Changes in Patterns 

of Prices and 

Financial Aid

Postsecondary Education

Descriptive Analysis Report

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006–153
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2006-153 

Changes in Patterns 

of Prices and 

Financial Aid 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report 

November 2005 

Alisa F. Cunningham 

Institute for Higher Education Policy 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider 

Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

herein is in the public domain. 

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

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

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

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

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

November 2005 

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

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

Suggested Citation 

Cunningham, A.F. (2005). Changes in Patterns of Prices and Financial Aid (NCES 2006-153). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 ED Pubs 

 P.O. Box 1398 

 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

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

Content Contact 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

The interest in postsecondary education 

prices and financial aid has intensified, largely 

because increases in published tuition and fees 

continue to outpace the rate of inflation. Both 

public 4-year institutions and public 2-year 

institutions raised tuitions in 2004–05, by 11 

percent and 9 percent, respectively. This 

brought the average tuition and fees at public 

4-year institutions to $5,132 and $2,076 at 

public 2-year institutions (The College Board 

2004a). Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions 

also raised tuitions in 2004–05 by about 6 

percent, bringing the average tuition to $20,082 

and marking the fourth year in a row that private 

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions have increased 

tuition by at least 5 percent. 

At the same time, considerable increases in 

financial aid have helped students defray their 

postsecondary education expenses. Over $122 

billion of financial aid from federal, state, 

institutional, and private sources was made 

available to students in 2003–04, an increase 

from $108 billion in the previous year (The 

College Board 2004b). In 1999–2000, 55 

percent of undergraduates received some type of 

financial aid from federal, state, institutional, or 

other sources, receiving about $6,000 on 

average (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002). 

Financial aid allows most students to pay less 

than the published (or “sticker”) price for 

college. A recent report (Horn, Wei, and Berker 

2002) examined “net prices” (in other words, 

prices after subtracting financial aid) between 

the years 1992–93 and 1999–2000. The report 

found that net prices did not increase as rapidly 

as sticker prices; in fact, in some cases, net 

prices did not increase at all during this time 

period. This suggests that in order to address 

issues of student access and affordability, it is 

important to examine changes in net prices in 

addition to changes in sticker prices. 

Goals and Limitations 

This report examines patterns of sticker 

prices, financial aid, and net prices over the 

period 1999–2000 to 2001–02 from an 

institutional perspective. Several features should 

be kept in mind: 

• The units of analysis for this report are 

colleges and universities, rather than 

students, and the report attempts to 

explore how institutions with varying 

characteristics differ, not how different 

groups of students fare within those 

institutions. 

• The report focuses on the prices and 

financial aid reported by institutions, 

not by students.1 

• It provides information on three 

different types of prices—tuition and 

fees, price of attendance, and net 

price—and provides a mechanism to 

compare changes in these different 

prices over time. 

 

1 In other words, the denominator of the calculations is the 

number of institutions. 
Executive Summary 

iv 

• It examines the median values (rather 

than averages) of prices and financial 

aid for various subgroups of institutions. 

• The analysis focuses on data for firsttime, full-time, degree/certificateseeking undergraduates (referred to as 

“full-time freshmen”). The percentage 

of undergraduates who fell into this 

group varied by sector, from a median 

of 12 percent at public 2-year 

institutions to 87 percent at private forprofit, less-than-4-year institutions.

Given these differences, the figures in this 

report may differ from those in other published 

sources. 

Design and Methodology 

Using data primarily from the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

this report analyzes how price of attendance, 

financial aid, and net prices changed over the 

period 1999–2000 to 2001–02 for various types 

of institutions. The universe of institutions 

examined in the study was drawn from Title IV 

participating institutions included in the 2002–

03 IPEDS universe, although some IPEDS 

institutions were excluded from the universe to 

increase comparability and to deal with missing 

data. For example, since full-time freshmen 

were the focus of the analysis, institutions with 

low numbers of these students were excluded 

from the universe.2 In addition, four institutional 

sectors were included in the analysis: public 4-

year; public 2-year; private not-for-profit, 

 

2 Selection criteria were: participation in the programs 

authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 

location in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, 

location in one of the four sectors under review, degreegranting status (except for-profit institutions), academic 

year reporting (except for-profit institutions), enrollment (at 

least 50 first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates, or 25 at for-profit institutions), and in the 

IPEDS universe for all 3 years. 

4-year; and for-profit, less-than-4-year 

institutions. All analyses were performed 

separately for each institutional sector because 

the groups are very different in terms of their 

institutional characteristics and in the types of 

students served. 

The number of institutions and proportions 

of full-time freshman enrollment included in the 

final universe are provided in figures A and B. 

Although the final universe includes about 

three-fourths of the original number of Title IV 

institutions in the four sectors, the institutions 

remaining in the universe comprised 94 percent 

of the total reported enrollment of first-time, 

full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates in the 

four sectors under review. 

For the analysis presented in this report, 

several variables were constructed for each 

institution in the universe. Price of attendance 

was defined as the sum of three components: 1) 

tuition and fees charged to full-time freshmen 

(for public institutions, weighted by the 

percentage of full-time freshmen attending from 

in-district, in-state, and out-of-state); 2) the 

estimated cost of room and board and other 

expenses, or the other expenses for students who 

do not contract with the school for room and 

board, for this group of full-time freshmen 

(weighted by the percentage of full-time 

freshmen living on-campus, off-campus not with 

family, and off-campus with family); and 3) the 

estimated cost of books, supplies, and 

miscellaneous expenses. The available financial 

aid variables (the percentages of full-time 

freshmen receiving federal grants, state grants, 

institutional grants, and loans, as well as the 

average amounts of aid received) were 

combined into composite variables to measure 

total grants and total aid (other types of 

financial aid to students, such as work-study, 
Executive Summary 

v 

were not available for inclusion). Net price was 

defined as the difference between average price 

of attendance and average amounts of financial 

aid, with two versions: price of attendance less 

grants (federal, state, and institutional), and 

price of attendance less grants and loans. These 

are labeled as net price (grants) and net price 

(all aid), respectively. 

Finally, “price change indices” were 

calculated for each sector, and for four types of 

prices: tuition and fees; price of attendance; and 

the two definitions of net prices. In each case, 

the index was calculated as the rate of change in 

price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 

(year 3), minus the rate of change in the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) during this period. 

This formulation measures the difference 

between the rate of change in prices overall and 

the rate of change in college prices, where an 

institution that raises its price over this period at 

the rate of inflation would have an index value 

of 0. An institution that raises its price faster 

than the rate of inflation over 3 years would 

have a positive index value, while an institution 

that raises its prices by lower than the rate of 

inflation (or, decreases its price) would have a 

negative index value.3 In this report, the term 

 

3 To provide some context, the rate of inflation over the 

period 1999–2000 and 2001–02 was about 5.4 percent, 

according to the CPI. 

Figure A.—Number of Title IV institutions included in and excluded from the final universe, by type of 

Figure A.—institution: 2002–03

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Collection Year 2002.

NOTE: The pattern signifies institutions that were included in the universe. The universe was drawn from the Institutional 

Characteristics component for the 2002 IPEDS Collection Year.

605

601

170

93

1,563

1,009

1,004

559

Institutions 

included in 

the final 

universe

Institutions 

excluded 

from final 

universe

26% 74%

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Private not-for-profit, 4-year

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year
Executive Summary 

vi 

“price change indices” may also be called “price 

index” or “price index value.” 

Findings 

Public 4-Year Institutions 

At public 4-year institutions, the median 

price of attendance increased from $10,230 in 

1999–2000 to $11,187 in 2001–02 (figure C). 

The median value of total aid (across all firsttime freshmen, including nonrecipients) at 

public 4-year institutions increased from $2,946 

in 1999–2000 to $3,554 in 2001–02. The 

median value of total grants increased, but not 

meaningfully. The median percentage changes 

in aid over the 3-year period were higher than 

median percentage change in price of 

attendance: a median of 20 percent increase for 

total grants and 14 percent increase for total aid, 

compared to a median of 10 percent increase for 

price of attendance (table 4). The median 

percentage increases for both price of 

attendance and aid were higher than inflation 

Figure B.—Percentage of enrollment of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at 

Figure B.—Title IV institutions included in and excluded from the final universe, by type of institution: 

Figure B.—2001–02

NOTE: This analysis was conducted using the original data files. The pattern signifies institutions that were included in the universe. 

The enrollment refers to the number of students in each reporting institution's cohort, whether reported by academic year or by

program year. This analysis does not include approximately 150,000 full-time freshmen reported by institutions in other institutional 

sectors. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Note that the 2002 IPEDS Collection Year collects data on the number

of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates for the previous year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002.

55,567

22,205

36,917

14,110

363,294

559,921

430,617

819,119 Institutions 

included in 

the final 

universe

Institutions 

excluded 

from final 

universe

6% 94%

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Private not-for-profit, 4-year

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year
Executive Summary 

vii 

over the 3-year period, which was about 5 

percent. 

Together, the changes in price of attendance 

and in financial aid impacted the median net 

prices of public 4-year institutions. Median net 

price (all aid) increased from $7,216 in 1999–

2000 to $7,712 in 2001–02; median net price 

(grants) increased from $8,463 to $9,056 (table 

4). The median percentage changes in both types 

of net price over the 3-year period were lower 

than the median percentage change in price of 

attendance. In other words, increases in 

financial aid made it possible for net prices to 

increase at a slower rate than the price of 

attendance (sticker price) at public 4-year 

institutions.

Varying patterns in prices and aid may 

reflect differences in the missions and goals of 

colleges and universities. In fact, the median 

price of attendance, total aid, total grants, and 

net prices for full-time freshmen in 2001–02 

differed according to various institutional 

characteristics. The following groups of public 

4-year institutions had higher median prices of 

attendance, net prices (all aid), and net prices 

(grants) than their counterparts in other 

Figure C.—Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for

Figure C.—first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 4-year institutions,

Figure C.—academic year 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Medians are in current dollars.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

$10,230

$2,946

$1,759

$7,216

$8,463

$10,634

$3,321

$2,006

$7,435

$8,731

$3,554

$2,224

$7,712

$9,056

$11,187

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

Price of attendance Total aid Total grants Net price (all aid) Net price (grants)

Median

Amount

1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

$
Executive Summary 

viii 

categories: the Carnegie classification of 

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive; 

very selective public 4-year institutions;4

institutions with a low proportion of full-time 

freshmen receiving federal grants (receipt of 

federal grants may be considered a proxy for 

low-income students); and institutions with high 

enrollment sizes (compared to those with low 

enrollment). Institutions with high tuition 

(compared to those with low tuition) also had 

higher aid amounts. On the other hand, public 4-

year institutions with a low proportion of fulltime freshmen receiving federal grants had 

lower median amounts of total aid and total 

grants. 

The price indices constructed for this report 

combine all of the patterns in price and aid 

together into one measure, which takes into 

account inflation during the 3-year period. This 

formulation measures the difference between the 

rate of change in prices overall (inflation) and 

the rate of change in college prices. An 

institution that raises its price over this period at 

the rate of inflation would have an index value 

of 0. For all public 4-year institutions, the 

median index value for tuition and fees was 

higher than for price of attendance—public 4-

year institutions raised their tuition and fees by 

a median of almost 7 percentage points higher 

than the rate of inflation over 3 years, but raised 

their prices of attendance by less—about 5 

percentage points higher than the rate of 

inflation (table 6). At the same time, the median 

index values for net price (all aid) and net price 

(grants) were lower than for price of 

attendance—about 3 for both net price indices. 

This reflects the fact that for the typical 

 

4 The term “very selective” was drawn from a new 

selectivity variable created for this report for 4-year 

institutions, using a combination of admissions standards 

and test scores. See appendix E for details. 

institution, net prices increased at a slower rate 

than did sticker prices over the 3-year period. 

The various indices also differed according 

to specific institutional characteristics. Several 

groups of public 4-year institutions had median 

net price index values that were close to zero or 

even negative: Doctoral/Research 

Universities—Intensive and AssociatesBaccalaureate/Associates Colleges; institutions 

with a low proportion of undergraduates who 

were full-time freshmen; those with a high 

proportion of students who were not White; 

those with a high proportion of full-time 

freshmen receiving federal grants; and lowtuition institutions for net price (grants). These 

groups of institutions had net prices that 

increased at or below the rate of inflation, or 

decreased. Other groups of public 4-year 

institutions had median net price index values 

that were relatively high, such as institutions 

with a high percentage of undergraduates who 

were full-time freshmen; institutions with high 

tuition; and institutions with low or lower 

middle proportions of students receiving federal 

grants.

Private Not-For-Profit, 4-Year 

Institutions 

The median price of attendance for private 

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions increased from 

$20,157 in 1999–2000 to $22,259 in 2001–02 

(figure D). Across all first-time freshmen, 

including nonrecipients, the median total aid at 

private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions 

increased from $8,425 in 1999–2000 to $9,280 

in 2001–02, while the median value of total 

grants increased from $5,862 to $6,747. The 
Executive Summary 

ix 

median percentage change in total grants over 

the 3-year period, an 11 percent increase, was 

higher than the median percentage change in 

price of attendance, a 10 percent increase; both 

of these percentage increases were higher than 

the rate of inflation, a 5 percent increase (table 

9). The changes in price of attendance and in 

financial aid were reflected in changes in the 

median net prices of private not-for-profit, 

4-year institutions. Median net price (all aid) 

increased from $11,400 in 1999–2000 to 

$12,514 in 2001–02; median net price (grants) 

increased from $13,762 to $14,954. 

There were differences in the median price of 

attendance, total aid, total grants, and net prices 

for full-time freshmen in 2001–02 for various 

groups of private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions. For example, the following groups 

of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions had 

higher median prices of attendance, net prices 

(all aid), and net prices (grants) than their 

counterparts in other categories: Doctoral/ 

Research Universities—Extensive; very 

selective institutions; institutions with a low 

proportion of full-time freshmen receiving 

federal grants; institutions with high enrollment 

(compared to those with low enrollment); and 

Figure D.—Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Figure D.—first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private not-for-profit, 4-year 

Figure D.—institutions, academic year 1999–2000 to 2001–02

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

NOTE: Medians are in current dollars.

$20,157

$8,425

$5,862

$11,400

$13,762

$21,071

$8,537

$6,299

$11,910

$14,271

$22,259

$9,280

$6,747

$12,514

$14,954

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

Price of attendance Total aid Total grants Net price (all aid) Net price (grants)

Median

Amount

1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

$
Executive Summary 

x 

institutions with high and higher middle tuition 

(compared to those with low tuition). 

Moderately selective institutions had the highest 

median aid amounts, as did institutions in the 

lower middle category of the percentage of fulltime freshmen receiving federal grants, in 

comparison with their counterparts in other 

categories. 

For all private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions, the difference between the rate of 

change in prices overall (inflation) and the rate 

of change in college prices varied depending 

upon the type of price measured. For example, 

the median index value for tuition and fees was 

slightly higher than for price of attendance 

(table 11). The median index values for net 

price (grants) were slightly lower. Focusing on 

the net price indices, certain groups of 

institutions had index values that were lower 

than the values for all private not-for-profit, 4-

year institutions, including: Masters colleges 

and Universities, and Baccalaureate Colleges—

General; moderately and minimally selective 

institutions; institutions with a low proportion of 

full-time freshmen who were not White; 

institutions in the higher categories of the 

proportion for students receiving federal grants; 

and institutions in the middle tuition categories.

Public 2-Year Institutions 

The median price of attendance for public 2-

year institutions increased from $6,667 in 1999–

2000 to $7,184 in 2001–02 (figure E). Across all 

first-time freshmen, including nonrecipients, the 

median value of total aid and total grants at 

public 2-year institutions increased, but the 

change was not meaningful. Nonetheless, 

median percentage changes in aid over the 3-

year period were higher than median percentage 

change in price of attendance: a median of 25 

percent increase for total grants and 22 percent 

increase for total aid, compared to a median of 8 

percent increase for price of attendance (table 

14). All of these percentages were higher than 

the rate of inflation over this period, 5 percent.

With the impact of changes in sticker prices 

and financial aid at public 2-year institutions, 

the median percentage changes between 1999–

2000 and 2001–02 in both types of net price 

were lower than the median percentage change 

in price of attendance. In fact, the percentage 

changes in net price (all aid) and net price 

(grants) were lower than the rate of inflation 

over this period. Increases in financial aid at 

public 2-year institutions made it possible for 

net prices to increase at a slower rate than price 

of attendance (sticker prices), and than inflation. 

The median price of attendance, total aid, 

total grants, and net prices for full-time 

freshmen at public 2-year institutions in 2001–

02 differed according to various institutional 

characteristics (table 15). For example, public 2-

year institutions with a low proportion of fulltime freshmen receiving federal grants had 

higher median net prices (all aid) and net prices 

(grants)—but lower median amounts of total aid 

and total grants—than their counterparts with a 

high proportion of these students. In addition, 

public 2-year institutions with high enrollment 

sizes had higher median net prices (all aid) and 

net prices (grants) than those with low 

enrollment, and lower median amounts of total 

aid and total grants. 

Turning to the price indices for all public 2-

year institutions, the median index value for 

tuition and fees, 4, was twice as high as the 

median index value for price of attendance, 2 

(table 16). At the same time, the median index 
Executive Summary 

xi 

values for net price (all aid) and net price 

(grants) were negative, reflecting the fact that 

institutions either increased their net prices 

slower than the rate of inflation, or decreased 

their net prices. Most groups of public 2-year 

institutions had median net price index values 

that were close to zero or even negative. Groups 

with the lowest median net price index values 

were institutions in the Mid East and Great 

Lakes, and those with a high proportion of fulltime freshmen receiving federal grants.

Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year 

Institutions 

The median price of attendance for private 

for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions increased 

from $13,020 in 1999–2000 to $14,514 in 2001–

02 (figure F). In addition, the median total aid at 

private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions across 

all first-time freshmen, including nonrecipients, 

increased from $3,369 in 1999–2000 to $4,007 

in 2001–02. The median percentage changes in 

total aid and total grants over the 3-year 

period—an 18 percent increase and a 23 percent 

Figure E.—Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Figure E.—first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 2-year institutions, 

Figure E.—academic year 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Medians are in current dollars.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

$6,667

$1,264 $1,013

$5,260 $5,623

$6,860

$1,419 $1,170

$5,249 $5,646

$7,184

$1,616 $1,330

$5,439 $5,831

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

Price of attendance Total aid Total grants Net price (all aid) Net price (grants)

Median

Amount

1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

$
Executive Summary 

xii 

increase, respectively—were higher than the 

median percentage change in price of 

attendance, a 10 percent increase (table 19), as 

well as the rate of inflation, 5 percent. 

The changes in price of attendance and in 

financial aid were reflected in changes in the 

median net prices of private for-profit, less-than4-year institutions. Median net price (all aid) 

increased from $9,776 in 1999–2000 to $10,487 

in 2001–02; median net price (grants) increased 

from $11,521 to $12,581 (table 19). Over the 3-

year period, median percentage changes in both 

types of net price were lower than the median 

changes in price of attendance. 

Certain groups of private for-profit, lessthan-4-year institutions had higher median 

prices of attendance, net prices (all aid), and net 

prices (grants): institutions with high enrollment 

sizes (compared to those with low enrollment) 

and institutions with high tuition (compared to 

those with low tuition) (table 20). These groups 

of institutions also had higher median amounts 

of total aid, likely reflecting higher loan 

amounts. Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

Figure F.—Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Figure F.—first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

Figure F.—institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Medians are in current dollars. Data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters, program year 

for program year reporters. See methodology for details.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

$13,020

$3,369

$1,434

$9,776

$11,521

$13,653

$3,630

$1,557

$9,982

$11,961

$14,514

$4,007

$1,783

$10,487

$12,581

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

Price of attendance Total aid Total grants Net price (all aid) Net price (grants)

Median

Amount

1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

$
Executive Summary 

xiii 

institutions with a high proportion of full-time 

freshmen receiving federal grants had higher 

median aid amounts than institutions with a low 

proportion, and had lower median net price (all 

aid) and net price (grants). 

For all private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

institutions, the median index value for tuition 

and fees was higher than the median value for 

price of attendance; institutions raised their 

tuition and fees by a median of almost 7 

percentage points higher than the rate of 

inflation over 3 years, compared with about 5 

percentage points for price of attendance (table 

21). The median index values for net price (all 

aid) and net price (grants) were even lower, at 

around 3. Some groups of private for-profit, 

less-than-4-year institutions had median net 

price index values that were close to zero or 

even negative, including institutions with a high 

proportion of full-time freshmen receiving 

federal grants and institutions in the higher 

middle category of tuition and fees. 

Conclusions 

The four institutional sectors studied in this 

report face different circumstances that impact 

their patterns of prices, financial aid, and net 

prices. These differences relate to the roles, 

missions, governance, and student bodies of 

these institutions, and reflect such 

considerations as the proportion of students who 

attend schools in state, the amount of 

appropriations provided to public institutions by 

states, the way tuition levels are set by 

governing bodies or other agencies, the income 

distribution or attendance patterns of an 

institution’s students, and other factors. 

Nonetheless, the analysis found many 

similarities across sectors in how prices, aid, 

and net prices changed during the period under 

review. For example, for public 4-year 

institutions, private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions, and private for-profit, less-than-4-

year institutions, the median price of attendance 

for full-time freshmen increased between 1999–

2000 and 2001–02. The median value of total 

aid also increased during this time,5 and median 

aid amounts increased at a faster rate than did 

median price of attendance.6 Further, both price 

of attendance (sticker price) and aid increased at 

a faster rate than inflation over this period. 

Net price calculations allowed a better 

understanding of the prices postsecondary 

institutions actually charge to students, and 

demonstrated that in these sectors, the median 

value of net price (all aid) and net price (grants) 

increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. In 

most cases, the median percentage changes were 

lower than the median percentage change in 

price of attendance.7 In other words, as a result 

of financial aid, net prices did not rise as rapidly 

as price of attendance. 

The public 2-year sector exhibited slightly 

different patterns in price, aid, and net price 

over this period. The median price of attendance 

for full-time freshmen increased between 1999–

2000 and 2001–02, but median aid amounts 

increased at a faster rate than did median price 

of attendance. However, the changes in the 

median value of net prices for public 2-year 

 

5 The difference in the total grant amount between 1999–

2000 and 2001–02 was meaningful for private not-forprofit, 4-year institutions, but not meaningful for public 4-

year institutions or for private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

institutions. The differences (changes) in this report were 

found to be meaningful based on specific criteria, in this 

case plus or minus $500. See appendix B for details. 

6 An exception is the median percentage change in total aid 

for private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions. 

7 For private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, the 

differences were not meaningful. 
Executive Summary 

xiv 

institutions were not meaningful. Net prices not 

only increased at a slower rate than did sticker 

prices, but they also increased at a slower rate 

than inflation. 

By using the price indices as a mechanism 

for comparing changes in tuition and fees, price 

of attendance, and net price over time (as well 

as comparing these changes to the rate of 

inflation over the period under review) the 

analysis confirmed that examining different 

types of prices and net prices may lead to 

different conclusions (figure G). In all 

institutional sectors, increases in median tuition 

Figure G.—Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by sector:

Figure G.—1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the 

rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Therefore, an institution that raises its price over this period at the 

rate of inflation would have an index value of 0. Data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters 

(including all public 4-year, private not-for-profit, 4-year, and public 2-year institutions), and program year for program year 

reporters. See methodology for details.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

6.8

5.2

4.4

7.0

4.5 4.6

2.2

4.5

3.3

4.8

2.6 2.8

4.4

3.2

-1.1 -1.3

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Public 4-year Private not-for-profit, 

4-year

Public 2-year Private for-profit, lessthan-4-year

Index

Tuition and fees Price of attendance Net price (all aid) Net price (grants)
Executive Summary 

xv 

and fee levels tended to be greater than 

increases in median price of attendance. 

Furthermore, increases in price of attendance 

tended to be greater than increases in net prices. 

In most sectors, median net prices increased at a 

slower rate than did sticker prices over the 3-

year period reviewed in this report. In the public 

2-year sector, net prices increased at a slower 

rate than inflation or even decreased. 

Finally, there are several common findings 

across sectors with regard to the variation in net 

price index values according to certain 

institutional characteristics, after taking into 

account inflation over the period under review. 

For example, in the case of net price (all aid) 

• Institutions with a low proportion of 

full-time freshmen receiving federal 

grant aid had higher median index 

values for net prices (all aid) than the 

median for all institutions in the sector, 

while institutions with a high proportion 

of full-time freshmen receiving federal 

grant aid had lower median values. 

• Institutions with high tuition had higher 

median index values for net prices (all 

aid) than the median for all institutions 

in that sector. In addition, public 4-year 

institutions with low tuition had a lower 

median index value for net prices. 

• For private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions, those that were very 

selective had higher median index 

values for net prices (all aid) than the 

median for all institutions in that sector. 

However, the difference was not 

meaningful for public 4-year 

institutions. 

• For public 4-year institutions, 

institutions with high enrollment had 

higher median index values for net 

prices (all aid) than the median for all 

institutions in that sector. However, the 

opposite was true for public 2-year 

institutions—institutions with low 

enrollment had higher median index 

values for net price (all aid). 
xvi 

Foreword 

This report focuses on first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates in 

order to examine patterns of sticker prices, financial aid, and net prices from an institutional 

perspective. For the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02, the report examines how the price of 

attendance for full-time freshmen changed for various types of institutions. It also examines the 

percentages of full-time freshmen who received various forms of financial aid, and the median 

amount received by full-time freshmen at different types of institutions. To capture the 

interaction between price of attendance and financial aid patterns, the report describes net prices 

to measure the median price institutions charge after taking financial aid received by students 

into account. Finally, to further explore these issues over time and to take into account inflation 

during this period, indices of changes in three different types of prices—tuition, price of 

attendance, and net price—were developed for this report. 

The primary dataset used for this report is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS), which collects annual data from all primary providers of postsecondary 

education; in 2002–03, data were collected for more than 7,500 institutions. The Institutional 

Characteristics component collects information on the price of tuition and fees (by residency 

status), books and supplies, and room and board (by housing status) for full-time freshmen. The 

Student Financial Aid component collects information on the percentage of full-time freshmen 

who receive federal grants, state grants, institutional grants, and loans, as well as the average 

amounts received. In addition, data from the IPEDS Fall Enrollment (EF) component and 

estimates derived from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study for 1999–2000 (NPSAS: 

2000) also were used in the analysis. 
xvii 

Acknowledgments 

The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of many individuals to the production 

of this report. At the Institute for Higher Education Policy, Jamie Merisotis provided valuable 

feedback on the report. Loretta Hardge edited the initial drafts of the report and Sarah Krichels 

offered comments on early drafts. At MPR Associates, Susan Choy and Laura Horn made 

suggestions on the structure and format of the report, Lutz Berkner provided input on the 

analysis, and Barbara Kridl and Annabelle Yang helped with formatting the report. 

At NCES, Dennis Carroll provided generous support and feedback through the report’s 

publication, Paula Knepper and Marilyn Seastrom provided technical, methodological, and 

substantive reviews, James Griffith provided advice on the analysis, and Sam Barbett helped 

resolve data issues. We also would like to acknowledge the thoughtful comments and other 

assistance provided by the following individuals at various stages of the project: Cliff Adelman, 

Jon Oberg, and Dan Goldenberg, Department of Education; Ken Redd, National Association of 

Student Financial Aid Administrators; Melanie Corrigan and Jacqueline King, American Council 

on Education; Sandy Baum, College Board; Dongbin Kim, National Association of Independent 

Colleges and Universities; John Milam, HigherEd.org; Jill Wolford, Lumina Foundation; Alex 

McCormick, Carnegie Foundation; Larry Suter, National Science Foundation; Don Heller, 

Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education; and John Curtice, State 

University of New York. 

The author also wishes to acknowledge Christina Redmond Daulton, Melissa Clinedinst, 

and Patricia Steele, who provided valuable feedback on the initial drafts, and Catherine 

Wegmann Wilson, who provided assistance with data analysis. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
xix 

Table of Contents 

Page 

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

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... xvi 

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... xvii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xx 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xxiv 

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

Approach and Key Variables................................................................................................. 3 

Data ....................................................................................................................................... 10 

Organization of the Report.................................................................................................... 11 

Public 4-Year Institutions......................................................................................................... 13 

Private Not-For-Profit, 4-Year Institutions............................................................................ 23 

Public 2-Year Institutions......................................................................................................... 33 

Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions ................................................................ 41 

Prices and Aid: Conclusions..................................................................................................... 49 

References.................................................................................................................................. 63 

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

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

Appendix C—Alternative Housing Methodology .................................................................. C-1 

Appendix D—Enrollment-Weighted Perspective................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E—Institutional Selectivity..................................................................................... E-1 

Appendix F—Inflation Measures ............................................................................................ F-1
xx 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 Number of institutions in the analysis, percentage distribution by selected institutional 

characteristics, and medians for selected institutional characteristics, by sector ............ 5 

2 Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of 

attendance for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 

4-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02............................................ 14 

3 Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Public 4-year 

institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02....................................................... 15 

4 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 4-

year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02............................................... 16 

5 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected 

institutional characteristics: Public 4-year institutions, academic year 2001–02............ 17 

6 Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by 

selected characteristics: Public 4-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 

2001–02........................................................................................................................... 20 

7 Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of 

attendance for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private 

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .................... 23 

8 Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Private not-forprofit, 4-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02................................. 24 

9 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private 

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .................... 25 
List of Tables 

xxi 

Table Page 

10 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected 

institutional characteristics: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic year 

2001–02........................................................................................................................... 27 

11 Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by 

selected institutional characteristics: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, 

academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .......................................................................... 29 

12 Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of 

attendance for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 

2-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02............................................ 33 

13 Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Public 2-year 

institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02....................................................... 34 

14 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 2-

year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02............................................... 35 

15 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected 

institutional characteristics: Public 2-year institutions, academic year 2001–02............ 37 

16 Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by 

selected institutional characteristics: Public 2-year institutions, academic years 1999–

2000 to 2001–02.............................................................................................................. 39 

17 Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of 

attendance for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private 

for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .................................... 41 

18 Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Private forprofit, less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .......................................... 42 

19 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private 

for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .................................... 43 

20 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected 

institutional characteristics: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 2001–02 .. 45 
List of Tables 

xxii 

Table Page 

21 Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by 

selected characteristics: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 

2001–02........................................................................................................................... 47 

22 Comparison between median dollar amounts for net price (all aid) for all institutions 

in a sector, and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02 53 

23 Comparison between median index values for net price (all aid) for all institutions in 

a sector, and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02 .... 55 

24 Comparison between median dollar amounts for net price (grants) for all institutions 

in a sector, and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02 58 

25 Comparison between median index values for net price (grants) for all institutions in a 

sector, and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02....... 60 

Appendix B 

B-1 Response rates for IPEDS collections, survey components, and selected variables for 

institutions in the study universe, by sector: 2000 to 2002 ............................................. B-3 

B-2 Median values of weighting factors for calculation of total price of attendance, by 

sector: 2001–02 ............................................................................................................... B-10 

B-3 Median values of centile range categories, by sector: 2001–02 ..................................... B-12 

B-4 Final universe of institutions........................................................................................... B-13 

B-5 Final universe of public 4-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 

2001–02........................................................................................................................... B-15 

B-6 Final universe of public 2-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 

2001–02........................................................................................................................... B-17 

B-7 Final universe of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions compared to excluded 

institutions: 2001–02....................................................................................................... B-19 

B-8 Final universe of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions compared to excluded 

institutions: 2001–02....................................................................................................... B-21 
List of Tables 

xxiii 

Table Page 

Appendix C 

C-1 Comparison of medians, new and alternative housing methodologies used to calculate 

the price of attendance, first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates: 2001–02 ............................................................................................... C-2 

Appendix D 

D-1 Distribution of enrollment of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates, by sector: academic year 2001–02 ........................................................ D-1 

D-2 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, 

unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Public 4-year institutions, academic years 

1999–2000 to 2001–02.................................................................................................... D-3 

D-3 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, 

unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, 

academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .......................................................................... D-4 

D-4 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, 

unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Public 2-year institutions, academic years 

1999–2000 to 2001–02.................................................................................................... D-5 

D-5 Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, 

unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02................................................................................ D-6 

D-6 Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by 

sector, unweighted and weighted by enrollment: 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ..................... D-7 

Appendix E 

E-1 Selected 4-year institutions in the study universe, by institutional selectivity................ E-2 

Appendix F 

F-1 Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, 

calculated using the CPI-U and the HECA, by sector: 1999–2000 to 2001–02.............. F-2 
xxiv 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary 

A Number of Title IV institutions included in and excluded from the final universe, by 

type of institution: 2002–03 ............................................................................................ v 

B Percentage of enrollment of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates at Title IV institutions included in and excluded from the final 

universe, by type of institution: 2001–02 ....................................................................... vi 

C Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 4-

year institutions, academic year 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ................................................ vii 

D Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private 

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic year 1999–2000 to 2001–02...................... ix 

E Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 2-

year institutions, academic year 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ................................................ xi 

F Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price 

(grants) for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private 

for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 .................................... xii 

G Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by 

sector: 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ........................................................................................ xiv 

Text 

1 Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by 

sector: 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ........................................................................................ 51 
1 

Introduction 

The interest in postsecondary education prices and financial aid has intensified, largely 

because increases in published tuition and fees continue to outpace the rate of inflation. Recent 

data from the College Board detail these price increases.1 Public 4-year institutions raised 

tuitions by an average of 11 percent in 2004–05, bringing the average tuition at public 4-year 

institutions to $5,132. Average tuition and fees at public 2-year institutions is $2,076, up 9 

percent—smaller than last year’s increase, but still higher than historical increases. Private notfor-profit, 4-year institutions also raised tuitions in 2002–03. Although the 6 percent increase at 

private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions is not startling, it does bring the average private not-forprofit, 4-year institutions tuition to $20,082 and marks the fourth year in a row that private notfor-profit, 4-year institutions have increased tuition by at least 5 percent, more than twice the rate 

of inflation (The College Board 2004a). Previous reports by the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) also have shown increases in tuition levels over the 1990s and into the current 

decade, with differences in the rate of change by institutional sector (Choy 2004; Cunningham et 

al. 2001). 

At the same time, considerable increases in financial aid in recent years have helped 

students defray their postsecondary education expenses. Over $122 billion of financial aid from 

federal, state, institutional, and private sources was made available to students in 2003–04, an 

increase from $108 billion in the previous year (The College Board 2004b).2 In 1999–2000, 55 

percent of undergraduates received some type of financial aid from federal, state, institutional, or 

other sources, receiving about $6,000 on average. The percentage of undergraduates receiving aid 

and the average amounts received varied by the type of institution attended (Berkner, He, and 

Cataldi 2002). In addition, the proportion of full-time undergraduates who received any type of 

financial aid increased between 1989–90 and 1999–2000 (Wei, Li, and Berkner 2004). Since 

then, it is likely that at least half of all undergraduates are still receiving financial aid, with higher 

average amounts given the increases in student loan borrowing in recent years. 

Financial aid allows most students to pay less than the published (“sticker”) price for 

college. A recent NCES report (Horn, Wei, and Berker 2002) examined “net prices” (in other 

 

1 Note that the College Board data are weighted by enrollment. On the other hand, most of the data presented in this report are 

not weighted by enrollment. 

2 Note that the College Board data refer to all students, not just undergraduates or first-time undergraduates, and not just fulltime students. The figure of $108 billion refers to all types of financial aid, including work study and tax credits. 
Introduction 

2 

words, prices after subtracting financial aid) from the perspective of undergraduate students 

between the years 1992–93 and 1999–2000.3 The report found that net prices did not increase as 

rapidly as sticker prices; in fact, in some cases (depending on the definition of net price used, the 

institutional sector, and the income background of the student), net prices did not increase at all 

during this time period. This suggests that in order to address issues of student access and 

affordability, it is important to examine changes in net prices in addition to changes in sticker 

prices. 

Furthermore, the issues surrounding college accountability suggest that it is important to 

examine pricing and aid from an institutional perspective. In response to a Congressional 

mandate requiring an examination of college costs and prices, one component of the final report 

of the NCES Study of College Costs and Prices, 1988–89 to 1997–98 (Cunningham et al. 2001) 

looked at trends in prices and financial aid for different types of institutions and their association 

with various other financial variables. However, only one year of Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) Student Financial Aid (SFA) data was available at the time of 

the report. The availability of subsequent years of IPEDS Student Financial Aid data now 

provides the opportunity to examine changes in financial aid patterns for first-time 

undergraduates in comparison with changes in both the price of attendance and net prices. 

The IPEDS dataset is the most comprehensive that allows for an examination of price and 

financial aid patterns with the institution as the unit of analysis rather than the student. It is clear 

that the types and amounts of financial aid differ according to certain institutional characteristics, 

such as the missions and locations of colleges and universities, the composition of student 

attendance, and other factors. The IPEDS data also enable the construction of a price of 

attendance figure that takes into account the differing residency and housing patterns at each 

institution, and includes not only tuition and fees and room and board, but also books, supplies, 

and other expenses. Price of attendance also varies over time and according to various 

institutional characteristics. Taken together, the patterns of financial aid and sticker prices can be 

used to construct net prices at an institutional level, as well as changes in net prices over time. 

This report focuses on first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates 

(referred to as “full-time freshmen”) in order to examine patterns of sticker prices, financial aid, 

and net prices from an institutional perspective. It addresses the following questions: 

 

3 The report is based on data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), which periodically surveys students 

enrolled in postsecondary education, and therefore uses the student as the unit of analysis. The report used the following 

definitions of net prices: net tuition 1 = total tuition minus federal grants; net tuition 2 = total tuition minus all grants; net price 1 

= total price minus federal and state grants; net price 2 = total price minus all grants; and net price 3 = total price minus all grants 

and loans. 
Introduction 

3 

• How did the price of attendance for full-time freshmen change for various types of 

institutions during the years 1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02? How did the changes 

differ for institutions with specific characteristics? 

• During the same 3 years, what percentages of full-time freshmen received various 

forms of financial aid, and what was the median amount received by full-time 

freshmen at different types of institutions? How did these percentages change during 

this period? 

• What was the median net price at various types of institutions during the years 1999–

2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02, and how did it change over this period? How did net 

prices vary according to specific institutional characteristics? 

• How can we compare changes in tuition and fees with changes in price of attendance 

and net prices over this period, for different institutional types? 

To address the last question a new analysis was created for this report, involving a 

comparison of changes in prices and net prices with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), 

a measure of inflation, over the same period. The analysis focuses on first-time freshmen, who 

made up 20 percent of undergraduates and 17 percent of all students enrolled in Title IV 

institutions in fall 2002 (Knapp et al. 2004). The analysis is conducted separately for specific 

sectors of postsecondary education. 

It is important to point out that this report has important differences from those of other 

published sources that have examined prices and financial aid. As mentioned, the units of 

analysis are postsecondary institutions, rather than students, and the data on prices and financial 

aid were reported at an institutional level.4 The reported figures are therefore aggregates across 

groups of institutions, and attempt to explore how institutions with varying characteristics differ, 

not how different groups of students fare within those institutions. Second, the report provides 

information on three different types of prices—tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net 

price—and provides a mechanism to compare changes in these different prices over time. 

Finally, this report examines the median values (rather than averages) of prices and financial aid 

for various subgroups of institutions, reflecting the value of the “middle” institution in that sector 

or subgroup.5 Given these differences, the figures in this report may differ from those in other 

published sources. 

Approach and Key Variables 

To provide a meaningful description of patterns of prices and financial aid from an 

institutional perspective, it is important to take into account the type of institution, including the 

 

4 In other words, the denominator of the calculations is the number of institutions. 

5 More accurately, the median is the middle of a distribution of values—half the values are above the median and half are below. 
Introduction 

4 

level and control, the types of students served, the location, the selectivity level (as defined by a 

combination of admissions and test scores; see appendix E), and other characteristics. In 

addition, it is important to describe how key variables were defined. Therefore, descriptions of 

study universe, characteristics of institutions in the universe, definitions of particular variables 

used in the analysis and rationale for choosing them follow. 

Study Universe 

Institutions in the study universe were drawn from institutions participating in Title IV 

financial aid programs that are included in the 2002–03 IPEDS universe that are located in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. Four institutional sectors are included in the analysis: public 

4-year; public 2-year; private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions; and private for-profit, less-than4-year institutions. For the first three sectors, only degree-granting institutions were included in 

order to form relatively homogeneous comparison groups (few institutions in these sectors are 

non-degree-granting); this was not true for private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions.6 Since 

full-time freshmen are the focus of the analysis, institutions that enroll less than 50 first-time, 

full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates (less than 25 at for-profit institutions) were 

excluded.7 The analysis includes data for only those public 4-year, public 2-year, and private notfor-profit, 4-year institutions that report by academic year. For private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

institutions, those that report by program year have been combined and included. 

When taking these criteria into consideration, the institutional universe contains 4,135 

institutions—559 public 4-year; 1,004 public 2-year; 1,009 private not-for-profit, 4-year; and 

1,563 private for-profit, less-than-4-year. Although the final universe includes about threefourths of the original number of Title IV institutions in the four sectors, the institutions 

remaining in the universe comprised 94 percent of the total reported enrollment of first-time, 

full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates in the four sectors under review. 

Institution Types and Characteristics 

 All analyses were performed separately for each institutional sector because the groups are 

very different in terms of their institutional characteristics and in the types of students served 

(table 1). For example, virtually all public 2-year institutions are Associates or Baccalaureate/ 

 

6 Non-degree-granting institutions are included for private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, as degree-granting institutions 

in this category also tend to offer non-degree coursework and the two groups are not dissimilar. 

7 Also, new institutions (primarily private for-profit) that did not exist in the early years of the analysis were excluded from the 

universe (about 100 institutions). 
Introduction 

5 

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Total 559 1,009 1,004 1,563

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive 18 5 0 0

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 11 4 0 0

Masters Colleges and Universities 48 30 0 0

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts 4 19 0 0

Baccalaureate Colleges—General 10 25 0 0

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 6 5 99 27

Specialized institutions 3 13 1 0

Non-degree-granting institutions † † † 73

Selectivity

Very selective 17 23 † †

Moderately selective 52 52 † †

Minimally selective 19 15 † †

Open admission 12 10 † †

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 7 11 4 5

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 19 21 9 18

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 14 18 14 15

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 10 12 10 7

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 26 24 32 21

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 10 5 11 13

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) 5244

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 9 8 16 18

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time, full-time, 17 23 12 87

degree/certificate-seeking, 2001–02 1

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 18 17 24 39

undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 29 29 39 66

undergraduates who received federal grants in 2001–02 1

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), Academic Year 2001–02 9,532 2,000 5,652 186

Table 1. Number of institutions in the analysis, percentage distribution by selected institutional

Table 1. characteristics, and medians for selected institutional characteristics, by sector

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Year 2002.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the percent of applicants 

who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification uses highest degree 

offered to redistribute institutions that had not been classified. See methodology for details. 

† Not applicable.

Number of institutions

Percentage distribution

Median

1

 Data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters (including all public 4-year, private not-for-profit, 4-

year, and public 2-year institutions), and program year for program year reporters.
Introduction 

6 

Associates colleges according to the Carnegie classification,8 and the majority of private forprofit, less-than-4-year institutions are non-degree-granting. The majority of public 4-year 

institutions are Masters or Doctoral/Research institutions, while the majority of private not-forprofit, 4-year institutions are Baccalaureate or Masters institutions. At the same time, public 2-

year institutions and private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions tended to have higher 

proportions of undergraduates who were not White and who received federal grants (a proxy for 

low-income status) than the two groups of 4-year institutions. 

Data from other sources confirm that these sectors tend to serve students with differing 

characteristics. In 1999–2000, older undergraduates were concentrated in public 2-year 

institutions and were likely to attend part time, while younger undergraduates were more likely to 

attend 4-year institutions and enroll full time. Dependent undergraduates attending private forprofit institutions were more likely than those attending other types of institutions to come from 

low-income families (Horn, Peter, and Rooney 2002). The sectors are also quite different in how 

decisions are made about tuition levels, enrollment, and the use of institutional aid (Cunningham 

et al. 2001). Given these differences, the analysis in this report is conducted separately for each 

of the four institutional sectors under review. 

Unless otherwise specified, all references to “full-time freshmen” in the text of this report 

refer to first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates—the focus of this 

analysis. According to table 1, the percentage of undergraduates who fell into this group varied 

by sector, from a median of 12 percent at public 2-year institutions to 87 percent at private forprofit, less-than-4-year institutions. Although these students are the focus of this report, it is 

important to keep in mind that they represent a portion of the undergraduate population and that 

their characteristics may differ from those of other undergraduates. For example, full-time 

students generally have higher educational expenses because they are charged the full tuition (as 

well as other expenses) for an entire academic year (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002).

Variable Definitions 

For the analysis presented in this report, several variables were constructed for each 

institution in the universe to measure price of attendance, financial aid, net price, and other 

aspects of the issue.9 First, price of attendance includes both tuition charges and nontuition 

 

8 The 2000 Carnegie classification classifies institutions based on their degree-granting activities into a number of categories: 

Doctoral/Research Universities (Extensive and Intensive); Master’s Colleges and Universities (I and II); Baccalaureate Colleges

(Liberal Arts and General); Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges; Associates Colleges; and Specialized Institutions. For this report, 

the classification was modified slightly to redistribute institutions that had not been classified originally (see appendix A).

9 See appendix A for a glossary of variables referred to in this report. Also see appendix B for a full description of the 

methodology used in constructing variables for this report. 
Introduction 

7 

expenses that are charged to students.10 For this report, the price of attendance for full-time 

freshmen was defined as the sum of three components: tuition and fees, estimated books and 

supplies, and estimated housing expenses. 

• Tuition and fees are the published amounts charged to full-time freshmen. They are 

reported for the full academic year, and public institutions provided tuition amounts for 

in-district, in-state, and out-of-state students separately.11 

• The estimated cost of books, supplies, and miscellaneous expenses also are reported 

for the full academic year. 

• Housing expenses include the estimated cost of room and board and other expenses, 

which are reported separately for full-time freshmen living on campus and off campus. 

For students who live with family and do not contract with the school for room and 

board, only estimates of other expenses are reported. Housing expenses are for the full 

academic year. 

Estimates of expenses for books and supplies, room and board, and other expenses are 

those used by financial aid offices for determining financial need. For public institutions, the 

tuition and fees were weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen attending from in-district, 

in-state, and out-of-state. For all institutions, the cost of room, board, and/or living expenses was 

weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen housed in each option.12 These components 

were combined into an average price of attendance for each institution in the universe.13

Aid information in IPEDS was available on the percentages of full-time, first-time, 

degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates14 who received aid at any time during each academic 

year,15 as well as the average amounts received, for each institution in the study universe. Four 

types of financial aid were examined: 

• Federal grants include Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 

(SEOGs), and other grants provided by federal agencies or federally sponsored 

educational benefits programs. 

• State/local grants include grants, scholarships and tuition waivers provided by the state 

or local governments, and include Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships 

(LEAP) and academic merit scholarships. 

 

10 Price of attendance may also be referred to as the student budget, especially with regard to financial aid. Student budgets may 

also include transportation and other expenses that are not included in the definition of price of attendance used for this report. 

11 For program year institutions, tuition and fees are reported for entering students in the institution’s largest program. 

12 See appendix B for details. Appendix C includes an alternative housing methodology for comparison purposes. 

13 The price of attendance values were not weighted by enrollment. However, enrollment-weighted figures are provided in 

appendix D to this report for purposes of comparison. 

14 Academic year reporting institutions provided information on a fall cohort of such students, while program year institutions 

reported for a 12-month cohort. 

15 For program year institutions, aid received over the 12-month period. 
Introduction 

8 

• Institutional grants include scholarships and fellowships granted by the college and/or 

individual departments, as well as tuition and fee waivers. 

• Loans to students include all Title IV subsidized and unsubsidized loans, as well as 

institutionally or privately sponsored loans, but exclude Parental Loans for 

Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and other loans made directly to parents. 

The percentages of full-time freshmen receiving the four types of aid, as well as the average 

amounts of aid received, were combined into composite variables to measure total grants and 

total aid for each institution in the universe.16 It is important to note that other types of financial 

aid available to students, such as work study and tax credits, were not available for inclusion; 

however, these types of aid may be used to reduce the price paid by students. The variables 

included in this report measure only aid that has passed through the institution’s financial aid 

office. In addition, the loan variable measures all students loans from state, federal, and private 

sources. 

Net prices can be defined as what students pay after financial aid is subtracted. They take 

into account both the price of attendance faced by students and the financial aid received by 

students; they therefore better reflect the “actual” prices being paid. In this report, net price is an 

aggregate figure measuring the difference between price of attendance and total amounts of 

financial aid across all full-time freshmen, for each institution in the study universe. For each of 

the 3 years under examination, two net prices were calculated: price of attendance less grants 

(federal, state, and institutional), and price of attendance less grants and loans. These are labeled 

as net price (grants) and net price (all aid), respectively. It is important to recognize that net price 

(all aid) reflects the net price students face when enrolling—but that the loan amounts must be 

repaid—while net price (grants) captures the net price to students in the longer term. Net prices 

were calculated at an aggregate, institutional level and are reported in current dollars. 

“Price change indices” were then calculated for each institution in the universe. Indices are 

reported for each sector, and for four types of prices: tuition and fees; price of attendance; and the 

two definitions of net prices. In each case, the index was calculated as the rate of change in price 

between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) during this period. This formulation measures the difference between the rate 

of change in prices overall (inflation) and the rate of change in college prices, where an 

institution that raises its price over this period at the rate of inflation would have an index value 

of 0. An institution that raises its price faster than the rate of inflation over 3 years would have a 

positive index value, while an institution that raises its prices by lower than the rate of inflation 

 

16 Percentages receiving aid and average amounts received were calculated across all institutions, including those that did not 

report a specific category of aid (i.e., the data include zeros). Average amounts were bounded. Composite variables reflect the

percentage who received each type of aid multiplied by the average amount. See appendix B for details. 
Introduction 

9 

(or, decreases its price) would have a negative index value. To provide some context, the rate of 

inflation over the period 1999–2000 and 2001–02 was about 5.4 percent according to the CPI.17

In this report, the term “price change indices” may also be called “price index” or “price index 

value.” 

Each of the variables described above was calculated at the institutional level. Median 

values were then reported for different groups of institutions (such as sector). Half of the 

institutions in a group have values above the median, and half have values below. 

In addition to the differences between sectors described above, there are many differences 

in the characteristics of institutions within sectors. These differences may have an impact on the 

prices charged by institutions and/or the financial aid received by students attending these 

institutions. For example, more selective institutions may be more likely to charge higher prices, 

or to provide more aid to their students. Institutions with high enrollment sizes may have 

economies of scale that allow them to charge lower prices. Institutions that serve a relatively high 

proportion of low-income and disadvantaged students may attempt to keep tuitions as low as 

possible, and their students are likely to receive a different mix of financial aid than students at 

other types of institutions. In recognition of these differences, the analyses in the following 

chapters examine prices, financial aid, and net prices for groups of institutions with differing 

characteristics, including Carnegie Classification, selectivity, region, percentage of 

undergraduates who were full-time freshmen, enrollment size, percentage of full-time freshmen 

who were not White, percentage of full-time freshmen who received federal grants (which may 

be seen as a proxy for low income status), and the level of tuition and fees. For the last five 

variables, categories were determined within each sector, using ranges of centiles.18 The 

selectivity variable was created for this report for 4-year institutions only, and was derived from a 

combination of median test scores and the percent of applicants who were admitted to an 

institution. The categories include very selective, moderately selective, minimally selective, and 

open admission.19

 

17 For CPI figures, the Consumer Price Index for all urban dwellers (CPI-U, 1982-84 = 100) was used, by academic years. 

18 See appendix B for details. 

19 Open admission institutions are 4-year institutions that reported that they did not have restrictions on admission. Non-open 

admission institutions were classified based on an index of two variables: 1) the centile distribution of the percentage of students 

who were admitted (of those who applied); and 2) the centile distribution of the midpoint between the 25th and 75th percentile 

SAT/ACT combined scores reported by each institution (ACT scores were converted into SAT equivalents). The combined 

centile variable was divided into selectivity categories based on breaks in the distribution. See appendix E for details. 
Introduction 

10 

Data 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System collects data from all primary 

providers of postsecondary education; in 2002–03, data were collected for more than 7,500 

institutions. The primary analysis for this report used the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics (IC) 

and Student Financial Aid (SFA) components. The Institutional Characteristics component 

collects information on the price of tuition and fees (by residency status), books and supplies, and 

room and board (by housing status) for full-time freshmen. The Student Financial Aid 

component collects information on the percentage of full-time freshmen who receive federal 

grants, state grants, institutional grants, and loans, as well as the average amounts received.20 In 

addition, data from the IPEDS Enrollment (EF) component and estimates derived from the 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study for 1999–2000 (NPSAS: 2000, a sample survey of 

postsecondary students) also were used in the analysis. The analysis focuses on data regarding 

full-time freshmen for the years 1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02. 

Price and aid amounts are nominal, i.e., not adjusted for inflation, when reporting on 

median prices, financial aid, and net prices. The price indices compare the change in prices and 

net prices to the rate of inflation over this period, using the Consumer Price Index. (An 

alternative measurement of changes in prices, the Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA) 

scale, is described in appendix F.) 

Changes described in this report were calculated at the institutional level. Dollar changes 

over the periods 1999–2000 to 2000–01, 2000–01 to 2001–02, and 1999–2000 to 2001–02 were 

calculated as the difference between the values for the first and last years, in current dollar terms. 

Percentage changes for each of the three periods were calculated as the difference between the 

values divided by the value for the base year. Medians were then calculated for each group of 

institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values reported in tables may not be the 

same as the median dollar change over the same period. It is important to examine both dollar 

and percentage increases given that for institutions with low tuition or aid levels, a relatively 

small dollar increase may translate into a relatively high percentage increase. In addition, 

although the data presented in the tables of this report are for a universe of institutions and may 

show apparent differences (changes), all of the differences reported in the text of the report have 

been found to be “meaningful,” based on specific criteria. Any exceptions are stated in the text. 

The criteria for a meaningful difference are the following: 21

 

20 At the time this report was written, data from the Student Financial Aid component for 2001–02 had been edited but did not 

include imputations. 

21 See appendix B for more discussion of methodologies. 
Introduction 

11 

• For percentage distributions, 5 percentage point difference. 

• For median dollar amounts, $500 difference. 

• For changes (increases or decreases) in median dollar amounts, $100 difference. 

• For median percentage changes, 0.5 percentage points. 

• For index changes, 0.5 index points. 

Note that although the range of prices varies across sectors, the criteria for a meaningful 

difference are the same for all sectors. 

Organization of the Report 

The rest of the report begins with an examination of patterns in price of attendance, 

financial aid patterns, and net price for public 4-year institutions. The section also explores these 

patterns in terms of the change over time and the difference by type of institution. In addition, the 

section describes the price change indices and considers the relationships among the trends in 

prices, financial aid, and net prices. The subsequent sections report the findings from similar 

analyses of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, public 2-year institutions, and private forprofit, less-than-4-year institutions. Finally, the last section summarizes some of the findings and 

draws conclusions about patterns of price of attendance, financial aid, and net price. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
13 

Public 4-Year Institutions 

This section examines prices and aid for the public 4-year sector. It describes the median 

price of attendance, patterns of financial aid, and net prices (in current dollars) over the 3-year 

period, as well as the changes over time. 

In considering prices at public institutions, it is important to note that in most cases a 

substantial proportion of revenues come from state and local appropriations. Decisions on tuition 

and fee levels are usually shared between state governments and institutional governing boards, 

and may fluctuate annually given the state appropriations and budget process. For many public 

institutions, decisions about student access and enrollment also are made at the state level. Taken 

together, these policy decisions may impact prices and aid. 

An analysis of each of the components of price of attendance (sticker price) at public 4-year 

institutions, over the 3 years between 1999–2000 and 2001–02, is presented in table 2.22 The 

three components of price were used to construct an average price of attendance for each 

institution. In 2001–02, median tuition and fees were $4,141 at public 4-year institutions, with 

out-of-state tuition and fee charges higher than charges for in-state or in-district residence 

($9,192 out-of-state compared with $3,402 in-state in 2001–02). Public 4-year institutions had a 

median of $783 for estimated books and supplies in 2001–02, while housing expenses were 

$6,080. Although the median values of each of the components appeared to increase between 

1999–2000 and 2001–02, the differences in out-of-state tuition and on-campus and off-campus 

housing expenses were meaningful. Together, these increases added up to an increase in the 

median price of attendance for public 4-year institutions, from $10,230 in 1999–2000 to $11,187 

in 2001–02. 

Meanwhile, total financial aid also increased over this period (table 3). At public 4-year 

institutions in 2001–02, a median percentage of 42 percent of full-time freshmen received loans, 

receiving an average amount of $2,920. A median of 36 percent of full-time freshmen received 

state grants, followed by federal grants and institutional grants at 29 percent. The median values 

of aid amounts (for those who received aid) increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02, but only 

 

22 Non-composite categories of tuition and fees and housing costs reflect data only for institutions for which the category is 

relevant; for example, median amounts of on-campus housing costs refer only to institutions that had on-campus housing as an 

option. Composite variables take into account the percentage distribution of students by residency status and/or by housing 

status. 
Public 4-Year Institutions 

14 

the increase in the median amount of federal grants was meaningful. The median value of total 

aid (across all first-time freshmen, including nonrecipients) at public 4-year institutions increased 

from $2,946 in 1999–2000 to $3,554 in 2001–02. The median value of total grants increased, but 

not meaningfully. 

Together, the changes in price of attendance and in financial aid impact the median net 

prices of public 4-year institutions (table 4). As mentioned, between 1999–2000 and 2001–02, 

the median values of both price of attendance and total aid at public 4-year institutions increased, 

in current dollar terms. Median dollar changes23 in price of attendance were higher than the 

median dollar changes in total aid and total grants—a $1,039 increase in median price of 

attendance over the 3-year period, compared to $459 for total aid and $359 for total grants. 

 

23 Changes were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the 

aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median dollar change over the same period. 

Components of price 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Tuition and fees 1 $3,748 $3,908 $4,141

In-district 3,090 3,208 3,402

In-state 3,090 3,208 3,402

Out-of-state 8,560 8,909 9,192

Books and supplies 700 730 783

Housing expense 2 5,680 5,833 6,080

On campus 6,628 6,873 7,220

Off campus 7,504 7,753 8,058

Living with parents 2,472 2,500 2,590

Price of attendance 3 10,230 10,634 11,187

NOTE: Note that the data for books and supplies and housing expenses are estimates, often based on estimates of student 

budgets by financial aid offices.

Table 2. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 4-year institutions,

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Collection Years 2000 to 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Table 2. Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of attendance for

3

 Median price of attendance is a composite variable that takes into account all three components of price and adjusts for the 

distribution of students by housing and residency status. See methodology for details.

Table 2. academic year 1999–2000 to 2001–02 

1 Median tuition and fees is a composite variable that takes into account the percentage distribution of students by residency 

status. See methodology for details. On the other hand, the individual categories for in-district, in-state, and out-of-state tuition and 

fees reflect data only for institutions for which the category is relevant.

2 Median housing expense is a composite variable that takes into account the percentage distribution of students by housing 

status. See methodology for details. The individual categories for on campus, off campus, and living with parents reflect data for 

institutions for which the category is relevant.
Public 4-Year Institutions 

15 

On the other hand, the median percentage changes in aid over the 3-year period were higher than 

median percentage change in price of attendance: a median of 20 percent increase for total grants 

and 14 percent increase for total aid, compared to a median of 10 percent increase for price of 

attendance. For context, inflation over this period (as measured by the CPI) was about 5 percent; 

in other words, the median percentage increases for both price of attendance and aid were higher 

than inflation. 

Given these patterns in sticker prices and financial aid at public 4-year institutions, the 

median values for both types of net prices increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02.24 Median 

net price (all aid) increased from $7,216 in 1999–2000 to $7,712 in 2001–02; median net price 

(grants) increased from $8,463 to $9,056. The median percentage change in net price (all aid) 

over the 3-year period was lower than the median percentage change in price of attendance; 

 

24 The difference between the median values of net price (all aid) in 1999–2000 compared to 2001–02 was not meaningful. 

Type of aid 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Type of aid

Federal grants 29 28 29

State grants 33 34 36

Institutional grants 26 27 29

Loans 42 42 42

Type of aid

Federal grants $2,231 $2,458 $2,739

State grants 1,565 1,773 1,858

Institutional grants 1,795 1,920 1,989

Loans 2,777 2,859 2,920

Type of aid

Total aid $2,946 $3,321 $3,554

Total grants 1,759 2,006 2,224

Table 3. Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates

Table 3. 1999–2000 to 2001–02

Table 3. receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Public 4-year institutions, academic year

2 Composite variables reflect the percentage receiving multiplied by the average amount, i.e., amount of aid for those who 

received aid; see methodology for details.

Percentage receiving 1

Average amount received, current dollars 1

Composite aid amounts, in current dollars 2 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

1 Percentages receiving aid and average amounts received were calculated across all institutions, including those that did not 

report a specific category of aid (i.e., the data include zeros). Average amounts were bounded.
Public 4-Year Institutions 

16 

the same was true in the case of net price (grants). In other words, increases in financial aid made 

it possible for net prices to increase at a slower rate than the price of attendance (sticker price) at 

public 4-year institutions. 

To illustrate this point, the analysis has focused on median tuition and fees, price of 

attendance, aid, and net price for all public 4-year institutions in the study universe. However, 

varying patterns in prices and aid may reflect differences in the missions and goals of colleges 

and universities. In fact, the median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, and net prices for 

full-time freshmen in 2001–02 differed according to various institutional characteristics (table 5). 

Price of 

attendance Total aid Total grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Academic year

1999–2000 $10,230 $2,946 $1,759 $7,216 $8,463

2000–2001 10,634 3,321 2,006 7,435 8,731

2001–2002 11,187 3,554 2,224 7,712 9,056

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $458 $174 $149 $242 $274

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 567 244 192 354 420

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 1,039 459 359 612 713

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 4.1 5.5 8.3 3.2 3.1

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 5.4 8.0 9.7 4.6 4.5

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 9.8 14.4 19.6 8.6 8.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table 4. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 4. academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Aid amounts are composite variables derived from the percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount 

received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were calculated at an institutional level, 

and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the 

same as the median dollar change over the same period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and 

then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero value for financial aid in the base year. In these cases, the 

percentage change in total aid or total grants was left blank for the calculation.

Table 4. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 4-year institutions,

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change
Public 4-Year Institutions 

17 

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aidTotal 

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total $11,187 $3,554 $2,224 $7,712 $9,056

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive 13,429 3,891 2,600 9,782 11,160

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 11,662 3,580 2,124 8,041 9,511

Masters Colleges and Universities 10,658 3,422 2,080 7,286 8,624

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts ‡‡‡‡‡

Baccalaureate Colleges—General 10,736 3,505 2,299 6,442 8,047

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 10,056 2,988 1,884 6,388 7,909

Specialized institutions ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Non-degree-granting institutions †††††

Selectivity

Very selective 12,908 3,923 2,566 9,315 10,883

Moderately selective 11,276 3,492 2,150 7,888 9,179

Minimally selective 10,817 3,442 2,190 7,066 8,657

Open admission 9,809 3,399 2,046 6,176 7,540

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 12,407 3,678 1,961 8,079 10,011

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 12,682 4,042 2,480 8,076 10,288

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 11,227 3,449 2,021 7,940 8,988

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 10,387 3,840 1,875 6,815 8,624

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 10,652 3,443 2,386 7,187 8,296

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 9,985 3,230 2,150 6,961 7,848

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡‡‡

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 11,515 3,361 2,176 8,406 9,807

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 10,451 3,138 2,141 7,320 8,486

Lower middle 11,048 3,464 2,117 7,698 8,987

Higher middle 11,194 3,966 2,319 7,351 9,046

High 12,471 3,710 2,304 8,662 10,161

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 10,736 3,814 2,370 7,122 8,500

Lower middle 10,717 3,473 1,997 7,271 8,675

Higher middle 10,957 3,471 2,143 7,518 8,943

High 12,321 3,572 2,237 9,083 10,249

Table 5. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional

See notes at end of table.

Table 5. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 5. characteristics: Public 4-year institutions, academic year 2001–02
Public 4-Year Institutions 

18 

For example: 

• Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive had higher median prices of attendance, 

net prices (all aid), and net prices (grants) than other types of public 4-year institutions. 

• Very selective public 4-year institutions had higher median prices of attendance, net 

prices (all aid), and net prices (grants) than those in the lower selectivity categories. 

These institutions also had higher aid amounts than open admission institutions. 

• Public 4-year institutions with a low proportion of full-time freshmen receiving federal 

grants (receipt of federal grants may be considered a proxy for low-income students) 

had higher median prices of attendance, net prices (all aid), and net prices (grants)—

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aidTotal 

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low $10,943 $3,644 $1,961 $7,329 $8,904

Lower middle 11,545 3,468 2,018 8,067 9,562

Higher middle 11,183 3,394 2,176 8,041 9,099

High 10,811 3,876 2,760 7,239 8,332

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 12,471 3,207 1,852 9,220 10,344

Lower middle 11,412 3,210 1,819 8,182 9,514

Higher middle 11,237 3,583 2,275 7,342 8,912

High 10,065 4,143 2,956 5,922 7,421

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low 9,599 3,165 2,303 6,330 7,377

Lower middle 10,416 3,399 2,038 7,042 8,384

Higher middle 11,481 3,676 2,132 7,855 9,378

High 14,198 4,082 2,380 10,096 11,779

NOTE: Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle

= 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the 

percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification

uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been classified. See methodology for details. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2002.

† Not applicable.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

Table 5. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 5. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional

Table 5. characteristics: Public 4-year institutions, academic year 2001–02—Continued
Public 4-Year Institutions 

19 

but lower median amounts of total aid and total grants—than their counterparts with a 

high proportion of these students. 

• Public 4-year institutions with high enrollment sizes had higher median prices of 

attendance, net prices (all aid), and net prices (grants) than those with low enrollment. 

• Institutions with high tuition had higher total aid amounts received by their full-time 

freshmen than their counterparts with low tuition, reflecting the fact that calculations 

of financial need take price of attendance into account; however, the difference in total 

grants was not meaningful. Despite the higher median total aid amounts, institutions 

with high tuition also had the higher median net price (all aid) and net price (grants) 

than institutions with low tuition. 

• Among public 4-year institutions, median price of attendance, net prices (all aid) and 

net prices (grants) were higher for institutions with a high proportion of undergraduates 

who were full-time freshmen. 

The price indices combine all of these patterns in price and aid together into one measure, 

which takes into account inflation during the 3-year period (table 6). For example, groups of 

institutions with net price index values close to zero increased their net prices at about the rate of 

inflation; those with higher values increased their net prices above the rate of inflation, while 

those with negative values either increased their net prices slower than the rate of inflation, or 

decreased their net prices. 

For all public 4-year institutions, the difference between the rate of change in prices overall 

(inflation) and the rate of change in college prices varied depending upon the type of price 

measured. For example, the median index value for tuition and fees was higher than for price of 

attendance—public 4-year institutions raised their tuition and fees by a median of almost 7 

percentage points higher than the rate of inflation over 3 years, but their prices of attendance 

raised by less—about 5 percentage points higher than the rate of inflation. At the same time, the 

median index values for net price (all aid) and net price (grants) were lower than for price of 

attendance—about 3 for both net price indices. This reflects the fact that for the typical 

institution, net prices increased at a slower rate than did sticker prices over the 3-year period. 

The various indices also differ according to specific institutional characteristics. Only 

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges had median price of attendance and tuition 

and fees index values that were negative or close to zero. For other groups of institutions, index 

values were positive, indicating that sticker prices had been raised above the rate of inflation. 

Certain groups of public 4-year institutions had median price of attendance index values that 

were relatively high, including minimally selective institutions (compared to institutions in other 

selectivity categories); institutions in the Southeast and Great Lakes regions (compared to 
Public 4-Year Institutions 

20 

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendanceNet price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total 6.8 4.5 3.3 2.8

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive 7.2 4.4 5.6 3.7

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 6.7 3.6 -0.2 0.4

Masters Colleges and Universities 7.5 4.6 2.8 2.8

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts ‡‡‡‡

Baccalaureate Colleges—General 8.2 5.9 3.5 3.4

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges -3.2 -0.3 -8.9 -4.7

Specialized institutions ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Non-degree-granting institutions ††††

Selectivity

Very selective 5.0 4.0 3.6 2.0

Moderately selective 6.6 4.4 3.5 3.1

Minimally selective 8.7 5.2 2.0 2.1

Open admission 5.9 3.7 2.3 2.0

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 3.3 1.5 4.7 1.1

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 5.0 3.3 -0.7 0.5

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 7.1 5.7 4.3 5.1

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 7.9 4.8 2.9 4.2

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 10.0 5.7 5.0 4.1

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 9.6 4.2 3.6 1.0

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡‡

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 1.9 3.0 2.1 0.3

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 5.8 2.4 0.0 -1.3

Lower middle 6.0 4.2 2.8 1.5

Higher middle 8.4 5.1 3.3 3.1

High 6.8 5.4 6.0 4.5

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 6.4 5.2 2.3 3.1

Lower middle 5.9 4.1 3.5 2.8

Higher middle 7.9 4.5 3.0 2.7

High 6.9 4.1 4.0 2.8

Table 6. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected 

Table 6. institutional characteristics: Public 4-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02

See notes at end of table.
Public 4-Year Institutions 

21 

institutions in other regions); and institutions with low enrollment sizes (compared to those with 

higher enrollments), 

Several groups of public 4-year institutions had median net price index values that were 

close to zero or even negative: Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive and AssociatesBaccalaureate/Associates Colleges;25 institutions in the Mid East and Far West (for the latter, net 

 

25 According to the 2000 Carnegie Classification, Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges are undergraduate colleges where the 

majority of conferrals are at the subbaccalaureate level (associate’s degrees and certificates), but bachelor’s degrees account for at 

least 10 percent of undergraduate awards. In IPEDS, these are classified as 4-year institutions. For this report, they have been 

combined with Associate’s colleges into one category in order to condense the number of categories in the analysis. 

Table 6. —Continued

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendanceNet price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 6.6 4.9 2.7 3.1

Lower middle 7.0 4.8 4.8 3.5

Higher middle 6.6 4.5 4.1 2.7

High 6.4 3.7 0.8 0.4

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 7.7 4.6 5.8 3.6

Lower middle 6.6 4.8 5.3 4.0

Higher middle 6.7 4.8 1.9 1.5

High 5.8 3.4 -4.2 -2.2

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low 4.9 3.4 1.4 -0.8

Lower middle 6.2 3.3 -0.1 1.2

Higher middle 6.7 4.4 4.2 2.4

High 8.1 5.7 6.2 4.6

Table 6. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected 

Table 6. institutional characteristics: Public 4-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the 

rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Therefore, an institution that raises its price over this period at the 

rate of inflation would have an index value of 0. Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal 

grants, and percentage first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile 

ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle = 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. 

Selectivity is derived from a combination of the percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year 

institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been 

classified. See methodology for details. 

† Not applicable.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).
Public 4-Year Institutions 

22 

price [grants] only); institutions with a low proportion of undergraduates who were full-time 

freshmen; those with a high proportion of students who were not White; those with a high 

proportion of full-time freshmen receiving federal grants; and low-tuition institutions for net 

price (grants). These groups of institutions had net prices that increased at or below the rate of 

inflation, or decreased. Other groups of public 4-year institutions had median net price index 

values that were relatively high, such as institutions with a high percentage of undergraduates 

who were full-time freshmen; institutions with high tuition; and institutions with low or lower 

middle proportions of students receiving federal grants.
23 

Private Not-For-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

This section examines the median price of attendance, patterns of financial aid, and net 

prices (in current dollars) for the private not for-profit, 4-year sector between 1999–2000 and 

2001–02. 

The components of price of attendance (sticker price) varied over the 3-year period (table 

7). In 2001–02, median tuition and fees were $14,770, median books and supplies were $750, 

and median housing expenses were $6,764. The median values of each of the components 

increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02; the differences were meaningful in the cases of 

tuition and on-campus and off-campus housing expenses. Overall, the median price of attendance 

for private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions increased from $20,157 in 1999–2000 to $22,259 in 

2001–02. 

Components of price 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Tuition and fees $13,200 $13,920 $14,770

Books and supplies 700 700 750

Housing expense 1 6,200 6,439 6,764

On campus 6,731 7,000 7,333

Off campus 6,900 7,200 7,500

Living with parents 2,100 2,157 2,250

Price of attendance 2 20,157 21,071 22,259

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Collection Years 2000 to 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

1 Median housing expense is a composite variable that takes into account the percentage distribution of students by housing 

status. See methodology for details. The individual categories for on campus, off campus, and living with parents reflect data for 

institutions for which the category is relevant.

2

 Median price of attendance is a composite variable that takes into account all three components of price and adjusts for the 

distribution of students by housing and residency status. See methodology for details.

Table 7. Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of attendance for

Table 7. institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 

NOTE: Note that the data for books and supplies and housing expenses are estimates, often based on estimates of student 

budgets by financial aid offices.

Table 7. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private not-for-profit, 4-year
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

24 

Total financial aid also increased over this period (table 8). At private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions, a median of 81 percent of full-time freshmen received institutional grants in 2001–

02, receiving an average amount of $5,996. A median percentage of 63 percent of full-time 

freshmen received loans, with an average amount of $3,686. Full-time freshmen at private notfor-profit, 4-year institutions also received state grants (a median of 32 percent) and federal 

grants (29 percent). Median aid amounts for federal grants and institutional grants (for those who 

received such aid) increased during this period. Across all first-time freshmen, including 

nonrecipients, the median total aid at private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions increased from 

$8,425 in 1999–2000 to $9,280 in 2001–02, while the median value of total grants increased 

from $5,862 to $6,747. 

Type of aid 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Type of aid

Federal grants 30 28 29

State grants 34 32 32

Institutional grants 81 81 81

Loans 64 63 63

Type of aid

Federal grants $2,527 $2,765 $3,040

State grants 2,473 2,668 2,736

Institutional grants 5,207 5,636 5,996

Loans 3,402 3,453 3,686

Type of aid

Total aid $8,425 $8,537 $9,280

Total grants 5,862 6,299 6,747

Table 8. Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates

Table 8. academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table 8. receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions,

1 Percentages receiving aid and average amounts received were calculated across all institutions, including those that did not 

report a specific category of aid (i.e., the data include zeros). Average amounts were bounded.

2 Composite variables reflect the percentage receiving multiplied by the average amount, i.e., amount of aid for those who 

received aid; see methodology for details.

Percentage receiving 1

Average amount received, current dollars 1

Composite aid amounts, in current dollars 2 
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

25 

Dollar changes in price of attendance26 were higher than dollar changes in total aid and 

total grants—a $2,098 median increase in median price of attendance between 1999–2000 and 

2001–02, compared to a median increase of $798 for total aid and $689 for total grants (table 9). 

The median percentage change in total grants over the 3-year period, an 11 percent increase, was 

higher than the median percentage change in price of attendance, a 10 percent increase; both of 

these percentage increases were higher than the rate of inflation at 5 percent. 

 

26 Changes were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the 

aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median dollar change over the same period. 

Price of 

attendance Total aid Total grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Academic year

1999–2000 $20,157 $8,425 $5,862 $11,400 $13,762

2000–2001 21,071 8,537 6,299 11,910 14,271

2001–2002 22,259 9,280 6,747 12,514 14,954

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $956 $256 $288 $698 $645

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 1,112 508 348 613 754

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 2,098 798 689 1,264 1,406

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 4.4 3.2 5.0 5.4 4.4

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 5.0 5.9 5.7 4.7 4.8

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 10.0 9.6 11.4 10.2 9.8

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table 9. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 9. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private not-for-profit, 4-year 

Table 9. institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Aid amounts are composite variables derived from the percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount 

received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were calculated at an institutional level, 

and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the 

same as the median dollar change over the same period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and 

then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero value for financial aid in the base year. In these cases, the 

percentage change in total aid or total grants was left blank for the calculation.

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

26 

The changes in price of attendance and in financial aid were reflected in changes in the 

median net prices of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions. Median net price (all aid) 

increased from $11,400 in 1999–2000 to $12,514 in 2001–02; median net price (grants) 

increased from $13,762 to $14,954. The median dollar change in net price (all aid) and in net 

price (grants) over the 3-year period was lower than the median dollar change in price of 

attendance. As was true for public 4-year institutions, the median percentage changes in price of 

attendance, aid, and net price (all aid) were higher during the period 2000–01 to 2001–02 than in 

the previous period, 1999–2000 to 2000–01. 

The median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, and net prices for full-time freshmen 

in 2001–02 differed for various groups of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions (table 10). 

• Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive had higher median prices of attendance, 

net prices (all aid), and net prices (grants) than other types of private not-for-profit, 4-

year institutions. 

• Very selective institutions had higher median prices of attendance, net prices (all aid), 

and net prices (grants) than those in the lower selectivity categories. Moderately 

selective institutions had the highest aid amounts. 

• Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions in New England, the Mid East, and the Far 

West had higher median prices of attendance, net prices (all aid), and net prices 

(grants) than institutions in other regions. 

• Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions with a low proportion of full-time freshmen 

receiving federal grants had higher median prices of attendance, net prices (all aid), 

and net prices (grants) than institutions in other categories, while institutions in the 

lower middle category of federal grant receipt among full-time freshmen had the 

highest median amounts of total aid and total grants. 

• Institutions with high enrollment sizes had higher median prices of attendance, net 

prices (all aid), and net prices (grants) than those with low enrollment. 

• Institutions with high and higher middle tuition had higher net prices (all aid) and net 

prices (grants), and higher total aid and grants, than their counterparts with lower 

tuition. 

Price indices for private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions take into consideration inflation 

during the 3-year period (table 11). Groups of institutions with index values close to zero 

increased their prices at about the rate of inflation; those with higher values increased their prices 

above rate of inflation, while those with negative values either increased their prices more slowly 

than the rate of inflation, or decreased their prices. For all private not-for-profit, 4-year 
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

27 

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aid

Total 

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total $22,259 $9,280 $6,747 $12,514 $14,954

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive 34,795 8,389 6,578 25,761 27,681

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 27,697 10,706 8,277 15,896 18,824

Masters Colleges and Universities 22,593 10,055 7,241 12,388 14,937

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts 26,696 10,250 7,929 14,420 16,820

Baccalaureate Colleges—General 20,023 9,416 6,615 10,289 12,899

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 17,665 5,864 3,634 11,294 13,377

Specialized institutions 17,259 5,342 3,393 11,872 13,612

Non-degree-granting institutions †††††

Selectivity

Very selective 29,349 8,923 6,819 19,030 21,437

Moderately selective 22,004 10,252 7,450 11,635 14,498

Minimally selective 20,151 7,988 5,290 11,506 13,883

Open admission 14,993 5,241 3,379 10,401 12,170

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 27,189 9,545 5,885 16,699 19,768

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 25,491 9,972 6,555 13,892 16,563

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 21,842 9,851 6,622 12,176 14,528

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 20,540 9,771 5,975 10,168 13,115

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, 

NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 19,212 8,061 4,922 11,018 12,903

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 17,910 7,887 4,191 10,763 13,224

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡‡‡

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 26,005 9,936 6,887 16,101 18,735

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 20,560 8,805 6,305 11,347 13,890

Lower middle 22,047 9,760 7,027 12,178 14,729

Higher middle 24,906 9,273 6,825 14,102 16,632

High 22,962 9,359 6,688 12,809 15,335

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 19,137 7,606 5,486 10,458 12,955

Lower middle 22,174 10,000 7,363 11,609 14,425

Higher middle 22,940 9,599 7,069 13,185 15,803

High 25,310 9,642 6,887 14,770 17,450

Table 10. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 10. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional 

Table 10. characteristics: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic year 2001–02

See notes at end of table.
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

28 

institutions, the median index value for tuition and fees was slightly higher than for price of 

attendance. The median index value for net price (grants) was slightly lower.27 

None of the groups of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions had median index values 

that were negative or close to zero. In fact, almost all of the institutional groups defined in the 

table had median index values for tuition and fees and price of attendance that ranged between 

 

27 Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions have both higher median aid amounts and prices of attendance in comparison with 

other sectors. However, net prices make up a smaller proportion of price of attendance than in other sectors; in 2001–02, for 

example, the median net price (all aid) at all private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions made up slightly more than half of the 

median price of attendance, compared to two-thirds or more in other sectors. Given a specific price increase in all sectors (i.e., an 

increase in the denominator), the median amount of aid at private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions would need to increase by

more dollars than in other sectors in order for net prices (the numerator) to match or exceed the increase in price. 

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aid

Total 

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low $21,462 $9,596 $6,849 $11,566 $14,234

Lower middle 22,359 9,624 7,175 12,917 15,123

Higher middle 22,670 9,478 6,771 12,766 15,426

High 22,423 8,202 5,825 13,183 15,676

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 28,598 8,734 6,710 18,835 21,026

Lower middle 23,582 10,155 7,460 12,941 15,355

Higher middle 20,630 9,600 6,814 11,078 13,736

High 18,450 8,255 5,508 9,370 12,170

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low 14,879 5,689 3,708 9,157 11,214

Lower middle 20,425 9,462 6,604 11,122 13,765

Higher middle 24,175 11,332 8,337 12,950 15,713

High 30,377 10,325 7,928 19,908 22,286

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2002.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

NOTE: Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle

= 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the 

percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification

uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been classified. See methodology for details. 

† Not applicable.

Table 10. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 10. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional 

Table 10. characteristics: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic year 2001–02—Continued
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

29 

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendance

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total 5.2 4.6 4.8 4.4

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive 3.9 3.5 5.5 5.2

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 4.6 4.2 4.0 4.5

Masters Colleges and Universities 5.5 4.8 4.2 3.4

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts 4.4 3.9 5.2 5.0

Baccalaureate Colleges—General 5.6 5.1 4.2 4.1

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 6.5 6.3 9.2 7.9

Specialized institutions 5.6 4.7 4.2 4.8

Non-degree-granting institutions ††††

Selectivity

Very selective 4.5 4.0 6.1 5.5

Moderately selective 5.5 4.7 3.5 3.6

Minimally selective 5.3 4.7 4.2 3.6

Open admission 4.6 4.7 10.2 8.9

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 4.0 3.5 4.2 4.5

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 4.8 4.2 4.4 3.9

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 4.9 4.3 4.6 4.8

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 5.1 4.6 3.2 5.0

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 5.6 5.4 4.6 3.6

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 6.7 6.1 3.3 4.2

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡‡

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 5.4 4.7 7.4 4.6

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 5.6 4.4 4.4 4.1

Lower middle 5.6 5.0 4.6 4.5

Higher middle 4.9 4.3 5.1 4.6

High 4.8 4.3 4.6 3.9

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 5.1 5.0 4.5 3.8

Lower middle 5.1 4.2 4.4 4.1

Higher middle 5.2 4.3 5.7 4.9

High 5.3 4.6 4.2 4.3

See notes at end of table.

Table 11. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected

Table 11. institutional characteristics: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic years

Table 11. 1999–2000 to 2001–02
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

30 

4 and 6.28 Nonetheless, in some cases index values differed according to specific institutional 

characteristics. Focusing on net prices, certain groups of institutions had index values that were 

lower than the values for all private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, including: Masters 

Colleges and Universities, and Baccalaureate Colleges—General; moderately and minimally 

 

28 The exceptions were Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive; Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts (for price of 

attendance); Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges; institutions in New England (price of attendance only); and 

institutions in the Southwest. 

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendance

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 5.4 4.6 3.4 3.6

Lower middle 5.6 5.1 5.2 5.0

Higher middle 5.2 4.6 5.4 5.2

High 4.9 4.0 4.8 4.3

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 4.6 4.3 7.1 6.0

Lower middle 5.5 4.6 3.9 3.4

Higher middle 5.4 5.0 3.9 3.9

High 5.3 4.2 3.1 3.1

Tuition and fees 2001–02

Low 5.6 5.2 7.3 6.0

Lower middle 5.6 5.0 4.3 3.8

Higher middle 5.6 4.7 2.9 3.0

High 4.4 4.0 5.5 5.1

NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the 

rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Therefore, an institution that raises its price over this period at the 

rate of inflation would have an index value of 0. Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal 

grants, and percentage first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile 

ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle = 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. 

Selectivity is derived from a combination of the percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year 

institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been 

classified. See methodology for details. 

† Not applicable.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

Table 11. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected

Table 11. institutional characteristics: Private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, academic years

Table 11. 1999–2000 to 2001–02—Continued

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.
Private Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions 

31 

selective institutions; institutions with a low proportion of full-time freshmen who were not 

White; institutions in all but the lowest category of the proportion for students receiving federal 

grants; and institutions in the middle tuition categories.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
33 

Public 2-Year Institutions 

This section examines prices and aid for the public 2-year sector. It describes the median 

price of attendance, patterns of financial aid, and net prices (in current dollars) over the 3-year 

period, as well as the changes over time. As for public 4-year institutions, tuition and fee levels at 

public 2-year institutions are usually set in coordination with state and/or local agencies and may 

vary with state and local appropriations. 

Table 12 presents each of the components of price of attendance (sticker price) over the 3 

years between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. In 2001–02, median tuition and fees were $1,679, 

Components of price 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Tuition and fees 1 $1,433 $1,530 $1,679

In-district 1,303 1,397 1,500

In-state 1,380 1,474 1,628

Out-of-state 3,838 3,989 4,316

Books and supplies 680 700 783

Housing expense 2 4,431 4,461 4,707

On campus 4,806 5,053 5,246

Off campus 7,155 7,265 7,682

Living with parents 2,385 2,400 2,548

Price of attendance 3 6,667 6,860 7,184

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Collection Years 2000 to 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

1 Median tuition and fees is a composite variable that takes into account the percentage distribution of students by residency 

status. See methodology for details. On the other hand, the individual categories for in-district, in-state, and out-of-state tuition and 

fees reflect data only for institutions for which the category is relevant.

2 Median housing expense is a composite variable that takes into account the percentage distribution of students by housing 

status. See methodology for details. The individual categories for on campus, off campus, and living with parents reflect data for 

institutions for which the category is relevant.

3

 Median price of attendance is a composite variable that takes into account all three components of price and adjusts for the 

distribution of students by housing and residency status. See methodology for details.

Table 12. Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of attendance for

Table 12. academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 

NOTE: Note that the data for books and supplies and housing expenses are estimates, often based on estimates of student 

budgets by financial aid offices.

Table 12. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 2-year institutions,
Public 2-Year Institutions 

34 

with out-of-state tuition and fee charges two to three times higher than charges for in-state or indistrict residence. Public 2-year institutions had a median of $783 for estimated books and 

supplies in 2001–02, while housing expenses were $4,707. Although the median values of each 

of the components increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02, the increase was meaningful only 

in the case of off-campus housing expenses. The median price of attendance for public 2-year 

institutions increased from $6,667 in 1999–2000 to $7,184 in 2001–02. 

Over this period, different types of financial aid at public 2-year institutions exhibited 

varying percentages of students receiving aid and average amounts (table 13). A median of 39 

percent of full-time freshmen received federal grants in 2001–02, receiving an average amount of 

$2,579. For those who received federal grants, the median amount increased over the 3-year 

Type of aid 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Type of aid

Federal grants 35 36 39

State grants 24 26 27

Institutional grants 9 9 9

Loans 7 7 7

Type of aid

Federal grants $2,064 $2,267 $2,579

State grants 730 820 868

Institutional grants 660 703 735

Loans 2,002 1,975 2,050

Type of aid

Total aid $1,264 $1,419 $1,616

Total grants 1,013 1,170 1,330

Table 13. Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking

Table 13. institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table 13. undergraduates receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Public 2-year

1 Percentages receiving aid and average amounts received were calculated across all institutions, including those that did not 

report a specific category of aid (i.e., the data include zeros). Average amounts were bounded.

2 Composite variables reflect the percentage receiving multiplied by the average amount, i.e., amount of aid for those who 

received aid; see methodology for details.

Percentage receiving 1

Average amount received, current dollars 1

Composite aid amounts, in current dollars 2 
Public 2-Year Institutions 

35 

period. A median of 27 percent of full-time freshmen received state grants. The median percent 

receiving for institutional grants and loans were lower, at 9 and 7 percent, respectively. The 

median value of total aid and total grants (across all first-time freshmen, including nonrecipients) 

at public 2-year institutions increased, but not meaningfully. 

At public 2-year institutions, median dollar changes29 in price of attendance were higher 

than the median dollar changes in total aid and total grants—a $509 increase in median price of 

attendance over the 3-year period, compared to $285 for total aid and $271 for total grants (table 

14). Median percentage changes in aid over the 3-year period were higher than median 

 

29 Changes were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the 

aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median dollar change over the same period. 

Price of 

attendance Total aid Total grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Academic year

1999–2000 $6,667 $1,264 $1,013 $5,260 $5,623

2000–2001 6,860 1,419 1,170 5,249 5,646

2001–2002 7,184 1,616 1,330 5,439 5,831

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $170 $97 $107 $89 $87

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 284 178 157 133 152

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 509 285 271 223 236

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 2.6 7.7 10.1 1.6 1.5

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 4.1 12.5 13.6 2.5 2.7

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 7.6 21.8 25.3 4.3 4.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table 14. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 14. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Public 2-year institutions,

Table 14. academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Aid amounts are composite variables derived from the percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount 

received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were calculated at an institutional level, 

and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the 

same as the median dollar change over the same period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and 

then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero value for financial aid in the base year. In these cases, the 

percentage change in total aid or total grants was left blank for the calculation.

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change
Public 2-Year Institutions 

36 

percentage change in price of attendance: a median of 25 percent increase for total grants and 22 

percent increase for total aid, compared to a median of 8 percent increase for price of attendance. 

With the impact of changes in sticker prices and financial aid at public 2-year institutions, 

the median values for both types of net prices increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 in 

current dollars; however, meaningful differences were not detected. Further, the median dollar 

changes in both net price (all aid) and net price (grants) over the 3-year period were lower than 

the median dollar change in price of attendance, and the median percentage changes in both types 

of net price were lower than the median percentage change in price of attendance. In fact, the 

percentage changes in net price (all aid) and net price (grants) were lower than the rate of 

inflation over this period (5 percent). Increases in financial aid at public 2-year institutions made 

it possible for net prices to increase at a slower rate than sticker prices, and than inflation. At the 

same time, the median percentage changes in price of attendance, aid, and net prices were higher 

during the period 2000–01 to 2001–02 than in the previous period, 1999–2000 to 2000–01. 

The median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, and net prices for full-time freshmen 

at public 2-year institutions in 2001–02 differed according to various institutional characteristics 

(table 15). For example: 

• Public 2-year institutions with a low proportion of full-time freshmen receiving federal 

grants had higher median net prices (all aid) and net prices (grants)—but lower median 

amounts of total aid and total grants—than their counterparts with a high proportion of 

these students. 

• Public 2-year institutions with high enrollment sizes had higher median net prices (all 

aid) and net prices (grants) than those with low enrollment, and lower median amounts 

of total aid and total grants. 

• Among public 2-year institutions, median net price (all aid) was higher for institutions 

with a low proportion of undergraduates who were full-time freshmen, and median 

total aid was lower. 

The price indices help pull all of these patterns in price and aid together into one measure, 

which takes into account inflation during the 3-year period (table 16). For all public 2-year 

institutions, the difference between the rate of change in prices overall (inflation) and the rate of 

change in college prices varied depending upon the type of price measured. The median index 

value for tuition and fees, 4, was twice as high as the median index value for price of attendance, 

2. At the same time, the median index values for net price (all aid) and net price (grants) were 

negative, reflecting the fact that institutions either increased their net prices slower than the rate 

of inflation, or decreased their net prices. 
Public 2-Year Institutions 

37 

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aid

Total

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total $7,184 $1,616 $1,330 $5,439 $5,831

Revised Carnegie classification 1

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 7,184 1,611 1,328 5,442 5,834

Specialized institutions ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 8,118 1,405 1,207 6,143 6,501

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 7,485 1,748 1,193 5,660 6,089

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 7,541 1,912 1,453 5,657 6,122

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 7,505 2,554 1,484 4,861 6,261

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, 

MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 6,723 1,485 1,368 5,193 5,381

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 6,401 1,680 1,420 4,574 4,780

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡‡‡

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 7,169 1,207 1,093 5,938 6,144

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 7,202 1,382 1,161 5,890 6,048

Lower middle 7,178 1,493 1,277 5,578 5,934

Higher middle 7,065 1,706 1,417 5,164 5,635

High 7,266 2,081 1,558 4,830 5,650

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 6,955 1,973 1,621 4,902 5,335

Lower middle 7,022 1,941 1,522 4,967 5,470

Higher middle 7,349 1,468 1,200 5,736 6,122

High 7,292 1,320 1,051 5,943 6,106

See notes at end of table.

Table 15. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 15. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional 

Table 15. characteristics: Public 2-year institutions, academic year 2001–02
Public 2-Year Institutions 

38 

Different groups of public 2-year institutions showed some differences in index values. 

Institutions in the Mid East and Great Lakes regions had negative median tuition and fees index 

values, and institutions in the Mid East had a negative index value for price of attendance as 

well. For other groups of institutions, index values for price of attendance and tuition and fees 

were positive, indicating that sticker prices had been raised above the rate of inflation. Certain 

groups of public 2-year institutions had median price of attendance index values that were 

relatively high (i.e., higher than the index value for all public 2-year institutions). These groups 

included institutions in the Plains and Southeast regions, institutions with high proportions of 

students who were full-time freshmen, and institutions with low enrollment sizes. 

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aid

Total 

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low $7,290 $2,026 $1,447 $5,038 $5,929

Lower middle 7,328 1,572 1,190 5,567 5,992

Higher middle 6,961 1,461 1,284 5,576 5,804

High 7,172 1,530 1,451 5,598 5,713

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 7,379 853 756 6,392 6,574

Lower middle 7,325 1,513 1,200 5,696 5,998

Higher middle 6,925 1,943 1,577 4,909 5,286

High 7,144 2,397 2,073 4,439 4,865

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state)

Low 6,831 1,231 1,175 5,593 5,668

Lower middle 6,410 1,582 1,361 4,909 5,161

Higher middle 7,344 1,618 1,337 5,602 5,988

High 8,050 2,361 1,468 5,773 6,467

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2002.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

NOTE: Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle

= 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the 

percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification

uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been classified. Selectivity is not shown because it was 

calculated only for 4-year institutions. See methodology for details. 

1

 All public 2-year institutions fall into one of the two categories presented.

Table 15. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 15. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional 

Table 15. characteristics: Public 2-year institutions, academic year 2001–02—Continued
Public 2-Year Institutions 

39 

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendance

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total 4.4 2.2 -1.1 -1.3

Revised Carnegie classification 1

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 4.5 2.2 -1.1 -1.3

Specialized institutions ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 2.5 2.1 1.0 -1.3

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) -1.0 -2.6 -5.3 -4.5

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) -0.8 1.0 -4.6 -2.9

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 8.1 3.9 -1.9 -0.4

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, 

MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 10.0 3.5 1.3 0.5

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 6.6 2.3 -2.4 -1.8

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡‡

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 2.1 2.1 0.0 -0.3

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 2.9 2.0 -2.0 -1.7

Lower middle 4.2 1.7 -1.0 -1.8

Higher middle 5.8 3.0 -1.6 -1.2

High 4.7 3.0 1.1 -0.3

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 4.6 3.1 1.0 -1.2

Lower middle 6.5 3.0 -2.1 -2.1

Higher middle 4.8 1.8 -1.3 -1.1

High 2.2 1.4 -1.6 -1.1

See notes at end of table.

Table 16. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected 

Table 16. characteristics: Public 2-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02
Public 2-Year Institutions 

40 

Most groups of public 2-year institutions had median net price index values that were close 

to zero or even negative. Groups with the lowest median net price index values were institutions 

in the Mid East and Great Lakes, and those with a high proportion of full-time freshmen 

receiving federal grants. 

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendance

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 4.4 1.9 -0.5 -1.2

Lower middle 4.8 2.1 -0.3 -1.1

Higher middle 4.1 2.1 -1.1 -1.4

High 3.7 2.7 -2.0 -2.0

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 3.3 2.3 2.3 2.0

Lower middle 5.3 2.1 -1.4 -1.1

Higher middle 4.8 2.1 -3.2 -2.7

High 4.7 2.5 -7.7 -6.3

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low 1.9 2.4 -1.3 -2.1

Lower middle 9.2 3.8 0.5 -0.2

Higher middle 4.7 1.7 -2.3 -1.4

High 3.6 1.5 0.5 -1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the 

rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Therefore, an institution that raises its price over this period at the 

rate of inflation would have an index value of 0. Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal 

grants, and percentage first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile 

ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle = 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. 

Selectivity is derived from a combination of the percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year 

institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been 

classified. Selectivity is not shown because it was calculated only for 4-year institutions. See methodology for details. 

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

1

 All public 2-year institutions fall into one of the two categories presented.

Table 16. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected 

Table 16. characteristics: Public 2-year institutions, academic years 1999–2000 to 2001–02—Continued
41 

Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

This section examines median price of attendance, patterns of financial aid, and net prices 

for private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. 

In 2001–02, median tuition and fees were $7,770, median books and supplies were $550, 

and median housing expenses were $5,875 (table 17). Median tuition and fees in 2001–02 were 

higher than in 1999–2000 (differences in the other components were not meaningful). In 

addition, the median price of attendance for private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions 

increased from $13,020 in 1999–2000 to $14,514 in 2001–02. 

1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Tuition and fees $6,900 $7,200 $7,770

Books and supplies 525 525 550

Housing expense 1 5,568 5,532 5,875

On campus 6,421 6,405 6,704

Off campus 7,413 7,384 7,829

Living with parents 2,683 2,635 2,819

Price of attendance 2 13,020 13,653 14,514

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Collection Years 2000 to 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

1

 Median housing expense is a composite variable that takes into account the percentage distribution of students by housing 

status. See methodology for details. The individual categories for on campus, off campus, and living with parents reflect data for 

institutions for which the category is relevant.

2

 Median price of attendance is a composite variable that takes into account all three components of price and adjusts for the 

distribution of students by housing and residency status. See methodology for details.

Table 17. Median tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing expenses, and price of attendance for

Table 17. institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 

NOTE: Price of attendance data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters, program year for 

program year reporters. See methodology for details. Note that the data for books and supplies and housing expenses are 

estimates, often based on estimates of student budgets by financial aid offices.

Table 17. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year
Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

42 

At private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, a median of 67 percent of full-time 

freshmen received loans in 2001–02, receiving an average amount of $3,352 (table 18). A 

median percentage of 66 percent of full-time freshmen received federal grants, with an average 

amount of $2,543. The median values for state and institutional grants were zero, as less than 

half of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions reported that first-time freshmen received 

these grants.30 Across all first-time freshmen, including nonrecipients, the median total aid at 

private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions increased from $3,369 in 1999–2000 to $4,007 in 2001–

02. The median value of total grants was $1,783 in 2001–02. 

 

30 Less than 40 percent of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions reported any full-time freshmen receiving state or 

institutional grants in 2001–02. 

Type of aid 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Type of aid

Federal grants 63 64 66

State grants # # #

Institutional grants # # #

Loans 62 64 67

Type of aid

Federal grants $2,097 $2,291 $2,543

State grants # # #

Institutional grants # # #

Loans 3,019 3,245 3,352

Type of aid

Total aid $3,369 $3,630 $4,007

Total grants 1,434 1,557 1,783

Table 18. Median values of the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking

Table 18. less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02

# Rounds to zero.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table 18. undergraduates receiving financial aid, and average amounts received: Private for-profit,

1 Percentages receiving aid and average amounts received were calculated across all institutions, including those that did not 

report a specific category of aid (i.e., the data include zeros). Average amounts were bounded.

2 Composite variables reflect the percentage receiving multiplied by the average amount, i.e., amount of aid for those who 

received aid; see methodology for details.

Percentage receiving aid 1

Average amount received, current dollars 1

Composite aid amounts, in current dollars 2 

NOTE: Aid data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters, program year for program year 

reporters. See methodology for details.
Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

43 

Dollar changes in price of attendance31 were higher than dollar changes in total aid and 

total grants—a $1,307 median increase in price of attendance between 1999–2000 and 2001–02, 

compared to a median of $574 for total aid and $355 for total grants (table 19). The median 

percentage changes in total aid and total grants over the 3-year period—an 18 percent increase 

and a 23 percent increase, respectively—were higher than the median percentage change in price 

of attendance, a 10 percent increase. All of these percentage increases were higher than the rate 

of inflation at 5 percent. 

 

31 Changes were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the 

aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median dollar change over the same period. 

Price of 

attendance Total aid Total grants

Net price

 (all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Year 1

1999–2000 $13,020 $3,369 $1,434 $9,776 $11,521

2000–2001 13,653 3,630 1,557 9,982 11,961

2001–2002 14,514 4,007 1,783 10,487 12,581

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $496 $217 $105 $244 $412

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 725 301 218 465 529

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 1,307 574 355 764 1,020

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 3.7 6.8 6.9 2.4 3.5

2000–2001 to 2001–2002 5.2 7.9 13.2 4.5 4.1

1999–2000 to 2001–2002 9.9 18.4 22.7 8.0 8.6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table 19. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 19. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year

Table 19. institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Aid amounts are composite variables derived from the percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount 

received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were calculated at an institutional level, 

and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the 

same as the median dollar change over the same period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and 

then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero value for financial aid in the base year. In these cases, the 

percentage change in total aid or total grants was left blank for the calculation.

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change

1

 Academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters, program year for program year reporters. See methodology for

details.
Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

44 

The changes in price of attendance and in financial aid were reflected in changes in the 

median net prices of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions. Median net price (all aid) 

increased from $9,776 in 1999–2000 to $10,487 in 2001–02; median net price (grants) increased 

from $11,521 to $12,581. Over the 3-year period, median dollar changes and percentage changes 

in both types of net price were lower than the median changes in price of attendance. In other 

words, net price (all aid) and net price (grants) increased at a slower rate than did sticker price. 

As was true for other sectors, the median percentage changes in price of attendance, aid, and net 

price were higher during the period 2000–01 to 2001–02 than in the previous period, 1999–2000 

to 2000–01. 

The median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, and net prices for full-time freshmen 

in 2001–02 differed for various groups of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions (table 

20). 

• Institutions with high enrollment sizes had higher median prices of attendance, net 

prices (all aid), and net prices (grants) than those with low enrollment. They also had 

higher median amounts of total aid, but not total grants—likely reflecting higher loan 

amounts. 

• As would be expected, private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions with a high 

proportion of full-time freshmen receiving federal grants had higher median aid 

amounts than institutions with a low proportion. In addition, these institutions had 

lower median net price (all aid) and net price (grants). 

• Institutions with high tuition had higher net prices (all aid) and net prices (grants) than 

their counterparts with low tuition. They also had higher median amounts of total aid, 

likely reflecting higher loan amounts. 

Table 21 takes inflation into account. The table shows price indices for private for-profit, 

less-than-4-year institutions, where groups of institutions with index values close to zero 

increased their prices at about the rate of inflation. 

For all private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, the median index value for tuition 

and fees was higher than the median value for price of attendance; institutions raised their tuition 

and fees by a median of almost 7 percentage points higher than the rate of inflation over 3 years, 

compared to about 5 percentage points for price of attendance. The median index values for net 

price (all aid) and net price (grants) were even lower at around 3. 

None of the groups of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions had median index 

values for tuition and fees or price of attendance that were negative or close to zero. Rather, 

index values were positive, indicating that sticker prices had been raised above the rate of 

inflation. Certain groups had median price of attendance index values that were relatively high 
Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

45 

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aid

Total 

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total 1 $14,514 $4,007 $1,783 $10,487 $12,581

Revised Carnegie classification 2

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 16,685 5,338 1,865 11,356 14,439

Non-degree-granting institutions 13,897 3,686 1,757 10,115 11,987

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 16,488 4,197 1,509 11,751 14,652

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 15,455 4,441 1,917 10,955 13,452

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 13,870 3,729 1,720 10,620 12,188

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 14,671 4,730 1,766 10,193 12,991

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, 13,571 3,750 1,886 9,665 11,512

MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV)

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 13,840 4,066 1,804 9,593 11,634

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) 14,212 3,646 1,372 9,870 12,891

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 15,207 3,818 1,681 11,431 13,329

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 14,750 4,195 1,776 10,831 12,776

Lower middle 15,164 4,339 1,876 10,625 13,028

Higher middle 13,799 3,751 1,801 10,197 11,786

High 14,281 3,748 1,725 10,261 12,496

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 12,972 3,230 1,810 9,660 11,071

Lower middle 13,975 3,739 1,811 10,163 11,983

Higher middle 15,400 4,674 1,853 10,707 13,203

High 16,589 4,888 1,698 11,481 14,419

See notes at end of table.

Table 20. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 20. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional 

Table 20. characteristics: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 2001–02
Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

46 

(i.e., higher than the index value for all private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions), including 

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges, institutions in the Plains, Southeast, and 

Rocky Mountains regions, and institutions with high tuition and fees. 

On the other hand, some groups of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions had 

median net price index values that were close to zero or even negative. Groups with the lowest 

median net price (all aid) index values were institutions in the Mid East and Southwest, 

institutions in the lower middle category of percentage students who were full-time freshmen, 

institutions with a high proportion of full-time freshmen receiving federal grants, and institutions 

Institutional characteristics

Price of 

attendance Total aid

Total 

grants

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low $14,180 $3,907 $1,655 $10,585 $12,585

Lower middle 14,504 3,919 1,607 10,373 12,742

Higher middle 15,047 4,313 1,792 10,678 13,161

High 14,123 3,951 2,166 10,319 11,822

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 14,780 2,897 910 11,980 13,858

Lower middle 15,251 4,138 1,628 10,991 13,576

Higher middle 14,511 4,283 2,022 9,999 12,165

High 13,640 4,548 2,640 8,985 10,956

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low 11,964 2,805 1,789 8,612 9,728

Lower middle 13,495 3,760 1,956 9,658 11,515

Higher middle 15,387 4,462 1,817 10,960 13,379

High 19,333 5,242 1,552 14,340 17,381

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2002.

NOTE: Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle

= 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the 

percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification

uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been classified. Selectivity is not shown because it was 

calculated only for 4-year institutions. See methodology for details. 

2 All private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions fall into one of the two categories presented.

1 Data are by academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters, program year for program year reporters. See 

methodology for details.

Table 20. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for 

Table 20. first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, by selected institutional 

Table 20. characteristics: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 2001–02—Continued
Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

47 

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendance

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Total 1 7.0 4.6 2.6 3.2

Revised Carnegie classification 2

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges 8.8 5.9 4.6 4.3

Non-degree-granting institutions 6.8 4.1 2.1 2.8

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 4.2 4.3 3.2 4.8

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 5.7 3.8 0.4 2.0

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 5.8 4.4 3.2 2.8

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 8.4 5.4 5.8 4.2

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) 9.7 5.9 3.7 3.9

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 7.1 4.4 0.6 2.8

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) 9.3 8.7 1.9 6.5

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 7.2 3.9 3.4 3.6

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 6.3 4.6 3.8 2.9

Lower middle 7.0 4.8 0.4 2.9

Higher middle 9.3 4.4 2.1 4.1

High 6.9 4.4 3.3 3.4

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 7.6 4.1 1.7 2.6

Lower middle 7.6 4.8 2.4 3.1

Higher middle 6.3 4.6 5.8 3.4

High 7.2 4.9 2.0 3.4

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 7.4 4.6 4.3 3.5

Lower middle 6.8 4.5 2.1 2.9

Higher middle 6.9 4.6 2.7 3.6

High 7.4 4.2 1.6 2.5

See notes at end of table.

Table 21. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected 

Table 21. characteristics: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02
Private For-Profit, Less-Than-4-Year Institutions 

48 

in the higher middle category of tuition and fees. Other groups of private for-profit, less-than-4-

year institutions had median index value for net price (all aid) and net price (grants) that were 

higher than their counterparts: for example, institutions with a low proportion of full-time 

freshmen receiving federal grants (compared to those with higher proportions), and institutions 

with higher tuition (compared to those with low tuition). 

Institutional characteristics

Tuition and 

fees

Price of 

attendance

Net price 

(all aid)

Net price 

(grants)

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low 7.2 4.3 5.5 5.8

Lower middle 6.9 4.6 3.3 3.4

Higher middle 6.6 4.9 2.1 3.0

High 7.1 4.2 -0.4 0.7

Tuition and fees 2001–02 

Low 5.2 2.9 1.3 1.1

Lower middle 6.8 4.4 3.2 3.2

Higher middle 7.6 4.2 -1.0 0.8

High 9.2 6.4 6.8 6.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the 

rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Therefore, an institution that raises its price over this period at the 

rate of inflation would have an index value of 0. Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal 

grants, and percentage first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile 

ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle = 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. 

Selectivity is derived from a combination of the percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year 

institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been 

classified. Selectivity is not shown because it was calculated only for 4-year institutions. See methodology for details. 

1 Data are by academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters, program year for program year reporters. See 

methodology for details.

2 All private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions fall into one of the two categories presented.

Table 21. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by selected 

Table 21. characteristics: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 1999–2000 to 2001–02—Continued
49 

Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

This report has examined prices, financial aid, and net prices over the period 1999–2000 to 

2001–02. These patterns were examined with colleges and universities as the units of analysis, 

and reflect the individual circumstances of each institution. It was therefore important to take into 

account the type of institution, including the level and control, the types of students served, the 

location, the selectivity, and other characteristics. Given the increases in both prices and financial 

aid over this period, it also was essential to measure how these variables have changed over time. 

The four institutional sectors studied in this report—public 4-year; public 2-year; private 

not-for-profit, 4-year; and for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions—face different circumstances 

that impact their patterns of prices, financial aid, and net prices. These differences relate to the 

roles, missions, governance, and student bodies of these institutions, and reflect such 

considerations as the proportion of students who attend schools in state, the amount of 

appropriations provided to public institutions by states, the way tuition levels are set by 

governing bodies or other agencies, the income distribution or attendance patterns of an 

institution’s students, and other factors. Therefore, the analysis was conducted separately for each 

of the four sectors under review. 

The analysis examined each of the components of price of attendance (tuition and fees, 

books and supplies, housing expenses), as well as several types of financial aid (federal grants, 

state grants, institutional grants, and loans). However, price of attendance and financial aid 

patterns interact in important ways. In order to capture this interaction, net prices were 

constructed, which measure the median price institutions charge after taking financial aid 

received by students into account. Within an institution, not all students are charged the median 

net price—in fact, half of them are charged more, and half of them are charged less—and for 

students who do not receive aid, the net price is the same as the sticker price. Nonetheless, 

median net prices can reflect all factors influencing both prices and financial aid at an 

institutional level. 

To further explore these issues over time and to take into account inflation during this 

period, indices of changes in three different types of prices—tuition, price of attendance, and net 

price—were developed for this report. The indices make it clear that trends in various types of 

prices over time are quite different depending on the sector under consideration. 
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

50 

The analysis found many similarities across sectors in how prices, aid, and net prices 

changed during the period under review. For example, for public 4-year institutions, private notfor-profit, 4-year institutions, and private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, the median 

price of attendance for full-time freshmen increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. The 

median value of total aid also increased during this time,32 and median aid amounts increased at a 

faster rate than did median price of attendance.33 Further, both sticker prices and aid increased at 

a faster rate than inflation over this period. 

Given increases in both sticker prices and financial aid, net price calculations allow a better 

understanding of the prices postsecondary institutions actually charge to students. The analysis 

demonstrated that in these sectors, the median value of net price (all aid) and net price (grants) 

increased between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. However, in most cases, the median percentage 

changes were lower than the median percentage change in price of attendance.34 In other words, 

as a result of financial aid, net prices did not rise as rapidly as price of attendance. It is important 

to keep in mind that the net price variables calculated for this report do not include all types and 

sources of financial aid to full-time freshmen (for example, work-study funds are not included), 

and might actually be lower. 

The public 2-year sector exhibited slightly different patterns in price, aid, and net price over 

this period. The median price of attendance for full-time freshmen increased between 1999–2000 

and 2001–02, but median aid amounts increased at a faster rate than did median price of 

attendance. However, the changes in the median value of net prices for public 2-year institutions 

were not meaningful. Net prices not only increased at a slower rate than did sticker prices, but 

they also increased at a slower rate than inflation. 

By using the price indices as a mechanism for comparing changes in tuition and fees, price 

of attendance, and net price over time (as well as comparing these changes to the rate of inflation 

over the period under review) the analysis confirmed that examining different types of prices and 

net prices may lead to different conclusions (figure 1). In all institutional sectors, increases in 

median tuition and fee levels tended to be greater than increases in median price of attendance. 

For example, public 4-year institutions raised their tuition and fees by a median of almost 7 

percentage points higher than the rate of inflation over 3 years, but raised their price of 

attendance by less (a median of 5 percentage points higher than inflation). 

 

32 The difference in the total grant amount between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 was meaningful for private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions, but not meaningful for public 4-year institutions or for private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions. 

33 An exception is the median percentage change in total aid for private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions. 

34 For private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, the differences were not meaningful. 
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

51 

Furthermore, increases in price of attendance tended to be greater than increases in net 

prices. In most sectors, median net prices increased at a slower rate than did sticker prices over 

the 3-year period reviewed in this report. For example, for private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

institutions, the median index value for price of attendance was about 5, compared to a median 

value of 3 for net price (all aid) and net price (grants). In the public 2-year sector, net prices 

increased at a slower rate than inflation or even decreased. This is consistent with a previous 

NCES report (Horn, Wei, and Berker 2002), which found that generally net prices did not 

Figure 1.—Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by sector:

Figure 1.—1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the 

rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Therefore, an institution that raises its price over this period at the 

rate of inflation would have an index value of 0. Data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters 

(including all public 4-year, private not-for-profit, 4-year, and public 2-year institutions), and program year for program year 

reporters. See methodology for details.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

6.8

5.2

4.4

7.0

4.5 4.6

2.2

4.5

3.3

4.8

2.6 2.8

4.4

3.2

-1.1 -1.3

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Public 4-year Private not-for-profit, 

4-year

Public 2-year Private for-profit, lessthan-4-year

Index

Tuition and fees Price of attendance Net price (all aid) Net price (grants)
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

52 

increase as rapidly as total prices in the 1990s, and in fact net prices did not increase at all for 

some groups of students.35 

Finally, there are several common findings across sectors with regard to the variation in 

prices, aid, and net prices according to certain institutional characteristics. To illustrate this 

variation, one might focus on net price (all aid), which takes into account loans as well as grants, 

thereby capturing the net price students face when enrolling—but not taking into account the fact 

that loans must be repaid. In 2001–02, certain types of institutions had median net price (all aid) 

amounts that were lower (or higher) than the median value for all institutions in the sector in that 

year (table 22): 

• Across sectors, institutions with high enrollment had higher median net prices (all aid) 

than the median for all institutions, while institutions with low enrollment had lower 

median net prices (all aid). 

• Institutions with a low proportion of full-time freshmen receiving federal aid had 

higher median net prices (all aid) than the median for all institutions, while institutions 

with a high proportion had lower median net prices (all aid). 

• Institutions with high tuition had higher median net prices (all aid) than the median for 

all institutions (with the exception of public 2-year institutions). 

• Among 4-year institutions, those that were very selective had higher median net prices 

(all aid) than the median for all institutions. In addition, Doctoral/Research 

Universities—Extensive had higher median net prices (all aid) than the median for all 

institutions. 

When taking into account inflation over the 3 years, some of these differences were 

reflected in the values of net price indices for various groups of institutions, while other 

differences were not. For example, table 23 shows the median index values for net price (all aid) 

for groups of institutions with specific characteristics in comparison to the median index value 

for all institutions in each sector (unlike the previous table, which compared median dollar 

amounts for net price (all aid). The following comparisons were found: 

• Across sectors, institutions with a low proportion of full-time freshmen receiving 

federal grants had higher median index values for net prices (all aid) than the median 

for all institutions in the sector, while institutions with a high proportion of full-time 

freshmen receiving federal grants had lower median values. 

 

35 Note that the report had a quite different methodology, including using students as the unit of analysis. 
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

53 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive + + † †

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 0 + † †

Masters Colleges and Universities 00††

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts ‡ + † †

Baccalaureate Colleges—General ––††

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges – – 0 +

Specialized institutions ‡ – ‡ †

Non-degree-granting institutions †††0

Selectivity

Very selective + + † †

Moderately selective 0–††

Minimally selective – – † †

Open admission ––††

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 0 + + +

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 0 + 0 0

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 0 0 0 0

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) – – – 0

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) ––0–

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) – – – –

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡–

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) + + 0 +

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low 0 – 0 0

Lower middle 0 0 0 0

Higher middle 0 + 0 0

High + 0 – 0

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low – – – –

Lower middle 0 – 0 0

Higher middle 0 + 0 0

High + + + +

Table 22. Comparison between median dollar amounts for net price (all aid) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 22. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02

See notes at end of table.
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

54 

• Institutions with high tuition had higher median index values for net prices (all aid) 

than the median for all institutions in that sector. In addition, public 4-year institutions 

with low tuition had a lower median index value for net prices. 

• In both sectors of 4-year institutions, Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive had 

higher median index values for net prices (all aid) than the median for all institutions 

in the sector, while Doctoral/Research—Intensive and Master’s Colleges and 

Universities had lower median index values. 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 0 – 0 0

Lower middle 0 0 0 0

Higher middle 0000

High 0 + 0 0

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low + + + +

Lower middle 0 0 0 +

Higher middle 0––0

High – – – –

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low – – 0 –

Lower middle – – – –

Higher middle 0000

High + + 0 +

† Not applicable.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

Table 22. Comparison between median dollar amounts for net price (all aid) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 22. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02—Continued

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

+ Signifies that the median amount is higher than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

0 Signifies that the median amount is not different from the median value for all institutions in a sector (i.e., within plus or minus 

$500).

– Signifies that the median amount is lower than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

NOTE: Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle

= 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the 

percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification

uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been classified. See methodology for details. 
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

55 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive + + † †

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive – – † †

Masters Colleges and Universities ––††

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts ‡ + † †

Baccalaureate Colleges—General 0–††

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges – + 0 +

Specialized institutions ‡ – ‡ †

Non-degree-granting institutions †††–

Selectivity

Very selective 0 + † †

Moderately selective 0–††

Minimally selective – – † †

Open admission – + † †

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) + – + +

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) – 0 – –

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) + 0 – +

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 0 – – +

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) + 0 + +

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 0 – – –

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡–

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) – + + +

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low – 0 – +

Lower middle – 0 0 –

Higher middle 00––

High + 0 + +

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low – 0 + –

Lower middle 0 0 – 0

Higher middle 0 + 0 +

High + – – –

Table 23. Comparison between median index values for net price (all aid) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 23. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02

See notes at end of table.
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

56 

• For private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, those that were very selective had higher 

median index values for net prices (all aid) than the median for all institutions in that 

sector. However, the same difference was not meaningful for public 4-year institutions. 

• Among public 4-year and 2-year institutions, institutions with a high proportion of 

students who were full-time freshmen had higher median index values for net prices 

(all aid) than the median for all institutions in the sector, while institutions with a low 

proportion had lower median index values for net prices (all aid). 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low – – + +

Lower middle + 0 + –

Higher middle + + 0 0

High – 0 – –

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low + + + +

Lower middle + – 0 +

Higher middle ––––

High – – – –

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low – + 0 –

Lower middle – – + +

Higher middle + – – –

High + + + +

NOTE: The net price (all aid) index was calculated as the rate of change in net price (all aid) between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 

2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Categories for tuition, enrollment 

size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate were 

determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle = 25–49th centile; higher middle = 

50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the percent of applicants who were 

admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification uses highest degree offered to

redistribute institutions that had not been classified. See methodology for details. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

+ Signifies that the median index value is higher than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

0 Signifies that the median index value is not different from the median value for all institutions in a sector (i.e., within plus or 

minus .5 points).

– Signifies that the median index value is lower than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

† Not applicable.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

Table 23. Comparison between median index values for net price (all aid) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 23. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02—Continued
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

57 

• For public 4-year institutions, institutions with high enrollment had higher median 

index values for net prices (all aid) than the median for all institutions in that sector. 

However, the opposite was true for public 2-year institutions—institutions with low 

enrollment had higher median index values for net price (all aid). 

Also of note, several groups of institutions had median index values for net price (all aid) 

that were close to the rate of inflation, or even negative. In other words, for these groups of 

institutions, net prices increased at a slower rate than inflation over the 3-year period, or even 

decreased. These institutions included most types of public 2-year institutions; public 4-year 

institutions with a high percentage of full-time freshmen who received federal grants or who 

were not White; and private for-profit, less-than 4-year institutions with a high proportion of 

students receiving federal grants. 

Net price (grants) differs from net price (all aid) in that none of the grant aid needs to be 

repaid. Certain types of institutions had median net price (grants) dollar amounts that were higher 

than the median value for all institutions in the sector (see table 24), including: Doctoral/ 

Research Universities—Extensive, very selective 4-year institutions, institutions in all sectors 

with high tuition and fees, institutions in all sectors with a low percentage of first-time freshmen 

receiving federal grants, and institutions with high enrollment except public 2-year institutions). 

When taking inflation into account through the net price (grants) index values (table 25), 

institutions in all sectors with a low percentage of first-time freshmen receiving federal grants 

had median index values or net price (grants) that were higher than the median value for all 

institutions in that sector, as did institutions with high tuition and fees in all sectors except public 

2-year. Very selective private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions also had median index values for 

net price (grants) that were higher than the median value for all private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions. 
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

58 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive + + † †

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 0 + † †

Masters Colleges and Universities 00††

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts ‡ + † †

Baccalaureate Colleges—General ––††

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges – – 0 +

Specialized institutions ‡ – ‡ †

Non-degree-granting institutions †††–

Selectivity

Very selective + + † †

Moderately selective 00††

Minimally selective – – † †

Open admission 0–††

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) ++++

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) + + + +

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 0 0 0 0

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 0 – 0 0

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) ––0–

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) – – – –

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡‡‡0

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) + + 0 +

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low – – 0 0

Lower middle 0 0 0 0

Higher middle 0 + 0 –

High + 0 0 0

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low – – 0 –

Lower middle 0 – 0 –

Higher middle 0 + 0 +

High + + 0 +

Table 24. Comparison between median dollar amounts for net price (grants) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 24. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02

See notes at end of table.
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

59 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 0 – 0 0

Lower middle + 0 0 +

Higher middle 0 0 0 +

High – + 0 –

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low + + + +

Lower middle + 0 0 +

Higher middle 0––0

High – – – –

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low – – 0 –

Lower middle – – – –

Higher middle 0 + 0 +

High + + + +

† Not applicable.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

Table 24. Comparison between median dollar amounts for net price (grants) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 24. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02—Continued

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

+ Signifies that the median amount is higher than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

0 Signifies that the median amount is not different from the median value for all institutions in a sector (i.e., within plus or minus 

$500).

– Signifies that the median amount is lower than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

NOTE: Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle

= 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the 

percent of applicants who were admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification

uses highest degree offered to redistribute institutions that had not been classified. See methodology for details. 
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

60 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Revised Carnegie classification

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive + + † †

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive – 0 † †

Masters Colleges and Universities 0–††

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts ‡0††

Baccalaureate Colleges—General + 0 † †

Associates and Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges – + – +

Specialized institutions ‡ 0 ‡ †

Non-degree-granting institutions †††0

Selectivity

Very selective – + † †

Moderately selective 0–††

Minimally selective – – † †

Open admission – + † †

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) region codes

New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) – 0 – +

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) – – – –

Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) + + – 0

Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) + + 0 +

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) + – – +

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) – 0 – 0

Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) ‡ ‡ ‡ +

Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) – 0 0 0

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time,

 full-time, deg/certif-seeking, 2001–02

Low – 0 – 0

Lower middle – 0 – 0

Higher middle 0 0 – +

High + 0 0 0

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 0 0 – –

Lower middle 0 0 – 0

Higher middle 0 + – 0

High 0 0 – 0

Table 25. Comparison between median index values for net price (grants) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 25. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02

See notes at end of table.
Prices and Aid: Conclusions 

61 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-forprofit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 0 – – 0

Lower middle + + – 0

Higher middle 0 + – 0

High – 0 – –

Percentage of first-time, full-time, deg/certif-seeking 

 undergraduates who received federal grants, 2001–02

Low + + + +

Lower middle + – – 0

Higher middle –––0

High – – – –

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low – + – –

Lower middle – – 0 0

Higher middle 0–––

High + + – +

† Not applicable.

‡ Not enough cases for a reliable estimate (less than 30 institutions in a cell).

Table 25. Comparison between median index values for net price (grants) for all institutions in a sector, 

Table 25. and groups of institutions by various institutional characteristics: 2001–02—Continued

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

+ Signifies that the median index value is higher than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

0 Signifies that the median index value is not different from the median value for all institutions in a sector (i.e., within plus or 

minus .5 points).

– Signifies that the median index value is lower than the median value for all institutions in a sector.

NOTE: The net price (grants) index was calculated as the rate of change in net price (grants) between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 

2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Consumer Price Index during this period. Categories for tuition, enrollment 

size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate were 

determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle = 25–49th centile; higher middle = 

50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Selectivity is derived from a combination of the percent of applicants who were 

admitted, and median test scores (for 4-year institutions only). Revised Carnegie classification uses highest degree offered to

redistribute institutions that had not been classified. See methodology for details. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
63 

References 

Berkner, L., He, S., and Cataldi, E.F. (2002). Student Financing of Undergraduate Education: 

1999–2000 (NCES 2002-167). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

Choy, S.P. (2004). Paying for College: Changes Between 1990 and 2000 for Full-Time 

Dependent Undergraduates. Findings From the Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-

075). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

The College Board. (2004a). Trends in College Pricing: 2004. Washington, DC: Author. 

The College Board. (2004b). Trends in Student Aid: 2004. Washington, DC: Author. 

Cunningham, A.F., Wellman, J.V., Clinedinst, M.E., and Merisotis, J.P. (2001). Study of College 

Costs and Prices, 1988–89 to 1997–98 (Volume 1) (NCES 2002-157). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Horn, L., Peter, K., and Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary 

Institutions: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002-168). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Horn, L., Wei, C.C., and Berker, A. (2002). What Students Pay for College: Changes in Net 

Price of College Attendance Between 1999–2000 (NCES 2002-174). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Knapp, L.G., Kelly, J.E., Whitmore, R.W., Wu, S., Levine, B., and Huh, S. (2003). Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions Fall 2001 and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2001 (NCES 

2004-155). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E., Whitmore, R.W., Wu, S., Huh, S., Levine, B., and Berzofsky, M. 

(2004). Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2002 and Financial Statistics, Fiscal 

Year 2002 (NCES 2005-168). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 
References 

64 

State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). (2004). State Higher Education Finance 

FY 2003. Washington, DC: Author. 

Thomson Peterson’s (Ed.). (2001). Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s 

Guides. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (CPI-U, 

1982-84 = 100). Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Methodology 

Report for the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES 2002-152). 

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

Wei, C.C., Li, X., and Berkner, L. (2004). A Decade of Undergraduate Student Aid: 1989–90 to 

1999–2000 (NCES 2004-158). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 
A-1 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The items were taken from the NCES Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The variables were imported, manipulated, and relabeled using 

SPSS statistical software. The glossary is in alphabetical order by the variable label in SPSS, shown in bold, capital 

letters and displayed along the right-hand column. Underscores at the end of variable names signify the variable is 

duplicated for each relevant year or time period of data; variable names without an underscore (such as institutional 

characteristics) are for one year/period (mentioned in the variable description) or are derived from other variables. 

The variables listed in the index below are approximately in the order they appear in the report. The glossary 

is in alphabetical order by variable name.

Glossary Index 

INITIAL VARIABLES

First-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates .........................................S__AP1N 

OPE eligibility indicator ............................OPEFLAG 

State code ............................................................FIPS 

Degree granting status ...........................DEGGRANT 

Sector of institution...................................... SECTOR 

Revised sector ........................................... SECTREV 

Highest degree offered............................HDEGOFFR 

Carnegie classification code.....................CARNEGIE 

Revised Carnegie classification code......CARNEGR2 

Selectivity (4-year institutions) ................ SELECTV2 

Region code .................................................OBEREG 

Urbanicity .................................................... LOCALE 

Percentage of undergraduates who 

were full-time freshmen ............................ S__AP1P 

Percentage of full-time freshmen who 

were non-white.......................................PCTMIN_1 

Percentage of full-time freshmen who 

received federal grants ................................FED__P 

12-month enrollment............................... FYTOTALL 

PRICE OF ATTENDANCE VARIABLES

Tuition and fees composite ....................... AVGTF__ 

In-district tuition and fees ........................ CHG1AP__ 

In-state tuition and fees............................ CHG2AP__ 

Out-of-state tuition and fees..................... CHG3AP__ 

Percent of students in-district........................ INDIS__ 

Percent of students in-state ..........................INSTA__ 

Percent of students out-of-state................OUTSTA__ 

Books and supplies .................................. CHG4AP__ 

Housing expenses composite ..................AVGHOU__ 

On-campus room and board and 

other expenses for relevant institutions ....ONAP__Z 

On-campus room and board and 

other expenses............................................ONAP__ 

Off-campus (not with family) room and 

board and other expenses for 

relevant institutions ...............................OFFAP__Z 

Off-campus (not with family) room and 

board and other expenses ........................ OFFAP__ 

Off-campus (with family), 

other expenses, for relevant institutions .PARAP__Z 

Off-campus (with family) 

other expenses........................................PAR_AP__ 

Percent of students living on campus..........PCTON__ 

Percent of students living 

 off campus (not with family).................. PCTOFF__ 

Percent of students 

 living off campus (with family) .............PCTPAR__ 

Price of attendance composite ................AVGCOA__ 

Dollar change in price of attendance, 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ............................... DC9900 

Dollar change in price of attendance, 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ................................... DC0001 

Dollar change in price of attendance, 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 ............................... DC9901 

Percentage change in price of attendance, 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ............................. C9900PC 

Percentage change in price of attendance, 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ................................. C0001PC 

Percentage change in price of attendance, 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 ............................. C9901PC 
Appendix A—Glossary 

A-2 

Percentage of undergraduates who were 

full-time freshmen, centile ranges .........FTFTPCQR 

Percentage of full-time freshmen who 

were non-white, centile ranges............. PCTMINQR 

Percentage of full-time freshmen who 

received federal grants, centile ranges .....FED01QR 

12-month enrollment, centile ranges......... FYENRQR 

Tuition and fees, centile ranges................. TUIT01QR 

FINANCIAL AID VARIABLES

Percentage of full-time freshmen 

receiving federal grants ..............................FED__P 

Percentage of full-time freshmen 

receiving state grants ..................................STA__P 

Percentage of full-time freshmen 

receiving institutional grants .....................INST__P 

Percentage of full-time freshmen 

receiving loans ........................................LOAN__P 

Average amount of 

federal grants received .............................FED__AR 

Average amount of 

state grants received.................................STA__AR 

Average amount of 

institutional grants received ................... INST__AR 

Average amount of 

loans received ...................................... LOAN__AR 

Total aid composite................................... TOTAI__R 

Total grants composite.............................TOTGR__R 

Dollar change in total aid, 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ...........................ALL1DCR 

Dollar change in total aid, 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ...............................ALL2DCR 

Dollar change in total aid, 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 ...........................ALL3DCR 

Percentage change in total aid, 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ............................ALL1PCR 

Percentage change in total aid, 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ................................ALL2PCR 

Percentage change in total aid, 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 ............................ALL3PCR 

Dollar change in total grants, 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ....................... GRAN1DCR 

Dollar change in total grants, 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ........................... GRAN2DCR 

Dollar change in total grants, 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 ....................... GRAN3DCR 

Percentage change in total grants, 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ........................ GRAN1PCR 

Percentage change in total grants, 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ............................... GRAN2PCR 

Percentage change in total grants, 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 ........................ GRAN3PCR 

NET PRICE VARIABLES

Net price (all aid).....................................NETTA__R 

Net price (grants) .....................................NETGR__R 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ........................NTTA1DCR 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ............................NTTA2DCR 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 ........................NTTA3DCR 

Percentage change in net price (all aid), 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 .........................NTTA1PCR 

Percentage change in net price (all aid), 

2000–01 to 2001–02 .............................NTTA2PCR 

Percentage change in net price (all aid), 

1999–2000 to 2001–02 .........................NTTA3PCR 

Dollar change in net price (grants), 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ........................NTGR1DCR 

Dollar change in net price (grants), 

2000–01 to 2001–02 ............................NTGR2DCR 

Dollar change in net price (grants), 

1999–20001 to 2001–02 ......................NTGR3DCR 

Percentage change in net price (grants), 

1999–2000 to 2000–01 ........................ NTGR1PCR 

Percentage change in net price (grants), 

 2000–01 to 2001–02 ............................ NTGR2PCR 

Percentage change in net price (grants), 

 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ........................ NTGR3PCR 

PRICE INDEX VARIABLES

Index of change in tuition and fees ............... TFINDX 

Index of change in price of attendance ..... COAINDX 

Index of change in net price (all aid) ...... NTTAINDX 

Index of change in net price (grants).......NTGRINDX 

APPENDICES

Index of change in tuition and fees, 

 using HECA ............................................ TFINDX2 

Index of change in price of attendance, 

 using HECA............................................ COAIND2 

Index of change in net price (all aid), 

 using HECA..........................................NTTAIND2 

Index of change in net price (grants), 

 using HECA..........................................NTGRIND2 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-3 

Dollar change in total aid, 1999–2000 to 2000–01 ALL1DCR 

Dollar change in the total aid composite variable, in current dollars, between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a 

derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in total aid, 1999–2000 to 2000–01 ALL1PCR 

Percentage change in the total aid composite variable between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a derived variable; 

see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in total aid, 2000–01 to 2001–02 ALL2DCR 

Dollar change in the total aid composite variable, in current dollars, between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a 

derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in total aid, 2000–01 to 2001–02 ALL2PCR 

Percentage change in the total aid composite variable between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Dollar change in total aid, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ALL3DCR 

Dollar change in the total aid composite variable, in current dollars, between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a 

derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in total aid, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 ALL3PCR 

Percentage change in the total aid composite variable between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Price of attendance composite AVGCOA__ 

Average price of attendance for first-time, full-time undergraduate students for the full academic year, in current 

dollars. The variable is a weighted composite of three components: average tuition and fees; average books and 

supplies; and average housing expenses. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Housing expenses composite AVGHOU__ 

Average housing expenses for first-time, full-time undergraduate students for the full academic year, in current 

dollars. The variable is a composite calculated by weighting room and board and other expenses by the proportion of 

students, for each residency option (on-campus, off-campus not with family, and off-campus with family). The 

variable is one component of average price of attendance. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Tuition and fees composite AVGTF__ 

Average tuition and fees for first-time, full-time undergraduate students for the full academic year, in current dollars. 

For public institutions, the variable is a composite calculated by weighting in-district, in-state, and out-of-state tuition 

and fees by the proportion of students in each option; for private institutions, it is the reported tuition and fee 

amount. The variable is one component of average price of attendance. This is a derived variable; see methodology 

for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-4 

Percentage change in price of attendance, 1999–00 to 2000–01 C9900PC 

Percentage change in the price of attendance composite variable between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in price of attendance, 2000–01 to 2001–02 C0001PC 

Percentage change in the price of attendance composite variable between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in price of attendance, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 C9901PC 

Percentage change in the price of attendance composite variable between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Carnegie classification code CARNEGIE 

Indicates the 2000 Carnegie Classification code of the reporting institution. The 2000 Carnegie Classification 

includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree-granting and accredited by an agency 

recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. The 2000 edition classifies institutions based on their degree-granting 

activities from 1995–96 through 1997–98. This variable was revised to create CARNEGR2, which better groups the 

institutions in the study universe. 

• Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate 

programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award 50 or more 

doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines 

• Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate 

programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at least ten 

doctoral degrees/1 per year across three or more disciplines, 2 or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year 

overall. 

• Master’s Colleges and Universities I: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate 

programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 40 or 

more master’s degrees per year across three or more disciplines. 

• Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities II: These institutions typically offer a wide range of 

baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They 

award 20 or more master’s degrees per year. 

• Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major 

emphasis on baccalaureate programs. They award at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts 

fields. 

• Baccalaureate Colleges—General: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major 

emphasis on baccalaureate programs. They award less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts 

fields. 

• Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges: These institutions are undergraduate colleges where the majority of 

conferrals are at the subbaccalaureate level (associate’s degrees and certificates), but bachelor’s degrees 

account for at least ten percent of undergraduate awards. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-5 

Carnegie classification code—continued CARNEGIE 

• Associate’s Colleges: These institutions offer associate’s degree and certificate programs but, with few 

exceptions, award no baccalaureate degrees. 

• Specialized Institutions: These institutions offer degrees ranging from the bachelor’s to the doctorate, and 

typically award a majority of degrees in a single field. Examples of specialized institutions include 

theological seminaries, medical schools, schools of engineering, law schools, and teachers colleges. This 

group of institutions also includes tribal colleges. 

Revised Carnegie classification code CARNEGR2 

Revised Carnegie Classification code for the reporting institution, derived from CARNEGIE. Categories were 

lumped together, and highest degree offered was used to redistribute institutions that had not been classified 

originally. 

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive 

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive 

Master’s Colleges and Universities 

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts 

Baccalaureate Colleges—General 

Associate’s and Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges 

Specialized Institutions 

Non-Degree-Granting Institutions 

In-district tuition and fees CHG1AP__ 

For private institutions, the published tuition and fees for full-time, first-time undergraduate students for the full 

academic year, in current dollars. For public institutions, the published in-district tuition and fees for full-time, firsttime undergraduate students. (Tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, and other expenses are those 

amounts used by your financial aid office for determining eligibility for student financial assistance.) In-district 

charges are those charged by institutions to those students residing in the locality in which they attend school. This 

variable was weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen who were in-district in the calculation of average 

tuition and fees for each public institution. This variable combines the charges of academic year and program year 

reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

In-state tuition and fees CHG2AP__ 

For private institutions, the published tuition and fees for full-time, first-time undergraduate students for the full 

academic year, in current dollars. For public institutions, the published in-state tuition and fees for full-time, firsttime undergraduate students. (Tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, and other expenses are those 

amounts used by your financial aid office for determining eligibility for student financial assistance.) In-state charges 

are those charged by institutions to those students who meet the state's or institution's residency requirements. This 

variable was weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen who were in-state in the calculation of average tuition 

and fees for each public institution. This variable combines the charges of academic year and program year reporting 

institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-6 

Out-of-state tuition and fees CHG3AP__ 

For private institutions, the published tuition and fees for full-time, first-time undergraduate students for the full 

academic year, in current dollars. Published out-of-state tuition and fees for full-time, first-time undergraduate 

students. (Tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, and other expenses are those amounts used by your 

financial aid office for determining eligibility for student financial assistance.) Out-of-state charges are those charged 

by institutions to those students who do not meet the state’s or institution's residency requirements. This variable was 

weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen who were out-of-state in the calculation of average tuition and fees 

for each public institution. This variable combines the charges of academic year and program year reporting 

institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Books and supplies CHG4AP__ 

The average cost of books and supplies for full-time, first-time undergraduates for an entire academic year (or 

program), in current dollars. (Tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, and other expenses are those 

amounts used by your financial aid office for determining eligibility for student financial assistance.) This variable 

combines the charges of academic year and program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than4-year institutions only). 

Index of change in price of attendance, using HECA COAIND2 

Index of change in average price of attendance for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of 

change in price of attendance between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the 

Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA) during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for 

details. 

Index of change in price of attendance COAINDX 

Index of change in average price of attendance for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of 

change in price of attendance between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the 

Consumer Price Index during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in price of attendance, 1999–00 to 2000–01 DC9900 

Dollar change in the price of attendance composite variable between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, in current dollars. 

This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in price of attendance, 2000–01 to 2001–02 DC0001 

Dollar change in the price of attendance composite variable between 2000–01 and 2001–02, in current dollars. This 

is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in price of attendance, 1999–00 to 2001–02 DC9901 

Dollar change in the price of attendance composite variable between 1999–2000 and 2001–02, in current dollars. 

This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-7 

Degree granting status DEGGRANT 

An indicator of whether an institution granted degrees in 2002–03. Degree-granting institutions offer an associate's, 

bachelor’s, master’s, doctor’s or a first-professional degree. Non-degree-granting offers certificates or other formal 

awards. This variable was used to eliminate institutions that were not degree granting from the study universe.

Percentage of full-time freshmen who received federal grants, centile ranges FED01QR 

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving federal grants at the reporting 

institution in 2001–02, in centile ranges. Categories were determined within each sector, using centile ranges. 

Low = 0–24th centile 

Lower middle = 25–49th centile 

Higher middle = 50–74th centile 

High = 75–99th centile. 

Percentage of full-time freshmen receiving federal grants FED__P 

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving federal grants at the reporting 

institution. Federal grants include those provided by federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education, such 

Title IV Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOGs). Also includes need-based and 

merit-based educational assistance funds and training vouchers provided from other federal agencies and/or 

federally-sponsored educational benefits programs, including the Veteran's Administration, Department of Labor, 

and other federal agencies. 

Average amount of federal grants received FED__AR 

Average amount of federal grants received by first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates for the 

reporting institution. Values are bounded to a maximum value using the sum of federal legislated maximums for Pell 

Grants and SEOG for each year. See methodology for details. 

State code FIPS 

Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code issued by the federal government to identify U.S. states and 

territories in 2002–03. This variable was used in the process of selecting the study universe. 

Percentage of undergraduates who were full-time freshmen, centile ranges FTFTPCQR 

Percentage of undergraduates who were first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking at the reporting institution in 

2001–02, in centile ranges. Categories were determined within each sector, using centile ranges. 

Low = 0–24th centile 

Lower middle = 25–49th centile 

Higher middle = 50–74th centile 

High = 75–99th centile. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-8 

12-month enrollment, centile ranges FYENRQR 

Number of all students at the reporting institution in 2001–02, in centile ranges. Categories were determined within 

each sector, using centile ranges. 

Low = 0–24th centile 

Lower middle = 25–49th centile 

Higher middle = 50–74th centile 

High = 75–99th centile. 

12-month enrollment FYTOTALL 

Unduplicated headcount of all students at the reporting institution during the 12-month period of 2001–02. 

Dollar change in total grants, 1999–2000 to 2000–01 GRAN1DCR 

Dollar change in the total grants composite variable, in current dollars, between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a 

derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in total grants, 1999–2000 to 2000–01 GRAN1PCR 

Percentage change in the total grants composite variable between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in total grants, 2000–01 to 2001–02 GRAN2DCR 

Dollar change in the total grants composite variable, in current dollars, between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a 

derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in total grants, 2000–01 to 2001–02 GRAN2PCR 

Percentage change in the total grants composite variable between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; 

see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in total grants, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 GRAN3DCR 

Dollar change in the total grants composite variable, in current dollars, between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. This is a 

derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in total grants, 1999–2000 to 2001–02 GRAN3PCR 

Percentage change in the total grants composite variable between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Highest degree offered HDEGOFFR 

The highest degree offered at the reporting institution, 2002–03. 

Non-Degree-Granting (Certificates only) = 0 

First-professional degrees only = 1 

Doctoral = 10 

Doctoral and First-professional = 11 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-9 

Highest degree offered—continued HDEGOFFR 

Master’s = 20 

Master’s and First-professional = 21 

Bachelor’s = 30 

Bachelor’s and First-professional = 31 

Associate’s = 40 

Associate’s and First-professional = 41 

Percent of students in-district INDIS__ 

For public institutions, the percentage of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates that are indistrict (students whose residency was unknown were excluded from the calculation of the percentage). This variable 

was used as a weight in the calculation of average tuition and fees for each public institution. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Percent of students in-state INSTA__ 

For public institutions, the percentage of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates that are instate (students whose residency was unknown were excluded from the calculation of the percentage). This variable 

was used as a weight in the calculation of average tuition and fees for each public institution. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Average amount of institutional grants received INST__AR 

Average amount of institutional grants received by first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates for 

the reporting institution. Values are bounded to a maximum value using the 85th centile of the distribution of average 

amounts received in 1999–2000 (increased by 5 percent for each consecutive year), using estimates from 

NPSAS:2000 by sector. See methodology for details. 

Percentage of full-time freshmen receiving institutional grants INST__P 

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving institutional grants at the 

reporting institution. Institutional grants include scholarships and fellowships granted and funded by the institution 

and/or individual departments within the institution that are limited to students attending the institution. Also 

included are tuition and fee waivers granted by the institution (for which the institution is not reimbursed from 

another source). Also includes scholarships targeted to certain individuals (e.g., based on state of residence or major) 

for which the institution designates the recipient; athletic scholarships; and the like. Does not include College Work 

Study programs. 

Average amount of loans received LOAN__AR 

Average amount of loans received by first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates for the reporting 

institution. Values are bounded to a maximum value using federal legislated loan limits for first-year students in the 

Stafford loan program ($6,625), although this variable may include other loans. See methodology for details. 

Percentage of full-time freshmen receiving loans LOAN__P 

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving loans at the reporting 

institution. Loans include any monies that must be repaid to the lending institution for which the student is the 

designated borrower. Includes all Title IV subsidized and unsubsidized loans and all institutionally- and privatelysponsored loans. Does not include PLUS and other loans made directly to parents. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-10 

Degree of urbanization of the location of the institution LOCALE 

The degree of urbanization of the reporting institution’s location in 2002–03, based on U.S. Census Bureau 

designations. 

Large city = 1 

A central city of a CMSA or MSA having a population greater than or equal to 250,000. 

Mid-size city = 2 

A central city of a CMSA or MSA, having a population less than 250,000. 

Urban fringe of a large city = 3 

Any incorporated place, CDP, or non-place territory within a CMSA or MSA of a large city and defined as 

urban by the Census Bureau. 

Urban fringe of a mid-size city = 4 

Any incorporated place, CDP, or non-place territory within a CMSA or MSA of a mid-size city and defined 

as urban by the Census Bureau. 

Large town = 5 

Any incorporated place or CDP with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a 

CMSA or MSA. 

Small town = 6 

Any incorporated place or CDP with a population less than 25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500 and 

located outside a CMSA or MSA. 

Rural = 7 

Any incorporated place, CDP, or non-place territory designated as rural by the Census Bureau. 

Not Assigned = 9 

Net price (all aid) NETTA__R 

Net price calculated as the difference between price of attendance and total aid for each institution. The variable was 

calculated using financial aid composites based on data that were bounded to maximum values. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Net price (grants) NETGR__R 

Net price calculated as the difference between price of attendance and total grants for each institution. The variable 

was calculated using financial aid composites based on data that were bounded to maximum values. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in net price (grants), 1999–2000 to 2000–01 NTGR1DCR 

Dollar change in net price (grants), in current dollars, between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a derived variable; 

see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in net price (grants), 1999–2000 to 2000–01 NTGR1PCR 

Percentage change in net price (grants) between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Dollar change in net price (grants), 2000–01 to 2001–02 NTGR2DCR 

Dollar change in net price (grants), in current dollars, between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-11 

Percentage change in net price (grants), 2000–01 to 2001–02 NTGR2PCR 

Percentage change in net price (grants) between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see methodology 

for details. 

Dollar change in net price (grants), 1999–2000 to 2001–02 NTGR3DCR 

Dollar change in net price (grants), in current dollars, between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; 

see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in net price (grants), 1999–2000 to 2001–02 NTGR3PCR 

Percentage change in net price (grants) between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Index of change in net price (grants), using HECA NTGRIND2 

Index of change in net price (grants) for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of change in net 

price (grants) between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Higher Education 

Cost Adjustment (HECA) during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Index of change in net price (grants) NTGRINDX 

Index of change in net price (grants) for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of change in net 

price (grants) between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Consumer Price 

Index during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), 1999–2000 to 2000–01 NTTA1DCR 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), in current dollars, between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a derived variable; 

see methodology for details. 

Percentage change in net price (all aid), 1999–2000 to 2000–01 NTTA1PCR 

Percentage change in net price (all aid) between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), 2000–01 to 2001–02 NTTA2DCR 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), in current dollars, between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Percentage change in net price (all aid), 2000–01 to 2001–02 NTTA2PCR 

Percentage change in net price (all aid) between 2000–01 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see methodology 

for details. 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), 1999–2000 to 2001–02 NTTA3DCR 

Dollar change in net price (all aid), in current dollars, between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; 

see methodology for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-12 

Percentage change in net price (all aid), 1999–2000 to 2001–02 NTTA3PCR 

Percentage change in net price (all aid) between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Index of change in net price (all aid), using HECA NTTAIND2 

Index of change in net price (all aid) for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of change in net 

price (all aid) between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Higher Education 

Cost Adjustment (HECA) during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Index of change in net price (all aid) NTTAINDX 

Index of change in net price (all aid) for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of change in net 

price (all aid) between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Consumer Price 

Index during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Region code OBEREG 

Geographic region code in 2002–03, used to characterize institutions in the study universe. 

New England (CT ME MA NH RI VT) 

Mid East (DE DC MD NJ NY PA) 

Great Lakes (IL IN MI OH WI) 

Plains (IA KS MN MO NE ND SD) 

Southeast (AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC SC TN VA WV) 

Southwest (AZ NM OK TX) 

Rocky Mountains (CO ID MT UT WY) 

Far West (AK CA HI NV OR WA) 

Outlying Areas (AS FM GU MH MP PR PW VI) 

On-campus room and board and other expenses ONAP__ 

The average cost of on-campus room and board and other expenses for full-time, first-time undergraduates for an 

entire academic year (or program) in current dollars. This variable combines the charges of academic year and 

program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). This variable was 

weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen who lived on-campus, in the calculation of average housing 

expenses for each institution. The variable is zero if this residency option is not applicable for the reporting 

institution. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

On-campus room and board and other expenses, for relevant institutions ONAP__Z 

The average cost of on-campus room and board and other expenses for full-time, first-time undergraduates for an 

entire academic year (or program), in current dollars. This variable combines the charges of academic year and 

program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). This variable is 

similar to ONAP__, but the variable is blank if this residency option is not applicable for the reporting institution and 

is not weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen using this housing option. See methodology for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-13 

Off-campus (not with family) room and board and other expenses OFFAP__ 

The average cost of off-campus (not with family) room and board and other expenses for full-time, first-time 

undergraduates for an entire academic year (or program) in current dollars. This variable combines the charges of 

academic year and program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). 

This variable was weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen who lived off-campus, in the calculation of 

average housing expenses for each institution. The variable is zero if this residency option is not applicable for the 

reporting institution. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Off-campus (not with family) room and board and other expenses, for relevant institutions OFFAP__Z 

The average cost of off-campus (not with family) room and board and other expenses for full-time, first-time 

undergraduates for an entire academic year (or program), in current dollars. This variable combines the charges of 

academic year and program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). 

This variable is similar to OFFAP__, but the variable is blank if this residency option is not applicable for the 

reporting institution and is not weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen using this housing option. See 

methodology for details. 

OPE eligibility indicator OPEFLAG 

Indicates Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) eligibility status of reporting institution, i.e., whether institutions 

have participation agreements with the U.S. Education Department for Title IV student aid programs, in 2002–03. 

Participates in Title IV federal financial aid programs 

Branch campus of a main campus that participates in Title IV 

Deferment only—limited participation 

New participants (became eligible during the fall collection period) 

Not currently participating in Title IV, has an OPE ID number 

Not currently participating in Title IV, does not have an OPE ID number 

Institutions in the first two categories are considered to be eligible by NCES. 

Percent of students out-of-state OUTSTA__ 

For public institutions, the percentage of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates that are outof-state (students whose residency was unknown were excluded from the calculation of the percentage). This 

variable was used as a weight in the calculation of average tuition and fees for each public institution. This is a 

derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Off-campus living with family, other expenses PARAP__ 

The average cost of other expenses for full-time, first-time undergraduates living off-campus (with family) for an 

entire academic year (or program), in current dollars. This variable combines the charges of academic year and 

program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). This variable was 

weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen who lived off-campus with family, in the calculation of average 

housing expenses for each institution. The variable is zero if this residency option is not applicable for the reporting 

institution. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-14 

Off-campus living with family, other expenses, for relevant institutions PARAP__Z 

The average cost of other expenses for full-time, first-time undergraduates living off-campus (with family) for an 

entire academic year (or program), in current dollars. This variable combines the charges of academic year and 

program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). This variable is 

similar to PARAP__, but the variable is blank if this residency option is not applicable for the reporting institution 

and is not weighted by the percentage of full-time freshmen using this housing option. See methodology for details. 

Percentage of full-time freshmen who were non-white PCTMIN_1 

Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduates who were non-white at the reporting institution in fall 2002. 

Undergraduates whose race/ethnicity was unknown were excluded from the calculation. 

Percentage of full-time freshmen who were non-white, centile ranges PCTMINQR 

Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduates who were non-white at the reporting institution in fall 2002, in 

centile ranges. Categories were determined within each sector, using centile ranges. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Low = 0–24th centile 

Lower middle = 25–49th centile 

Higher middle = 50–74th centile 

High = 75–99th centile. 

Percent of students living on campus PCTON__ 

The percentage of full-time, first-time undergraduates living on campus. The percentages are estimates derived from 

NPSAS:2000, and vary depending on sector and by the pattern residency options reported by each institution. This 

variable was used as a weight in the calculation of average housing expenses for each institution. This is a derived 

variable; see methodology for details. 

Percent of students living off campus (not with family) PCTOFF__ 

The percentage of full-time, first-time undergraduates living off campus (not with family). The percentages are 

estimates derived from NPSAS:2000, and vary depending on sector and by the pattern residency options reported by 

each institution. This variable was used as a weight in the calculation of average housing expenses for each 

institution. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Percent of students living off campus (with family) PCTPAR__ 

The percentage of full-time, first-time undergraduates living off-campus (with family). The percentages are estimates 

derived from NPSAS:2000, and vary depending on sector and by the pattern residency options reported by each 

institution. This variable was used as a weight in the calculation of average housing expenses for each institution. 

This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

First-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates S__AP1N 

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at the reporting institution. This variable 

combines the charges of academic year and program year reporting institutions into one (private for-profit, less-than4-year institutions only). 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-15 

Percentage of undergraduates who were full-time freshmen S__AP1P 

Percentage of all undergraduates who are first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at the 

reporting institution. This variable combines the charges of academic year and program year reporting institutions 

into one (private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions only). 

Sector of institution SECTOR 

Indicates the sector—level and control—of the reporting institution in 2002–03. In this report, the following codes 

were used: 

Public 4-year 

Private not-for-profit, 4-year 

Public 2-year 

Private for-profit, 2-year 

Private for-profit, less-than-2-year 

Revised sector SECTREV 

Recode of the sector of the reporting institution, with private for-profit, 2-year and less-than-2-year institutions 

combined. 

Public 4-year 

Private not-for-profit, 4-year 

Public 2-year 

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

Selectivity (4-year institutions) SELECTV2 

Indicates the level of selectivity of the 4-year institutions in the study universe. The variable was derived from a 

combination of variables from the Institutional Characteristics component. Open admission 4-year institutions were 

formed into a separate category. For non-open admission institutions, an index was created from two variables: 1) the 

centile distribution of the percentage of students who were admitted to each institution (of those who applied); and 2) 

the centile distribution of the midpoint between the 25th and 75th percentile SAT/ACT combined scores reported by 

each institution (see Appendix E). 

Very selective 

Moderately selective 

Minimally selective 

Open admission 

Average amount of state grants received STA__AR 

Average amount of state grants received by first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates for the 

reporting institution. Values are bounded to a maximum value using the 85th centile of the distribution of average 

amounts received in 1999–2000 (increased by 5 percent for each consecutive year), using estimates from 

NPSAS:2000 by sector. See methodology for details. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

IPEDS VARIABLES

A-16 

Percentage of full-time freshmen receiving state grants STA__P 

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving state grants at the reporting 

institution. State grants include monies provided by the state or locality such as the state portion of Leveraging 

Educational Assistance Partnerships (LEAP); merit scholarships provided by the state; and tuition and fee waivers 

for which the institution was reimbursed by a state agency. Local grants include any local government or privatelysponsored grants, scholarships or gift-aid awarded directly to the student (and valid at any institution the student may 

choose to attend). 

Index of change in tuition and fees, using HECA TFINDX2 

Index of change in average tuition and fees for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of change 

in tuition and fees between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Higher 

Education Cost Adjustment (HECA) during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Index of change in tuition and fees TFINDX 

Index of change in average tuition and fees for each institution in the study universe. Calculated as the rate of change 

in tuition and fees between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Consumer 

Price Index during this period. This is a derived variable; see methodology for details. 

Total aid composite TOTAI__R 

Average amount of total financial aid received by first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at 

each institution. The variable is a composite of four components: federal grants, state grants, institutional grants, and 

loans. For each of these components, the percentage of full-time freshmen receiving aid was multiplied by the 

average amount received. Average amounts of aid were bounded to maximum values. This is a derived variable; see 

methodology for details. 

Total grants composite TOTGR__R 

Average amount of grants received by first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at each 

institution. The variable is a composite of three components: federal grants, state grants, and institutional grants. For 

each of these components, the percentage of full-time freshmen receiving aid was multiplied by the average amount 

received. Average amounts of aid were bounded to maximum values. This is a derived variable; see methodology for 

details. 

Tuition and fees, centile ranges TUIT01QR 

Tuition and fees in 2001–02, in centile ranges. For public institutions, in-state tuition and fee charges were used. 

Categories were determined within each sector, using centile ranges. This is a derived variable; see methodology for 

details. 

Low = 0–24th centile 

Lower middle = 25–49th centile 

Higher middle = 50–74th centile 

High = 75–99th centile. 
B-1 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System is a comprehensive database that 

encompasses all identified institutions whose primary purpose is to provide postsecondary 

education. IPEDS consists of institutional-level data that can be used to describe trends in higher 

education at the institutional, state, and/or national levels. 

Postsecondary education is defined within IPEDS as the provision of formal instructional 

programs whose curriculum is designed primarily for students who have completed the 

requirements for a high school diploma or its equivalent. This includes academic, vocational, and 

continuing professional education programs, and excludes avocational and adult basic education 

programs. 

IPEDS includes information about baccalaureate or higher degree-granting institutions, 2-

year award institutions, and less-than-2-year institutions (i.e., institutions whose awards usually 

result in terminal occupational awards or are creditable toward a formal 2-year or higher award). 

Each of these three categories is further disaggregated by control (public; private not-for-profit; 

and private for-profit), resulting in nine institutional categories or sectors. 

Specialized, but compatible, reporting formats have been developed for these nine sectors 

of postsecondary education providers. In general, the components/reports developed for 

postsecondary institutions granting baccalaureate and higher degrees are the most extensive; 

forms for the 2-year and less-than-2-year awards granting sectors request less data. This design 

feature accommodates the varied operating characteristics, program offerings, and reporting 

capabilities that differentiate postsecondary institutional sectors while yielding comparable 

statistics for all sectors. 

Data are collected from over 10,000 postsecondary institutions. IPEDS has been designed 

to produce national-, state-, and institutional-level data for most postsecondary institutions, 

although the universe of interest includes about 6,700 Title IV participating institutions. Prior to 

1993, only national-level estimates from a sample of institutions were available for the private, 

less-than-2-year institutions. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-2 

Until recently, data in IPEDS were organized into several areas, which are now broken into 

various components collected in one or more of the three data collection periods.1 For this report, 

the most important components include the following: 

• Institutional Characteristics (IC), including institutional names and addresses; 

congressional districts; counties; telephone numbers; tuition, books and supplies, room 

and board, and other expenses; control or affiliation; calendar systems; levels of 

degrees and awards offered; types of programs; and accreditation for all postsecondary 

education institutions in the United States and outlying territories. 

• Student Financial Aid (SFA), including the number and percentage of first-time, fulltime, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, the percentage of first-time, full-time 

degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving federal grants, state grants, 

institutional grants, and loan aid, as well as the average amounts of aid received. 

• Enrollment (EF), including information about full- and part-time enrollment by 

racial/ethnic category and sex for undergraduates, first-professional, and graduate 

students. Age distributions by level of enrollment and sex were collected in oddnumbered years, and first-time degree-seeking student enrollments by residence status 

were collected in even-numbered years. This component also includes 12-month 

unduplicated headcount data for the prior academic year. 

Other components of IPEDS provide data on fall staff, finances, and degrees and 

certificates awarded. Detailed information about IPEDS is available at the National Center for 

Education Statistics website (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/), including variable descriptions and data 

collection screens. 

For this report, the universe of institutions was drawn from the 2002–03 Institutional 

Characteristics component, part of the 2002 collection cycle. The IC component collects tuition 

and price information for the current year as well as two prior years.2 This report used tuition and 

other price data from the most recent IC component in which they were available; in other words, 

data for 2001–02 and 2000–01 were drawn from the 2002–03 IC component (2002 collection 

cycle), while data for 1999–2000 were drawn from the 2001–02 IC collection (2001 collection 

cycle). At the time the report was written, the data for price of attendance in the IC component of 

the 2002 collection cycle had been edited, but response flags for each variable were not available 

(imputations had not been calculated for missing data). The variable response rates provided in 

table B-1 for those variables were calculated as those cases in which data were reported. The, 

missing values for these variables were treated the same as missing values in other variables 

during the imputation process used for this report (see section below on Missing Data). 

 

1 In 1999–2000, the IPEDS collection framework was converted to a web-based system, and changes were made to the fields 

collected. 

2 Prior year data may be corrected by the reporting institution. 
Table B-1. Response rates for IPEDS collections, survey components, and selected variables for institutions in the study univ

Table B-1. to 2002

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 

Fall Collection 99.5 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.8 100.0 98.9 99.9 100.0 

Institutional Characteristics 100.0 99.6 100.0 99.6 99.7 100.0 99.8 99.8 100.0 

Spring Collection 87.1 100.0 100.0 68.7 99.5 100.0 97.7 99.8 100.0 

Student Financial Aid 99.1 98.6 100.0 96.5 96.6 100.0 98.3 98.4 100.0 

Enrollment 87.3 65.3 95.7 69.7 57.4 93.1 98.8 62.5 96.6 

Academic Year reporters, SFA survey

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates 98.9 98.6 100.0 96.5 96.8 100.0 98.3 98.3 100.0 

Number that are in-district 76.2 34.7 100.0 ††† 90.3 63.1 65.4 Number that are in-state 98.2 93.2 100.0 ††† 97.6 92.6 96.6 Number that are out-of-state 98.2 92.8 100.0 ††† 97.6 90.6 94.2 Number unknown 98.9 98.6 100.0 ††† 98.3 98.3 100.0 

Percentage of all undergraduates 98.9 98.6 100.0 96.5 96.8 100.0 98.3 98.3 100.0 

Program Year reporters, SFA survey

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates † † † † † † † † † 

Percentage of all undergraduates ††† ††† ††† 

Federal grants

Percentage of students receiving 99.1 98.4 99.8 96.5 96.5 99.7 98.4 97.9 99.6 Average amount received 98.9 98.4 99.9 96.4 96.4 99.1 98.4 97.8 99.1 

State grants

Percentage of students receiving 98.9 98.0 99.6 96.2 95.8 99.1 98.3 96.4 99.4 

Average amount received 98.6 97.9 99.1 95.2 95.5 94.4 96.5 94.5 95.8 

Institutional grants

Percentage of students receiving 98.9 98.2 99.8 96.5 96.2 99.4 97.4 90.3 92.6 Average amount received 98.6 97.7 98.6 95.8 95.8 97.6 93.8 86.2 81.4 

See notes at end of table.

P

Public 2-year 

Private not-for-profit, 4- Public 4-year year

Survey response rates

Variable response rates
Table B-1. Response rates for IPEDS collections, survey components, and selected variables for institutions in the study univ

Table B-1. to 2002—Continued

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 

Loans

Percentage of students receiving 98.9 98.4 99.6 96.5 95.5 98.8 97.0 91.6 94.0 Average amount received 98.4 98.4 98.9 96.3 95.4 97.0 94.6 86.8 76.6 

Academic Year reporters, IC survey

Tuition and fees (private) † † † 99.1 97.7 97.8 ††† 

In-district tuition and fees (public) 99.3 98.2 98.0 ††† 98.8 98.0 97.5 

In-state tuition and fees (public) 99.3 99.1 99.3 ††† 98.4 99.1 98.8 

Out-of-state tuition and fees (public) 98.2 99.1 99.3 ††† 96.5 99.1 98.8 

Books and supplies 85.9 98.7 99.1 92.5 97.1 97.1 21.1 98.7 98.4 On campus, room and board 85.2 85.3 85.9 93.2 91.7 91.9 20.3 21.3 21.5 On campus, other expenses 84.4 84.8 85.3 92.0 91.3 91.5 20.2 21.2 21.3 Off campus, room and board 95.0 95.3 97.0 90.1 90.5 91.1 91.1 92.3 93.4 Off campus, other expenses 95.7 95.5 97.1 89.5 90.4 91.1 90.2 91.7 91.7 Living with parents, other expenses 95.5 95.5 97.1 90.9 91.3 91.7 91.1 92.9 92.2 

Program Year reporters, IC survey

Tuition and fees † † † † † † † † † 

Books and supplies † † † † † † † † † On campus, room and board † † † † † † † † † On campus, other expenses † † † † † † † † † Off campus, room and board † † † † † † † † † Off campus, other expenses † † † † † † † † † Living with parents, other expenses † † † † † † † † † 

NOTE: Component and collection rates were calculated from the response status variables in the Institutional Characteristics survey, and equal the casas a percentage of all institutions. Variable rates generally were calculated from item imputation flags, where respondents are cases that reported data (collection cycles, not the years of data. Price data were derived from the 2001 and 2002 collection cycles; financial aid data were derived from the 2000cycles. For the 2002 collection cycle, imputation flags were not available for price of attendance data; therefore, respondents were calculated as those creported. Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions reported on either an academic year or a program year basis for price of attendance and financiaresponse rates would be the sum of those reported under each component.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Institutional CharAid, and Enrollment, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.† Not applicable.

1 Enrollment data from the 2000 and 2001 collection cycles were not used for the analysis in this report. Response rates are presented only for consiste

Public 4-year

Private not-for-profit, 4-

year Public 2-year

P
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-5 

Enrollment data were drawn from the 2002–03 Enrollment component (2002 collection 

cycle), including fall 2002 headcount data as well as 12-month unduplicated headcount data for 

the prior academic year, 2001–02. 

The Student Financial Aid component (SFA) was first administered by NCES in the 1999–

2000 data collection cycle to collect institutional information on price of attendance, student 

financial aid, and other characteristics. The original component was planned as a pilot study to 

test institutions’ ability both to provide data on these issues and to submit data via the Web. In 

2000–01, the various components were incorporated into the redesigned IPEDS survey, and are 

now administered through a Web-based data collection process. Each of the SFA components 

collect financial aid data for the prior year; therefore, this report used data collected in the 2002, 

2001, and 2000 collection cycles to obtain aid information for 2001–02, 2000–01, and 1999–

2000. 

For questions about the data, contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov

1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) is a 

comprehensive study of the United States and Puerto Rico conducted by the U.S. Department of 

Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their 

families pay for postsecondary education.3 It also describes demographic and other characteristics 

of students enrolled. The institutional sampling frame for NPSAS:2000 was constructing from 

the 1998–99 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Institutional 

Characteristics (IC) file and, because NPSAS:2000 also served as the base-year survey for a 

longitudinal study of baccalaureate recipients, the 1996–97 IPEDS Completions file. Eligible 

institutions were partitioned into 22 institutional strata based on institutional control, highest 

level of offering, and percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded in education. Approximately 

1,100 institutions were initially selected for NPSAS:2000, and all but 10 of these institutions 

were found to be eligible. Sampling frames for selecting students consisted of enrollment lists or 

data files provided by the institutions for those students enrolled during the NPSAS:2000 year. 

The study is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in postsecondary 

education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. For 

 

3 For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult U.S. Department of Education (2001). Additional information is also 

available at the NPSAS website: http://nces.ed.gov/npsas. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-6 

NPSAS, information was obtained from more than 900 postsecondary institutions on 

approximately 50,000 undergraduate, 9,000 graduate, and 3,000 first-professional students. They 

represented about 16.5 million undergraduates, 2.4 million graduate students, and 300,000 first 

professional students who were enrolled at some time between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000. 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The IPEDS statistics in this report are derived from a population. In using a census of an 

entire population there is not a sampling error, but there is still the possibility of nonsampling 

error. 

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete 

information about all institutions (i.e., some institutions refused to participate, or 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, and imputing missing data. Response rates for the universe 

of institutions in this study, by institutional type, are described in table B-1.

To compensate for nonresponse, adjustments are often made, referred to as imputations. 

Imputations are usually made separately within various groups of institutions that have similar 

characteristics. If a particular institution responded in previous and later years, those values may 

also be used to substitute for a missing response.4

In addition to nonsampling errors, sampling errors may have occurred in the use of 

estimates derived from a sample. Estimates generated from the 1999–2000 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) were used to weight housing expenses when 

calculating price of attendance for this report. The standard error is a measure of the variability 

due to sampling when estimating a parameter; very small standard errors signify that a high level 

of precision would be expected from a particular sample. 

Most of the estimates in this report were produced using the SPSS 11.5 software package. 

SPSS makes it possible for users to specify and generate a variety of univariate and multivariate 

analyses, including linear regression analysis. 

 

4 See IPEDS ED TABS (Knapp et al. 2003) produced by NCES for illustrations of imputation methodologies. For example, 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004155.pdf.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-7 

Data Cleaning and Other Issues 

Selection Criteria 

Institutions in the study universe were drawn from all Title IV participating institutions 

located in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that are listed in the 2002–03 IPEDS 

universe (Puerto Rico was excluded from the analysis). Four institutional sectors were included 

in the analysis: public 4-year; public 2-year; private not-for-profit, 4-year; and for-profit, lessthan-4-year institutions. For the first three sectors, only degree-granting institutions were 

included in order to form relatively homogeneous comparison groups (few institutions in these 

sectors are non-degree-granting); this was not-true for private for-profit, less-than-4-year 

institutions.5 Institutions that enroll less than 50 first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates (less than 25 at for-profit institutions) were excluded from the analysis.6 

It is also important to note that for relevant portions of the Student Financial Aid and 

Institutional Characteristics components, institutions file separate forms depending on whether 

they report academic year (AY) or program year (PY) data. Academic year reporters provide 

information for a fall cohort of full-time freshmen, while program year reporters provide data for 

a 12-month cohort of students. This report includes data for only those public 4-year, public 2-

year, and private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions that report by academic year, which was true 

for most of the institutions in these sectors.7 For private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 

those that report by academic year and program year were combined in order to avoid the 

problem of low cell sizes.8 Assignment as an AY or PY reporter was based on institutions’ 

responses to the Student Financial Aid component. 

Parent/Child Institutions 

The IPEDS components allow “parent” institutions to report data for campuses or branch 

institutions, or the “child” institutions may report information on their own. In many cases, 

 

5 In the first three sectors, only one public 4-year institution, 20 private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, and 74 public 2-year 

institutions in the original universe were non-degree-granting. Both types of institutions were included for private for-profit, lessthan-4-year institutions, as degree-granting institutions in this category also tend to offer non-degree coursework and the two

groups are not dissimilar. 

6 Also, new institutions (primarily private for-profit) that did not exist in the early years of the analysis were excluded from the 

universe (about 100 institutions). 

7 Program year reporters for SFA in these sectors included 46 public 2-year institutions and 7 private not-for-profit, 4-year 

institutions. 

8 About 74 percent of the private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions included in the study universe were program year 

reporters for the SFA component; the balance of 26 percent were academic year reporters. A similar breakdown was true for price 

of attendance data in the IC component. Institutions in this category are all Title IV participating institutions; the program lengths 

for most of the program year reporters in the category are typically slightly less than a year, or slightly more than a year. The 

reported tuition and aid figures for these institutions would therefore not differ greatly from academic year data. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-8 

schools reported data separately for campuses or branch institutions for some IPEDS components 

but not others, or reported data separately in certain years but in the aggregate in other years. To 

deal with these inconsistencies across components and/or years, either data for the child 

institution(s) was folded up to the level of the parent (and the child(ren) were deleted), or parent 

data was reallocated to the children. When discrepancies could not be resolved, institutions were 

eliminated from the analysis. 

Missing Data and Outliers 

In order to ensure that institutions had data for critical variables in all three years of 

analysis, procedures were necessary to address missing data. In some cases, recoding for implied 

zeros (for example, where a specific cell was missing data but should have had a zero) was used. 

In other cases, missing data were imputed using a combination of methods, including averages of 

values for prior and subsequent years, carrying forward/backward (adjusting by the rate of sector 

change for financial variables), and sector averages. 

After the imputation of missing data, the distributions of all of the variables were examined 

to identify any errors caused by imputations or estimations. Errors in imputation were corrected 

whenever possible. In most cases, data reported by the institutions were not altered, even in the 

case of outliers. An exception occurred in the case of average aid amounts (discussed below). 

The Student Financial Aid (SFA) data showed substantial variation in the financial aid 

variables over time for certain institutions, especially as reflected in the dollar change and 

percentage change variables. This may have occurred because financial aid is impacted by a 

number of factors year to year, including participation in specific aid programs, college 

endowment trends, changes in legislated maximums, and so on. The use of medians in this report 

mitigates the variability issue by focusing on the aid and price patterns of institutions at the 

middle of the distribution in each category. 

In addition, in some cases the average amounts of financial aid reported by institutions in 

the SFA collection were substantially higher than what might be reasonably expected. These 

outliers affected the calculations of total aid amounts and net prices. To address this issue, the 

average amounts received were bounded to a maximum value (using federal legislated 

maximums as well as estimates from NPSAS as a guideline9). Composite aid and net price 

variables were calculated using the bounded data. 

 

9 The bounds were as follows: for federal grants, the sum of Pell Grant and SEOG maximums for each year; for loans, the loan 

limit for first year independent students ($6,625), under the assumption that federal loans make up the overwhelming majority of 

that category; for state and institutional grants, the 85th centile of the distribution of average amounts received (increased by 5 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-9 

Variable Definition 

After the panels of institutions were created and imputations were made, composites and 

other derived variables were created. The variables computed for this report will be available for 

the institutions in the study universe through the IPEDS Peer Analysis System (PAS), in the 

computed variables section. 

Price of attendance was defined as the sum of several components, each derived from the 

Institutional Characteristics component: 1) tuition and fees for first-time, full-time 

undergraduates; 2) the estimated cost of room and board, or the living expenses for students who 

do not contract with the school for room and board, for this group of full-time freshmen; and 3) 

the estimated cost of books, supplies, and miscellaneous expenses. (Note that the estimates for 

books and supplies and housing expenses are those used by financial aid offices for determining 

financial need.) 

For public institutions, the tuition and fees were weighted by the percentage of first-time, 

full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates attending from in-district, in-state, and outof-state. These percentages were taken from the student counts in the SFA component.10 These 

percentages were multiplied by the reported tuition and fee amounts in each category to create 

composite variables for in-district, in-state, and out-of-state tuition and fees that were added 

together to create a composite tuition and fees variable (AVGTF__). Tuition and fees for private 

institutions were not weighted because the in-state versus out-of-state distinction does not exist 

in private institutions. 

The total cost of room and board or living expenses was weighted for all institutions. The 

composite variable was calculated by multiplying the estimated cost for each type of housing (oncampus, off-campus not with family, and off-campus with family) by the percentage of full-time 

freshmen housed in each option and adding the three.11 The percentage of students housed in 

each option was based on estimates from NPSAS:2000—the percentage of first-time, full-time 

undergraduates attending Title IV institutions in the 50 states was derived for each housing 

combination, by sector.12 Composite variables on the expenses of on-campus, off-campus not 

 percent for each consecutive year), using estimates for students attending Title IV institutions in the 50 states and DC from 

NPSAS:2000, by sector. 

10 Students whose residency was unknown were excluded from the calculations. The final variables (INDIS__, INSTA__, and 

OUTSTA__) are therefore percentages of those who residency was known, and the variables add to 100 for each institution. 

11 The estimated costs for each type of housing (ONAP__, OFFAP__, and PARAP__) include zeros where a type is not 

applicable. Each of these costs was multiplied by the percentage of first-time freshmen housed in that option (PCTON__, 

PCTOFF__, and PCTPAR__), which also included zeros when not applicable. See next note for additional explanation. 

12 The percentage of students living on campus, off-campus (not with family), and off-campus (with family) in each sector in 

1999–2000 were computed from NPSAS. These percentages were then applied using each institution’s reported pattern of 

housing expenses—on campus only, off campus (not with family) only, off campus (with family) only, on campus and off 

campus (not with family), off campus (not with family) and off campus (with family), on campus and off campus (with family), 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-10 

with family, and off-campus with family were then summed to form a composite housing 

variable (AVGHOU__). (An alternative housing methodology is presented in appendix C for 

comparison purposes.) The distribution of the weighting factors across sectors is described in 

table B-2.13

After tuition and fees and housing expenses were weighted and composite variables were 

constructed, the components were combined into a price of attendance for each institution in the 

universe by adding composite tuition and fees, composite housing expenses, and reported books 

and supplies (AVGCOA__). 

Financial aid variables (federal grants, state grants, institutional grants, and loans) were 

derived from the Student Financial Aid component. The reported percentages of first-time, fulltime, degree/certificate-seeking students receiving aid, and the average amounts received, were 

calculated across all institutions, including those that did not report a specific category of aid 

(i.e., the data include zeros). Average amounts were bounded as described above. Composite 

 and all three. When an institution did not report having a particular housing option (usually in the case of on-campus housing), 

then the NPSAS estimates were redistributed to the remaining options and a zero was inserted for the non-applicable option. For

example, if a public 4-year institution reported expenses for off-campus (not with family) and off-campus (with family)—but not

on campus—and the NPSAS estimates for public 4-year institutions were 20 percent on campus, 40 percent off-campus (not with 

family), and 40 percent off-campus (with family), then the last two estimates would be reallocated to equal 100 percent in the 

appropriate proportions (50 percent and 50 percent, in this case), and the variable for on campus percentage would be set to zero. 

The reallocated percentages for each institution (PCTON__, PCTOFF__, and PCTPAR__) would then be multiplied by the 

estimated costs (ONAP__, OFFAP__, and PARAP__) for each institution. 

13 Note that in several of the tables, composite housing variables are presented along with the individual sub-categories. In these 

cases, the categories—on-campus (ONAP__Z), off-campus not with family (OFFAP_Z), and off-campus with family 

(PARAP__Z)—reflect data for institutions for which the category is relevant. 

Table B-2. Median values of weighting factors for calculation of total price of attendance, by sector: 

Table B-2. 2001–02

On campus Off campus parents In-district In-state Out-of-state

Public 4-year 61 16 23 0 88 11

Private not-for-profit, 4-year 78 10 12 † † †

Public 2-year 0 40 60 12 72 3

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 0 61 39 † † †

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Sector

Median housing percentages Median residency percentages

NOTE: Figures reflect percentages after data cleaning and recoding process. Percentages reflect data for all institutions, 

including those that did not have a particular option.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-11 

variables reflect the percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount; in addition, 

variables were created for total aid and total grants.14

Net prices for this report were calculated at an institutional level, using the composite price 

of attendance and aid variables described above. Two net prices were calculated: price of 

attendance less grants (federal, state, and institutional), and price of attendance less grants and 

loans. These are labeled as net price (grants) and net price (all aid), respectively.15 Dollar change 

and percentage change variables were computed for price, aid, and net price variables (see 

below). 

“Price change indices” were also calculated for each institution in the universe. Indices 

were calculated for each sector, and for four types of prices: tuition and fees; price of attendance; 

and the two definitions of net prices. In each case, the index is calculated as the rate of change in 

price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the 

Consumer Price Index during this period.16 This formulation measures the difference between the 

rate of inflation and the rate of change in college prices: 

{ [(price3 – price1) / price1] - [(CPI3 – CPI1) / CPI1] } = index value 

This means that an institution that raises its price over this period at the rate of inflation 

would have an index value of 0. Index values were calculated at the institution level, and then 

median values were calculated for each group of institutions. 

Several institutional characteristics variables were recoded into categories based upon their 

centile distributions within each sector. In this, the focus was placed on variation within sectors, 

not between sectors, given that previous reports have concluded that the sectors are quite 

different in their funding and pricing mechanisms. The categories are defined as follows: low 

includes the 0–24th centiles; lower middle includes the 25–49th centiles; higher middle includes 

the 50–74th centiles; and high includes the 75–99th centiles. The median values of the centile 

ranges for each variable differ by sector (table B-3). Where these variables are used as row 

variables, the relevant year of data from variable the variable was calculated is noted in the table.

 

14 Composite aid variables for each type of aid (FED__R, STA__R, INST__R, and LOAN__R) were calculated as the 

percentage of first-time freshmen receiving aid times the average amount received (for example, FED__P multiplied by 

FED__AR), for each institution. The four aid composites were then summed to create total aid (TOTAI__R) and total grants 

(TOTGR__R). 

15 Net prices were calculated at the institutional level using composite variables. Thus, NETTA__R is AVGCOA__ minus 

TOTAI__R, and NTGR__R is AVGCOA__R minus TOTGR__R. 

16 The rate of inflation for the study period (1999–2000 to 2001–02) was about 5.4 percent according to the CPI. The value of 

the term [(CPI3 – CPI1) / CPI1] used in the equation is .0538. The composite tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price 

variables described above were used in the index calculations. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-12 

Table B-3. Median values of centile range categories, by sector: 2001–02 

Institutional characteristics

Public 

4-year

Private 

not-for-profit,

4-year

Public 

2-year

Private 

for-profit, 

less-than4-year

Percentage of undergraduates who were 

 first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-

 seeking, 2001–02

Low 11 13 5 36

Lower middle 16 20 9 71

Higher middle 19 25 14 94

High 24 29 26 100

Percentage of first-time, full-time, 

 degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates 

 who were not White, Fall 2002

Low 7 7 6 7

Lower middle 13 13 18 26

Higher middle 26 23 35 54

High 66 51 64 88

Percentage of first-time, full-time, 

 degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates 

 who received federal grants in 2001–02

Low 16 13 20 34

Lower middle 25 25 33 57

Higher middle 34 35 44 73

High 54 58 61 89

Tuition and fees 2001–02 (in-state) 

Low $2,744 $7,950 $661 $5,750

Lower middle 3,748 13,111 1,430 7,080

Higher middle 4,654 16,374 1,899 8,500

High 6,977 21,654 2,726 11,700

Enrollment size (12-month headcount), 2001–02

Low 2,481 720 1,678 54

Lower middle 6,800 1,545 3,885 123

Higher middle 13,181 2,628 7,688 277

High 27,949 6,154 18,643 686

NOTE: Categories for tuition, enrollment size, percent minority, percent receiving federal grants, and percentage first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking undergraduate were determined within each sector, using centile ranges; low = 0–24th centile; lower middle

= 25–49th centile; higher middle = 50–74th centile; and high = 75–99th centile. Figures reflect percentages after data cleaning and 

recoding process.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment, Collection Year 2002.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-13 

Final Universe 

The various procedures described above—especially the use of selection criteria to narrow 

the universe to relatively homogenous groups of institutions—eliminated some institutions from 

the original dataset (table B-4). The final dataset is comprised of a panel of 4,135 institutions 

with data for all years of the period under review. The total numbers of institutions remaining are 

559 public 4-year institutions, 1,004 public 2-year institutions, 1,009 private not-for-profit, 4-

year institutions, and 1,563 private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions. 

Although the final universe includes 61 percent of the original number of 6,772 Title IV 

institutions, the institutions remaining in the universe comprised 88 percent of the total reported 

enrollment of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates in the original Title IV 

universe.17 The final universe includes 86 percent of the original number of public 4-year Title 

 

17 In other words, the cohort requested for the Student Financial Aid component. Only data in the original files were considered;

1,095 institutions did not report. 

Table B-4. Final universe of institutions

Number

Percentage of 

total

Total number of Title IV institutions in IPEDS in 2002 header file 6,772 100

Less institutions not in the 50 states/DC 350 5

Less institutions removed due to data problems

Parent/child procedure 45 1

Not active in all three years 257 4

Subtotal 302 4

Less institutions removed through selection criteria

Institutions not in sectors of interest 954 14

Below enrollment cut-off 959 14

Non-degree-granting and Program Year reporters 72 1

 (except for private for-profit institutions)

Subtotal 1,985 29

Final universe 4,135 61

NOTE: Selection criteria were: Title IV participation, location in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, in one of the four sectors 

under review, degree-granting status (except for-profit institutions), Academic Year reporting (except for for-profit institutions), 

enrollment (at least 50 first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, or 25 at for-profit institutions), and in the 

IPEDS universe for all three years. U.S. Service Schools were not included because students do not pay tuition.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-14 

IV institutions; 86 percent of the original number of public 2-year Title IV institutions; 63 

percent of the original number of private not-for-profit, 4-year Title IV institutions; and 72 

percent of the original number of private not-for-profit, less-than-4-year Title IV institutions. 

Overall, the final universe includes 74 percent of the original number of Title IV institutions in 

the four sectors, and about 94 percent of the total reported enrollment of full-time freshmen in 

these sectors. 

In order to examine differences between the final universe and the institutions that were 

excluded, a bias analysis was performed for each institutional sector, using the original IPEDS 

data files.18 In general, the institutions excluded from the analysis as a result of the selection 

criteria were somewhat similar to those included in the final universe on a range of variables 

measuring enrollment, financial aid, and the various components of price of attendance (tables 

B-5 to B-8). Often, excluded institutions had lower median enrollments than institutions in the 

final universe, and in some cases the patterns of financial aid and price of attendance differed. 

For example: 

• Of public 4-year institutions, the excluded institutions tended to have smaller 

enrollment sizes for full-time freshmen (table B-5). A higher median proportion of 

full-time freshmen at excluded institutions received federal grants, while lower 

proportions received the other types of aid. Tuition and fees were lower at excluded 

institutions, especially for out-of-state students.19 Some of these differences may 

reflect differences in the roles and missions of these institutions; for example, 28 

percent of excluded institutions were medical schools, and 31 percent were located in 

large cities (compared to 14 percent of those in the final universe). 

 

18 Note that many institutions had missing data for the variables examined; no attempts were made to impute for missing data, 

for either the included institutions or the eliminated institutions. 

19 Note that a high proportion of excluded institutions in this sector did not report data for these variables—at least 72 percent, 

depending on the variable. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-15 

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Total 559 105

Median enrollment:

Academic year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates 1,026 559 30 7

Percentage that are in-district 0 559 0 7

Percentage that are in-state 88 559 89 7

Percentage that are out-of-state 10 559 11 7

Percent unknown 0 559 0 7

Percentage of all undergraduates 17 559 1 7

Number of all undergraduates 6,212 559 1499 7

Program year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates †0†0

Percentage of all undergraduates †0†0

Number of all undergraduates †0†0

Median financial aid:

Any aid

Percentage of students receiving 78 559 67 7

Federal grants

Percentage of students receiving 29 559 22 7

Average amount received $2,740 558 $2,762 4

State grants

Percentage of students receiving 36 558 20 7

Average amount received $1,874 554 $840 3

Institutional grants

Percentage of students receiving 29 558 10 7

Average amount received $2,000 551 $2,000 5

Loans

Percentage of students receiving 42 558 20 7

Average amount received $2,929 553 $3,301 3

See notes at end of table.

Table B-5. Final universe of public 4-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 2001–02
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-16 

• Of public 2-year institutions, the excluded institutions had substantially lower median 

enrollment than institutions in the final universe, but had higher median percentages of 

full-time freshmen as a proportion of all undergraduates (table B-6). Excluded 

institutions had lower median proportions of full-time freshmen receiving state grants, 

and slightly lower median amounts for out-of-state tuition and fees as well as oncampus and off-campus room and board costs. In addition, 43 percent of excluded 

institutions were non-degree-granting institutions (none were included in the final 

universe). 

Table B-5. —Continued

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Median tuition, books and supplies, and room and board

 for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking

 undergraduates

Academic year reporters

In-district tuition and fees $3,404 548 $2,953 10

In-state tuition and fees 3,403 555 2,953 10

Out-of-state tuition and fees 9,192 555 6,437 10

Books and supplies 782 554 600 10

On campus, room and board 5,055 480 4,740 3

On campus, other expenses 2,214 477 2,992 3

Off campus, room and board 5,587 542 5,554 10

Off campus, other expenses 2,515 543 2,835 10

Living with parents, other expenses 2,582 543 2,674 10

Program year reporters

Tuition and fees † 0 8,273 1

Books and supplies † 0 1,229 1

On campus, room and board †0†0

On campus, other expenses †0†0

Off campus, room and board † 0 9,450 1

Off campus, other expenses † 0 8,323 1

Living with parents, other expenses † 0 4,725 1

NOTE: This analysis was conducted using the original data files; no attempts were made to recode or impute for missing data, for 

either the included institutions or the eliminated institutions. Therefore, the number of institutions presented differs for the 

variables measured, depending how many institutions were missing data for that variable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002.

† Not applicable.

Table B-5. Final universe of public 4-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 2001–02
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-17 

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Total 1004 210

Median enrollment:

Academic year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates 401 1004 45 74

Percentage that are in-district 0 1004 50 74

Percentage that are in-state 69 1004 35 74

Percentage that are out-of-state 3 1004 0 74

Percent unknown 0 1004 0 74

Percentage of all undergraduates 12 1004 18 74

Number of all undergraduates 3,666 1004 352 74

Program year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates † 0 207 45

Percentage of all undergraduates † 0 47 45

Number of all undergraduates † 0 395 45

Median financial aid:

Any aid

Percentage of students receiving 64 1004 69 119

Federal grants

Percentage of students receiving 39 1004 41 119

Average amount received $2,581 998 $2,283 113

State grants

Percentage of students receiving 27 1004 9 119

Average amount received $899 964 $788 77

Institutional grants

Percentage of students receiving 9 1004 7 118

Average amount received $849 820 $681 74

Loans

Percentage of students receiving 7 1004 0 118

Average amount received $2,300 771 $3,055 33

See notes at end of table.

Table B-6. Final universe of public 2-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 2001–02
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-18 

• Of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, the excluded institutions had lower 

enrollment sizes and lower percentages of full-time freshmen as a proportion of all 

undergraduates (table B-7). Excluded institutions had lower median percentage of fulltime freshmen receiving state grants, institutional grants, and loans, but higher 

proportions of full-time freshmen receiving federal grants. Excluded institutions also 

had median tuitions and fees that were substantially lower than those of institutions in 

the final universe.20 At the same time, more than half (56 percent) of excluded 

institutions were Specialized institutions such as medical schools. 

 

20 Note that at least 60 percent of excluded institutions in this sector did not report data, depending on the variable. 

Table B-6. —Continued

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Median tuition, books and supplies, and room and board

 for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking

 undergraduates

Academic year reporters

In-district tuition and fees $1,488 979 $1,692 91

In-state tuition and fees 1,620 992 1,872 93

Out-of-state tuition and fees 4,320 992 3,190 93

Books and supplies 775 988 700 93

On campus, room and board 3,391 216 3,075 18

On campus, other expenses 1,882 214 1,300 17

Off campus, room and board 5,219 938 4,680 79

Off campus, other expenses 2,502 933 2,450 82

Living with parents, other expenses 2,486 939 2,500 83

Program year reporters

Tuition and fees † 0 2,004 42

Books and supplies † 0 765 42

On campus, room and board † 0 4,330 6

On campus, other expenses † 0 1,518 6

Off campus, room and board † 0 5,794 33

Off campus, other expenses † 0 2,800 33

Living with parents, other expenses † 0 2,925 33

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002.

† Not applicable.

NOTE: This analysis was conducted using the original data files; no attempts were made to recode or impute for missing data, for 

either the included institutions or the eliminated institutions. Therefore, the number of institutions presented differs for the 

variables measured, depending how many institutions were missing data for that variable.

Table B-6. Final universe of public 2-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 2001–02
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-19 

Table B-7. 2001–02

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Total 1009 779

Median enrollment:

Academic year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates 299 1009 21 187

Percentage that are in-district †0†0

Percentage that are in-state †0†0

Percentage that are out-of-state †0†0

Percent unknown †0†0

Percentage of all undergraduates 23 1009 15 187

Number of all undergraduates 1,390 1009 127 187

Program year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates † 0 132 6

Percentage of all undergraduates † 0 98 6

Number of all undergraduates † 0 168.5 6

Median financial aid:

Any aid

Percentage of students receiving 92 1009 85 193

Federal grants

Percentage of students receiving 29 1009 45 193

Average amount received $3,040 1003 $2,841 146

State grants

Percentage of students receiving 32 1009 0 193

Average amount received $2,823 956 $2,136 72

Institutional grants

Percentage of students receiving 81 1009 41 193

Average amount received $6,064 989 $1,891 122

Loans

Percentage of students receiving 63 1009 34 193

Average amount received $3,737 981 $3,333 113

See notes at end of table.

Table B-7. Final universe of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-20 

• Of private not-for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, excluded institutions had lower 

enrollment sizes than institutions in the final universe; they also had higher proportions 

of full-time freshmen receiving federal grants, lower proportions of full-time freshmen 

receiving loans, and median tuition and fees that were slightly lower (table B-8). 

Table B-7. 2001–02—Continued

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Median tuition, books and supplies, and room and board

 for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking

 undergraduates

Academic year reporters

Tuition and fees $14,750 987 $7,230 219

Books and supplies 750 980 690 213

On campus, room and board 5,520 927 3,955 138

On campus, other expenses 1,630 923 2,550 136

Off campus, room and board 5,465 919 7,362 186

Off campus, other expenses 1,930 919 2,800 182

Living with parents, other expenses 2,245 925 3,000 191

Program year reporters

Tuition and fees † 0 10,989 17

Books and supplies † 0 980 17

On campus, room and board † 0 5,700 2

On campus, other expenses † 0 6,003 2

Off campus, room and board † 0 9,120 11

Off campus, other expenses † 0 4,650 10

Living with parents, other expenses † 0 4,822 8

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002.

† Not applicable.

NOTE: This analysis was conducted using the original data files; no attempts were made to recode or impute for missing data, for 

either the included institutions or the eliminated institutions. Therefore, the number of institutions presented differs for the 

variables measured, depending how many institutions were missing data for that variable.

Table B-7. Final universe of private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions compared to excluded institutions: 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-21 

Table B-8. institutions: 2001–02

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Total 1563 1001

Median enrollment:

Academic year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates 126 401 21 69

Percentage that are in-district †0†0

Percentage that are in-state †0†0

Percentage that are out-of-state †0†0

Percent unknown †0†0

Percentage of all undergraduates 61 401 40 69

Number of all undergraduates 261 401 101 69

Program year reporters

Number of first-time, full-time, degree/

 certificate-seeking undergraduates 111 1162 23 196

Percentage of all undergraduates 95 1162 75 196

Number of all undergraduates 145 1162 57 196

Median financial aid:

Any aid

Percentage of students receiving 85 1563 85 265

Federal grants

Percentage of students receiving 66 1561 65 265

Average amount received $2,550 1544 $2,760 237

State grants

Percentage of students receiving 0 1561 0 264

Average amount received $2,122 530 $1,934 52

Institutional grants

Percentage of students receiving 0 1562 0 264

Average amount received $1,000 515 $983 31

Loans

Percentage of students receiving 67 1561 56 264

Average amount received $3,811 1278 $4,000 171

See notes at end of table.

Table B-8. Final universe of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions compared to excluded 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-22 

Statistical Procedures 

Descriptive Statistics 

The tables in this analysis report median values for groups of institutions. The composite 

variables described above were calculated as averages at the individual institutional level; 

medians were then calculated across the institutional averages. One should keep in mind that the 

median values reported are aggregates, and therefore do not necessarily reflect the circumstances 

of an individual institution. Rather, they reflect the circumstances of the “middle” institution in a 

particular sector or subgroup of institutions. 

For the universe of institutions, trend data on prices, financial aid, and net prices were 

compiled for each institutional type. Changes were calculated at the institutional level. Dollar 

Table B-8. institutions: 2001–02—Continued

Final 

universe N

Excluded 

institutions N

Median tuition, books and supplies, and room and board

 for first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking

 undergraduates

Academic year reporters

Tuition and fees $8,740 365 $7,875 93

Books and supplies 825 351 663 84

On campus, room and board 3,055 58 0 14

On campus, other expenses 1,000 57 0 14

Off campus, room and board 5,598 295 5,660 72

Off campus, other expenses 2,646 285 2,450 69

Living with parents, other expenses 2,676 293 3,003 70

Program year reporters

Tuition and fees 7,590 1,119 6,900 332

Books and supplies 500 1,073 490 321

On campus, room and board 0 86 0 38

On campus, other expenses 0 85 0 39

Off campus, room and board 5,198 744 5,050 210

Off campus, other expenses 2,480 734 2,051 208

Living with parents, other expenses 2,363 743 2,100 211

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002.

† Not applicable.

NOTE: This analysis was conducted using the original data files; no attempts were made to recode or impute for missing data, for 

either the included institutions or the eliminated institutions. Therefore, the number of institutions presented differs for the 

variables measured, depending how many institutions were missing data for that variable.

Table B-8. Final universe of private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions compared to excluded 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-23 

changes over the periods 1999–2000 to 2000–01, 2000–01 to 2001–02, and 1999–2000 to 2001–

02 were calculated as the difference between the values for the first and last years, in current 

dollar terms. Percentage changes for each of the three periods were calculated as the difference 

between the values divided by the value for the base year.21 Medians were then calculated for 

each group of institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values reported in tables 

may not be the same as the median dollar change over the same period. 

Differences Between Medians and Other Values 

To take into account nonsampling error and its potential effect on descriptions of 

differences within the population, it is helpful to set criteria for the “meaningful size” of such 

differences. All of the differences in this report have been found to be meaningful based upon the 

following criteria: 

• For percentage distributions, 5 percentage point difference. 

• For median dollar amounts, $500 difference. 

• For changes (increases or decreases) in median dollar amounts, $100 difference. 

• For median percentage changes, 0.5 percentage points. 

• For index changes, 0.5 index points. 

These criteria were set after examining the distribution of the data and the size of the 

medians calculated. The strategy in choosing the cutoffs was to find a cutoff that distinguished 

between real changes over time and differences that may have been introduced by reporting error 

or imputation. The criteria are not definitive, however, and it is possible that a change did occur 

but was below the cutoff set for the criterion. For example, for the sake of simplicity, the 

criterion for a meaningful difference between prices of attendance is same for all sectors, 

although the range of prices varies across sectors. 

In addition, median values in the tables in this report were reported only for cells that had at 

least 30 cases in order to ensure that reported medians were stable. 

 

21 In a few cases, institutions had a zero value for financial aid in the base year. In these cases, the percentage change in total aid 

or total grants was blank. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
C-1 

Appendix C—Alternative Housing Methodology 

As noted in appendix B, one component of the calculated price of attendance was the 

estimated cost of room and board (or living expenses for students who do not contract with the 

school for room and board) for full-time freshmen. For each institution in the universe, the 

average cost of room and board or living expenses was calculated by multiplying the estimated 

cost for each type of housing (on-campus, off-campus not with family, and off-campus with 

family) by the percentage of full-time freshmen housed in each option and adding the three. In 

the methodology used for this study, the percentage of students housed in each option was based 

on estimates from NPSAS:2000 of the percentage of first-time freshmen living on campus, off 

campus (not with family), and off campus (with family), calculated by sector. However, it is also 

possible to obtain the percentages of students using each housing option from IPEDS data, if 

certain assumptions are made. 

A proposed alternative housing methodology would use data from the Institutional 

Characteristics and the Fall Enrollment components.22 The IC component includes variables on 

whether institutions offer on-campus housing and, if so, their room capacity. The EF component 

includes variables on the number of first-time, full-time undergraduates, the number of full-time 

undergraduates in general, and the age distribution of full-time undergraduates.23 From these 

variables, one can derive the following for each institution: 1) the estimated percentage of firsttime freshmen who lived on campus;24 2) the percentage of full-time undergraduates who were 

less than 22 years old; and 3) the percentages of first-time freshmen who lived off campus (with 

family) and off campus (not with family).25 These percentages could then be applied to the 

reported average room, board, and other expenses for students living on campus, off campus (not 

with family), and off campus (with family). 

 

22 The proposed methodology is based on a methodology advanced by a subgroup to the IPEDS Technical Review Panel on 

derived and calculated variables in February, 2004. 

23 The age component of the EF component is asked every other year. 

24 This was done by dividing the dorm capacity by the number of full-time freshmen, plus half of other full-time undergraduates. 

About 500 institutions had percentages that were greater than 100 percent (dorm capacity was greater than the number of fulltime freshmen plus other full-time undergraduates). This likely reflects the fact that many institutions have on-campus housing

for upper level undergraduates, graduate students, and professional students, which are figured into their institution’s dorm 

capacity. In addition, colleges may “over-fill” dormitories with freshmen. For the purposes of this analysis, percentages above

100 were bounded to 100. 

25 After calculating the percentage who lived on campus, the remainder was distributed between off-campus (not with family) 

and off-campus (with family), by assuming that the freshmen who were less than 22 years old would be the ones who lived with 

family. 
Appendix C—Alternative Housing Methodology 

C-2 

The following analysis compares the two housing methodologies for the 4,135 institutions 

in the study universe for 2001–02. Data for the alternative methodology were recoded as 

necessary; however, imputations for missing data were not performed. Institutions that did not 

have data available to make the calculations for the alternative methodology were excluded, 

leaving 3,933 institutions.26 The cleaned and imputed study variables for average room and board 

and other expenses, tuition and fees, and books and supplies were used in the comparisons so 

that the focus was placed on the differences in the methods of calculating the percentages of 

students housed in each option.27 

The original and alternative housing methodologies did not lead to large differences in the 

results (table C-1). The original methodology shows that a median of 61 percent of full-time 

freshmen lived on-campus at public 4-year institutions, compared to 52 percent using the 

alternative methodology. On the other hand, the original methodology for private not-for-profit, 

 

26 Of the 203 institutions with missing data, some were missing data on room capacity while the rest were missing data on the 

age distribution of enrollment. 

27 One potential difference from the initial proposed methodology was to replace IPEDS data on room, board, and other 

expenses for students living with family with the federal financial aid allowance. 

Number of 

institutions

Percentage 

living on 

campus

Percentage 

living off 

campus

Percentage 

living with 

family

Housing

expenses 

(composite)

Price of 

attendance

Institutional type

Public 4-year 546 61.0 16.0 23.0 $6,072 $11,185

Private not-for-profit, 4-year 990 78.0 10.0 12.0 6,767 22,303

Public 2-year 994 0.0 40.0 60.0 4,707 7,191

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 1,403 0.0 61.0 39.0 5,876 14,665

Institutional type

Public 4-year 546 52.0 14.8 31.0 5,987 10,912

Private not-for-profit, 4-year 990 100.0 0.0 0.0 6,945 22,375

Public 2-year 994 0.0 34.5 58.3 4,614 7,158

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 1,403 0.0 62.2 36.6 6,241 14,696

Table C-1. Comparison of medians, new and alternative housing methodologies used to calculate the 

Table C-1. price of attendance, first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: 2001–02

NOTES: Figures are only for institutions in the study universe that had data available for the calculation of the alternative 

methodology (N = 3,933). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Original methodology

Alternative methodology
Appendix C—Alternative Housing and Methodology 

C-3 

4-year institutions led to a median of 78 percent of students living on-campus, with the 

alternative methodology shows a median of 100 percent of students. At least some proportion of 

these percentage differences may be attributed to the fact that the original housing methodology 

used nationally representative percentages based on a survey of undergraduates, whereas the 

proposed methodology makes calculations based on the dorm capacity and the number of firsttime, full-time undergraduates reported by institutions. 

Ultimately, the composite housing expenses variables calculated using the two 

methodologies do not exhibit meaningful differences. In the public sector, median housing 

expenses calculated through the original methodology were slightly higher than those calculated 

through the alternative methodology; the opposite was true for private institutions. However, the 

differences were not meaningful. In addition, the differences in calculations of median price of 

attendance between the two methodologies were not meaningful. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
D-1 

Appendix D—Enrollment-Weighted Perspective 

This report has presented aggregates of prices, financial aid, and net prices with 

postsecondary institutions as the unit of analysis. Therefore, the figures are not weighted by 

enrollment. However, other published sources explored these issues from the student perspective, 

by using either student-based sample surveys, or by weighting institutional data by enrollment. In 

order to provide an alternative perspective, this section presents tables with enrollment-weighted 

median values for purposes of comparison. Variables were weighted using the number of firsttime, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates in 2001–02 (table D-1). When using 

weighted figures, the prices and aid amounts for institutions with larger enrollments are weighted 

more heavily than those with smaller enrollments. Enrollment-weighted prices can be viewed as 

reflecting the median prices that students face, while unweighted figures reflect the median prices 

institutions charge. 

Generally, the enrollment-weighted figures show similar patterns in prices, financial aid, 

and net prices as do the unweighted figures. However, there were some differences. 

• For public 4-year institutions, the values for net price (all aid) weighted by enrollment 

demonstrated a meaningful increase between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 (table D-2). The 

enrollment-weighted values for median price of attendance, median net price (all aid), 

and median net price (grants) in 2001–02 were greater than the unweighted values. In 

25 50 75 Minimum Maximum

All institutions in study universe 116 278 600 25 7208

Public 4-year 516 1026 1977 52 7208

Private not-for-profit, 4-year 161 299 506 50 5077

Public 2-year 224 401 714 50 5103

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 59 113 269 25 4163

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Student Financial Aid, Collection Year 2002.

Table D-1. Distribution of enrollment of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates,

Sector

Percentiles Range

NOTE: Figures reflect distribution after data cleaning and recoding process. Enrollment refers to the cohorts of students required 

for the Student Financial Aid survey.

Table D-1. by sector: 2001–02
Appendix D—Enrollment-Weighted Perspective 

D-2 

addition, the enrollment-weighted medians for dollar change and percentage change in 

both types of net price over the three years were greater than the unweighted medians. 

• For private not-for-profit, 4-year institutions, the enrollment-weighted values for 

median price of attendance, median net price (all aid), and median net price (grants) in 

2001–02 were greater than the unweighted values (table D-3). In addition, the 

enrollment-weight medians for dollar change and percentage change in both types of 

net price over the three-years were greater than the unweighted medians. 

• For public 2-year institutions, the enrollment-weighted values for median price of 

attendance no longer demonstrated a meaningful increase between 1999–2000 and 

2001–02 (table D-4). In addition the percentage increase in net price (all aid) over the 

three years was lower than the unweighted value. 

• Enrollment-weighted values for median price of attendance and net price (all aid) at 

private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions in 2001–02 were lower than the 

unweighted values (table D-5). In addition, the enrollment-weighted medians for dollar 

change and percentage change in both types of net price over the 3 years were greater 

than the unweighted medians. However, the enrollment-weighted percentage increase 

in total aid over the three years was lower than the unweighted value. 

• Across all sectors but public 2-year, enrollment-weighted values for price change 

indices for net price were higher that the unweighted index values (table D-6). 
Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted 

Academic Year

1999–2000 $10,230 $10,833 $2,946 $3,000 $1,759 $1,765 $7,216 $7,810 2000–2001 10,634 11,171 3,321 3,349 2,006 2,028 7,435 8,214 2001–2002 11,187 11,829 3,554 3,644 2,224 2,240 7,712 8,468 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $458 $488 $174 $159 $149 $155 $242 $316 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 567 607 244 235 192 194 354 395 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 1,039 1,146 459 439 359 372 612 759 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 4.1 4.1 5.5 5.0 8.3 8.5 3.2 3.9 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 5.4 5.6 8.0 8.1 9.7 10.0 4.6 5.3 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 9.8 10.1 14.4 13.5 19.6 21.3 8.6 10.1 

Total grants Net price (all aid) 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Institutional CharFinancial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table D-2. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for first-time, full-time, d

Table D-2. seeking undergraduates, unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Public 4-year institutions, academic years 1999

NOTE: Enrollment weighted figures are using the number of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Aid amounts are composite percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero valuyear. In these cases, the percentage change in total aid or total grants was system missing.

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change

Price of attendance Total aid
Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted 

Academic Year

1999–2000 $20,157 $22,842 $8,425 $8,688 $5,862 $6,287 $11,400 $13,264 2000–2001 21,071 23,847 8,537 8,684 6,299 6,468 11,910 13,986 2001–2002 22,259 25,280 9,280 9,505 6,747 6,837 12,514 14,800 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $956 $1,080 $256 $171 $288 $225 $698 $885 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 1,112 1,252 508 468 348 314 613 863 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 2,098 2,367 798 713 689 645 1,264 1,664 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 4.4 4.5 3.2 2.3 5.0 3.6 5.4 5.8 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 5.0 4.9 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.0 4.7 5.2 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 10.0 9.8 9.6 8.5 11.4 10.0 10.2 11.1 

Net price (all aid)

Table D-3. to 2001–02

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Institutional CharFinancial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table D-3. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for first-time, full-time, d

Table D-3. seeking undergraduates, unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Private not-for profit, 4-year institutions, acade

NOTE: Enrollment weighted figures are using the number of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Aid amounts are composite percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero valuyear. In these cases, the percentage change in total aid or total grants was system missing.

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change

Price of attendance Total aid Total grants
Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted 

Academic Year

1999–2000 $6,667 $6,763 $1,264 $1,197 $1,013 $927 $5,260 $5,457 2000–2001 6,860 6,956 1,419 1,372 1,170 1,099 5,249 5,505 2001–2002 7,184 7,235 1,616 1,557 1,330 1,241 5,439 5,639 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $170 $163 $97 $102 $107 $108 $89 $79 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 284 273 178 177 157 153 133 121 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 509 484 285 275 271 257 223 208 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 2.6 2.4 7.7 8.5 10.1 11.3 1.6 1.5 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 4.1 4.0 12.5 12.2 13.6 13.7 2.5 2.2 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 7.6 7.2 21.8 21.8 25.3 25.8 4.3 3.8 

Total grants Net price (all aid) 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Institutional CharFinancial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.

Table D-4. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for first-time, full-time, d

Table D-4. seeking undergraduates, unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Public 2-year institutions, academic years 1999

NOTE: Enrollment weighted figures are using the number of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Aid amounts are composite percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero valuyear. In these cases, the percentage change in total aid or total grants was system missing.

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change

Price of attendance Total aid
Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted 

Year 1

1999–2000 $13,020 $14,419 $3,369 $3,923 $1,434 $1,386 $9,776 $10,702 2000–2001 13,653 15,026 3,630 3,944 1,557 1,483 9,982 11,001 2001–2002 14,514 15,589 4,007 4,230 1,783 1,640 10,487 11,332 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 $496 $607 $217 $152 $105 $89 $244 $370 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 725 762 301 317 218 189 465 481 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 1,307 1,460 574 479 355 286 764 999 

Time period

1999–2000 to 2000–2001 3.7 4.4 6.8 5.0 6.9 6.6 2.4 3.6 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 5.2 5.0 7.9 8.6 13.2 13.6 4.5 3.9 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 9.9 10.1 18.4 14.4 22.7 22.4 8.0 9.5 

Table D-5. Median price of attendance, total aid, total grants, net price (all aid), and net price (grants) for first-time, full-time, d

Table D-5. seeking undergraduates, unweighted and weighted by enrollment: Private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions, 

NOTE: Enrollment weighted figures are using the number of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Aid amounts are composite percentage receiving aid multiplied by the average amount received. Thus, they are medians across all students at each institution. Dollar changes were level, and then medians were calculated across all institutions. As a result, the aggregate change in median values may not be the same as the median period. Percentage changes also were calculated at an institutional level, and then medians were calculated. In a few cases, institutions had a zero valuyear. In these cases, the percentage change in total aid or total grants was system missing.

Median values in current dollars

Median dollar change

Median percentage change

1 Academic Year for institutions that were academic year reporters, Program Year for program year reporters. See methodology for details.

Price of attendance Total aid Total grants Net price (all aid) 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Institutional CharFinancial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.
Sector Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted U

Public 4-year 6.8 7.4 4.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 Private not-for-profit, 4-year 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.8 5.7 Public 2-year 4.4 4.6 2.2 1.8 -1.1 -1.6 Private for-profit, less-than-4-year 7.0 7.1 4.5 4.7 2.6 4.2 Table D-6. 1999–2000 to 2001–02

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Institutional CharFinancial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002.NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the rate of change in the Cothis period. Therefore, an institution that raises its price over this period at the rate of inflation would have an index value of 0. Enrollment weighted figufirst-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Price data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year reporters (includnot-for-profit, 4-year, and public 2-year institutions), and program year for program year reporters. See methodology for details.

Table D-6. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, by sector, unweighted and weight

Index of tuition and fees

Index of price of 

attendance Index of net price (all aid) In
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
E-1 

Appendix E—Institutional Selectivity 

One of the variables expected to be associated with prices and aid at 4-year institutions was 

institutional selectivity. Thus, it was important to have a measure of selectivity for each 4-year 

institution in the study universe. In order to create a measure that could be calculated at an 

institutional level and be simple and replicable over time, a new selectivity variable was derived 

from IPEDS data. 

The selectivity variable presented in several tables in this report as an institutional 

characteristic was calculated from 2002 Institutional Characteristics data for the 4-year 

institutions in the study universe. The IC component includes several relevant variables: a flag 

for whether or not institutions were open admission; the number of applicants; the number of 

students admitted; the 25th and 75th percentiles of ACT and/or SAT scores; and a flag for 

whether or not test scores were required.28

Open admission 4-year institutions were formed into a separate category. For non-open 

admission institutions, an index was created from two variables: 1) the centile distribution of the 

percentage of students who were admitted (of those who applied); and 2) the centile distribution 

of the midpoint between the 25th and 75th percentile SAT/ACT combined scores reported by 

each institution (ACT scores were converted into SAT equivalents). The two variables were 

given equal weight for those non-open admission institutions that had data for both, and the 

combined centile variable was divided into selectivity categories—very selective, moderately 

selective, and minimally selective—based on breaks in the distribution. Institutions that did not 

have test score data (about 10 percent of non-open admission institutions) were assigned to the 

selectivity categories using a combination of percent admitted and whether they required test 

scores; institutions that did not require test scores were assigned to the “minimally selective” 

category, while the remainder were assigned according to the range of centiles of “percent 

admitted” in which they fell. 

Multiple tests were performed to check the validity of the selectivity variable, including 

crosstabulations and correlations with highest degree offered, Carnegie Classification, and other 

 

28 Institutions were required to report test scores only if test scores were required for admission and if 60 percent or more of the 

entering cohort of students submitted scores for a given test. 
Appendix E—Institutional Selectivity 

E-2 

types of selectivity measures such as Peterson’s Selectivity Ranking.29 The selectivity variable 

appeared to assign institutions to categories in ways that would be expected (table E-1). 

 

29 From the 2001 Peterson’s Guide to Four-Year Colleges (Thomson Peterson’s 2001). The Peterson’s Ranking was available 

for 1,093 of the 1,569 4-year institutions in the study universe. All of the tests had significant Chi Squares and Pearson’s r 

values. 

Very Selective

Moderately

selective

Minimally

selective Open admission

Cornell University

Ball State 

University

Black Hills State 

University

Northern 

Kentucky

University

SUNYBinghamtonOhio State 

University

University of 

Northern 

Alabama

Texas Southern 

University

University of 

Virginia

University of 

Oregon

Winston-Salem 

State University

University of 

Toledo

Duke University DePaul University Cabrini College

University of Rio 

Grande

Princeton 

University

Mary Baldwin 

College

Wayland Baptist 

University Pikeville College

Williams College

University of San 

Francisco

Albertus Magnus 

College

Rochester 

College

Table E-1. Selected 4-year institutions in the study universe, by institutional selectivity

NOTE: Selected institutions are in no particular order.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics, Collection Year 2002.

Public institutions

Private not-for-profit institutions
F-1 

Appendix F—Inflation Measures 

This report used the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to measure 

inflation over the period under review. In order to measure changes in consumer prices for the 

CPI, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses a defined “market basket” of various types of 

goods and services that consumers purchase for their day-to-day living. BLS measures the 

average monthly prices of specific expenditure items in eight major groups: food and beverages, 

housing, apparel; transportation; medical care, recreation; education and communication; and 

other goods and services.30 However, the CPI has some limitations in its use as a tool to assess 

the price changes faced by colleges and universities. 

Prices for specific goods and services may change more rapidly (or more slowly) than the 

rate of increase captured by the CPI. Unlike the goods and services purchased by the typical 

urban consumer, colleges and universities spend money primarily on compensation for faculty 

and staff, with substantially lower percentages of their budgets spent on items such as books and 

computing. This presents a problem for measurement of price change because on average, 

educated, white-collar workers have earned increasingly higher compensation through the U.S. 

economy, and colleges and universities are no exception.31 

To address this issue, Kent Halstead of Research Associates developed a Higher Education 

Price Index (HEPI) that measured the average changes in the prices of goods and services 

purchased by colleges and universities through educational and general expenditures. Building 

upon this concept, State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) recently developed an 

alternative scale to estimate inflation in the costs paid by colleges and universities (for details, 

see SHEEO 2004). The Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA) is constructed from two 

federal prices indices: 1) the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which includes salaries and benefits 

for private sector white-collar workers (excluding sales); and 2) the Gross Domestic Product 

Implicit Price Deflator (GDP IPD), which reflects general price inflation in the US economy.32

The HECA is based on a market basket with two components: 

 

30 For more information, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ website, at http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/. 

31 These concerns are noted in SHEEO (2004). 

32 Gross Domestic Product is the monetary value of all goods and services produced by an economy over a specified period. The 

Implicit Price Deflator converts the GDP into constant dollars, i.e., current dollar GDP divided by constant dollar GDP. The 

deflator therefore measures price change over the whole economy, rather than using a fixed basket of goods and services. 
Appendix F—Inflation Measures 

F-2 

• Personnel costs (75 percent of the index), based on the growth of the ECI 

• Non-personnel costs (the remaining 25 percent), based on the growth of the GDP 

Between fiscal years 1990 and 2002, consumer prices as measured by the CPI-U increased 

by 40 percent; provider prices for higher education as estimated by the HECA grew 49 percent; 

and per capita income grew 58 percent (SHEEO 2004).33 For the purposes of this report, between 

1999–2000 and 2001–02, the CPI-U increased by about 5.4 percent. In comparison, the HECA 

increased by 7.6 percent. 

The median index values for tuition and fees, price of attendance, net price (aid) and net 

price (grants) can be calculated separately using the CPI and using the HECA (table F-1). As 

 

33 HECA data are Quarter 2 of the calendar year, coinciding with the final quarter of the comparable fiscal year. CPI-U data are 

fiscal year (July 1 to June 30), and per capita income data are calendar year (SHEEO 2004). 

Sector

Index of tuition and 

fees

Index of price of 

attendance

Index of net price 

(all aid)

Index of net price 

(grants)

Public 4-year

CPI-U 6.8 4.5 3.3 2.8

HECA 4.6 2.2 1.1 0.5

Private not-for-profit, 4-year

CPI-U 5.2 4.6 4.8 4.4

HECA 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.2

Public 2-year

CPI-U 4.4 2.2 -1.1 -1.3

HECA 2.2 0.0 -3.3 -3.5

Private for-profit, less-than-4-year

CPI-U 7.0 4.6 2.6 3.2

HECA 4.7 2.3 0.4 1.0

Table F-1. Median values for indices of tuition and fees, price of attendance, and net price, calculated

Table F-1. using the CPI-U and the HECA, by sector: 1999–2000 to 2001–02

NOTE: Each index was calculated as the rate of change in price between 1999–2000 (year 1) and 2001–02 (year 3), minus the 

rate of change in prices overall during this period. For each sector, the first set of index values were calculated using the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI-U); the second set of index values were calculated using the Higher Education Cost Adjustment 

(HECA). The CPI-U is for academic year (July 1 to June 30). HECA data are Quarter 2 of the calendar year, coinciding with the 

final quarter of the comparable academic year. Price data are for academic year for institutions that were academic year 

reporters (including all public 4-year, private not-for-profit, 4-year, and public 2-year institutions), and program year for program 

year reporters. See methodology for details.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Institutional Characteristics and Student Financial Aid, Collection Years 2000 to 2002; State Higher Education Executive 

Officers. (2004). State Higher Education Finance FY 2003 . Washington, DC: Author.
Appendix F—Inflation Measures 

F-3 

would be expected, the median index values calculated using the HECA are lower than those 

calculated using the CPI. In particular, when using the HECA, the median index value for net 

price (grants) at public 4-year institutions is close to zero. In addition, the median index value for 

net price (all aid) at private for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions is close to zero. These groups 

of institutions raised their net prices at about the same rate as inflation in the costs paid by 

colleges in universities over the period under review.