 6.6 23.0

 More than 6 years 55.7 25.7 20.7 16.0 11.5 15.3 6.0 13.9 6.1 29.2

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 55.0 24.3 17.3 18.0 12.3 22.0 8.0 15.5 7.4 20.3

 Education 53.2 21.6 21.0 19.6 12.1 19.0 6.5 15.5 7.2 24.4

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 53.7 24.8 18.6 16.6 13.7 17.1 6.6 16.4 7.3 25.2

 Humanities or social sciences 51.8 20.8 22.7 16.6 11.1 18.6 8.4 16.4 6.0 27.6

 Other 48.7 22.2 21.6 16.4 12.6 17.6 9.4 14.8 7.7 29.0

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 51.1 20.2 19.8 17.1 12.8 22.1 8.9 16.9 7.5 23.6

 Lowest 46.9 22.1 20.9 20.4 17.0 19.9 9.5 16.4 5.6 21.3

 Lower middle 57.0 16.4 20.2 16.8 9.7 22.8 7.7 20.6 5.4 23.4

 Upper middle 52.0 19.8 19.9 16.1 10.3 25.8 8.2 14.0 9.6 24.4

 Highest 50.5 23.6 15.5 13.9 10.1 19.3 10.2 16.4 13.7 26.7

 Independent, total 53.3 25.2 20.8 17.0 12.1 15.2 7.1 14.3 6.7 28.3

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 62.8 33.2 19.2 19.7 9.3 16.1 5.9 13.5 2.9 17.5

 Public 4-year doctoral 57.4 25.7 20.0 17.8 11.3 18.3 6.4 15.5 5.0 22.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 45.2 15.0 19.4 17.2 15.3 23.5 10.2 17.2 9.9 27.2

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 34.4 10.2 20.3 12.0 15.0 18.9 13.7 16.6 16.5 42.3

First postsecondary institution attended

 Public 2-year 54.9 27.1 22.5 18.7 11.8 18.0 4.9 12.1 5.9 24.1

 Public 4-year 57.9 25.7 19.7 18.4 11.1 18.4 6.5 15.9 4.9 21.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 41.1 13.5 20.5 13.7 15.3 21.3 12.2 18.6 11.0 32.8

 Other 48.2 24.5 20.9 14.9 13.6 8.7 7.3 16.6 10.0 35.4

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic

includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Includes education loans and loans from family or friends, but not borrowing

by parents.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

or more

Less than

$10,000

$10,000–

14,999

$15,000–

19,999

$20,000–

24,999

$25,000
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

17 

needs. Alternatively or in addition, family or friends may provide the cash needed to enroll but 

expect students ultimately to be responsible for paying some or all of their educational expenses. 

Table 4 shows the percentage of graduates who borrowed from each source and the average 

amounts computed in two ways: first, using only those who borrowed the specific type of loan as 

the base (to demonstrate the size of the average loan), and second, using all borrowers as the base 

(to show the relative contributions of loans from the various sources to the total amount 

borrowed). Sixty-five percent of all 1999–2000 graduates borrowed during their undergraduate 

education, 62 percent took out education loans (totaling an average of $17,800 among those with 

education loans), and 58 percent took out federal loans (totaling an average of $16,200 among 

those with federal loans). Twelve percent borrowed from family or friends, either alone (4 

percent) or in combination with student loans (8 percent).8 Among those who borrowed from 

their families (either alone or in combination with student loans), the average amount borrowed 

from their families was $13,800. 

Considering only graduates who had been dependent students while they were enrolled, 

borrowing patterns varied with family income. Those from families with incomes in the lower 

half of the income distribution were more likely than those from families with higher incomes to 

have taken out education loans. However, among those who were dependent students and had 

education loans, the average amount borrowed was about $17,000 at all family income levels. 

This lack of variation probably reflects program limits for dependent students.

Using all borrowers as the base for computing the average shows the relative importance of 

each loan source. Of the average total amount borrowed ($19,300), $16,800 was in education 

loans (of which $14,600 was in federal loans), and $2,500 was from family and friends. 

At each income level, between 11 and 13 percent of graduates who had been dependent 

students had borrowed from families or friends. However, the amount borrowed reflects the 

capacity of their families to provide this kind of help, with those from the highest income 

families borrowing the largest amounts, on average. 

Borrowing patterns also varied across types of institutions. For example, graduates of 

private not-for-profit non-doctoral institutions were the most likely to have taken out federal 

loans and graduates of private not-for-profit doctoral institutions were the most likely to have 

borrowed from their families. 

 

8The fact that 65.4 percent borrowed and 61.6 percent took out education loans means that 3.8 percent borrowed only from their 

families. 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01), Data Analysis System. Not shown in table. 
Table 4.—Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their undergraduate education and among those who borrowed,

Table 4.—average amount (in 1999 constant dollars), by type of loan and selected student and institutional characteristics

Any Family Any Family Any Family

Student and institutional characteristics1 loans2 Any3 Federal loans4 loans2 Any3 Federal loans4 loans2 Any3 Federal loans4

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 65.5 61.7 57.6 11.9 $19,400 $17,800 $16,200 $13,900 $19,400 $16,900 $14,700 $2,500

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 65.4 61.6 57.5 11.9 19,300 17,800 16,200 13,800 19,300 16,800 14,600 2,500

Gender Male 64.7 60.5 56.1 13.5 19,100 17,300 15,600 14,000 19,100 16,200 13,800 3,000 Female 65.9 62.5 58.6 10.7 19,500 18,100 16,600 13,600 19,500 17,300 15,200 2,200Race/ethnicity5

 American Indian 78.4 72.8 64.4 9.9 16,800 17,000 17,400 ‡ 16,800 15,800 14,500 1,000 Asian/Pacific Islander 60.5 54.3 50.1 15.4 17,900 16,100 14,000 13,100 17,900 14,500 11,900 3,400 Black 79.8 78.4 74.9 11.2 19,800 19,200 18,100 6,400 19,800 18,900 17,200 900 White 63.7 60.0 55.9 11.5 19,700 17,900 16,300 15,100 19,700 16,900 14,600 2,800 Hispanic 70.6 66.3 62.5 13.0 17,000 16,300 14,800 9,300 17,000 15,200 13,400 1,700Age received bachelor’s degree 24 and under 63.3 59.2 55.1 12.3 19,400 17,200 15,200 16,600 19,400 16,200 13,600 3,200 25–29 72.4 68.4 65.3 13.7 19,700 18,800 17,400 10,100 19,700 17,800 16,000 1,900 30 and above 66.6 64.4 59.2 8.8 18,800 18,700 18,200 5,200 18,800 18,100 16,500 700

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree Within 4 years 60.3 56.6 51.9 10.9 20,500 17,600 15,400 21,400 20,500 16,600 13,800 3,900 More than 4, up to 6 years 67.8 63.7 59.9 13.5 18,300 17,000 15,300 11,200 18,300 16,000 13,800 2,200

 More than 6 years 69.9 66.9 62.7 11.0 18,800 18,400 17,600 7,400 18,800 17,600 16,100 1,200Undergraduate major  Business and management 60.2 57.0 53.3 9.7 17,200 16,500 15,200 9,300 17,200 15,700 13,900 1,500

 Education 71.2 68.1 64.4 11.8 18,100 17,300 16,300 8,500 18,100 16,700 15,300 1,400 Engineering, mathematics, or science 62.9 58.3 54.9 13.2 19,500 17,800 16,200 14,000 19,500 16,500 14,500 3,000

 Humanities or social sciences 66.5 62.6 58.4 12.6 20,500 18,200 16,700 17,300 20,500 17,200 15,000 3,300

 Other 68.0 64.1 59.1 12.1 20,000 18,400 16,400 14,100 20,000 17,500 14,700 2,500

See notes at end of table.

Nonfamily

Average amount (borrowers

education loans education loans

Average amount (all borrowers1) of the specific type of loans)

Nonfamily

Percentage who borrowed

education loans

Nonfamily
Table 4.—Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their undergraduate education and among those who borrowed,

Table 4.—average amount (in 1999 constant dollars), by type of loan and selected student and institutional characteristics—Continued

Any Family Any Family Any Family

Student and institutional characteristics1 loans2 Any3 Federal loans4 loans2 Any3 Federal loans4 loans2 Any3 Federal loans4

Dependency status and family income Dependent, total 62.0 58.0 53.7 12.4 $19,700 $17,200 $15,100 $17,400 $19,700 $16,200 $13,600 $3,500

 Lowest 72.1 68.9 65.6 12.6 17,800 16,700 14,900 9,800 17,800 16,000 13,900 1,800

 Lower middle 68.1 64.8 59.9 12.6 19,100 17,500 15,700 12,700 19,100 16,800 14,200 2,400 Upper middle 61.9 56.6 52.3 13.3 20,100 17,400 15,000 18,000 20,100 16,100 13,200 3,900 Highest 45.6 41.5 37.2 11.2 23,300 17,500 14,700 30,600 23,300 15,800 12,500 7,500

 Independent, total 69.8 66.3 62.3 11.3 18,900 18,300 17,300 8,900 18,900 17,400 15,700 1,500Type of degree-granting institution Public 4-year non-doctoral 63.1 60.0 56.0 11.1 15,000 14,400 13,400 7,500 15,000 13,700 12,200 1,300

 Public 4-year doctoral 63.6 59.4 55.7 11.7 17,500 16,600 15,500 10,600 17,500 15,600 13,900 2,000

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 71.5 68.8 64.2 11.8 20,900 19,400 17,300 13,700 20,900 18,700 16,000 2,300

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 65.4 60.3 55.9 14.8 28,000 23,000 19,300 29,700 28,000 21,300 16,900 6,700

First postsecondary institution attended Public 2-year 69.9 66.5 62.7 12.5 17,500 17,100 15,900 6,800 17,500 16,300 14,500 1,200

 Public 4-year 61.5 57.9 54.1 10.8 17,300 16,300 15,200 10,200 17,300 15,400 13,700 1,800

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 70.7 66.9 62.2 13.2 23,900 20,300 17,500 25,000 23,900 19,300 15,900 4,600

 Other 70.1 66.9 62.8 11.1 19,800 20,000 19,300 ‡ 19,800 19,000 17,600 800

‡Reporting standards not met. (Too few cases for a reliable estimate.)

1Includes students who did not borrow the particular type of loans.2Includes all nonfamily education and family loans.3Includes all nonfamily education loans, including federal loans.4Money borrowed from family or friends.5American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic

origin unless specified.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:2000/01).

education loans education loans education loans

Nonfamily Nonfamily Nonfamily

Average amount (borrowers

Percentage who borrowed Average amount (all borrowers1) of the specific type of loans)
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

20 

Graduate and First-Professional Enrollment and Plans 

As discussed earlier, some fear that undergraduate debt may discourage bachelor’s degree 

recipients from continuing on to graduate or first-professional degree programs. Therefore, it is 

useful to examine enrollment in graduate and first-professional programs and plans to enroll for 

any signs that undergraduate debt discourages graduates from seeking further education. 

Previous studies of the relationship between undergraduate debt and either plans to enroll 

and actual enrollment have not produced entirely consistent results, with findings varying 

according to the measures, methods, population, and data used (Millet 2003). Among researchers 

who have controlled for factors other than undergraduate debt that could influence plans or 

enrollment, some have found undergraduate debt to have a discouraging effect for at least some 

groups of students (Fox 1992; Millet 2003), while others have found no effect (Ekstrom et al. 

1991; Schapiro, O’Malley, and Litten 1991; Weiler 1991), or only a very marginal effect (Heller 

2001). Even when a discouraging effect was found, the effect was relatively small, with 

undergraduate debt less important than other factors, particularly grades. 

Enrollment 

The 1999–2000 graduates were more likely than their 1992–93 counterparts to have 

borrowed, and if they had done so, to have borrowed larger amounts, on average, as discussed 

above. Nevertheless, members of the later cohort were more likely than members of the earlier 

one to have enrolled in a graduate or first-professional degree program by the time they were 

interviewed again approximately a year after graduating (21 vs. 16 percent) (table 5).9 

For both cohorts, several characteristics were associated with a greater likelihood of 

pursuing graduate or first-professional education, including time to degree, undergraduate major, 

grades, parents’ level of education, and type of institution attended. Graduates were more likely 

to have enrolled in a graduate or first-professional degree program if they had completed their 

bachelor’s degree within 4 years than if they had taken longer. Compared with graduates with 

other majors, those who had majored in engineering, mathematics, or science were generally the 

most likely and those who had majored in business and management the least likely to have 

enrolled. Graduates were more likely to have enrolled in a graduate or first-professional degree 

program if they had a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 or higher in their major than if they had 

 

9The 1999–2000 graduates who reported they had been accepted into a graduate program but had not started were considered to 

have enrolled because the interviews started in June. The same was not true for the 1992–93 graduates. This difference may 

explain some of the higher enrollment rate of the later cohort, but the number who had been accepted but had not enrolled was 

small. 
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

21 

Table 5.—Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had enrolled in a graduate

Table 5.—or first-professional program, and among 1999–2000 graduates who had not yet enrolled, 

Table 5.—percentage expecting to do so in the future, by selected student and institutional characteristics:

Table 5.—1994 and 2001

Among 1999–2000

graduates not

enrolled by 2001,1

percent expecting

to do so in the future

Student and institutional characteristics 1994 20011 2001

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 16.2 21.2 67.2

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 16.1 21.3 67.4

Gender

 Male 17.2 20.6 67.9

 Female 15.2 21.8 66.9

Race/ethnicity2

 American Indian 10.4 25.8 82.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 17.6 23.7 70.6

 Black 15.5 26.4 77.7

 White 16.1 20.0 64.9

 Hispanic 16.4 23.6 75.5

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 17.4 22.1 69.7

 25–29 10.6 17.5 64.2

 30 and above 14.9 21.6 62.0

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree

 Within 4 years 21.7 26.9 72.1

 More than 4, up to 6 years 12.1 16.2 66.4

 More than 6 years 11.9 19.9 63.7

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 8.8 13.9 62.9

 Education 18.4 18.9 78.4

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 24.5 29.0 69.9

 Humanities or social sciences 19.1 25.7 70.4

 Other 12.9 18.7 63.2

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 18.7 22.5 70.7

 Lowest 17.0 19.5 72.8

 Lower middle 16.3 23.6 71.1

 Upper middle 19.7 22.4 67.9

 Highest 21.8 24.4 71.2

 Independent, total 12.5 19.7 63.1

See notes at end of table.

Percent enrolled
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

22 

Table 5.—Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had enrolled in a graduate

Table 5.—or first-professional program, and among 1999–2000 graduates who had not yet enrolled, 

Table 5.—percentage expecting to do so in the future, by selected student and institutional characteristics:

Table 4.—1994 and 2001—Continued

Among 1999–2000

graduates not

enrolled by 2001,1

percent expecting

to do so in the future

Student and institutional characteristics 1994 20011 2001

GPA for undergraduate major

 Less than 3.00 9.2 14.9 59.6

 3.00 or higher 17.7 24.1 69.1

 Missing 12.2 16.8 67.1

Parents’ highest educational attainment

 High school or less 12.8 17.7 66.2

 Some postsecondary education3 16.4 20.3 67.6

 Bachelor’s degree 15.3 22.1 65.3

 Advanced degree 21.3 26.6 73.4

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 12.7 16.6 64.4

 Public 4-year doctoral 17.0 20.7 66.5

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 14.1 21.6 69.5

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 20.6 28.8 72.5

First postsecondary institution attended

 Public 2-year 11.2 17.5 63.8

 Public 4-year 16.2 19.6 66.3

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 18.9 25.5 72.3

 Other 10.5 22.6 64.1

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 Did not borrow 17.5 24.0 65.4

 $1–9,999 15.0 17.8 67.5

 $10,000–14,999 13.8 20.0 69.5

 $15,000–19,999 14.2 19.1 70.2

 $20,000–24,999 17.0 20.9 68.8

 $25,000 or more 16.0 21.6 68.8

1

Including a few respondents who had been accepted to but had not started a graduate/first-professional program at the time of

the interview, which occurred in July–November 2001.

2

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

3

Small sample sizes preclude a more detailed breakdown of this category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Percent enrolled
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

23 

done less well. Graduates who had at least one parent with an advanced degree were more likely 

than those whose parents had less education to have enrolled, as were graduates of private notfor-profit doctoral institutions compared with graduates of other types of institutions. 

In both 1994 and 2001, nonborrowers were more likely than those who borrowed amounts 

less than $20,000 to have enrolled,10 suggesting that undergraduate debt might discourage 

graduate enrollment. This finding should not be considered conclusive, however, because it does 

not take into account the interrelationships between other student and institutional characteristics 

that could have confounded the effect of borrowing on enrollment detected here. If undergraduate 

debt were the major barrier to graduate enrollment, one might expect to find declining enrollment 

rates as debt increased, but this was not the case. No difference was detected between the 

enrollment rates of those who borrowed $20,000 or more and those who borrowed $10,000–

19,999; moreover, those who borrowed less than $10,000 were even less likely to enroll than 

those who borrowed $25,000 or more. More complex multivariate analyses (which were beyond 

the scope of this report) would be needed to understand the relationship between undergraduate 

debt and graduate enrollment. 

Using the 1992–93 B&B data, Heller (2001) constructed a set of logistic regression models 

to examine the relationship between various factors and graduate school enrollment, controlling 

for their interrelationships. He found the level of undergraduate borrowing to be only marginally 

negatively related to graduate school enrollment by 1994.11 Degree expectations were the most 

influential factor, with undergraduate major and grade point average also important. 

Race/ethnicity, income, and parents’ education were not statistically significant when other 

factors were taken into account. 

A number of other factors not measured here (or in other studies) might also affect 

graduates’ decisions to pursue graduate education. These include, for example, aspects of their 

undergraduate experience, actions taken by graduate schools to attract students, and the 

availability of grants and loans for graduate study (Schapiro, O’Malley, and Litten 1991). 

Plans to Enroll in the Future 

The 1999–2000 graduates who had not enrolled in a graduate or first-professional degree 

program by 2001 were asked if they expected to enroll in the future, and 67 percent reported that 

they did (table 5). Some of the characteristics associated with enrolling within a year of 

 

10The apparent differences between nonborrowers and those who borrowed $20,000 or more were not statistically significant. 

11A $1,000 increase in the amount borrowed decreased the likelihood of enrolling in graduate school by 0.1 percent. This result 

was significant only at the .10 level. 
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

24 

graduation were also associated with expecting to enroll in the future. For example, graduates 

with a GPA of at least 3.00 in their major were more likely than those with lower grades to have 

enrolled within a year (24 vs. 15 percent) and also, if they had not enrolled, to be considering 

doing so in the future (69 vs. 60 percent). Some characteristics, however, were related differently 

to immediate enrollment and future plans. For example, education majors were less likely than 

engineering, mathematics, or science majors to have enrolled within a year (19 vs. 29 percent) 

but were more likely to be considering enrolling in the future (78 vs. 70 percent). This pattern is 

consistent with findings from a previous study indicating that among graduate students enrolled 

in master’s and doctoral degree programs, those in education were more likely than those in other 

fields to delay enrolling in graduate school (Choy and Geis 2002).

Primary Reason for Postponing Graduate Education

The 1999–2000 graduates who had not enrolled in or completed a graduate or firstprofessional degree program but expected to do so in the future were asked the main or primary 

reason why they had decided to postpone their plans. The most frequently reported primary 

reason for postponing further education was that they wanted work experience first or had a good 

job opportunity (37 percent) (table 6). Another 17 percent gave financial reasons unrelated to 

undergraduate debt as the primary reason, 17 percent wanted a break from school, and 9 percent 

cited family responsibilities. Five percent reported that undergraduate debt was the primary 

reason. Thus, undergraduate debt was less likely than other factors to be the primary reason 

graduates gave for postponing graduate studies. However, for those who borrowed $15,000 or 

more, it was more likely to be the primary reason than it was for those who had borrowed less 

than $10,000 (9 vs. 3 percent). 

Careers 

Teaching at K–12 Schools 

One often expressed concern is that heavy undergraduate debt might discourage college 

graduates from entering K–12 teaching or other professions that are important to society but 

traditionally have lower salaries than other jobs open to bachelor’s degree recipients (Davis and 

Merisotis 1998). This does not appear to be the case. Despite having borrowed larger average 

amounts, 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients were slightly more likely than their 1992–93 

counterparts to have taught at a K–12 school within a year of graduating (12 vs. 10 percent) 

(table 7). Among nonborrowers and at each level of borrowing up to $20,000, no statistically 

significant differences were detected in the rates at which the two cohorts entered teaching, but 
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

25 

Table 6.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had considered graduate or first-professional

Table 8.—education but had not yet enrolled, percentage distribution of their primary reason for postponing

Table 8.—enrollment, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2001

Wanted

work

experience/ Wanted

had a a break Family Under- Other

good job from respon- graduate financial

Student and institutional characteristics opportunity school sibility debt reasons Other

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 37.5 16.6 9.0 5.1 17.5 14.3

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 37.4 16.6 9.1 5.1 17.4 14.4

Gender

 Male 41.8 16.5 6.1 4.9 16.1 14.6

 Female 34.0 16.6 11.4 5.2 18.5 14.3

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 25.0 9.3 16.0 # 22.2 27.5

 Asian/Pacific Islander 49.7 11.8 2.6 8.7 15.4 11.8

 Black 32.1 19.9 10.1 5.1 16.6 16.2

 White 37.6 17.0 8.7 4.8 17.8 14.2

 Hispanic 33.0 14.5 17.0 6.1 14.0 15.4

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 43.1 15.6 5.1 4.9 17.2 14.2

 25–29 31.1 19.0 14.8 6.2 19.7 9.2

 30 and above 20.5 18.1 20.0 4.6 16.2 20.7

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree

 Within 4 years 45.1 16.0 5.0 5.1 16.0 12.9

 More than 4, up to 6 years 39.5 15.0 6.1 5.5 18.5 15.6

 More than 6 years 24.4 19.2 18.9 4.9 18.0 14.5

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 45.5 15.9 9.4 5.9 11.4 11.9

 Education 34.5 14.5 15.5 4.9 21.5 9.1

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 38.7 19.7 6.0 3.1 16.4 16.2

 Humanities or social sciences 33.5 17.4 7.0 6.1 20.5 15.5

 Other 36.0 15.6 10.4 4.3 18.8 14.9

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 44.9 15.5 3.3 4.8 17.6 13.9

 Lowest 42.0 18.3 4.2 5.1 18.4 12.0

 Lower middle 41.3 13.6 3.1 8.2 19.8 14.0

 Upper middle 45.5 16.1 3.3 3.3 16.7 15.2

 Highest 51.2 13.7 2.6 2.6 15.5 14.4

 Independent, total 26.9 18.0 17.2 5.4 17.2 15.2

See notes at end of table.
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

26 

among those who had borrowed $20,000 or more, 1999–2000 graduates were actually more 

likely than their 1992–93 counterparts to have taught. Among 1999–2000 graduates who had 

borrowed for their undergraduate education and taught by 2001, 8 percent reported participating 

in a loan forgiveness program in which a portion of their education loan was repaid in return for 

a commitment to teach. The sample size was too small to determine whether participation varied 

with the amount borrowed.12

 

12 1993/94 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/94), Data Analysis System. Not shown in table. 

Table 6.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had considered graduate or first-professional

Table 8.—education but had not yet enrolled, percentage distribution of their primary reason for postponing

Table 8.—enrollment, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2001—Continued

Wanted

work

experience/ Wanted

had a a break Family Under- Other

good job from respon- graduate financial

Student and institutional characteristics opportunity school sibility debt reasons Other

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 33.6 18.3 11.5 4.8 18.2 13.6

 Public 4-year doctoral 39.1 17.0 7.9 4.2 16.9 14.8

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 32.3 14.2 10.7 6.8 20.5 15.5

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 46.4 16.3 6.3 4.5 14.8 11.6

First postsecondary institution attended

 Public 2-year 33.7 17.0 11.0 6.6 16.6 15.1

 Public 4-year 37.7 16.2 10.3 4.5 17.4 14.0

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 40.5 16.5 5.3 5.2 18.4 14.2

 Other 26.4 18.7 15.7 5.7 15.8 17.8

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 Did not borrow 42.9 18.7 9.0 † 12.3 16.2

 $1–9,999 32.4 18.0 14.1 3.4 16.8 15.3

 $10,000–14,999 42.7 17.9 8.7 5.4 14.2 11.2

 $15,000–19,999 36.5 15.6 8.3 8.7 18.6 12.3

 $20,000–24,999 31.5 13.0 7.2 9.4 23.2 15.7

 $25,000 or more 32.2 12.7 7.1 8.8 26.1 13.1

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:2000/01).
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

27 

Relationship of Current Job to Career 

Also of interest is whether undergraduate debt leads students to defer looking for a job 

consistent with their career goals and steers them instead toward jobs with high pay. In 2001, 

some 29 percent of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients did not consider their current job to 

be the start of a career in that occupation or industry (table 8). The most commonly provided 

reason for taking the job was that they were “just paying the bills” (38 percent). No differences 

could be detected in the likelihood of taking a job that was not the start of a career related to the 

total amount borrowed, but it is important to keep in mind that many factors other than 

undergraduate debt contribute to job choices. Controlling for these other factors might lead to a 

different conclusion. Among graduates in jobs not considered the start of a career, those who had 

borrowed $25,000 or more were more likely than nonborrowers to report that they took the job to 

pay their bills (45 vs. 32 percent). 

Amounts Owed a Year Later 

The questions about the amounts still owed a year after graduating differed for the two 

cohorts. The 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients, who were asked only about borrowing from 

all sources, were also asked only about how much they owed on all loans (i.e., without 

distinguishing among the sources). Among these graduates, 16 percent of borrowers no longer 

Table 7.—Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught at any K–12

Table 9.—school, by total amount borrowed (in 1999 constant dollars): 1994 and 2001

Total amount borrowed 1994 2001

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 10.1 12.2

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 10.1 12.2

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 Did not borrow 9.5 10.5

 $1–9,999 10.6 12.7

 $10,000–14,999 11.0 12.9

 $15,000–19,999 11.8 13.9

 $20,000–24,999 9.0 13.7

 $25,000 or more 8.3 12.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

28 

owed any money a year after graduating; the remaining 84 percent who still owed money had an 

average debt of $10,800 (in 2001 constant dollars).13 

The 1999–2000 graduates, in contrast, were asked how much they owed on federal loans 

and to family and friends (but not how much they owed on other education loans). Although they 

were not asked about these other education loans, most nonfamily borrowing was through federal 

loan programs (87 percent of the average amount borrowed in education loans was in federal 

loans) (table 4). Therefore, their debt status with respect to federal loans is a good indicator of 

their overall debt status with respect to education loans, even though the amounts cannot be 

directly compared with those borrowed by the earlier cohort. 

Federal Loans 

Among 1999–2000 graduates with federal loans, 93 percent still owed on these loans a year 

later. Among these borrowers, the average amount still owed on their federal loans was $15,100 

 

131999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000), Data Analysis System. Not shown in table. 

Table 8.—Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who did not consider their current job to

Table 8.—be the start of a career in that occupation or industry and, among those with jobs, percentage

Table 8.—distribution of their primary reason for taking the job, by total amount borrowed: 2001

Percentage Working

whose job to pre- Doing

was not Just Working pare for what Exploring

start of paying while graduate want career

Total amount borrowed career bills deciding school to do options Other

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 28.6 37.7 18.6 3.8 4.8 9.7 25.5

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 28.6 37.6 18.7 3.7 4.9 9.7 25.4

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 Did not borrow 30.7 31.8 19.8 3.3 5.9 10.8 28.4

 $1–9,999 26.5 40.2 19.2 3.0 6.4 11.5 19.7

 $10,000–14,999 28.2 36.2 19.1 4.2 6.0 10.2 24.2

 $15,000–19,999 26.9 39.0 18.2 5.5 3.9 5.3 28.2

 $20,000–24,999 27.2 40.3 20.8 4.1 3.6 12.3 19.0

 $25,000 or more 28.4 45.0 14.7 3.6 3.1 6.9 26.7

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal

Studies (B&B:2000/01).

Primary reason for taking the job
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education 

29 

(table 9). The 7 percent who no longer owed may have repaid their loans while still enrolled, 

after graduation, or a combination of the two. A few may have had their loans forgiven.14 

The likelihood of owing money in 2001 was related to the total amount borrowed. Those 

who had borrowed less than $10,000 from all sources, including loan programs and family or 

friends, were the least likely to still owe on federal loans (79 vs. 92 percent of those who had 

borrowed $10,000 to $14,999 and about 97 percent of those who had borrowed $15,000 or 

more). 

Family Loans 

Among 1999–2000 graduates who had borrowed from family or friends (either solely from 

this source or in addition to taking out education loans), 46 percent reported that they still owed 

money to family or friends a year after graduation. The fact that less than one-half still owed this 

money could mean that some of the loans were forgiven (i.e., became gifts). Alternatively, or in 

addition, some loans may have been short term and paid back while the student was still enrolled 

or once the student was employed after graduation. Those who had borrowed $25,000 or more 

from all sources were more likely than those who had borrowed less than $10,000 to still owe on 

family loans in 2001 (53 vs. 34 percent). 

Among those who still owed money to family and friends, the average amount was 

$11,900. The amount owed varied with family income, the type of institution attended, and the 

total amount borrowed for undergraduate education. Owing the most were graduates who had 

been dependent students from families in the upper middle and highest income groups (vs. 

independent students or dependent students from lower income families), those who had attended 

private not-for-profit doctoral institutions (vs. other types of institutions), and those who had 

borrowed $25,000 or more (vs. smaller amounts). 

 

14Under loan forgiveness programs, a portion of a student’s loan is repaid in return for a commitment to work in a certain 

occupation, such as teaching, or to perform volunteer work. However, the whole balance is not usually forgiven. Among federal 

loan borrowers, 3 percent participated in loan forgiveness programs. 
Borrowing for Undergraduate Education

30 

Table 9.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had borrowed federal loans or from family

Table 9.—or friends, percentage who still owed, and if still owed, average amount owed (in 2001 constant

Table 9.—dollars), by type of loan and selected student and institutional characteristics: 2001

Student and institutional characteristics Percent Average amount Percent Average amount

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 92.9 $15,200 45.5 $11,900

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 92.8 15,100 45.6 11,900

Gender

 Male 91.8 14,500 44.9 12,700

 Female 93.5 15,500 46.3 11,200

Race/ethnicity3

 American Indian 100.0 15,500 ‡ ‡

 Asian/Pacific Islander 90.0 13,000 49.7 12,200

 Black 96.4 17,700 41.3 5,000

 White 92.7 15,000 45.2 12,500

 Hispanic 91.5 14,200 50.1 8,400

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 92.1 13,800 37.6 8,200

 Education 93.5 15,900 45.9 6,800

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 91.8 15,100 47.6 17,500

 Humanities or social sciences 94.2 15,500 48.3 12,300

 Other 92.9 15,400 45.3 10,800

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 93.7 13,800 46.8 14,000

 Lowest 95.1 13,600 45.5 7,700

 Lower middle 93.4 14,600 44.1 11,000

 Upper middle 93.6 13,800 47.0 18,500

 Highest 91.9 13,100 51.0 18,600

 Independent, total 91.8 16,500 44.0 8,700

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 91.7 12,700 47.3 6,100

 Public 4-year doctoral 92.9 14,500 42.7 9,200

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 93.0 16,400 47.5 11,300

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 93.7 17,700 52.6 23,900

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 $1–9,999 78.7 4,000 34.0 2,500

 $10,000–14,999 92.3 9,200 42.2 3,200

 $15,000–19,999 97.4 13,600 43.4 5,000

 $20,000–24,999 97.5 16,900 45.3 7,300

 $25,000 or more 97.3 25,800 53.0 20,300

‡Reporting standards not met. (Too few cases for a reliable estimate.)

1

Limited to graduates with federal loans.

2

Limited to graduates with loans from family or friends.

3

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic

includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal

Studies (B&B:2000/01).

Owed on federal loans1 Owed on loans from family or friends2
31 

Loan Repayment 

Federal loan borrowers usually must begin repaying their education loans 6 months after 

they graduate, although they may be able to postpone repaying if they are enrolled in 

postsecondary education at least half time, are unemployed, are participating in a qualifying 

service program (e.g., volunteering in the Peace Corps), or have an approved medical or 

economic hardship. The standard period for repaying Stafford loans is 10 years, but alternative 

repayment options—graduated, extended, income-contingent, or income-sensitive—are available 

under some circumstances, depending on the specific loan program and amount borrowed. These 

alternatives reduce the monthly payment in the early years but increase total interest charges. 

Repayment terms for loans from family or friends are negotiated by the parties involved and are 

likely to be informal rather than specifying regular monthly payments. Borrowers were not asked 

about their repayment agreements with their families or friends. 

Some data comparability issues exist between the two cohorts. The 1992–93 graduates 

were asked simply how much they had borrowed from all sources (including education loans and 

family and friends) and what their monthly payment on this amount was. No distinction was 

made between education loans and loans from family and friends. The 1999–2000 graduates also 

were asked how much they had borrowed in education loans and from family and friends but 

were asked about their monthly payments only for their education loans (i.e., ignoring any 

monthly payments to family). Thus, to the extent that family loans are repaid using monthly 

payments, the reported payments of the later cohort would be underestimates of total payments. 

However, the percentage who owed on family loans in 2001 was relatively low (12 percent had 

borrowed from family and friends and less than half of these borrowers [46 percent] still owed on 

these loans in 2001; tables 4 and 9). In addition, it is likely that family loans would have informal 

repayment plans rather than a monthly obligation. Finally, the sizes of the average monthly 

payments in 1994 and 2001 (as discussed below) were consistent with the size of the total 

undergraduate debt and prevailing interest rates. Thus, the reported monthly payments appear to 

be a reasonably good approximation of payments on education loans for both cohorts. 

Repayment Status 

Just under two-thirds of the borrowers in each cohort were repaying their loans a year after 

graduating (table 10). Whether they were repaying their loans was related to whether they 
Loan Repayment

32 

enrolled for further education, which governs whether they are required to begin repaying their 

loans. In both 1994 and 2001, 72 percent of borrowers who were not enrolled were making 

payments. The remaining 28 percent who were not making payments may have already repaid 

their loans, had deferments, or, in the case of the earlier cohort, borrowed only from their 

families or friends and were not required to make monthly payments. It is also possible that some 

were failing to make payments that were due. For both cohorts, about 52 percent of borrowers 

who were enrolled part time were making payments. Some of the remaining 48 percent who were 

not making payments may have been enrolled at least half time and thus were not required to do 

so. 

Although full-time enrollment allows borrowers to postpone repayment, 16 percent of 

1992–93 graduates and 19 percent of 1999–2000 graduates who had borrowed but were enrolled 

full time nevertheless reported that they were repaying their loans.15 These graduates presumably 

had the resources necessary to begin repayment (e.g., from working while enrolled, as discussed 

later) and wanted to get rid of the debt sooner rather than later even though they were not 

required to do so. Assuming they had the resources, borrowers with unsubsidized loans may have 

 

15The difference between the two cohorts is not statistically significant, however. 

Table 10.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed for their

Table 12.—undergraduate education, percentage repaying their loans, by total amount borrowed and

Table 12.—student enrollment status: 1994 and 2001

Total amount borrowed and enrollment status 1994 2001

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 64.5 63.9

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 64.5 63.8

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 $1–9,999 59.3 54.8

 $10,000–14,999 71.4 63.8

 $15,000–19,999 74.8 69.1

 $20,000–24,999 66.7 68.1

 $25,000 or more 63.3 64.6

Enrollment status at follow-up

 Not enrolled 71.5 72.1

 Enrolled part time 53.4 51.2

 Enrolled full time 16.3 18.8

NOTE: In 1992–93, refers to repayment of loans from all sources (including family or friends); in 1999–2000, refers to

repayment of education loans only (excluding loans from family or friends).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).
Loan Repayment 

33 

wanted to make payments to cover at least the interest, because interest is charged on 

unsubsidized Stafford loans during the grace period and is capitalized if not paid. 

Monthly Payments 

The monthly payment required depends on the amount borrowed, interest rates,16 and the 

length of the repayment term. The 1992–93 graduates were borrowing primarily in the late 1980s 

and early 1990s, at which time interest rates on Stafford loans were around 8 percent (fixed rate). 

Interest rates are now variable; they are adjusted annually on July 1, but cannot exceed 8.25 

percent. In 2001, when the 1999–2000 graduates were interviewed, interest rates were between 6 

and 7 percent, depending on the date of the loan. Since then, interest rates have continued to fall, 

and by 2003–04, had dropped to 4–5 percent for most borrowers, depending on the date the loans 

were disbursed. Therefore, the required payments for borrowers with variable interest rates are 

lower now than they were in 2001. However, interest rates may rise before these graduates’ loans 

are repaid, in which case their payments would increase. 

Students have various options to reduce their monthly payments. Stafford loans normally 

have a 10-year repayment period, with fixed payments. However, depending on the type and 

amount of the loan, borrowers may be able to elect a graduated, extended, or income-based 

repayment option.17 While the number of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 graduates electing these 

options is unknown, approximately one-quarter of all borrowers in the federal Direct Loan 

program did so in 1999–2000, especially those with large loan amounts (U.S. Department of 

Education and General Accounting Office 2001).18 One option is for borrowers to consolidate 

their loans and obtain a fixed rate as well as extend the repayment period. When interest rates are 

low, as they are now, students who exercise this option can save substantial amounts over the life 

of the loan. Increasing numbers of borrowers are consolidating their loans (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 2003). 

Reflecting the larger amounts borrowed, 1999–2000 graduates were making larger monthly 

payments a year later, on average, than 1992–93 graduates ($210 vs. $160) after controlling for 

inflation (table 11). In 2001, the average monthly payment ranged from $100 per month for 

graduates who had borrowed less than $10,000 to $310 for those who had borrowed $25,000 or 

 

16Information on the history of Stafford loan interest rates is available at http://www.nchelp.org/elibrary11/main/10-refmaterial/ 

10A-rateinfo/default.htm. 

17The graduated and income-based repayment plans were introduced in 1992. The extended payment option was available only 

to new borrowers after 1998, and only to those whose accumulated loans totaled more than $30,000 after that date (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 2003). 

18Federal Direct Loan borrowers are a subset of all federal loan borrowers. In this analysis, it is not possible to identify which 

type of federal loans students had. 
Table 11.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their loans, percentage distribution of the amount of their

Table 13.—monthly payment (in constant 2001 dollars) and average monthly payment, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1994 andTable 13.—2001Student and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 32.4 16.9 24.6 16.8 15.0 16.6 11.4 19.5 7.0 9.8 9.7 20.4 $170 $210 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 32.6 17.2 24.6 16.7 14.9 16.6 11.4 19.5 6.9 9.8 9.7 20.3 160 210

Gender Male 33.5 17.6 23.3 14.5 13.0 15.8 11.5 19.2 8.4 10.6 10.3 22.5 170 220 Female 31.9 16.9 25.7 18.5 16.5 17.2 11.0 19.7 5.8 9.2 9.1 18.6 160 210Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Asian/Pacific Islander 26.4 8.4 34.5 21.6 14.1 23.7 12.9 19.7 6.2 4.5 5.9 22.1 170 230 Black 30.2 22.1 22.9 17.0 18.5 16.2 14.5 19.3 3.6 6.7 10.3 18.7 170 190

 White 32.2 16.9 24.1 15.7 15.2 16.6 11.3 19.5 7.2 10.6 10.0 20.8 170 210 Hispanic 41.1 20.2 27.3 22.7 8.9 12.9 8.2 17.6 7.7 8.9 6.8 17.7 150 190Undergraduate major  Business and management 31.9 22.0 28.3 13.7 15.7 18.2 8.7 21.0 6.0 9.5 9.5 15.6 160 200 Education 33.6 17.1 25.2 20.8 16.5 13.0 12.1 19.8 5.4 10.7 7.3 18.6 150 210 Engineering, mathematics, or science 32.9 15.2 21.7 16.1 13.3 15.5 13.4 20.7 9.0 9.9 9.8 22.7 170 220 Humanities or social sciences 36.1 16.6 20.5 18.1 15.0 17.9 12.7 16.9 5.8 10.3 9.9 20.2 170 200 Other 29.4 15.9 26.6 15.9 14.4 17.2 10.5 20.2 8.1 8.2 11.0 22.6 170 210Dependency status and family income Dependent, total 31.8 15.0 22.1 15.8 14.8 17.9 13.8 22.0 6.8 10.0 10.8 19.4 170 210 Lowest 29.3 18.7 23.5 18.6 15.7 18.8 17.6 21.1 5.5 7.5 8.5 15.2 160 190 Lower middle 34.8 9.8 21.1 15.3 15.4 20.8 11.5 21.5 7.4 10.9 9.7 21.7 160 220 Upper middle 34.6 14.1 24.1 16.3 13.5 14.7 9.8 22.4 4.2 11.2 13.9 21.4 170 220 Highest 29.5 17.8 16.7 10.9 12.0 16.3 11.4 23.6 13.8 11.5 16.6 19.9 230 220 Independent, total 33.3 19.9 27.1 17.9 15.1 15.0 8.9 16.3 7.0 9.4 8.6 21.5 160 210

See notes at end of table.

$1–99 $300 or more

Average

payment $100–149 $150–199 $200–249 $250–299

 monthly
Table 11.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their loans, percentage distribution of the amount of their

Table 13.—monthly payment (in constant 2001 dollars) and average monthly payment, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1994 andTable 13.—2001—ContinuedStudent and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001Type of degree-granting institution Public 4-year non-doctoral 40.5 24.1 25.6 23.2 15.3 16.4 8.9 18.8 3.7 5.9 6.0 11.5 $140 $170 Public 4-year doctoral 37.9 17.8 22.9 16.5 15.0 17.8 10.6 18.9 6.1 11.7 7.5 17.3 150 200 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 23.5 14.5 25.3 15.8 17.1 14.5 13.2 22.4 9.8 7.9 11.2 25.0 180 230 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 19.0 8.8 22.1 10.6 13.8 16.3 14.4 19.8 10.2 11.1 20.6 33.5 220 260

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate) (in 1999 constant dollars) $1–9,999 57.0 60.0 27.4 26.7 8.0 4.8 3.7 4.7 1.5 0.9 2.4 2.9 110 100 $10,000–14,999 12.2 15.3 34.7 33.9 31.1 28.2 13.2 13.4 3.8 3.0 5.1 6.3 170 160 $15,000–19,999 6.6 5.8 15.0 14.5 18.8 24.4 28.9 32.4 17.7 11.6 13.1 11.3 220 210 $20,000–24,999 8.2 6.1 8.6 10.3 11.1 15.8 18.5 30.1 24.5 17.9 29.2 19.8 260 230 $25,000 or more 8.9 6.6 10.7 5.5 6.5 9.4 14.1 15.7 13.0 13.7 46.9 49.2 330 310Enrollment status at follow-up Not enrolled 31.6 16.4 25.0 16.7 14.9 16.7 11.5 19.6 7.1 9.8 10.0 20.9 170 210 Enrolled full time 53.2 28.1 30.4 21.6 5.7 13.8 7.6 13.9 # 9.8 3.2 12.8 110 170 Enrolled part time 44.8 24.7 13.6 13.9 18.2 16.5 11.1 19.5 6.2 9.5 6.1 15.8 150 190

#Rounds to zero.‡Reporting standards not met. (Too few cases for a reliable estimate.)

1American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude

Hispanic origin unless specified.NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and

B&B:2000/01).

Average

 monthly

$250–299 $300 or more payment $1–99 $100–149 $150–199 $200–249
Loan Repayment

36 

more.19 A comparison of the payments relative to the amounts borrowed for the two cohorts 

suggests that the later cohort had more favorable repayment terms a year after they graduated: the 

average amount borrowed increased by 60 percent (from $12,100 to $19,300, table 2), while the 

average monthly payment increased by about 30 percent (from $160 to $210, table 11).20

While both the cumulative amounts borrowed and the monthly loan payments were student 

reported in a telephone interview and therefore subject to recall error, the average payments 

appear reasonable for the average amounts borrowed. Assuming the standard 10-year repayment 

option, amortization tables show that the monthly payment on a $12,100 loan (the average 

borrowed by 1992–93 graduates) at 8–10 percent interest would be $147–160; the payment on a 

$19,300 loan (the average for 1999–2000 graduates) at 6–7 percent interest would be $214–224. 

In 1994, about 58 percent of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their 

loans were paying less than $150 per month (in 2001 constant dollars): 33 percent were paying 

less than $100, and 25 percent were paying $100–149 per month (figure 6). In the later cohort, 

about 34 percent were making payments of less than $150 per month (17 percent were paying 

less than $100 and 17 percent were paying $100–149). The later graduates were more likely than 

the earlier ones to be paying $200 or more per month (about 50 vs. about 28 percent). 

For both cohorts, graduates of public 4-year institutions were generally more likely than 

graduates of private not-for-profit institutions to have a monthly loan payment of less than $10021

and were less likely to be paying more than $300 (table 11). They paid less on average as well. 

 

19It may seem counterintuitive that the average monthly payment at each level of borrowing was lower in 2001 than in 1994. 

This reflects the fact that the later borrowers faced lower interest rates for a given amount borrowed. The overall average monthly 

payment was higher for the later cohort than the earlier one because there were more graduates who had borrowed at the higher 

levels. For example, 25 percent of the later borrowers had borrowed $25,000 or more, compared with 7 percent of the earlier 

borrowers (table 3). 

20While not based on a nationally representative sample of students, a similar pattern of discrepancy was reported by Baum and 

O’Malley (2003) in the growth rate of undergraduate debt level and monthly repayments based on data from the 2002 National 

Student Loan Survey conducted by the Nellie Mae Corporation. 

21However, the difference between public doctoral and private not-for-profit non-doctoral institutions was not statistically 

significant among 1999–2000 graduates. 
Loan Repayment 

37 

Figure 6.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients repaying their loans, percentage

Figure 6.—distribution by the amount of their monthly payment (in constant 2001 dollars): 1994 and 2001

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

17

25

17

15

17

11

7

10

10

20

33

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

1994 2001

Percent

$300 or more

$250–299

$200–249

$150–199

$100–149

$1–99
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
39 

Debt Burden 

Understanding the extent to which the payments just described were burdensome requires 

knowing something about the financial circumstances of the individuals making the payments. It 

is important to know their employment status (table 12), earnings (table 13), the relationship 

between their earnings and payments (table 14), and whether they were receiving help from their 

parents in repaying their loans (table 15). 

Employment Status and Salaries 

Employment Status 

Employment status is a key indicator of graduates’ ability to meet their repayment 

obligations. Among bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their loans a year after 

graduation, 83 percent of 1992–93 cohort and 87 percent of 1999–2000 cohort were employed 

full time (table 12). Why members of the later cohort were more likely to be employed full time 

is unclear. Possibilities include, for example, more favorable economic conditions for bachelor’s 

degree recipients, a greater need to work full time to meet loan payments, or simply that a greater 

number of graduates chose to work full time for personal reasons. Among those repaying their 

loans, 11 percent of the earlier cohort and 6 percent of the later one were employed part time a 

year later. For both cohorts, approximately 6 percent of those making payments were 

unemployed or out of the labor force. Presumably, these graduates had other financial resources 

or were receiving help in making the payments. It is also possible that their unemployment was 

short term and did not prevent them from making payments. No clear association was observed 

for either cohort between the amount borrowed for undergraduate education and the likelihood of 

being employed full time or part time a year later. 

Earlier it was noted that some 19 percent of graduates who were enrolled full time were 

repaying their loans despite the fact that they would not have been required to do so. Among 

1999–2000 graduates who were enrolled full time and repaying their loans in 2001, 60 percent 

were working full time and another 23 percent were working part time. Thus, they presumably 

had the financial resources to begin repaying their loans. 
Debt Burden

40 

Table 12.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their

Table 14.—undergraduate loans, percentage distribution of their employment status, by selected student and

Table 14.—institutional characteristics: 1994 and 2001

Student and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 82.9 86.9 10.9 6.4 3.1 4.6 3.1 2.1

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 82.9 86.9 10.9 6.4 3.1 4.6 3.1 2.1

Gender

 Male 85.3 89.5 8.2 5.0 3.6 4.3 2.9 1.2

 Female 80.7 84.9 13.2 7.5 2.8 4.9 3.4 2.8

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

 Asian/Pacific Islander 82.3 85.5 7.9 7.0 5.2 6.3 4.7 1.1

 Black 81.1 88.7 10.7 5.7 4.4 5.2 3.9 0.5

 White 83.3 86.7 11.1 6.7 2.8 4.3 2.9 2.3

 Hispanic 79.6 88.3 12.2 3.6 5.9 6.2 2.3 1.9

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 89.7 90.4 6.6 5.0 2.0 3.8 1.7 0.8

 Education 75.2 88.6 19.5 6.3 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.3

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 83.1 88.4 9.1 5.2 4.1 4.8 3.8 1.7

 Humanities or social sciences 80.4 81.3 11.7 9.6 3.9 6.1 3.9 3.0

 Other 83.4 88.1 10.1 5.2 3.1 4.3 3.4 2.4

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 83.5 88.0 10.7 5.8 2.6 4.4 3.2 1.8

 Lowest 84.8 89.9 10.8 5.8 2.1 2.7 2.4 1.5

 Lower middle 81.4 88.5 11.7 5.7 4.0 4.8 3.0 1.1

 Upper middle 84.4 86.1 8.3 5.8 2.7 6.1 4.7 2.1

 Highest 82.3 86.7 12.2 5.7 1.4 4.4 4.0 3.2

 Independent, total 82.0 85.5 11.2 7.2 3.6 4.9 3.1 2.5

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 80.2 85.9 13.5 7.6 3.3 4.4 3.0 2.1

 Public 4-year doctoral 85.5 88.0 8.5 5.0 3.6 4.7 2.5 2.4

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 79.6 86.3 12.6 8.3 3.9 3.7 4.0 1.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 84.3 83.6 10.9 7.5 0.8 6.9 4.0 2.1

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 $1–9,999 82.7 84.6 10.4 7.1 3.6 4.2 3.3 4.2

 $10,000–14,999 83.4 86.3 11.2 8.1 2.8 3.7 2.6 2.0

 $15,000–19,999 81.5 89.4 12.2 5.5 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.2

 $20,000–24,999 83.6 87.2 12.0 6.3 1.2 5.5 3.3 1.0

 $25,000 or more 83.2 86.2 9.7 5.7 3.8 6.5 3.4 1.6

Enrollment status at follow-up

 Not enrolled 84.8 87.6 9.8 5.9 3.0 4.6 2.5 1.9

 Enrolled part time 76.9 94.4 19.0 3.3 2.0 2.3 2.2 0.0

 Enrolled full time 26.8 59.7 36.5 22.5 10.1 7.4 26.7 10.4

‡Reporting standards not met. (Too few cases for a reliable estimate.)

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic

includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Out of the

labor force

Employed

full time

Employed

part time Unemployed
Debt Burden 

41 

Salaries 

A key indicator of graduates’ ability to repay their loans is their earnings. After adjusting 

for inflation, 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their loans a year after 

graduating earned more than their 1992–93 counterparts. Among those who were employed and 

repaying their loans, the average salary for 1999–2000 graduates in 2001 was $34,100, compared 

with $28,300 (in constant 2001 dollars) for 1992–93 graduates in 1994 (table 13). Adjusting for 

inflation, the later graduates were more likely than the earlier ones to have an annual salary of 

$30,000 or more and less likely to have a salary under $25,000. Average salaries ranged from 

$25,300 to $30,800 in 1994, depending on the undergraduate major, and from $27,300 to 

$41,600 in 2001 (figure 7). 

Salaries varied in similar ways within each cohort. For example, females were more likely 

than males to be in the lowest salary range (i.e., under $25,000 in 2001 constant dollars) and 

were less likely to earn $35,000 or more (table 13). Additionally, education and humanities 

Figure 7.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed and repaying

Figure 7.—their undergraduate loans, average annual salary (in constant 2001 dollars), by undergraduate

Figure 7.—major: 1994 and 2001

NOTE: Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Employment could be full time or part time.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

25,300 23,500

30,800 30,400 30,400 27,300 29,600 32,900

39,700 41,600

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Education Humanities or

social sciences

Other Business and

management

Engineering,

mathematics,

or science

Undergraduate major

Average

salary

1994 2001

$
Table 13.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed and repaying their undergraduate loans, percentage

Table 15.—distribution of their annual salary (in constant 2001 dollars) and average annual salary, by selected student and institutional

Table 15.—characteristics: 1994 and 2001Student and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 50.6 21.8 19.5 17.8 11.3 20.0 11.2 21.3 7.4 19.0 $28,300 $34,100

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 50.8 21.9 19.4 17.9 11.3 19.9 11.2 21.3 7.4 19.0 28,300 34,100Gender Male 41.3 14.9 19.7 13.8 14.0 19.7 15.0 23.6 10.0 28.0 32,600 37,600 Female 58.6 27.3 19.2 21.0 9.1 20.1 8.0 19.5 5.2 12.1 24,800 31,400Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Asian/Pacific Islander 54.6 12.1 27.7 4.6 6.0 20.0 4.6 32.4 7.1 30.9 26,300 38,600 Black 55.3 18.7 21.1 20.3 11.5 23.1 7.0 23.6 5.1 14.4 24,900 33,000

 White 50.2 22.9 18.7 19.1 11.6 19.3 11.9 20.3 7.7 18.4 28,800 33,400 Hispanic 50.2 21.2 23.1 15.1 10.4 20.5 10.8 23.8 5.6 19.3 26,200 38,100Undergraduate major  Business and management 44.4 10.4 21.6 11.8 9.8 20.1 14.2 29.4 9.9 28.3 30,400 39,700 Education 65.8 28.0 21.5 35.2 8.1 26.5 1.8 8.6 2.7 1.6 25,300 27,300 Engineering, mathematics, or science 35.1 12.8 16.1 7.2 17.2 13.3 22.1 21.8 9.5 45.0 30,400 41,600 Humanities or social sciences 60.6 29.7 21.9 22.0 9.1 22.1 5.2 17.0 3.2 9.2 23,500 29,600 Other 49.7 25.0 16.8 16.6 12.2 20.1 11.6 24.0 9.9 14.4 30,800 32,900Dependency status and family income Dependent, total 54.2 24.1 21.0 17.9 11.0 22.2 9.4 20.6 4.3 15.3 25,600 32,400 Lowest 58.8 27.9 18.6 14.5 10.3 19.7 7.6 20.4 4.7 17.4 25,900 32,700 Lower middle 53.5 25.8 22.0 21.0 9.6 22.7 11.3 17.6 3.7 13.0 24,700 31,300 Upper middle 52.1 22.6 21.4 17.9 12.0 25.5 10.0 24.1 4.5 10.0 25,600 31,700 Highest 42.8 16.6 27.0 19.1 15.3 21.0 10.7 20.4 4.3 22.9 26,700 34,900 Independent, total 47.4 19.3 17.7 17.8 11.5 17.0 13.0 22.2 10.4 23.7 30,900 36,200

See notes at end of table.

$30,000–34,999 $35,000–44,999 $45,000 or more $1–24,999 $25,000–29,999

Average 

annual salary 
Table 13.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed and repaying their undergraduate loans, percentage

Table 15.—distribution of their annual salary (in constant 2001 dollars) and average annual salary, by selected student and institutional

Table 15.—characteristics: 1994 and 2001—ContinuedStudent and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001Type of degree-granting institution Public 4-year non-doctoral 58.8 24.0 18.8 19.7 10.1 21.3 8.5 19.2 3.8 15.7 $25,000 $32,500 Public 4-year doctoral 45.8 19.2 20.5 18.0 14.0 20.6 12.4 21.8 7.3 20.4 29,400 34,300 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 52.9 27.1 19.2 20.8 9.0 20.8 10.5 20.3 8.4 11.0 27,300 32,300 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 43.6 19.8 19.0 11.6 10.5 14.9 14.2 23.9 12.7 29.8 28,900 37,500

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate) (in 1999 constant dollars) $1–9,999 51.7 24.1 19.6 20.8 10.7 17.8 11.6 18.9 6.4 18.4 26,600 32,800 $10,000–14,999 58.1 23.9 18.4 18.7 9.3 21.4 7.7 18.7 6.5 17.4 31,300 32,600 $15,000–19,999 46.6 23.5 20.6 18.7 16.0 20.2 10.5 21.1 6.3 16.5 26,600 34,100 $20,000–24,999 47.6 21.1 19.9 14.9 8.8 21.5 15.0 22.6 8.7 19.9 27,800 34,300 $25,000 or more 32.4 18.3 19.3 16.5 13.5 17.9 17.4 23.6 17.4 23.8 34,500 36,300Enrollment status at follow-up Not enrolled 49.7 21.4 20.0 18.0 11.6 19.8 11.4 21.7 7.4 19.2 28,600 34,300 Enrolled part-time 62.6 16.3 14.0 23.7 6.5 24.1 8.0 16.4 9.0 19.5 26,000 34,600 Enrolled full-time 78.9 45.7 6.5 5.9 3.2 16.6 9.7 18.8 1.7 13.1 18,400 27,200Employment status Employed full time 45.9 18.5 21.0 18.3 12.3 20.9 12.6 22.4 8.2 19.9 29,900 35,000 Employed part time 89.0 76.4 6.8 11.5 2.9 4.1 0.5 4.4 0.8 3.7 15,300 19,200

‡Reporting standards not met. (Too few cases for a reliable estimate.)

1American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude

Hispanic origin unless specified.NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Employment could be full time or part time.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and

B&B:2000/01).

Average 

$1–24,999 $25,000–29,999 $30,000–34,999 $35,000–44,999 $45,000 or more annual salary 
Debt Burden

44 

majors were more likely than those who majored in business or engineering, mathematics, or 

science to earn less than $25,000 and were less likely to earn $45,000 or more. Finally, graduates 

who were employed part time a year later were earning only about one-half the amount of their 

peers with full-time employment. 

Monthly Payments as a Percentage of Monthly Salary 

Debt burden is defined here as the monthly loan payment as a percentage of monthly 

income. While this is a commonly used indicator, there is no widely recognized standard of what 

constitutes an acceptable level of debt burden (Greiner 1996). Scherschel (1998) noted that 

mortgage lenders frequently recommend that student loan payments should not exceed 8 percent 

of their pre-tax income. Baum and O’Malley (2003) pointed out that the payment-to-income 

ratios associated with the federal income-contingent option for repayment provide a useful 

benchmark and that they increase with income. The repayment schedule provides for a ratio of 6 

percent at the $10,000 income level, rising to 13 percent at $20,000, 15 percent at $30,000, and 

18 percent at $70,000. 

As already indicated, the average monthly payment was higher in 2001 than in 1994 

(adjusted for inflation) (table 11), but the average income was higher as well (table 13). The net 

result was that median debt burden did not increase. For both 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed and repaying their loans a year after they had 

graduated, the median debt burden was about 7 percent (table 14). Goldenberg (2004) estimated 

comparable levels of debt burden (6 to 7 percent) for all borrowers (not just bachelor’s degree 

recipients) in their first year of repayment for all years from 1997 through 2001 using loan data 

from a random sample of borrowers in the National Student Loan Data System and income data 

from the Internal Revenue Service. 

Among 1999–2000 graduates, 28 percent had a debt burden of less than 5 percent, and 

about 85 percent had a debt burden of 12 percent or less (figure 8). Another 7 percent had a debt 

burden of 13–16 percent, and 9 percent had one of 17 percent or more. Graduates in the earlier 

cohort were more likely than graduates in the later cohort to have a debt burden greater than 12 

percent and were less likely to have one in the 9–12 percent range. 

Low salaries understandably make repaying loans more burdensome. For both cohorts, the 

lower the income category, the greater the median debt burden (table 14) was. Those with the 

lowest salaries had a median debt burden of 18 percent in 1994 and 15 percent in 2001, and those 

with higher incomes had median debt burdens in the 4–9 percent range. In addition, 61 percent of 

the earlier cohort and 47 percent of the later one who had salaries in the lowest quarter of the 
Table 14.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed and repaying their undergraduate loans, percentage

Table 16.—distribution of their debt burden and their median debt burden, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1994 and 2001

Student and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 30.6 27.4 32.7 36.3 15.8 19.9 8.7 7.2 12.2 9.3 6.7 6.9 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 30.5 27.6 32.8 36.2 15.8 19.9 8.7 7.1 12.2 9.3 6.7 6.9Gender Male 35.9 30.2 31.4 37.7 14.2 19.0 7.7 5.4 10.8 7.8 6.3 6.4 Female 26.2 25.6 34.0 35.1 17.0 20.5 9.5 8.4 13.4 10.4 7.0 7.3Undergraduate major  Business and management 39.2 34.7 30.3 41.8 14.6 13.8 7.1 5.4 8.8 4.3 5.9 5.6 Education 22.8 23.0 32.9 33.6 18.7 20.5 10.2 11.3 15.5 11.6 7.7 7.7 Engineering, mathematics, or science 35.3 36.0 34.7 35.2 13.7 19.0 6.1 3.3 10.2 6.5 5.8 5.8 Humanities or social sciences 28.2 21.8 26.1 35.5 16.9 21.3 11.5 8.4 17.3 13.0 7.7 7.6 Other 26.6 25.3 39.0 34.8 15.8 23.8 8.6 7.6 10.1 8.5 7.0 7.4

Type of degree-granting institution Public 4-year non-doctoral 32.1 36.6 35.0 37.1 15.3 15.7 7.8 5.6 9.9 4.9 6.6 5.8 Public 4-year doctoral 37.5 28.7 32.5 37.3 14.1 20.6 5.6 6.4 10.3 7.1 5.9 6.7 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 23.5 20.4 30.9 34.3 16.4 21.4 12.7 9.6 16.5 14.3 7.8 8.0 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 23.1 19.5 25.7 36.7 19.4 22.5 14.0 9.0 17.7 12.4 8.5 7.7Total amount borrowed (undergraduate) (in 1999 constant dollars) $1–9,999 50.1 72.7 32.2 18.9 8.6 5.4 4.0 0.9 5.1 2.1 4.5 3.2 $10,000–14,999 14.9 33.3 42.6 45.8 21.6 13.0 9.0 2.9 11.9 5.1 7.8 5.7 $15,000–19,999 6.3 15.8 33.9 47.5 27.4 21.9 12.4 7.8 19.9 7.1 9.4 7.5 $20,000–24,999 11.2 15.4 20.0 43.2 22.1 26.6 20.3 7.1 26.5 7.7 11.5 8.0 $25,000 or more 15.9 12.2 18.2 27.3 15.7 27.1 19.8 13.9 30.5 19.6 12.0 9.9Employment status Employed full time 33.4 28.4 33.7 36.9 16.1 20.0 8.2 6.8 8.6 7.9 6.4 6.8 Employed part time 8.6 12.3 26.6 25.1 13.8 19.0 12.2 13.1 38.9 30.6 12.2 11.3Salary Lowest 1.0 5.0 16.7 13.9 10.4 18.0 10.8 16.6 61.1 46.5 17.8 15.4 Lower middle 15.3 21.3 31.6 27.2 20.4 28.4 13.5 10.2 19.2 12.8 8.7 8.6 Upper middle 30.9 24.5 37.7 44.0 17.5 19.4 8.7 6.8 5.3 5.4 6.1 7.0 Highest 51.9 42.6 31.4 41.1 10.3 11.9 3.4 2.3 2.9 2.3 4.3 5.0

1Debt burden is monthly payment as a percentage of monthly salary.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Employment could be full time or part time.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Less than 5 percent 5–8 percent Median debt burden1 17 percent or more 9–12 percent 13–16 percent
Debt Burden

46 

salary distribution had debt burdens of 17 percent or more, compared with 2–3 percent of those 

with the highest earnings. 

Part-time employment (with its corresponding lower salaries) was associated with greater 

debt burden. For example, members of the 1999–2000 cohort who were employed part time had 

a median debt burden of 11 percent, compared with 7 percent for those employed full time. 

Large amounts borrowed necessitate larger payments and therefore a greater debt burden. 

For example, graduates in the later cohort who had borrowed $25,000 or more had a median debt 

burden of 10 percent, compared with 3 percent for those who had borrowed less than $10,000. 

Reflecting smaller amounts borrowed, graduates of public 4-year institutions were more likely 

than graduates of private not-for-profit colleges/universities to have a debt burden of less than 5 

percent and were less likely to have one of 17 percent or more. 

Figure 8.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were employed and repaying

Figure 8.—their undergraduate loans, percentage distribution of debt burden: 1994 and 2001

NOTE: Debt burden is monthly payment as a percentage of monthly salary income. Estimates include data from 50 states, D.C.,

and Puerto Rico. Employment could be full time or part time.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

31 28

33 36

16 20

9 7

12 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

1994 2001

Debt burden

Percent

Less than 5 percent 5–8 percent 9–12 percent 13–16 percent 17 percent or more
Debt Burden 

47 

Parental Help With Payments 

Parents sometimes help their children repay their student loans. Among 1999–2000 

graduates who were repaying their loans, were under 30 years old, and had living parents, 12 

percent reported that their parents were helping them with their payments in 2001 (table 15). 

Note that this may not represent all parents who will ever help. Some graduates who can meet 

their repayment obligations initially might later run into trouble and receive help. 

Help from parents was related to parents’ income, the amount borrowed, and graduates’ 

salaries. Certain graduates were more likely than others to receive help from their parents, 

including those who had been dependent students from upper middle- and high-income families 

while enrolled (vs. those who had been independent students or were from families in the lowest 

income group); those who had borrowed $25,000 or more (vs. those who had borrowed less than 

$10,000); and those with the lowest salaries (vs. those with the highest salaries). 

Help from parents was also related to graduates’ employment status and debt burden. 

Graduates who were employed part time or unemployed were about twice as likely as those 

employed full time or out of the labor force to have parents who helped them repay their 

undergraduate education loans (22 vs. about 10 percent). Some 18 percent of graduates who had 

a debt burden of 17 percent or higher had parents helping them with repayment, in contrast to 

about 10 percent of graduates who had a debt burden below 17 percent. 

Other Indicators of Debt Burden 

The relationship between loan payments and earnings is probably the most important 

indicator of debt burden. However, it does not take into account other types of debts such as 

credit card balances (which may increase repayment stress) or budgeting skills (which may 

reduce it) (Scherschel 2000). Therefore, it is useful to look at other details of graduates’ financial 

circumstances and life choices for any signs that undergraduate debt may be creating hardships 

for them. This section looks at graduates who were not enrolled for further education and 

compares those who borrowed various amounts with those who had not borrowed in terms of 

their living arrangements, other financial obligations, propensity to marry, and spouse’s debt for 

undergraduate education. The findings cannot be considered conclusive because, of course, many 

factors other than undergraduate loan obligations affect lifestyle choices and financial 

circumstances. 
Debt Burden

48 

Table 15.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their undergraduate loans,

Table 17.—percentage distribution of whether parents were helping with repayment, by selected student and

Table 17.—institutional characteristics: 2001

Student and institutional characteristics Yes No

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 12.0 88.1

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 11.9 88.1

Gender

 Male 10.9 89.1

 Female 12.7 87.3

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian ‡ ‡

 Asian/Pacific Islander 11.7 88.3

 Black 8.6 91.4

 White 12.4 87.6

 Hispanic 9.6 90.4

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 12.9 87.1

 Education 8.5 91.5

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 9.5 90.5

 Humanities or social sciences 12.9 87.1

 Other 13.2 86.8

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 14.8 85.2

 Lowest 9.7 90.3

 Lower middle 14.1 85.9

 Upper middle 17.1 82.9

 Highest 21.5 78.5

 Independent, total 6.1 93.9

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 9.9 90.2

 Public 4-year doctoral 10.7 89.3

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 13.5 86.6

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 17.4 82.6

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 $1–9,999 7.6 92.5

 $10,000–14,999 12.9 87.1

 $15,000–19,999 8.1 91.9

 $20,000–24,999 11.0 89.0

 $25,000 or more 14.1 85.9

See notes at end of table.

Parents helping with repayment
Debt Burden 

49 

Living Arrangements 

If graduates were having difficulty repaying their loans, one might expect them to be more 

likely to live with their parents. Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not 

enrolled for further study, 82 percent had their own house or apartment, 16 percent lived with 

parents or relatives, and 2 percent had other living arrangements a year after graduation (table 

Table 15.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying their undergraduate loans,

Table 17.—percentage distribution of whether parents were helping with repayment, by selected student and

Table 17.—institutional characteristics: 2001—Continued

Student and institutional characteristics Yes No

Salary

 Lowest 18.5 81.5

 Lower middle 11.6 88.4

 Upper middle 11.8 88.2

 Highest 7.9 92.1

Employment status

 Employed full time 10.8 89.2

 Employed part time 21.9 78.1

 Unemployed 22.2 77.8

 Out of the labor force 9.1 90.9

Enrollment status at follow-up

 Not enrolled 11.6 88.4

 Enrolled part time 14.7 85.3

 Enrolled full time 16.2 83.8

Debt burden2

 Less than 5 percent 8.2 91.8

 5–8 percent 10.4 89.6

 9–12 percent 8.9 91.1

 13–16 percent 11.8 88.2

 17 percent or more 18.4 81.6

Family/friends loans

 Did not borrow 10.8 89.2

 Borrowed 16.8 83.2

‡Reporting standards not met. (Too few cases for a reliable estimate.)

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

2

Debt burden is monthly payment as a percentage of monthly salary.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Includes graduates who were repaying their loans, were under 30

years old, and had living parents.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:2000/01).

Parents helping with repayment
Debt Burden

50 

16). Compared with 1992–93 graduates, 1999–2000 graduates were more likely to live on their 

own and were less likely to live with parents or relatives even though they were more likely to 

have borrowed and to have borrowed larger amounts (table 2). 

Table 16.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not enrolled, percentage

Table 18.—distribution of their living arrangement, by selected student characteristics: 1994 and 2001

Student characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 70.0 82.4 26.8 15.9 3.3 1.7

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 69.8 82.0 27.0 16.3 3.2 1.7

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 63.0 77.5 33.5 20.9 3.5 1.6

 25–29 77.1 86.0 20.1 12.1 2.8 1.9

 30 and above 93.8 94.9 4.0 3.4 2.2 1.8

Salary

 Lowest 58.0 67.9 34.2 28.1 7.9 4.0

 Lower middle 61.0 81.7 35.9 16.8 3.1 1.5

 Upper middle 71.6 82.8 25.9 16.1 2.6 1.1

 Highest 81.5 89.1 16.7 9.8 1.8 1.1

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 Did not borrow 69.3 82.2 27.9 16.1 2.8 1.8

 $1–9,999 71.9 83.1 25.0 14.8 3.2 2.1

 $10,000–14,999 67.7 81.8 28.1 16.8 4.2 1.4

 $15,000–19,999 74.6 82.3 22.1 16.7 3.3 1.1

 $20,000–24,999 71.3 85.1 24.0 13.2 4.7 1.8

 $25,000 or more 65.8 83.5 29.3 14.2 4.9 2.3

Debt burden1

 No repayment 70.6 82.9 26.6 15.2 2.8 1.9

 Less than 5 percent 75.8 88.6 22.6 10.5 1.7 0.9

 5–8 percent 72.0 83.9 25.5 15.2 2.5 0.9

 9–12 percent 68.8 81.8 28.9 16.5 2.4 1.7

 13–16 percent 64.3 81.1 33.6 16.7 2.1 2.2

 17 percent or more 55.5 76.7 35.0 20.7 9.5 2.5

1

Debt burden is monthly payment as a percentage of monthly salary.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Other arrangement

Own house 

or apartment

With parents 

or relatives
Debt Burden 

51 

Age was a major factor related to the living arrangements of the 1999–2000 graduates. For 

example, 21 percent of those age 24 and under when they graduated were living with parents or 

relatives in 2001, compared with 3 percent of those age 30 and above (table 16). 

Salary level was another major factor. Graduates with the highest salaries were more likely 

than others to have their own house or apartment and were less likely to be living with parents or 

other relatives. Among 1999–2000 graduates not enrolled a year later, 89 percent of those with 

the highest salaries lived in their own house or apartment and 10 percent lived with parents or 

relatives. In contrast, among their counterparts with lower incomes, 68–83 percent lived on their 

own and 16–28 percent lived with parents or relatives. 

For both cohorts, the likelihood of living in their own house or apartment did not appear to 

be systematically related to the amount borrowed. However, debt burden was a factor. For 

example, 1999–2000 graduates with a debt burden of less than 5 percent were more likely than 

those with greater debt burdens to live on their own (89 vs. 77–84 percent) and were generally 

less likely to live with parents or other relatives (11 vs. 15–21 percent).22 

Other Financial Obligations 

Detailed information on graduates’ financial circumstances are not available, but graduates 

did report on their payments for mortgage or rent and auto loans. Among bachelor’s degree 

recipients in each cohort who were not enrolled for further education, about 78 percent had a 

mortgage loan or rent payment (table 17). Of 1999–2000 graduates who had such payments, the 

average amount was $690, which was greater than the average amount paid by 1992–93 

graduates ($570, in 2001 constant dollars). The percentage with auto loan payments declined 

(from 54 to 51 percent), even though the responses for the later cohort may have included 

payments for a spouse’s auto loan as well.23

The likelihood of having such payments and their size were related to graduates’ salaries. 

The relationships were not linear, but there was always a difference between graduates with the 

highest and lowest salaries. For example, among 1999–2000 graduates, those with the highest 

salaries were more likely than those with the lowest salaries to be making mortgage or rent 

payments (87 vs. 62 percent) and to be paying more, on average ($830 vs. $640). Similarly, the 

 

22The apparent difference between those with debt burdens of less than 5 percent and 13–16 percent was not statistically 

significant. 

23In B&B:2000/01, the auto loan payment question referred to spouses’ payments as well; in B&B:93/94, it referred only to 

respondents’ payments. Auto loan data are difficult to interpret because not having a payment could mean either that they did not 

have a car or that they already owned a car outright. 
Debt Burden

52 

Table 17.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not enrolled, percentage

Table 19.—with monthly payments for mortgage or rent and auto loans and among those with payments,

Table 19.—average amounts (in constant 2001 dollars), by selected student characteristics: 1994 and 2001

Student characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 76.7 78.5 $570 $690 53.9 50.7 $350 $370

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 76.6 78.0 570 690 53.9 50.6 350 370

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 73.1 74.7 500 640 55.4 48.3 330 350

 25–29 83.4 83.1 610 690 52.0 56.7 380 370

 30 and above 86.6 86.6 790 860 49.6 53.4 390 420

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree

 Within 4 years 70.8 74.1 500 640 50.5 42.2 320 340

 More than 4, up to 6 years 75.8 79.2 500 640 58.4 55.2 340 360

 More than 6 years 84.7 85.4 720 780 50.9 56.2 390 390

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 Did not borrow 74.7 77.2 600 750 48.7 40.8 350 390

 $1–9,999 79.7 79.4 560 680 59.1 55.9 350 390

 $10,000–14,999 78.3 78.9 510 660 61.3 53.1 340 360

 $15,000–19,999 77.6 80.6 480 630 57.7 57.8 320 360

 $20,000–24,999 78.1 83.8 570 640 57.1 61.0 360 330

 $25,000 or more 79.8 81.8 550 680 56.1 56.2 330 360

Salary

 Lowest 62.5 62.1 550 640 38.1 32.7 320 340

 Lower middle 71.4 78.5 460 550 48.4 51.2 290 340

 Upper middle 81.1 80.6 540 670 59.5 56.4 340 370

 Highest 85.1 86.8 680 830 61.4 59.1 400 400

Debt burden2

 No repayment 76.7 80.5 590 710 51.8 47.3 350 380

 Less than 5 percent 87.8 87.0 590 710 67.2 63.2 350 380

 5–8 percent 81.0 82.3 530 650 65.6 62.8 350 350

 9–12 percent 79.9 79.9 490 620 60.6 61.8 330 340

 13–16 percent 67.6 79.6 430 570 59.9 58.0 320 340

 17 percent or more 70.3 75.5 440 600 52.1 48.6 310 350

1

In B&B:2000/01, the auto loan payment question refers to spouses’ payments as well, while in B&B:93/94 it refers only to the

respondents’ payments. This would tend to bias the 2001 percentage upward. Among 1999–2000 graduates, 48 percent were

making auto loan payments (either for themselves or spouses or both) in 2001; 42 percent of their counterparts who graduated in

1992–93 were doing so in 1994.

2

Debt burden is monthly payment as a percentage of monthly salary.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Average

 monthly auto 

loan payment

 mortgage/rent 

payment

Percentage

 with auto 

loan payment1

Percentage with

 mortgage/rent 

loan payment

Average monthly
Debt Burden 

53 

likelihood of having an auto loan payment was greater for those with the highest salaries than for 

those with the lowest salaries (59 vs. 33 percent), as was the average amount of the payment 

($400 vs. $340).

As debt burden increased (i.e., as student loan payments used up an increasing proportion 

of their salaries) graduates’ ability or willingness to take on other financial obligations was 

affected. For example, among 1999–2000 graduates repaying their loans, those with a debt 

burden of less than 5 percent were generally more likely than those greater debt burdens to have a 

mortgage or rent payment,24 and when they did, the average amount they paid was larger. In 

addition, those with a debt burden of less than 5 percent tended to have a larger average auto loan 

payment than those with greater debt burdens.25

There was some relationship between other financial obligations and age, reflecting the fact 

that the passage of time provides more opportunity to take on such obligations and to have 

earned enough money to take them on. For example, for both cohorts, graduates who had 

finished college when they were age 25 or older were more likely than those who had finished at 

age 24 or younger to have mortgage loan or rent payments and if they did, to have larger 

payments. 

Marriage 

Among both 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not enrolled 

for further education a year later, about 27 percent were married when they graduated (table 18). 

Despite the already mentioned fears that heavy borrowing for undergraduate education may affect 

borrowers’ lifestyle choices, there was no meaningful difference between the two cohorts in the 

percentage who married after graduation (6 percent of 1992–93 graduates and 7 percent of 1999–

2000 graduates). The likelihood of getting married within a year of graduation did not appear to 

be related to either the level of borrowing or debt burden for either cohort.26

 

24The apparent difference between those with debt burdens of less than 5 percent and 13–16 percent was not statistically 

significant. 

25The apparent difference between those with debt burdens of less than 5 percent and 17 percent or more was not statistically 

significant. 

26The only exception was that borrowers of $20,000 or more in the 1992–93 cohort were less likely than nonborrowers to marry 

after graduation. 
Debt Burden

54 

Spouses With Debt 

Among 1999–2000 graduates who were not enrolled but who were married and repaying 

their loans in 2001, 23 percent had a spouse who was also making payments on undergraduate 

loans (table 19). The average household payment when both were making payments was $410 

per month. Graduates whose monthly repayment was $300 or more had spouses with higher 

average payments. As would be expected, the more that married graduates were repaying on their 

own undergraduate education loans, the greater their combined household repayment amount. 

Table 18.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were not enrolled, percentage

Table 20.—who were married as of and after graduation, by selected student characteristics: 1994 and 2001

Student characteristics 1992–93 1999–2000 1994 2001 1994 2001

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 27.2 26.6 5.7 7.4 32.3 30.9

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 27.2 26.6 5.7 7.4 32.2 30.9

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate)

 (in 1999 constant dollars)

 Did not borrow 25.9 29.0 6.0 7.7 31.4 32.0

 $1–9,999 31.8 32.1 5.9 8.7 36.9 38.9

 $10,000–14,999 26.9 28.4 4.6 9.2 30.7 34.5

 $15,000–19,999 26.5 22.4 5.5 8.7 31.6 29.8

 $20,000–24,999 26.4 23.9 3.7 6.3 29.8 27.5

 $25,000 or more 20.7 24.9 3.2 6.5 22.8 27.9

Salary

 Lowest 26.7 27.6 4.8 6.2 30.7 30.7

 Lower middle 21.6 23.6 5.8 9.2 26.8 29.8

 Upper middle 25.0 22.6 6.4 7.5 30.8 27.6

 Highest 34.4 30.1 5.4 6.5 39.1 33.1

Debt burden1

 No repayment 26.2 27.2 5.8 7.2 31.3 30.7

 Less than 5 percent 33.0 27.6 6.8 9.4 38.8 34.0

 5–8 percent 29.1 19.0 6.2 8.3 34.5 26.0

 9–12 percent 27.4 24.8 5.2 8.3 32.4 28.3

 13–16 percent 22.0 26.5 5.0 8.6 26.5 32.3

 17 percent or more 20.3 22.8 6.3 6.6 26.6 28.4

1

Debt burden is monthly payment as a percentage of monthly salary.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Percentage who Percentage who

after graduation at time of follow-up

 married 

Percentage who

 were married 

as of graduation

were married
Debt Burden 

55 

Graduates With High Levels of Debt or Debt Burden 

While the median debt burden of 7 percent appears to be reasonable by generally accepted 

standards, undergraduate debt is clearly burdensome for some graduates. This final part of the 

discussion of debt burden describes graduates who borrowed $25,000 or more and those who had 

a debt burden greater than 12 percent and compares them with other graduates. 

Graduates Who Borrowed $25,000 or More 

Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had borrowed, 26 percent had 

borrowed $25,000 or more to help pay for their undergraduate education, compared with 7 

percent of 1992–93 graduates (table 3). Graduates from both cohorts who had borrowed $25,000 

or more were more likely than other graduates to have earned their degree from a private 

institution (table 20). Reflecting the large amount borrowed, they were also more likely than 

other graduates to have a debt burden of 9 percent or more. Among 1999–2000 graduates, those 

who borrowed $25,000 or more were also more likely than other graduates to have been 

independent students and were less likely to be out of the labor force. They were, however, more 

likely to be unemployed. 

Table 19.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were repaying loans, married, and not

Table 21.—enrolled, percentage whose spouse also was repaying, average payment amount by such spouse,

Table 21.—and average monthly payment by household, by respondents’ monthly repayment amount: 2001

Percentage Average payment Average monthly

 whose spouse by spouse, payment by

Respondents’ monthly payment also repaying if repaying household1

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 22.8 $180 $410

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 22.7 180 $410

Respondents’ monthly payment 

 $1–99 16.9 150 $220

 $100–199 22.6 160 $300

 $200–299 25.4 180 $400

 $300 or more 26.6 250 $660

1

If spouse was making payments.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
Debt Burden

56 

Table 20.—Percentage distribution of selected student characteristics and institutional characteristics, by

Table 22.—borrowing status: 1992–93 and 1999–2000

Student and institutional characteristics 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 47.9 41.0 45.6 43.3

 Female 52.1 59.0 54.4 56.8

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 2.0 0.7 0.5 0.8

 Asian/Pacific Islander 5.2 4.6 4.7 7.1

 Black 5.8 11.0 6.0 7.5

 White 82.9 75.5 83.6 75.9

 Hispanic 4.1 8.2 5.2 8.8

Age

 24 and under 67.1 57.5 71.8 67.1

 25–29 12.7 22.2 12.4 15.4

 30 and above 20.2 20.3 15.8 17.5

Undergraduate major

 Business and management 21.3 14.6 21.9 21.4

 Education 14.0 8.4 12.7 8.2

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 18.4 15.0 16.4 16.3

 Humanities or social science 18.5 31.5 24.4 28.7

 Other 27.8 30.6 24.6 25.4

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 53.4 48.4 59.0 57.4

 Lowest 15.7 12.8 14.7 14.4

 Lower middle 10.4 13.2 15.2 14.2

 Upper middle 13.3 12.3 14.3 14.1

 Highest 14.0 10.1 14.8 14.7

 Independent, total 46.6 51.6 41.0 42.6

Type of degree-granting institution 

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 9.5 13.4 24.5 21.6

 Public 4-year doctoral 28.3 40.4 44.3 47.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 30.1 22.4 18.2 18.5

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 32.2 23.7 13.1 12.3

Debt burden2

 No repayment 32.5 36.1 67.2 61.2

 Less than 5 percent 10.7 7.7 10.3 12.8

 5–8 percent 12.2 17.2 11.1 15.2

 9–12 percent 10.5 17.1 5.2 6.5

 13–16 percent 13.3 8.8 2.6 1.9

 17 percent or more 20.9 13.2 3.6 2.4

See notes at end of table.

Borrowed $25,000 or more All other graduates
Debt Burden 

57 

Graduates With a Debt Burden of More Than 12 Percent 

Among those who were employed and repaying their loans a year after graduating, 21 

percent of 1992–93 graduates and 16 percent of 1999–2000 graduates had a debt burden of more 

than 12 percent (table 14). High debt burden can be the result of either borrowing a large amount 

or having a low salary. Among 1999–2000 graduates, 52 percent of those with debt burdens of 

more than 12 percent had borrowed $25,000 or more, and 27 percent had salaries in the lowest 

quarter of the salary distribution (table 21). 

Table 20.—Percentage distribution of selected student characteristics and institutional characteristics, by

Table 22.—borrowing status: 1992–93 and 1999–2000—Continued

Student and institutional characteristics 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000

Salary

 Lowest 19.3 23.8 24.1 24.2

 Lower middle 18.2 24.0 23.8 25.4

 Upper middle 27.2 26.3 27.7 26.2

 Highest 35.4 25.9 24.4 24.2

Employment status

 Employed full-time 75.4 77.4 73.2 76.7

 Employed part-time 12.5 10.7 13.8 11.2

 Unemployed 4.9 7.7 4.4 5.7

 Out of the labor force 7.2 4.2 8.6 6.4

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

2

Debt burden is monthly payment as a percentage of monthly salary.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Borrowed $25,000 or more All other graduates
Debt Burden

58 

Table 21.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients, percentage distribution of selected

Table 23.—student and institutional characteristics, by debt burden status: 1994 and 2001

Student and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 40.2 35.2 45.7 43.1

 Female 59.8 64.9 54.3 56.9

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.7 5.8 5.0 6.9

 Black 7.0 5.4 6.1 8.4

 White 84.5 82.2 83.3 74.8

 Hispanic 5.2 6.4 5.1 9.2

Age

 24 and under 76.8 70.9 71.4 65.6

 25–29 14.3 16.6 12.3 16.2

 30 and above 8.9 12.5 16.3 18.1

Undergraduate major

 Business and management 16.1 11.4 22.3 20.7

 Education 17.8 14.4 12.5 7.9

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 13.3 9.3 16.6 16.0

 Humanities or social science 29.6 37.8 24.0 28.9

 Other 23.2 27.2 24.6 26.5

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 60.2 59.2 58.8 56.2

 Lowest 24.3 15.4 14.2 14.0

 Lower middle 16.9 18.0 14.9 13.9

 Upper middle 10.1 16.7 14.7 13.9

 Highest 9.0 9.1 15.0 14.4

 Independent, total 39.8 40.8 41.2 43.8

Type of degree-granting institution 

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 19.0 13.9 24.3 20.2

 Public 4-year doctoral 30.5 36.1 44.3 46.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 30.1 31.5 17.9 19.1

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 20.4 18.4 13.6 14.0

Total amount borrowed (undergraduate) (in 1999 constant dollars) 

 Did not borrow † † 53.6 36.7

 $1–9,999 21.1 3.6 28.3 15.4

 $10,000–14,999 22.5 8.5 9.1 11.3

 $15,000–19,999 22.5 19.5 4.5 11.9

 $20,000–24,999 17.3 15.9 2.4 9.9

 $25,000 or more 16.6 52.5 2.2 14.7

See notes at end of table.

more than 12 percent All other graduates

Debt burden
Debt Burden 

59 

Table 21.—Among 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients, percentage distribution of selected

Table 23.—student and institutional characteristics, by debt burden status: 1994 and 2001—Continued

Student and institutional characteristics 1994 2001 1994 2001

Salary

 Lowest 22.0 26.9 25.1 24.6

 Lower middle 45.3 41.0 21.8 24.3

 Upper middle 24.1 24.5 27.5 25.9

 Highest 8.7 7.6 25.5 25.2

Employment status

 Employed full time 71.2 82.3 73.2 76.2

 Employed part time 28.3 17.7 13.0 10.5

 Unemployed 0.5 # 4.8 6.5

 Out of the labor force # # 9.0 6.8

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Debt burden

more than 12 percent All other graduates
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
61 

Summary and Conclusions 

This report uses the 1994 and 2001 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B) 

to compare the borrowing patterns of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients, their 

repayment situations, and their resulting debt burdens a year after they graduated. Debt burden is 

defined as monthly loan payments divided by monthly salary income. Members of the earlier 

cohort finished their undergraduate borrowing before the changes in the Stafford loan program 

introduced by the 1992 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act were implemented, and 

most members of the later cohort would have done all of their borrowing under the new rules. 

The major finding of the analysis was that although both the percentage of graduates who 

had borrowed for their undergraduate education and the average total amount borrowed 

(adjusting for inflation) increased, the median debt burden a year after graduating was about the 

same for both cohorts (7 percent). Higher salaries (after adjusting for inflation) and lower 

payments relative to the amount borrowed for the later cohort appear to be the major reasons why 

there was no increase in the later cohort’s debt burden. The payments of the later cohort were 

kept down by declining interest rates. Various alternative payment options also could have 

lowered the payments for some members of either cohort, but comparable data on how the 

cohorts used them are not available. 

Higher debt did not seem to discourage the graduates from enrolling in further education in 

any major way. Among 1999–2000 graduates who had not yet applied or enrolled but were 

expecting to attend graduate school later, 5 percent cited undergraduate debt as the primary 

reason for postponing further education. Higher debt appeared neither to discourage the later 

cohort from entering teaching, nor to encourage graduates to take jobs that they did not consider 

to be the start of a career in that occupation or industry. 

It is important to understand that these data represent debt burden a year after graduation 

but that debt burden can change during the repayment period. Interest rates on federal loans are 

variable and therefore may go up or down, and both income and employment status can change 

because of personal circumstances or shifts in economic conditions. Thus, the extent to which 

any group of borrowers will have difficulty repaying their loans depends not only on the size of 

their loans but also on conditions during the repayment period that are difficult to predict when 

students and their families make decisions about borrowing. Students whose academic success is 
Summary and Conclusions

62 

uncertain or whose families lack the financial resources to help them repay their loans if they run 

into difficulty are especially vulnerable to these uncertainties. 

Finally, it is important to note that although median debt burden a year after graduating did 

not increase, the amount that the average bachelor’s degree recipient borrowed, and thus will 

have to repay, has increased. Although loans help students gain access to undergraduate 

education by reducing the necessary immediate outlay, they do not decrease the total price of 

attending; they simply postpone paying the bill. When students first consider enrolling and must 

make decisions about borrowing, they often do not know what career they will choose or how 

much they will need to borrow in total, both of which have implications for their ability to repay 

their debt. 

 
63 

References 

Baum, S., and O’Malley, M. (2003). College on Credit: How Borrowers Perceive Their 

Education Debt. Results of the 2002 National Student Loan Survey, Final Report. Braintree, 

MA: Nellie Mae Corporation. 

Berkner, L., Berker, A., Rooney, K., and Peter, K. (2002). Student Financing of Undergraduate 

Education: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002–167). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Burd, S. (2003, July 18). Public Colleges Are at Odds Over Raising Limits on Student Loans. 

The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Choy, S., and Geis, S. (2002). Student Financing of Graduate and First-Professional Education, 

1999–2000: Profiles of Students in Selected Degree Programs and Their Use of 

Assistantships (NCES 2002–166). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

The College Board. (2003a). Trends in College Pricing: 2003. Washington, DC: The College 

Entrance Examination Board. 

The College Board. (2003b). Trends in Student Aid: 2003. Washington, DC: The College 

Entrance Examination Board. 

Davis, J., and Merisotis, J. (1998). Preface. In Student Loan Debt: Problems and Prospects. 

Proceedings From a National Symposium (pp. ix–xv). Washington, DC: The Institute for 

Higher Education Policy, Sallie Mae Education Institute, and The Education Resources 

Institute. 

Ekstrom, R., Goertz, M., Pollack, J., and Rock, D. (1991). Undergraduate Debt and 

Participation in Graduate Education: The Relationship Between Educational Debt and 

Graduate School Aspirations, Applications, and Attendance Among Students With a Pattern 

of Full-Time, Continuous Postsecondary Education (ETS Research Report 89-45). Princeton, 

NJ: Educational Testing Service. 
References

64 

Fox, M. (1992). Student Debt and Enrollment in Graduate and Professional School. Applied 

Economics, 24(7): 669–677. 

Goldenberg. D. (2004). Borrower Debt Burden. Retrieved August 13, 2004, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/nedrc_table.asp?sbj=student%20finances. 

Greiner, K. (1996). How Much Student Loan Debt Is Too Much? Journal of Student Financial 

Aid, 26(1): 7–16. 

Hansen, J. (1987). Student Loans: Are They Overburdening a Generation? New York: The 

College Entrance Examination Board. 

Heller, D. (2001). Debts and Decisions: Student Loans and Their Relationship to Graduate 

School and Career Choice. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. 

Joyner, C. (1998). Student Loans: Limited Information Is Available to Determine How Students’ 

College Debt Affects Their School and Lifestyle Decisions (GAO/HEH–98–97R). 

Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 

Millet, C. (2003). How Undergraduate Loan Debt Affects Application and Enrollment in 

Graduate or Professional School. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(4): 386–427. 

Schapiro, M., O’Malley, M., and Litten, L. (1991). Progression to Graduate School From the 

“Elite” Colleges and Universities. Economics of Education Review, 10(3): 227–244. 

Scherschel, P. (1998). Student Indebtedness: Are Borrowers Pushing the Limits? Indianapolis, 

IN: USA Group Foundation. 

Scherschel, P. (2000). Student Debt Levels Continue to Rise. Indianapolis, IN: USA Group 

Foundation. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Digest of 

Education Statistics 2002 (NCES 2003–060). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Education and U.S. General Accounting Office. (2001). Alternative Market 

Mechanisms for the Student Loan Program. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting 

Office. 

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 

65 

Weiler, W. (1991). The Effect of Undergraduate Student Loans on the Decision to Pursue 

Postbaccalaureate Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(3): 212–220. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
67 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables come from the NCES 1993/97 and 2000/01 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/97 and B&B:2000/01) Data Analysis Systems (DAS), 

software applications developed by NCES to generate tables from the survey data. The B&B:93/97 DAS includes 

data collected in the base year (1992–93) and the two follow-ups conducted in 1994 and 1997. No data collected in 

1997 are used in this report. 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) used in the B&B:2000/01 database. Wherever the variable name differs in 

the B&B:93/97 database or the variable is available only for B&B:2000/01, the year appears next to the variable 

name. Any differences in definitions between the two years are noted. 

GLOSSARY INDEX

STUDENT/INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Gender...........................................................GENDER 

Race/ethnicity......................... RACE1 (B&B:2000/01) 

 RETHNIC (B&B:93/97) 

Age received bachelor’s 

degree ............................... AGENBA (B&B:2000/01) 

 AGEATBA (B&B:93/97) 

Time from college entry to 

bachelor’s degree................ PSE_BA (B&B:2000/01) 

 BATIME2 (B&B:93/97) 

Undergraduate major......... MAJORS4 (B&B:2000/01) 

 BAMAJOR (B&B:93/97) 

Dependency status and 

family income ........................................... INCQUTIL 

Type of degree-granting 

institution..........................SECTOR9 (B&B:2000/01) 

 SECTOR_B (B&B:93/97) 

First postsecondary 

institution attended .............I1SECT9 (B&B:2000/01) 

 FSCTYPE1 (B&B:93/97) 

GPA for undergraduate 

major............................................................ GPAMAJ 

Parents’ highest educational 

 attainment .........................NPARED (B&B:2000/01) 

 PAREDUC (B&B:93/97) 

Married at graduation .........NBMARR (B&B:2000/01) 

 RMARITST (B&B:93/97) 

Married after graduation...........................MARICHNG 

Married..................................CCMAR (B&B:2000/01) 

 RMARCURR (B&B:93/97) 

Living arrangement ...................................WHERELIV 

UNDERGRADUATE BORROWING AND DEBT BURDEN

A YEAR LATER

Amount borrowed for 

undergraduate education............................ TOTDEBT 

Education loans...................CBUGLN (B&B:2000/01) 

Federal loans .......................CBDUGL (B&B:2000/01) 

Family loans..................... CBFAMLN (B&B:2000/01) 

Owed on federal loans....CBFEDUGO (B&B:2000/01) 

Owed on loans from 

family or friends ............... CBFAMO (B&B:2000/01) 

Repayment status 1 year later.......................RPYSTAT 

Monthly payment .......... CBRPYAMT (B&B:2000/01) 

 ALLOWER (B&B:93/97) 

Debt burden.................................................... EDPCTR 

Parents helping with 

repayment..................... CBRPYPAR (B&B:2000/01) 

Mortgage/rent 

payment ...................... CCMTGAMT (B&B:2000/01) 

 HOUSEPAY (B&B:93/97) 

Auto loan payment .........CCCARPMT (B&B:2000/01) 

 AUTOPAY (B&B:93/97) 

Spouse’s monthly payment.....SPAMT (B&B:2000/01) 

Monthly payment by 

household ..................... RSEDURPY (B&B:2000/01) 
Appendix A—Glossary 

68 

POST-BACCALAUREATE ENROLLMENT

Enrolled in graduate or 

first-professional degree program................GRPROG 

Expecting to enroll in the 

future .................................GRDFUT (B&B:2000/01) 

Primary reason for postponing graduate or firstprofessional enrollment ...CDDELY1 (B&B:2000/01) 

Enrollment status at 

follow-up ...........................ENRCUR (B&B:2000/01) 

 B2EN9404 (B&B:93/97) 

EMPLOYMENT

Taught at any K–12 schools........................... STATUS 

Job status relative to 

career..................................CECURL (B&B:2000/01) 

Primary reason for 

unrelated job..................CECURJOB (B&B:2000/01) 

Employment status .............. EMPOLF (B&B:2000/01) 

 B2EM9404 (B&B:93/97) 

Annual salary income.....CEANNERN (B&B:2000/01) 

 APRANSAL (B&B:93/97) 

 SALPCT (B&B:93/97) 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

69 

Age received bachelor’s degree AGENBA (B&B:2000/01) 

AGEATBA (B&B:93/97)

Indicates the respondent’s age at the time the bachelor’s degree was received. This variable was derived slightly 

differently for the two cohorts; additional months beyond the whole year were ignored for the 1992–93 graduates, 

but converted to an extra year for the 1999–2000 graduates. This may partially explain why the average age of the 

1999–2000 graduates is close to 1 year older than that of the 1992–93 graduates. The age categories used in this 

report are the following: 

24 and under 

25–29 

30 and above 

Federal loans CBDUGL (B&B:2000/01) 

Response to the question: “How much money have you borrowed in federal loans to pay for your undergraduate 

education?” Asked in 2001 only. 

Family loans (borrowed from family and friends) CBFAMLN (B&B:2000/01) 

Response to the question: “How much money have you borrowed from family and friends to pay for your 

undergraduate education?” Asked in 2001 only. 

Owed on loans from family or friends CBFAMO (B&B:2000/01) 

Response to a question about how much of the amount borrowed from family and friends for undergraduate 

education was still owed in 2001. Asked in 2001 only. 

Owed on federal loans CBFEDUGO (B&B:2000/01) 

Response to a question about how much of the amount borrowed in federal loans for undergraduate education was 

still owed in 2001. Asked in 2001 only. 

Monthly payment CBRPYAMT (B&B:2000/01) 

ALLOWER (B&B:93/97) 

Indicates how much respondents were paying monthly on education loans taken out during their undergraduate years, 

as reported in 1994 and 2001. For the 1999–2000 graduates, this variable refers to payments made only on loans 

from sources other than family or friends. For the 1992–93 graduates, the variable refers to payments on all types of 

loans, including those from family and friends. For the 1992–93 graduates, this variable has a weighted item 

response rate below 85 percent, thus requiring a bias analysis according to NCES publication standards; see 

appendix B for details on how this report’s relevant findings might have been biased due to missing data on 

ALLOWER. 

Parents helping with repayment CBRPYPAR (B&B:2000/01) 

Response to the question: “Are your parents helping you to repay your education loans?” Asked in 2001 only. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

70 

Education loans CBUGLN (B&B:2000/01) 

Response 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?” Asked in 2001 only. 

Auto loan payment CCCARPMT (B&B:2000/01) 

AUTOPAY (B&B:93/97)

Response to a question on their monthly auto loan payment amount. In 2001 (but not in 1994), respondents were 

asked to include a spouse’s payments as well. This could bias the 2001 estimates upward. 

Married CCMAR (B&B:2000/01) 

RMARCURR (B&B:93/97)

Indicates respondents’ marital status as of the 1994 or 2001 interview. In 1994 (but not 2001), the possible responses 

included “living together in a marriage-like relationship,” which was considered “not married” in this report. 

Married Married. 

Not married Divorced; widowed; single, never married; or (for 1992–93 

graduates) living together in a marriage-like relationship. 

Mortgage/rent payment CCMTGAMT (B&B:2000/01) 

HOUSEPAY (B&B:93/97)

In 2001, response to the question: “How much is your monthly mortgage/rent payment?” In 1994, this variable was 

derived from the responses to two questions: “How much do you pay monthly on your mortgage?” and “What are 

your monthly payments for rent?” 

Primary reason for postponing graduate or first-professional enrollment CDDELY1 (B&B:2000/01) 

First response to the question: “Why did you decide to postpone your continued education?” Asked in 2001 only. Up 

to three responses were collected. The interviewer coded the responses into 14 categories, which were collapsed into 

6 categories for this report as follows: 

Wanted work experience/ 

 had good job opportunity Want/need work experience; had good job opportunity. 

Wanted a break from school Want a break from school. 

Family responsibility Raising children; other family responsibilities or constraints. 

Undergraduate debt Undergraduate debt. 

Other financial reasons Could not get financial aid; other financial reasons. 

Other Failed to meet application deadline; not admitted to school of 

choice; military commitment; career plans indefinite; 

moving/relocating; other. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

71 

Annual salary income CEANNERN (B&B:2000/01) 

APRANSAL (B&B:93/97) 

SALPCT (B&B:93/97)

Annual income based on reported annual salary or rate of pay. In 1994, the annualized salary was based on the job 

held in April 1994. In 2001, it was based on the job held at the time of the interview. Where this variable appears as 

a row variable in this report, respondents are divided into four categories based on their annual salary. Each group 

represents one-quarter of the salary distribution, and the lowest category includes respondents who were 

unemployed. Respondents who were unemployed were coded as zero for CEANNERN in 2001 but were assigned a 

negative value for APRANSAL in 1994. Because missing cases were also assigned a negative value, it was 

impossible to distinguish between zero and missing values for APRANSAL. Therefore, instead of using 

APRANSAL, SALPCT was derived to be comparable to CEANNERN. In SALPCT, unemployed cases have a zero 

value. B2EM9404 was used to identify unemployed cases. In current dollars, the ranges for each group are as 

follows: 

 Year 

 2001 1994 

 

Lowest <=$15,840 <=$9,594 

Lower middle $15,841–$28,947 $9,595–$17,992 

Upper middle $28,948–$37,970 $17,993–$25,771 

Highest >$37,970 >$25,771 

Job status relative to career CECURL (B&B:2000/01) 

Response (yes/no) to the question: “Would you consider your current job to be the start of your career in this 

occupation or industry?” Asked in 2001 only. 

Primary reason for unrelated job CECURJOB (B&B:2000/01) 

Response to the question: “Since it isn’t the start of your career, how would you describe your current job?” Asked 

in 2001 only. The interviewer coded the responses into one of nine categories, which were collapsed into six for this 

report as follows: 

Just paying bills Just paying the bills. 

Working while deciding Working while deciding future plans for education or career. 

Working to prepare for graduate school Working to prepare for graduate school. 

Doing what want to do Doing what want to do. 

Exploring career options Exploring career options. 

Other Continuing in the job already held while in school; continuing 

in career already in; is the only job available; other. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

72 

Debt burden EDPCTR

Monthly loan repayment as a percentage of monthly salary income as reported in 1994 and 2001. Created by 

dividing the monthly student loan repayment amount by monthly income and multiplying by 100. Cases with student 

loan payments greater than monthly income have a value greater than 100 percent on EDPCTR. Respondents with 

unrealistically high values (i.e., more than 50 percent) were excluded in calculating the percentage distribution and 

median debt burden used in this report; fewer than 1 percent were excluded for this reason. In the DAS, the 

percentages have been multiplied by 100 in order to achieve higher precision (i.e., to be able to show median debt 

burden to one decimal place rather than an integer). 

Employment status EMPOLF (B&B:2000/01) 

B2EM9404 (B&B:93/97)

In 2001, refers to respondents’ employment status as of the 2001 interview. In 1994, refers to respondents’ 

employment status in April 1994. Four categories were used in 1994: working full time, working part time, 

unemployed, and out of the labor force. In 2001, more detailed information was collected about why a respondent 

was not working, including whether he or she was waiting to report to work, laid off, a homemaker, or disabled. The 

distinction between working full or part time was self-reported in both years. In 2001, the remaining categories were 

constructed to approximate as closely as possible definitions used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS defines 

persons as “unemployed” only if they are also looking for work; other unemployed persons are considered “out of the 

labor force.” (More information about the BLS definitions of these concepts are available at: 

http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm.) Respondents in 2001 who reported that they were waiting to report to work or 

had been laid off were not asked whether they were looking for work; they were coded as “unemployed” (i.e., it was 

assumed that they were looking for work). Those who reported that they were homemakers or disabled also were not 

asked whether they were currently looking for work; they were categorized as being “out of the labor force” (i.e., it was 

assumed that they were not looking for work). The four categories used for each year were as follows: 

Working full time 

Working part time 

Unemployed 

Out of the labor force 

Enrollment status at follow-up ENRCUR (B&B:2000/01) 

B2EN9404 (B&B:93/97)

This derived variable indicates respondents’ enrollment status as of the interview in 2001 or in April 1994. 

Respondents enrolled in one program were categorized as enrolled full or part time based on their self-report. The 

few respondents who were enrolled in more than one program were put in a separate category. In 2001, only a very 

small number of respondents were enrolled in more than one program, and the majority of them were enrolled full 

time in at least one program; therefore, they were considered enrolled full time in this report. In 1994, respondents 

who were enrolled in more than one program were considered “full time” if their enrollment was full time at least for 

one of the programs enrolled; otherwise, they were considered “part time.” Three categories were used in this report: 

Not currently enrolled 

Enrolled part time 

Enrolled full time 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

73 

Gender GENDER 

Respondent’s gender. 

Male 

Female 

GPA for undergraduate major GPAMAJ 

Student-reported grade point average in their undergraduate major on a 4.0 scale (collected in 1992–93 and 1999–

2000). If students indicated a grading scale other than a 4-point scale (GPASCAL), 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. For the 1999–2000 graduates, this variable has a weighted item response rate below 85 

percent, thus, requiring a bias analysis according to NCES publication standards; see appendix B for details on how 

this report’s relevant findings might have been biased due to missing data on GPAMAJ. 

Expecting to enroll in the future GRDFUT (B&B:2000/01) 

Identifies respondents’ expectations regarding further education in the future. Asked in 2001 only. Asked of 

graduates who had not yet enrolled in or been accepted to any post-baccalaureate degree program at the time of the 

interview. The report indicates the percentage of this group who were expecting to enroll in a graduate or firstprofessional degree program in the future. 

Enrolled in graduate or first-professional degree program GRPROG 

This derived variable indicates the highest level of program respondents had enrolled in since graduation. 

Respondents in 2001 were asked: “Since completing your bachelor’s degree, have you enrolled in, or recently 

completed, an undergraduate, graduate, or professional degree or certificate program?” If they had, they were asked 

to identify the specific type of program. A few respondents had been accepted but had not yet started the program; 

they were included in the “enrolled” category. The interviews were conducted between June and November; this 

strategy was intended to pick up all students who would be enrolled in the fall. In 1994, the “enrolled” category 

refers only to respondents who had enrolled by the time of the interview. This difference might partially explain why 

the enrollment rate was higher in 2001 than in 1994. The report indicates the percentage of graduates who had 

enrolled in a graduate or first-professional degree program, which includes those who were enrolled in master’s, 

doctoral, and first-professional programs. This percentage does not include graduates who had enrolled in other 

types of programs (e.g., for an associate’s degree, second bachelor’s degree, or other program). 

Dependency status and family income INCQUTIL 

Identifies respondents’ family income category, determined separately for dependent and independent students. 

Independent students are those who are 24 years or older; 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 who 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 the spouse’s income for a married student) for independent students. For this report, 

graduates were divided into eight groups based on their family income and their dependency status in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000. Each group represents one-quarter of the family income distribution for each dependency status. In 

current dollars, the ranges covered by each of the family income groups are as follows: 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

74 

 Year 

 1999–2000 1992–93 

 

Dependent, lowest <=$39,442 <=$37,517 

Dependent, lower middle $39,443–$64,126 $37,518–$55,000 

Dependent, upper middle $64,127–$95,036 $55,001–$74,036 

Dependent, highest >$95,036 >$74,036 

 

Independent, lowest <=$8,371 <=$6,500 

Independent, lower middle $8,372–$20,123 $6,501–$15,289 

Independent, upper middle $20,124–$43,000 $15,290–$33,000 

Independent, highest >$43,000 >$33,000 

First postsecondary institution attended I1SECT9 (B&B:2000/01) 

FSCTYPE1 (B&B:93/97)

Indicates the type of institution first attended, combining level (less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year) and control 

(public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit). Less-than-2-year institutions offer at least one program that 

lasts 3 months or longer and produces a terminal award or certificate; no program lasts longer than 2 years. Two-year 

institutions do not confer bachelor’s degrees but provide 2-year programs that result in a certificate or an associate’s 

degree or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the requirements for a bachelor’s degree or higher at a 4-year 

institution. Four-year institutions can award bachelor’s or higher degrees. Public institutions are supported primarily 

by public funds and operated by publicly elected or appointed officials who control the programs and activities. 

Private not-for-profit institutions are controlled by an independent governing board and incorporated under Section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Private for-profit institutions are privately owned and operated as profitmaking enterprises (includes career colleges and proprietary institutions). The detailed categories of these variables 

differ for the two cohorts, but no differences remain at the level of aggregation used in this report, which is as 

follows: 

Public 2-year 

Public 4-year 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 

Other 

Undergraduate major MAJORS4 (B&B:2000/01) 

BAMAJOR (B&B:93/97)

Identifies graduate’s self-reported major field of study for the bachelor’s degree using 12 categories, which were 

collapsed into 5 categories in the report as follows: 

Business and management Business and management. 

Education Education. 

Engineering/mathematics/science Engineering, mathematics and physical science, biological 

sciences. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

75 

Humanities and social sciences Humanities, history, psychology, and social science. 

Other Health professions, public affairs/social services, and other. 

Married after graduation MARICHNG 

This variable indicates whether there was a change in marital status between the graduation date (in 1992–93 or 

1999–2000) and the interview in 1994 or 2001. The report indicates the percentage of graduates who were married 

after they graduated. The categories for the 1999–2000 graduates include “married after graduation but 

questionable” for respondents who were married in 2001 and whose marriage date was later than their graduation 

date, but who reported themselves as “married” in the NPSAS interview. In this report, these graduates were not 

considered to have married after they graduated. The 1992–93 graduates who were “living together in a marriagelike relationship” were not considered married. 

Married at graduation NBMARR (B&B:2000/01) 

RMARITST (B&B:93/97)

Indicates marital status at the time of graduation in 1992–93 or 1999–2000. The report indicates the percentage of 

graduates who were married at the time of graduation. Graduates who were divorced, separated, widowed, or single, 

never married were considered “not married.” The 1992–93 graduates who reported “living together in a marriagelike relationship” were considered “not married.” For the 1999–2000 graduates, this variable has a weighted item 

response rate below 85 percent, thus requiring a bias analysis according to NCES publication standards; see 

appendix B for details on how this report’s relevant findings might have been biased due to missing data on 

NBMARR. 

Parents’ highest educational attainment NPARED (B&B:2000/01) 

PAREDUC (B&B:93/97)

For 1999–2000 graduates, this variable indicates the highest level of education attained by either parent using nine 

categories, which were then collapsed into four categories as shown below. For the 1992–93 graduates, more detail 

was provided on “some postsecondary education,” but this makes no difference in the aggregated categories. 

High school or less Did not complete high school; high school diploma or 

equivalent. 

Some postsecondary education Vocational/technical training; less than 2 years of college; 

2 or more years of college/associate’s degree. 

Bachelor’s degree Bachelor’s degree. 

Advanced degree Master’s degree or equivalent; MD, LLB, JD, or other 

advanced degree; PhD or equivalent. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

76 

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree PSE_BA (B&B:2000/01) 

BATIME2 (B&B:93/97) 

Number of months elapsed between first entry into postsecondary education and bachelor’s degree completion. This 

variable was calculated only for those respondents who did not have a prior bachelor’s degree (about 2 percent of the 

1999–2000 graduates had a prior bachelor’s degree, as did about 7 percent of the 1992–93 graduates, as estimated 

based on the number in the “missing, legitimate skip” category). 

Race/ethnicity RACE1 (B&B:2000/01) 

RETHNIC (B&B:93/97)

Respondents’ race/ethnicity, including Hispanic/Latino. For both cohorts, the value gives priority to Hispanic/Latino 

regardless of race. Following the census 2000 model, 1999–2000 respondents were given the option of choosing 

more than one race. Those who chose more than one race were then asked to identify the single race that best 

described them. The 1992–93 respondents were not given the option of choosing more than one race. To make the 

categories comparable, the 1999–2000 graduates who selected more than one race were categorized according to the 

race they chose in the follow-up question about their race. 

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. 

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. 

Repayment status 1 year later RPYSTAT 

Indicates respondents’ repayment status a year after bachelor’s degree receipt on loans borrowed for their 

undergraduate education. In 2001, the question referred to education loans only; in 1994, it referred to all loans, 

including those from family and friends. This report indicates the percentage who were repaying their loans. 

Monthly payment by household RSEDURPY(B&B:2000/01) 

Amount of monthly payment on education loans for both the respondent and spouse at the time of the 2001 

interview. Households that did not owe or were not repaying education loans were coded as zero for this variable.
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

77 

Type of degree-granting institution SECTOR9 (B&B:2000/01) 

SECTOR_B (B&B:93/97) 

Indicates the type of the institution (level and control) granting the bachelor’s degree. See the entry for I1SECT9 

(B&B:2000/01) for a description of level and control. This variable differentiates between non-doctoral and doctoral 

4-year institutions. Non-doctoral 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. Doctoral institutions offer baccalaureate programs and graduate education through the doctoral degree. 

Institutions that offer first-professional degrees are considered doctoral institutions. The categories used in this report 

are as follows: 

Public 4-year non-doctoral 

Public 4-year doctoral 

Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 

Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 

Spouse’s monthly payment SPAMT (B&B:2000/01) 

Indicates the amount of spouse’s monthly education loan payment as of the time of the interview in 2001. Those 

without spouses or whose spouses were not repaying their loans were coded as zero. 

Taught at any K–12 schools STATUS 

This derived variable indicates whether a respondent had taught after bachelor’s degree completion. The report 

indicates the percentage of graduates who had taught at a K–12 school, regardless of whether they were certified. 

Graduates who had been a substitute teacher or teacher’s aide were identified separately in 2001 and not included in 

the percentage who taught. In 1994, graduates who had been a substitute teacher or teacher’s aide were coded as not 

having taught.

Amount borrowed for undergraduate education TOTDEBT 

Total amount respondent borrowed for undergraduate education from all sources, including amounts borrowed from 

family and friends. 

Living arrangement WHERELIV 

Indicates the living arrangement in 1994 or 2001. In 2001, respondents were grouped into three categories based on 

their responses to two questions. First, they were asked if they owned a house or were paying rent; if neither, they 

were asked to choose from a list of other living arrangements. In 1994, respondents indicated which of seven 

arrangements applied. The following categories were used for both years: 

Own house or apartment Owned house or paying rent (2001); in own home or apartment 

(1994). 

With parents or relatives With parents or relatives (2001); in parents’ or guardians’ 

residence or with other relatives (1994). 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

78 

Other arrangements Military; housing from job (nonmilitary), religious housing, or 

other (2001); school-owned housing, employer-provided 

residence, sorority/fraternity house, or other type of housing 

(1994). 
79 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

The Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

The estimates and statistics reported in the tables and figures of this report are based on 

data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B): B&B:93/94 and 

B&B:2000/01. The two B&B studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National 

Center for Education Statistics provide information on the education and work experiences of 

bachelor’s degree recipients. The B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01 studies were a 1-year follow-up 

of bachelor’s degree recipients who completed their degree between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 

1993 and between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, respectively, and who were first interviewed 

as part of the 1992–93 and 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS), 

respectively. The 1992–93 graduates were followed up again in 1997 and 2003, but no data from 

these later follow-ups are used in this report. Data from all components of NPSAS (including the 

institutional record abstract, the student interview, matches with U.S. Department of Education 

financial aid records and SAT/ACT scores) are used as base-year data for the B&B studies. 

The NPSAS studies included about 1,100 institutions and were based on a nationally 

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

undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students; each NPSAS study represents more than 

16 million undergraduates who were enrolled at some time between July 1 and June 30 of the 

respective survey year. The survey frames for the NPSAS data collections used in this report 

were built from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems Institutional 

Characteristics file (IPEDS-IC) for 1990–91 and 1998–99. The estimates presented in this report 

are based on the results of interviews with approximately 10,000 bachelor’s degree recipients 

each year from sampling frames of about 12,500 in 1992–93 and 11,600 in 1999–2000. These 

bachelor’s degree recipients represent the approximately 1.2 million bachelor’s degree 

completers in each of the 2 years.1 Excluded from the final sample were students who were 

determined during the B&B interview or from transcripts not to have earned a bachelor’s degree 

during the relevant academic year (760 in 1992–93 and 70 in 1999–2000). The smaller number of 

exclusions in the later study reflects better methods to identify bachelor’s degree recipients. 

 

1U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics, 2001 (NCES 2002–130) 

(Washington, DC: 2002). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

80 

The NPSAS sampling design was a two-stage design in which eligible institutions were 

selected at the first stage and eligible students were selected at the second stage within eligible, 

responding sample institutions. At both stages, sampling was stratified and implemented with 

probabilities proportional to the corresponding sizes in order to make the sample be 

representative of the relevant population in the United States and Puerto Rico. For sampling 

purposes, institutions were stratified according to type of control (public, private not-for-profit, 

and private for-profit) and level (less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year). 

The B&B interviews were done between June and October in 1994 and between July and 

November in 2001. Efforts were made both during and after data collection to ensure data 

quality (e.g., data cleaning, resolving possible discrepancies among different data sources—

including situations in which a composite variable is derived from several item variables—and 

applying logical imputations for respondents missing data on one item while known for other 

items). For more information about the NPSAS studies, consult their respective methodology 

reports: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000), Methodology Report (NCES 2002–

152) (Washington, DC: 2002) and Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study, 1992–93 (NCES 95–211) (Washington, DC: 1995). For more information on the B&B 

surveys, consult their respective methodology reports: U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics, Methodology Report for the 2001 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (NCES 2003–156) (Washington, DC: 2003); and Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study: 1993/94 First Follow-up Methodology Report (NCES 96–149) (Washington, 

DC: 1996). 

Overall Response Rates 

The weighted overall response rate for the B&B:2000/01 interview was 74 percent, 

reflecting an institution response rate of 90 percent from NPSAS:2000 and a weighted student 

response rate of 82 percent from B&B:2000/01. The weighted institution response rate for 

NPSAS:1993 was 88 percent, and the student response rate for the B&B:93/94 interview was 92 

percent, resulting in a weighted overall response rate of 81 percent for B&B:93/94. 

Weight Variables 

All estimates in this report are weighted to compensate for unequal probability of 

selection into the B&B sample and to adjust for nonresponse. The weight variables used are 

WTA00 for B&B:2000/01 and WTB00 for B&B:93/94. Both are post-stratified; each represents 

the population of bachelor’s degree recipients for the respective academic years in the 50 U.S. 

states and Puerto Rico as of 1994 and 2001, respectively. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

81 

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. 

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 below 90 percent are shown in table B-1. Five variables had weighted item 

response rates below 85 percent. In one of these cases (CECURJOB, the primary reason that the 

respondent did not consider his or her current job the start of a career), the low weighted 

response rate is due largely to the fact that the variable was applicable to a small proportion of 

the sample population, yet that proportion included a relatively high percentage of respondents 

with incomplete interviews. Such respondents 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 incomplete interviews 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 CECURJOB changed from 81.8 to 

97.5 percent. Therefore, for this variable, it is unlikely that reported differences are biased 

because of missing data. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

82 

Table B-1.—Lowest weighted item response rates for variables used in this report: 1993/94 and 2000/01 

Table B-1.—Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01)

 

 Item response rate 

 Incomplete 

 interviews Incomplete

 assumed interviews

Variable name Variable label applicable excluded1

 

Variables with response rates between 85 percent and 90 percent: 

 B&B:93/94 

 FSCTYPE1 First postsecondary institution attended 89.2 — 

 

 B&B:2000/01 

CBDUGL Total amount borrowed on federal loans 88.1 — 

 CBFEDUGO Undergraduate debt still owed on federal loans 86.5 — 

 CDDELY1 Reason for delaying further education 90.0 — 

 EDPCTR Debt burden (monthly repayment as percentage of monthly income) 84.8 — 

 NPARED Parents’ educational attainment 89.5 — 

 

 

Variables with response rates lower than 85 percent: 

 B&B:93/94 

 ALLOWER Monthly repayment on undergraduate loans a year later 84.0 — 

 

 B&B:2000/01 

 CECURJOB Reason current job not start of career 81.8 97.5 

 GPAMAJ Grade-point average in undergraduate major 75.8 

 NBMARR Marital status at NPSAS interview 77.1 — 

—Not available because they were not calculated.

1

Only if the variable has a nonapplicable proportion of 70 percent or above. 

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. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and 

Beyond Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01). 

GPAMAJ (grade point average in undergraduate major) from B&B:2000/01 is one of the 

remaining four variables that has an item response rate below 85 percent. Because this variable 

was used only once in this report and was presented as a row variable for table 5 on graduate 

school enrollment a year later, respondents who were missing on GPAMAJ could actually be 

examined directly and separately (as already done in the table). Respondents missing on 

GPAMAJ had a graduate school enrollment rate similar to the rate of respondents with a GPA 

less than 3.0 (17 vs. 15 percent) , both of which were lower than the rate for respondents with a 

GPA of 3.0 or higher (24 percent). However, the reverse was observed when considering the 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

83 

likelihood of attending graduate school in the future if respondents had not yet done so (67, 60, 

and 69 percent, respectively). Because respondents missing GPA information appear to differ 

from those with this information, “missing” is shown as a response category. 

One of the three remaining variables with an item response rate below 85 percent, 

ALLOWER (monthly payment on undergraduate loans) from B&B:93/94, had a response rate of 

84 percent. This variable was used as a column variable (table 11) and to compute EDPCTR. A 

bias analysis was conducted to determine whether the cases missing values for this variable 

differed from those with positive values. Cases with missing and positive responses were 

compared with each other for all the row variables in table 11: GENDER (gender), RETHNIC 

(race/ethnicity), BAMAJOR (undergraduate major), INCQUTIL (dependency and family 

income), SECTOR_B (degree-granting institution type), TOTDEBT (total undergraduate debt), 

and B2EN9404 (enrollment status in 1994). Each of these comparison variables had a response 

rate of 96.6 percent or higher. 

Results show that compared with respondents who had positive values on ALLOWER, 

those with missing values for this variable were less likely to be dependent students from the 

lowest family income group (14 vs. 21 percent), more likely to have been dependent students in 

the two highest family income groups (15 and 11 percent vs. 9 and 6 percent), and more likely to 

have graduated from private not-for-profit doctoral institutions (17 vs. 13 percent). These 

characteristics were associated with higher monthly payments (table 11). This suggests the 

possibility that the average reported in the table might have been underestimated—that is, the 

average would have been higher if the response rate for ALLOWER had been higher. However, 

respondents with unknown values for ALLOWER were less likely than those with known values 

not to be enrolled (85 vs. 93 percent), but they were more likely to be enrolled full time (9 vs. 3 

percent), which would likely lead to a lower monthly payment (table 11). Nonetheless, in neither 

possibility 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 limited 

effect on the overall sample. When combining this with the fact that among all applicable cases 

for ALLOWER, only 16 percent of them had a missing value, it is unlikely that the estimates 

reported in table 11 would be seriously biased. 

For EDPCTR from B&B:2000/01, which measures debt burden (monthly payment as a 

percentage of monthly income), cases with missing and valid responses were compared with each 

other for all the row variables in table 14: GENDER (sex), MAJORS4 (undergraduate major), 

SECTOR9 (degree-granting institution type), TOTDEBT (total undergraduate debt), EMPOLF 

(employment status in 2001), and CEANNERN (income quarters of salary in 2001). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

84 

Results show that compared with respondents who had valid values on EDPCTR, those 

with missing values for this variable were more likely to be male (47 vs. 43 percent) and to have 

majored in business and management (28 vs. 20 percent) and conversely, they were less likely to 

be female (53 vs. 57 percent), and to have majored in education or humanities (7 vs. 9 percent 

and 23 vs. 29 percent, respectively). Since males had lower median debt burden than females 

did, as did business management majors in comparison to their education or humanities 

counterparts (table 14), it is possible that by excluding cases that were missing on EDPCTR, data 

presented in table 14 could have been overestimated. Furthermore, respondents missing on 

EDPCTR were less likely than their counterparts to have borrowed $25,000 or more (19 vs. 26 

percent); thus, they logically could potentially bring down the numbers reported in table 14, had 

their true values been captured by EDPCTR. However, this possibility of overestimating might 

have been more or less offset by the fact that respondents with missing values for EDPCTR were 

more likely than those with known values to have graduated from private, not-for-profit, nondoctoral institutions (24 vs. 19 percent) and less likely to have finished up their bachelor’s degree 

at public non-doctoral institutions (17 vs. 20 percent), which means a possible downward bias 

since the former had higher median debt burden than the latter did (8 vs. 6 percent, table 14). 

Because EDPCTR is a critical variable, to further illustrate the potential impact of the 

missing cases on the statistics reported in table 14, the upper and lower bounds of the possible 

bias were examined. First, if one assumes that all missing cases happened to be males who had 

majored in business and management, had borrowed less than $25,000 in total for their 

undergraduate education, and had graduated from public non-doctoral institutions, then by 

assigning them each the average value on EDPCTR among respondents with those same 

characteristics and recalculating the median for the entire sample, one would get the lower bound 

of the estimate for the true median debt burden in 2001 among all bachelor’s degree recipients of 

year 1999–2000 who were in repayment at the time. Likewise, the upper bound could be 

obtained by defining all missing cases as females who had majored in education or humanities, 

had a total undergraduate debt of $25,000 or above, and had completed their bachelor’s degree at 

a private, not-for-profit non-doctoral institution. Using these projections, the lowest and highest 

bounds for the median estimate of 6.9 reported in table 14 are 5.0 and 9.8. That is, the maximum 

possible bias could produce estimates between 5 and 9.8 for the median debt burden. 

The final variable requiring a bias analysis is NBMARR (marital status at NPSAS 

interview) from B&B:2000/01, which had an item response rate of 77 percent. Like ALLOWER, 

NBMARR was used only once in the report; it was presented as a column variable in table 18. 

Therefore, a bias analysis identical to that for ALLOWER was done by comparing 

nonrespondents with respondents for all the row variables used in the table (table 18): 

TOTDEBT (total amount borrowed for undergraduate education), CEANNERN (annual salary 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

85 

income), and EDPCTR (debt burden). Nonrespondents differed from respondents only in two 

respects. First, respondents with missing values for NBMARR were slightly more likely to have 

borrowed a total of $15,000–19,999 (13 vs. 11 percent). However, borrowers at this level were as 

likely as the average students in the cohort to be married at the time of the NPSAS interview (22 

vs. 27 percent). Second, nonrespondents were more likely than respondents to have a debt burden 

averaging between 13 and 16 percent of their monthly income. Nonetheless, as shown in table 

18, debt burden was not associated with the likelihood of being married at the time of bachelor’s 

degree receipt. Thus, it is unlikely that those with missing values on NBMARR would have 

caused much, if any, bias on the relevant statistics reported in this study. 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the B&B:93/97 and B&B: 

2000/01 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). (The data from the 1994 and 1997 interviews were 

combined into one DAS, but no data from 1997 were used in this report.) 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 

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/tables_listings/2005170.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. 

 

2The 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

86 

Table B-2.—Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients

Table B-2.—who borrowed for their undergraduate education and among those who borrowed, average 

Table B-2.—amount (in 1999 constant dollars), by selected student and institutional characteristics

Student and institutional characteristics 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 0.79 0.53 $180 $262

 Total (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 0.78 0.54 178 263

Sex

 Male 1.12 1.10 286 420

 Female 1.00 0.77 234 300

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian 9.96 6.27 2,380 1,650

 Asian/Pacific Islander 3.79 3.47 1,147 771

 Black 3.50 2.10 688 724

 White 0.76 0.70 213 277

 Hispanic 2.85 2.15 778 940

Age received bachelor’s degree

 24 and under 0.89 0.68 249 327

 25–29 2.03 1.53 287 557

 30 and above 1.81 1.56 443 613

Time from college entry to bachelor’s degree

 Within 4 years 1.31 0.79 461 481

 More than 4, up to 6 years 1.37 0.96 350 358

 More than 6 years 1.38 1.37 227 463

Undergraduate major 

 Business and management 1.38 1.86 498 552

 Education 1.55 1.88 520 537

 Engineering, mathematics, or science 1.78 1.45 421 726

 Humanities or social sciences 1.34 1.07 416 584

 Other 1.66 1.18 404 403

Dependency status and family income

 Dependent, total 0.86 0.76 274 380

 Lowest 1.66 1.37 398 521

 Lower middle 1.31 1.63 456 569

 Upper middle 1.38 1.95 734 713

 Highest 1.30 1.55 968 958

 Independent, total 1.32 0.99 202 378

Type of degree-granting institution

 Public 4-year non-doctoral 1.64 1.63 414 454

 Public 4-year doctoral 1.03 0.85 269 361

 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctoral 1.94 1.54 552 569

 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 1.65 1.50 639 968

First postsecondary institution attended

 Public 2-year 1.58 1.42 425 494

 Public 4-year 1.24 0.80 247 324

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 1.37 1.27 461 584

 Other 5.10 4.64 1,228 1,205

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/94 and 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Studies (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01).

Percent

Among borrowers,

average amount borrowed
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

87 

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<0.05). 

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 =

E -E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

 (2) 

 

3A 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

88 

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 2p 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. 

 

4U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 

5Ibid.