Characteristics of

Undergraduate

Borrowers: 1999–2000

Postsecondary Education

Descriptive Analysis Reports

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2003–155
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2003–155 

Characteristics of 

Undergraduate 

Borrowers: 1999–2000

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Reports 

January 2003 

Melissa E. Clinedinst 

Alisa F. Cunningham 

Jamie P. Merisotis 

The Institute for Higher Education Policy 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Val Plisko 

Associate Commissioner 

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

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

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

States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such 

statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report 

on education activities in foreign countries. 

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

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality 

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

practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

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

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

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would 

like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to: 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

January 2003 

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

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

Suggested Citation 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Characteristics of Undergraduate 

Borrowers: 1999–2000, NCES 2003–155, by Melissa E. Clinedinst, Alisa F. Cunningham, and Jamie P. Merisotis. 

Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 2003. 

For ordering information on this report, write: 

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

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

Content Contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

This report describes student borrowing by 

comparing different groups of undergraduate 

borrowers. Two sets of borrower groups are 

examined: 1) high, medium, low, and 

nonborrowers as defined by borrowing from all 

sources in 1999–2000 (excluding federal Parent 

Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and 

loans from family or friends);1 and 2) Stafford 

loan maximum borrowers (total, subsidized, and 

unsubsidized),2 less-than-maximum borrowers, 

and Stafford nonborrowers.3 The analysis of 

borrower groups explores demographic and 

enrollment characteristics, risk for not persisting 

 

1Borrowers are separated into low, medium, and high 

categories based on the distribution of total amounts 

borrowed in 1999–2000 (independent of class level), 

approximating quartiles. As a result, low borrowers are 

defined as those undergraduate students who borrowed 

$2,625 or less (28 percent), medium borrowers are defined as 

those undergraduates who borrowed more than $2,625 but 

less than $6,625 (51 percent), and high borrowers are defined 

as those undergraduates who borrowed $6,625 and above (21 

percent). The cut-points that define these groups correspond 

with federal Stafford and Perkins loan limits but were not 

chosen for this reason. 

2 For the purposes of this report, Stafford Loans include those 

provided through the Federal Family Education Loan 

Program (FFELP) and the Federal Direct Loan Program. The 

Stafford total loan amount includes dollars borrowed under 

either or both the subsidized and unsubsidized programs. A 

subsidized loan is awarded on the basis of financial need. If a 

student qualifies for a subsidized loan, the federal government 

pays the interest on the loan until the student begins 

repayment, and during authorized periods of deferment 

thereafter. An unsubsidized loan is not awarded on the basis 

of need. Students who qualify for an unsubsidized loan are 

charged interest from the time the loan is disbursed until it is 

paid in full. 

3Stafford maximum borrowers are those who borrow 100 

percent of the federal loan limit under the program in 

question. This classification is based on the maximum 

allowed amounts under the subsidized and unsubsidized 

programs for a given student’s class level. (See “Appendix 

AGlossary” for a list of undergraduate loan limits in 1999–

2000.) 

to completion of an educational program, and 

types of loans and other financial aid received. 

The final analysis in the report considers all 

borrowers as a group and explores the likelihood 

of borrowers with certain characteristics obtaining 

particular types of financial aid. Twenty-nine 

percent of undergraduates borrowed from some 

source to help finance postsecondary education in 

1999–2000. 

Data from the 1999–2000 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) 

were used for this report. These data provide a 

nationally representative sample of 

undergraduates enrolled at postsecondary 

institutions that participated in the federal student 

aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher 

Education Act.4 NPSAS:2000 includes 

information on student demographic and 

enrollment characteristics, the type (level and 

control) of the enrolling institution, and dollar 

amounts borrowed from various sources in 1999–

2000. 

Profile of Borrower Groups 

The profile of borrower groups examines the 

demographic and enrollment characteristics of 

high borrowers as a group and in comparison to 

medium, low, and nonborrowers. It also examines 

each group of Stafford maximum borrowers (total, 

subsidized, and unsubsidized) individually and in 

 

4Beginning with NPSAS:2000, institutions must have signed 

a Title IV participation agreement with the U.S. Department 

of Education, making them eligible for the federal student aid 

programs, to be included in the institutional sample. 
Executive Summary

iv 

comparison to their Stafford less-than-maximum 

and Stafford nonborrower counterparts. Key 

findings include: 

High Borrowers 

• High borrowers tended to be older (29 

percent were ages 24–29 and 26 percent 

were 30 or older), independent students 

(64 percent). They also were likely to 

attend exclusively full time (72 percent) 

and to attend 4-year institutions (34 

percent attended private not-for-profit and 

38 percent attended public 4-year 

institutions). 

• High, medium, and low borrowers were 

less likely than nonborrowers to have 

been high income and to have worked full 

time. 

Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

• Stafford total maximum borrowers and 

subsidized maximum borrowers tended to 

be young, single, financially dependent 

students. In addition, they were more 

likely to have had each of these 

characteristics than Stafford 

nonborrowers. Each group of maximum 

borrowers tended to be enrolled 

exclusively full time. 

• Stafford maximum borrowers tended to 

work 1–20 hours (total and subsidized) or 

1–20 hours and 35 hours or more 

(unsubsidized). All maximum borrowers 

were less likely than nonborrowers to 

have worked full time. 

Persistence/Attainment Risk 

A common method of characterizing 

undergraduate students is to separate students into 

“traditional” and “nontraditional” categories. In a 

1996 NCES study, a broad definition of 

nontraditional was used that included seven 

characteristics: delaying enrollment; attending 

part time; being financially independent; having 

dependents other than a spouse; working full time 

while enrolled; having no high school diploma; 

and being a single parent. Nontraditional status 

was defined on a continuum based on the number 

of these characteristics. The nontraditional status 

index ranges from minimally nontraditional (one 

characteristic) to moderately nontraditional (two 

or three characteristics) to highly nontraditional 

(four or more characteristics) (Horn 1996). The 

same characteristics that define a nontraditional 

student have also been termed risk characteristics 

because they have been shown to be negatively 

associated with persistence and attainment (Horn 

1996; Horn and Premo 1995). 

This report uses the index to examine the 

percentage of each type of borrower group with 

different numbers of risk characteristics and 

applies the same continuum used to define 

nontraditional to characterize the degree of risk 

from minimal to high. Because research has 

shown that students who do not attain degrees are 

more likely to default, the analysis focuses on 

those with high risk characteristics. Key findings 

include: 

High Borrowers 

• With the exception of students at private 

not-for-profit 4-year institutions, high 

borrowers most often had moderate risk 

(public 4-year institutions, 39 percent; and 

private for-profit institutions, 52 percent) 

or moderate and high risk (public 2-year 

institutions, 46 and 33 percent) of not 

persisting. High borrowers at private notfor-profit 4-year institutions were more 

likely to have had zero risk characteristics 

(42 percent). 

• The proportion of high borrowers with a 

high risk for not persisting varied by 
 Executive Summary 

v 

institution type. At both private not-forprofit 4-year institutions and public 4-year 

institutions, high borrowers were more 

likely to have had high risk than medium 

and low borrowers. At private for-profit 

institutions, however, a lower percentage 

of high borrowers (28 percent) had high 

risk than medium borrowers (41 percent). 

Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

• The highest proportion of Stafford 

maximum borrowers (total, subsidized, 

and unsubsidized) at private not-for-profit 

4-year institutions and public 4-year 

institutions had zero risk characteristics 

(were traditional students). At public 2-

year institutions, they primarily had 

moderate risk (unsubsidized) or moderate 

and high risk (subsidized). Those at 

private for-profit institutions primarily 

had moderate risk. 

• In all four institution types, Stafford total 

maximum and unsubsidized maximum 

borrowers were less likely to have had 

high risk for not persisting than their lessthan-maximum borrower and nonborrower 

counterparts. 

Types and Source of Financial Aid 

Many borrowers also received other types of 

financial aid (loans, grants, and work-study). 

Thus, this profile also looks at the other types of 

aid that were received by each borrower group as 

well as average amounts received. It explores the 

various ways in which borrowers finance college 

attendance in addition to borrowing. Key findings 

include: 

High Borrowers 

• High borrowers received an average of 

$9,680 in loan aid. Ninety-eight percent of 

high borrowers received Stafford loans 

and about one-quarter received private 

loans (27 percent). 

• Compared to medium and low borrowers, 

high borrowers were most likely to have 

received both Stafford subsidized loans 

and Stafford unsubsidized loans as well as 

private loans. 

• Seventy-one percent of high borrowers 

received some form of grant aid in 1999–

2000, averaging $4,667. High, medium, 

and low borrowers were more likely to 

have received some form of grant aid and 

to have received higher average amounts 

compared to nonborrowers. 

Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

• In 1999–2000, 80 percent of Stafford total 

maximum borrowers received subsidized 

loans, and 59 percent received 

unsubsidized loans. Stafford maximum 

borrowers also received private loans 

(total maximum borrowers, 13 percent; 

subsidized maximum borrowers, 11 

percent; and unsubsidized maximum 

borrowers, 11 percent). 

• Each group of maximum borrowers was 

more likely to have received private loans 

and to have received higher average 

amounts than less-than-maximum 

borrowers and nonborrowers. 

• Most maximum borrowers received some 

form of grant aid (total maximum 

borrowers, 67 percent; subsidized 

maximum borrowers, 80 percent; and 

unsubsidized maximum borrowers, 54 

percent). 

Who Receives Financial Aid 

All borrowers as a group were examined to 

determine whether borrowers with certain 

demographic and enrollment characteristics were 

more likely to have received specific types of 

loans and other aid or differing average amounts 
Executive Summary

vi 

in 1999–2000. The main differences are related to 

federal Stafford loans (subsidized and 

unsubsidized) and private loans. Three 

multivariate analyses were conducted to examine 

the independent association of certain 

characteristics with having received each of these 

types of loans by adjusting for covariation among 

the characteristics examined. Key findings 

include: 

Stafford Loans 

• Borrowers who were financially 

independent (versus dependent), who 

attended private for-profit institutions 

(versus private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions), and who attended 

exclusively full time (versus less than half 

time) were more likely to have received 

both federal Stafford subsidized loans and 

Stafford unsubsidized loans. 

Private Loans 

• Borrowers who attended less than half 

time (versus exclusively full time), who 

attended a private not-for-profit 4-year 

institution (versus a public 4-year 

institution or a private for-profit 

institution), and who were high or middle 

income (versus low income) received 

private loans at a higher rate. 
vii 

Foreword 

This report describes the population of undergraduate students who borrowed to help 

finance their college attendance during 1999–2000. Two sets of borrower groups were 

considered: 1) high, medium, low, and nonborrowers as defined by borrowing from all sources; 

and 2) Stafford loan maximum borrowers (total, subsidized, and unsubsidized), less-thanmaximum borrowers, and Stafford nonborrowers. The study explores the demographic and 

enrollment characteristics of these borrowers as well as their risk for not persisting to completion 

of an educational program and the various types of loans and other financial aid they received. 

The report also looks at all borrowers as a group and explores the likelihood of borrowers with 

certain characteristics obtaining particular types of financial aid. 

Data from the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) were 

used for this report. These data provide a nationally representative sample of undergraduates 

enrolled at postsecondary institutions that participated in the federal student aid programs 

authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act. NPSAS:2000 includes information on 

student demographic and enrollment characteristics, the type (level and control) of the enrolling 

institution, and dollar amounts borrowed from various sources in 1999–2000. 

The NCES Data Analysis System (DAS), a microcomputer application that allows users to 

generate tables for NPSAS:2000, as well as several other NCES surveys, was used to produce the 

estimates presented in this report. To allow researchers to perform tests of statistical significance, 

the DAS produces design-adjusted standard errors necessary for this purpose. Please consult 

Appendix B for more information on the DAS. 
viii 

Acknowledgments 

Many individuals made important contributions to this report. At the Institute for Higher 

Education Policy, Deanna High, Project Editor, contributed greatly to the clarity and structure of 

the report. 

The initial analysis plan and data tables for the study were reviewed by the following 

individuals: Sandra Garcia, Paula Knepper, Dan Madzelan, Jon Oberg, and John Wirt at the U.S. 

Department of Education; Jaci King at the American Council on Education (ACE); and Pat 

Smith at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). 

The report draft was reviewed by the following adjudication members at the U.S. 

Department of Education: Stephen Broughman, Daniel Goldenberg, and John Wirt. Kenneth 

Redd at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) also 

served on the adjudication panel. Karen O’Conor served as the adjudicator, and Paula Knepper 

served as the NCES Postsecondary Technical Reviewer. 

We gratefully acknowledge the help of these individuals who made valuable contributions 

to the final report. 
ix 

Table of Contents 

Page 

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

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xi 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xiii 

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

Background ........................................................................................................................... 2 

Data and Approach to Analysis............................................................................................. 3 

Definition of Borrower Groups ....................................................................................... 3 

Definition of Price of Attendance and Unmet Need ....................................................... 8 

Definition of Nontraditional Undergraduates and Persistence/Attainment Risk Index .. 9 

Profile of Borrower Groups ..................................................................................................... 13

Persistence/Attainment Risk (Nontraditional) Characteristics............................................. 15

Types and Sources of Financial Aid ........................................................................................ 17

Loans ..................................................................................................................................... 17 

Grants and Work-Study......................................................................................................... 17 

Stafford Maximum Borrowers................................................................................................. 21

Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics....................................................................... 21 

Persistence/Attainment Risk (Nontraditional) Characteristics.............................................. 30 

Types and Sources of Financial Aid...................................................................................... 33 

Loans ............................................................................................................................... 34 

Grants and Work-Study................................................................................................... 34 

Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid ...................................................... 39

Stafford Loans ....................................................................................................................... 39 

Multivariate Analysis ...................................................................................................... 46 

Private Loans......................................................................................................................... 51 

Multivariate Analysis ...................................................................................................... 52 

Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................... 55 
Table of Contents

x 

Page 

References.................................................................................................................................. 59

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 61

Appendix B—Technical Notes................................................................................................. 73
xi 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

Text Tables 

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by borrower status, according to selected 

characteristics: 1999–2000.............................................................................................. 5 

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and 

borrower status, according to number of persistence/attainment risk characteristics: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 16 

3 Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources and 

average amount received, by borrower status: 1999–2000 ............................................. 18 

4 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by total Stafford loan borrower status, 

according to selected characteristics: 1999–2000 ........................................................... 22 

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by subsidized Stafford loan borrower 

status, according to selected characteristics: 1999–2000 ................................................ 24 

6 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by unsubsidized Stafford loan borrower 

status, according to selected characteristics: 1999–2000 ................................................ 27 

7 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and total 

Stafford loan borrower status, according to number of persistence/attainment risk 

characteristics: 1999–2000.............................................................................................. 31 

8 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and 

subsidized Stafford loan borrower status, according to number of 

persistence/attainment risk characteristics: 1999–2000 .................................................. 32 

9 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and 

unsubsidized Stafford loan borrower status, according to number of 

persistence/attainment risk characteristics: 1999–2000 .................................................. 33 

10 Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources and 

average amount received, by total Stafford loan borrower status: 1999–2000 ............... 35 

11 Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources and 

average amount received, by subsidized Stafford loan borrower status: 1999–2000 ..... 36 
List of Tables

xii 

Table Page 

12 Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources 

and average amount received, by unsubsidized Stafford loan borrower status: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 37 

13 Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received loans from various sources, by 

selected characteristics: 1999–2000 ................................................................................ 40 

14 Average amount of loan aid received by undergraduate borrowers from various 

sources, by selected characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................................. 43 

15 Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received subsidized Stafford loans, and 

the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed 

in the table: 1999–2000................................................................................................... 47 

16 Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received unsubsidized Stafford loans, 

and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables 

listed in the table: 1999–2000 ......................................................................................... 49 

17 Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received private loans, and the adjusted 

percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 53 

Appendix Table 

B1 Standard errors for table 12: Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid 

from various sources and average amount received, by unsubsidized Stafford loan 

borrower status: 1999–2000............................................................................................ 75 
xiii 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

1 Percentage distribution of high borrowers according to class level: 1999–2000............ 4 

2 Percentage distribution of high borrowers according to institution type: 1999–2000 .... 7 

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to price of attendance: 1999–

2000................................................................................................................................. 9 

4 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to unmet need: 1999–2000.......... 10 

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to number of nontraditional 

characteristics, by institutional type: 1999–2000 ............................................................ 11 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 

Introduction 

Researchers have explored many issues related to student borrowing, including loan 

volume and sources, cumulative debt and debt burden, and borrowing behaviors of various 

groups of students. However, there has been relatively little research on the characteristics of 

student borrowers. In contrast to other studies that have looked at the borrowing behaviors of 

particular groups of students, this report examines the distinguishing characteristics of groups of 

students who borrow different amounts. Specifically, this report seeks to describe student 

borrowing by examining student groups that borrow relatively high, medium, and low amounts, 

and those groups that do not borrow.1

Key questions addressed are: 

• Who are high borrowers? 

• Are high borrowers more likely to have risk characteristics for persistence in 

completing their educational programs than medium, low, and nonborrowers? 

• What types of loans and other financial aid are received by high, medium, and low 

borrowers? 

• Who are Stafford loan maximum borrowers and what types of other aid do they 

receive? 

• Are borrowers with certain demographic and enrollment characteristics more likely to 

receive particular types of aid? 

This report begins with background information on student borrowing followed by a 

description of the data source and variable definitions. Later sections provide findings on the 

characteristics of high borrowers in comparison to medium, low, and nonborrowers—including 

characteristics associated with risk of not persisting to completion of an educational program—

and show the types of loans and other financial aid received by each borrower group. The next 

section presents findings of a similar analysis on Stafford loan (subsidized and unsubsidized) 

borrowers.2 Characteristics of undergraduates who borrow the maximum allowed amounts under 

 

1Borrower groups are based on annual loan amounts for 1999–2000. 

2A subsidized loan is awarded on the basis of financial need. If a student qualifies for a subsidized loan, the federal government 

pays the interest on the loan until the student begins repayment, and during authorized periods of deferment thereafter. An 

unsubsidized loan is not awarded on the basis of need. Students who qualify for an unsubsidized loan are charged interest from 

the time the loan is disbursed until it is paid in full. 
Introduction 

2 

these programs are compared to those who borrow less-than-maximum amounts and to those 

who do not borrow Stafford loans. This section also examines other financial aid received by 

Stafford loan maximum borrowers, less-than-maximum borrowers, and Stafford nonborrowers. 

The final section of the report examines the likelihood of borrowers with certain characteristics 

obtaining particular types of financial aid. 

Background 

Over the last twenty years, there has been a shift in the nature of student financial aid. 

Loans (federal and non-federal) comprised 58 percent of total financial aid awarded in 2000–

2001 compared to 41 percent in 1980–81 (College Board 2001). Over the last decade, total 

student loan volume has increased substantially, and an increasing number of students are 

borrowing (Berkner 2000). These increases are attributed, in part, to changes in federal need 

analysis and increased federal loan limits that have allowed more students to borrow under 

federal programs and to borrow higher amounts (Redd 1999). While it is unclear whether private 

source loans are increasing as a proportion of total loan volume, there is evidence that the 

absolute volume of private loans and the number of providers has increased in recent years 

(Hoffman 2002). 

It is also unclear to what degree increased reliance on student loans has affected access, 

affordability, and choice for low- and middle-income students (Campaigne and Hossler 1998). 

Most bachelor’s degree recipients who borrow to help finance postsecondary education (50 

percent) are well positioned financially to make loan payments (Choy 2000). However, student 

loan debt has proven problematic for some groups of students. Low-income students, single 

parents, and minorities are all more likely to default on loans, though degree completion 

equalizes any race differences in default rates (Volkwein and Cabrera 1998). Other research also 

shows that degree completion is an important factor in whether a student defaults and that lowincome students are more averse to taking on debt than middle- and high-income students 

(Dynarski 1994; Knapp and Seaks 1992; Hossler, Braxton, and Coopersmith 1989). 

Issues surrounding increasing student debt levels, including debt burden, risk of default, 

and demand for higher loan limits, continue to surface in policy discussions and are likely to be a 

main focus in upcoming federal higher education policy debates. Discussions concerning federal 

loan limits will involve the realities of rising prices, the changing demographics of the population 

served by higher education, and concerns about debt levels and default. Given the importance of 

the issues surrounding student loan borrowing, this report seeks to provide an analysis that will 

help inform these debates. This goal guided many of the choices concerning the content of this 

report, while other choices resulted from the nature of the data available for this study. 
 Introduction 

3 

A specific goal of this study was to examine the characteristics of students who borrow 

high amounts annually. In addition to identifying characteristics that distinguish high borrowers 

from other borrower groups, this report examines the number of persistence/attainment risk 

characteristics of high borrowers compared to other groups. Because the data are limited to 

students who are currently enrolled, it was impossible to include an analysis of degree attainment 

or default outcomes. It is useful, however, to examine whether high borrowers are at greater risk 

for these behaviors. The report also looks at the other types of loans that borrower groups receive 

and presents a profile of students who borrow at current Stafford loan maximums. In defining 

borrower groups, this study uses annual loan amounts rather than cumulative debt. Absolute 

amounts of borrowing are considered rather than defining borrower groups relative to other 

variables, such as type of institution attended. For the purposes of this report, high borrowing 

was considered as an absolute concept because of concerns about debt burden. (See “Data and 

Approach to Analysis” below for further discussion.) 

Data and Approach to Analysis 

Data from the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) were 

used for this report. These data provide a nationally representative sample of undergraduates 

enrolled at postsecondary institutions that participated in the federal student aid programs 

authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act.3 NPSAS:2000 includes information on 

student demographic and enrollment characteristics, the type (level and control) of the enrolling 

institution, and dollar amounts borrowed from various sources in 1999–2000. 

Definition of Borrower Groups 

Borrowers are defined in this report as undergraduate students who have obtained loans 

from federal, state, institutional, and other sources, including private commercial loans (but 

excluding federal Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and loans from family or 

friends), for 1999–2000. Using this definition, 29 percent of undergraduates were borrowers.4

Borrowers were separated into groups based on the distribution of total amount borrowed 

in 1999–2000. The classification of borrowers into low, medium, and high categories was based 

on the distribution of loan amounts among all borrowers. Exact quartiles were not used because 

of “heaping” at certain dollar amounts. In order to prevent students who borrowed identical 

 

3Beginning with NPSAS:2000, institutions must have signed a Title IV participation agreement with the U.S. Department of 

Education, making them eligible for the federal student aid programs, to be included in the institutional sample. 

4U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000), Data Analysis System. 
Introduction 

4 

amounts from being classified into different groups, cut-points were chosen to approximate 

upper and lower quartiles.5 Low borrowers were defined as those undergraduate students who 

borrowed $2,625 or less in 1999–2000. Medium borrowers were defined as those undergraduates 

who borrowed more than $2,625 but less than $6,625. High borrowers were defined as those 

undergraduates who borrowed $6,625 and above. Using this definition, 28 percent of all 

borrowers were low borrowers, 51 percent were medium borrowers, and 21 percent were high 

borrowers in 1999–2000. Nonborrowers were those undergraduates who did not borrow from the 

included sources (figure 1 and table 1). 

Although the definition of borrower used in this report includes borrowing from sources 

other than federal, most borrowers received federal loans in 1999–2000. Because the cut-points 

used to classify borrower groups correspond with Stafford and Perkins loan limits, which vary by 

class level, it is necessary to examine the possibility that the definition of borrower groups is 

 

5For the purposes of this report, Stafford loans include those provided through the Federal Family Education Loan Program 

(FFELP) and the Federal Direct Student Loan Program. These dollar amounts correspond with federal loan limits for 

undergraduates under the Stafford loan and Perkins loan programs. The lower cut-point, $2,625, corresponds to the Stafford total 

limit for first-year dependent undergraduates (subsidized or unsubsidized) and the upper cut-point, $6,625, corresponds to the 

Stafford total limit for independent, first-year students. 

Figure 1.—Percentage distribution of high borrowers according to class level: 1999–2000

NOTE: Borrowers are those undergraduates who received loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding 

PLUS loans. Low borrowers had total annual loan amounts of $2,625 or less in 1999–2000; medium borrowers had more than 

$2,625 but less than $6,625; and high borrowers had $6,625 or more. The class level characteristic used here applies to class 

level for student loan purposes.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

27%

21%

24%

24%

4%

First-year

undergraduate

Second-year

undergraduate

Third-year

undergraduate

Fourth-year

undergraduate

Fifth-year

undergraduate
 Introduction 

5 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by borrower status, according to selected

Table 1.—characteristics: 1999–2000

Low Medium High All

Nonborrower borrower borrower borrower undergraduates

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

Male 44.6 41.4 40.7 57.1 43.7

Female 55.4 58.6 59.3 42.9 55.4

Age

23 years or younger 53.2 76.3 73.7 45.5 57.2

24–29 years of age 16.7 12.2 14.7 29.0 17.0

30 years or older 30.2 11.5 11.6 25.5 25.8

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 67.5 66.9 70.6 66.1 67.7

Black, non-Hispanic 11.2 16.3 14.0 17.0 12.4

Hispanic or Latino 12.4 11.0 8.8 10.7 11.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.7 4.1 5.1 4.5 6.1

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9

Other 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.2

Marital status

Single, never married 63.1 81.4 81.3 64.3 67.1

Married 28.6 13.5 13.9 26.5 25.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed 8.4 5.1 4.8 9.3 7.7

Single parent status

Not a single parent 86.0 88.6 89.9 86.1 86.7

Single parent 14.0 11.4 10.2 13.9 13.3

Dependency status

Dependent 45.0 68.6 67.1 35.9 49.1

Independent 55.1 31.4 32.9 64.1 50.9

Parent income, quartile (dependent students)

Lowest quartile 23.9 29.4 25.1 29.2 25.0

Middle quartiles 48.2 52.7 54.1 52.2 50.0

Highest quartile 27.9 17.9 20.8 18.6 25.0

Independent student income, quartile

Lowest quartile 19.3 43.2 43.8 36.5 24.2

Middle quartiles 50.4 48.9 48.0 51.5 50.2

Highest quartile 30.3 7.9 8.3 12.0 25.6

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 8.9 6.5 4.7 6.5 7.8

High school graduate 31.0 37.7 31.8 36.9 32.3

Some college, including associate’s degree 20.4 23.6 23.6 23.6 21.5

Bachelor’s degree 22.0 19.6 23.0 19.3 21.7

Advanced degree 17.7 12.6 16.9 13.7 16.8

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 50.7 64.6 68.4 54.0 54.5

Delayed enrollment 49.3 35.4 31.6 46.0 45.5

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 39.9 70.2 74.2 71.9 49.3

Half time 19.5 11.1 6.7 9.1 16.3

Less than half time 24.6 3.0 2.0 1.7 18.2

Mixed1 16.1 15.7 17.2 17.3 16.3

See notes at end of table.
Introduction 

6 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by borrower status, according to selected

Table 1.—characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Low Medium High All

Nonborrower borrower borrower borrower undergraduates

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 46.4 67.1 19.6 26.6 42.7

Second-year undergraduate 28.9 17.1 28.0 20.9 27.1

Third-year undergraduate 9.7 6.8 25.8 24.1 12.9

Fourth-year undergraduate 13.5 7.6 23.5 24.3 15.3

Fifth-year undergraduate 1.6 1.4 3.1 4.1 2.0

Hours worked

Not employed 19.7 22.8 19.1 20.1 19.9

1–20 hours 18.9 30.6 39.2 32.3 23.6

21–34 hours 16.1 20.7 20.8 18.5 17.2

35 hours or more 45.3 25.9 21.0 29.1 39.3

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 10.6 17.1 29.4 33.7 15.2

Public 4-year 28.4 47.1 54.7 37.5 33.9

Public 2-year 58.5 25.6 7.5 6.0 45.6

Private for-profit 2.5 10.3 8.4 22.8 5.3

Degree program

Certificate 9.8 7.3 4.6 9.2 8.9

Associate’s degree 48.4 32.0 13.6 17.6 40.1

Bachelor’s degree 35.9 59.9 81.1 72.6 46.6

No undergraduate degree 5.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 4.4

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 2.1 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.6

Certificate 2.6 2.3 1.2 1.3 2.3

Associate’s degree 8.3 6.7 3.1 4.1 7.2

Bachelor’s degree 34.0 30.6 20.7 21.1 30.9

Master’s degree 36.8 41.5 51.8 51.2 40.3

Doctoral or first-professional degree 10.8 13.5 18.8 17.9 12.6

Don’t know 5.4 4.7 4.2 4.2 5.1

Student unmet need2

Less than $1,000 11.3 6.2 2.8 1.3 7.8

$1,000–$2,999 27.7 23.7 9.5 4.0 20.7

$3,000–$4,999 23.5 27.3 21.0 6.4 21.3

$5,000–$9,999 27.7 32.7 47.0 40.9 33.7

$10,000 and higher 9.8 10.1 19.7 47.4 16.5

Estimated price of attendance3

Less than $5,000 42.4 8.2 1.3 # 31.4

$5,000–$9,999 33.2 41.9 24.8 6.6 30.9

$10,000–$14,999 16.5 31.3 39.4 37.4 22.1

$15,000–$19,999 3.5 9.1 14.2 26.1 7.0

$20,000 and higher 4.5 9.4 20.3 29.9 8.7

#Rounds to zero

1

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as

mixed.

2

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero values

were excluded for this analysis.

3

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, and

personal expenses.

NOTE: Borrowers are those undergraduates who received loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding Parent

Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). Low borrowers had total annual loan amounts of $2,625 or less in 1999–2000; medium

borrowers had more than $2,625 but less than $6,625; and high borrowers had $6,625 or more. Detail may not sum to totals

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
 Introduction 

7 

merely a proxy for class level. As shown in figure 1 and table 1, high borrowers were well 

represented in all class levels (with the exception of fifth-year undergraduates, who made up only 

2 percent of undergraduate students in 1999–2000). This was also the case for medium 

borrowers. Although most low borrowers were first-year students (67 percent), first-year students 

made up a relatively large proportion of all undergraduates (43 percent) NPSAS:2000. 

Given the differences in prices of attendance among institution types, an analogous concern 

exists that differences in borrower groups could merely reflect the type of institution attended by 

the borrower. Figure 2 shows that while few high borrowers attended public 2-year institutions (6 

percent), high borrowers were distributed across other institutional types. Approximately onethird attended private not-for-profit 4-year institutions and another one-third attended public 4-

year institutions. The largest proportion of low borrowers attended public 4-year institutions (47 

percent) (table 1). 

Figure 2.—Percentage distribution of high borrowers according to institution type: 1999–2000

NOTE: Borrowers are those undergraduates who received loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding 

Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). Low borrowers had total annual loan amounts of $2,625 or less in 1999–

2000; medium borrowers had more than $2,625 but less than $6,625; and high borrowers had $6,625 or more. Other 

institutional types, including public less-than-2-year and private not-for-profit less-than-4-year, were excluded from this 

analysis. Also excluded were students attending more than one institution in 1999–2000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

34%

37%

6%

23%

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Private for-profit
Introduction 

8 

Stafford Loan Borrower Groups 

This report includes an analysis of the subset of Stafford borrowers analogous to the 

analysis conducted of borrowers defined by borrowing from all sources. This analysis considers 

three different annual loan amounts: Stafford total; Stafford subsidized; and Stafford 

unsubsidized.6 In each case, three groups are definedmaximum borrowers, less-than-maximum 

borrowers, and nonborrowersresulting in a total of nine Stafford borrower groups.7 This 

classification is based on the maximum allowed amounts under the subsidized and unsubsidized 

programs for a given student’s class level.8 

Definition of Price of Attendance and Unmet Need 

Price of attendance and unmet need are important variables to consider in conjunction with 

income to understand how borrower groups differ in financial status. 

The definition of price of attendance used in this report is the attendance-adjusted student 

budget, including both tuition and nontuition costs.9 Nontuition costs include books and supplies, 

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses. In the context of this report, price of 

attendance is examined as a borrower characteristic and is divided into five categories: less than 

$5,000; $5,000 to $9,999; $10,000 to $14,999; $15,000 to $19,999; and $20,000 and above. 

Figure 3 shows the percentage of students with prices of attendance falling in each category. See 

table 1 for the distribution of borrowers by price of attendance. 

Unmet need is a concept used to describe the amount of the total price of attendance that is 

higher than what the student or family is expected to pay but is not covered by financial aid 

awards. Unmet need may be defined in different ways. The standard definition of unmet need 

subtracts both the expected family contribution (EFC) and all financial aid from the price of 

attendance.10 Given the focus on borrowers, it was most useful for the purposes of this report, 

 

6Stafford maximum borrowers are those who borrow 100 percent of the federal loan limit under the program in question. The 

Stafford total loan amount includes dollars borrowed under either or both the subsidized and unsubsidized programs. Therefore, 

Stafford total borrowers include all students who borrowed under the Stafford programs, including those who borrowed 

exclusively subsidized loans, exclusively unsubsidized loans, and a combination of subsidized and unsubsidized loans. 

7In the case of this analysis, nonborrower refers only to the Stafford loan program in question. Throughout the report, they will 

be referred to as Stafford nonborrowers, Stafford subsidized nonborrowers, and Stafford unsubsidized nonborrowers. Therefore, 

these “nonborrowers” may actually have borrowed from non-Stafford sources. 

8Stafford total borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the maximum amounts for 

subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans combined. See Appendix AGlossary (STAFFCT1 – STAFFCT3) for a list of 

undergraduate loan limits in 1999–2000. 

9The attendance-adjusted student budget is estimated based on tuition paid, number of months enrolled, and attendance status 

while enrolled. 

10EFC is determined when students apply for financial aid. 
 Introduction 

9 

however, to adopt a definition that subtracts only grant aid. Unmet need, therefore, is defined as 

the attendance-adjusted student budget minus the expected family contribution (EFC) and all 

grant aid. Unmet need is divided into five categories: less than $1,000; $1,000 to $2,999; $3,000 

to $4,999; $5,000 to $9,999; and $10,000 and above.11 Figure 4 shows the percentage of students 

with each level of unmet need. See table 1 for the distribution of borrowers by unmet need level. 

Definition of Nontraditional Undergraduates and Persistence/Attainment Risk Index 

In examining a profile of borrowers that includes many characteristics, it is useful to have a 

mechanism for clustering these characteristics. A common method of characterizing 

undergraduate students is to divide students into “traditional” and “nontraditional” categories. 

The characteristics that define a nontraditional undergraduate have been debated, but in a 1996 

NCES study, a broad definition of the term was used that included seven characteristics: delaying 

enrollment; attending part time; being financially independent; having dependents other than a 

spouse; working full time while enrolled; having no high school diploma; and being a single 

parent. Nontraditional was defined on a continuum based on the number of these characteristics 

that ranges from minimally nontraditional (one characteristic) to moderately nontraditional ( two 

or three characteristics) to highly nontraditional (four or more characteristics) (Horn 1996). 

 

11Zero values were excluded for the analysis in this report. 

Figure 3.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to price of attendance: 1999–2000

NOTE: The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition and fees, room and board, 

and other expenses. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

31%

31%

22%

7%

9%

Less than $5,000

$5,000–$9,999

$10,000–$14,999

$15,000–$19,999

$20,000 and higher
Introduction 

10 

This method is particularly appropriate for this research because nontraditional students 

defined in this way are more likely to leave college before completing an educational program. 

The characteristics that define a nontraditional student have also been termed risk characteristics 

because of this relationship (Horn 1996; Horn and Premo 1995). An index of risk characteristics 

associated with lower rates of persistence and attainment based on the sum of these seven 

characteristics is included in NPSAS:2000. This report uses that index to examine the percentage 

of each type of borrower with different numbers of risk characteristics, and applies the same 

continuum used to define nontraditional to characterize the degree of risk. One characteristic 

indicates minimal risk, two or three indicates moderate risk, and four or more indicates high risk. 

Because the distribution of students on the nontraditional/risk continuum varies by sector (figure 

5), the analysis is done within institutional types. 

Figure 4.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to unmet need: 1999–2000

NOTE: Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant 

aid. Student budget includes tuition, books and supplies, room and board, transportation, and personal expenses. Zero values 

were excluded for this analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

8%

21%

21%

33%

17%

Less than $1,000

$1,000–$2,999

$3,000–$4,999

$5,000–$9,999

$10,000 and higher
 Introduction 

11 

Figure 5.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to number of nontraditional characteristics,

Figure 5.—by institutional type: 1999–2000

NOTE: The defininition of a nontraditional undergraduate includes seven characteristics: delaying enrollment; attending 

part-time; being financially independent; having dependents other than a spouse; working full time while enrolled; having no 

high school diploma; and being a single parent. Traditional undergraduates have none of these characteristics, minimally 

nontraditional undergraduates have one, moderately nontraditional undergraduates have two or three, and highly nontraditional 

undergraduates have four or more (Horn 1996). These characteristics also have been shown to be negatively associated with 

persistence and attainment (Horn 1996; Horn and Premo 1995). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

9%

9%

39%

46%

15%

15%

21%

16%

41%

40%

26%

21%

35%

36%

14%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Private for-profit

Public 2-year

Public 4-year

Private not-forprofit 4-year

Traditional (0)

Minimally

nontraditional (1)

Moderately

nontraditional (2–3)

Highly nontraditional

(4 or more)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
13 

Profile of Borrower Groups 

This section provides a profile of the characteristics of undergraduates who borrowed 

relatively high amounts in 1999–2000 compared to those who borrowed medium or low amounts 

or did not borrow. 

High borrowers tended to be independent students (64 percent), and to be age 24 or older.12

The highest percentage of high borrowers attended exclusively full time (72 percent) and 

attended 4-year institutions (34 percent attended private not-for-profit and 38 percent attended 

public 4-year institutions) (table 1). The tendency for high borrowers to be older, independent 

students may reflect a higher financial need among these students or reflect increased eligibility 

for higher loan amounts. For example, independent students are eligible for higher maximum 

amounts under the federal Stafford loan programs. 

The characteristics of high borrowers also were compared to those of other borrower 

groups, and it was found that several characteristics distinguished high borrowers from medium 

and low borrowers, including age, marital status, and dependency status. High borrowers were 

less likely than medium and low borrowers to be age 23 or younger (46 percent versus 74 and 76 

percent), single (64 percent versus 81 and 81 percent), and financially dependent (36 percent 

versus 67 and 69 percent) (table 1). Borrower groups also differed by three related 

characteristics—institution type, attendance status,13 and price of attendance. Specifically, a 

larger percentage of students who borrowed both high and medium amounts in 1999–2000 

attended private not-for-profit 4-year institutions than students who borrowed low amounts or did 

not borrow (34 and 30 percent versus 17 and 11 percent) (table 1). Also, all borrower groups 

were more likely to have attended full time than students who did not borrow. Students who 

borrowed high amounts were more likely to have had the highest prices of attendance ($15,000 to 

$19,999 and $20,000 or higher) compared to other borrower groups. 

Not surprisingly, it appears that many undergraduates borrow high amounts in order to 

finance high prices of attendance. This may reflect one or several factors, including low income, 

 

12When students are separated into two age categories, 46 percent are age 23 or younger and 55 percent are age 24 or older. 

Being age 24 or older is one criterion that classifies students as independent. 

13Attendance status indicates whether a student was enrolled only full time, half time, less than half time, or a mixed pattern. 

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time for nine or more months and part time a few months, they are 

categorized as mixed. 
Profile of Borrower Groups

14 

financial need unmet by grant aid, or an inability or unwillingness to work full time. In fact, all 

borrower groups (high, medium, and low) were less likely than nonborrowers to have had 

incomes in the highest quartile in 1999–2000. This was the case for both dependent students (19, 

21, and 18 percent versus 28 percent) and independent students (12, 8, and 8 percent versus 30 

percent) (table 1). In addition, a larger proportion of undergraduates who borrowed high amounts 

had unmet need higher than $10,000 compared to those who borrowed medium and low amounts 

or did not borrow (47 percent versus 20, 10, and 10 percent). Finally, all borrower groups were 

less likely to work full time than nonborrowers. 
15 

Persistence/Attainment Risk (Nontraditional) Characteristics 

Certain demographic and enrollment characteristics that are used to define nontraditional 

undergraduates also are associated with an increased risk of leaving postsecondary education 

before completing an educational program (Horn 1996; Horn and Premo 1995). Research has 

shown that students who do not attain degrees experience more difficulty repaying student loans 

and are more likely to default (Hossler, Braxton, and Coopersmith 1989). The purpose of this 

section is to examine the degree of risk for not persisting to completion of an educational 

program for different borrower groups. High borrowers with high risk are of particular concern 

because of the increased financial burden. Based on the nontraditional continuum developed by 

Horn (1996), one characteristic indicates minimal risk, two or three characteristics indicate 

moderate risk, and four or more characteristics indicate high risk. (See “Data and Approach to 

Analysis” section for more detail.) 

Because the percentage of students with persistence/attainment risk (nontraditional) 

characteristics varies greatly by institutional type, this analysis was conducted within each 

institutional type. The findings are presented for four institutional types: private not-for-profit 4-

year institutions; public 4-year institutions; public 2-year institutions; and private for-profit 

institutions. Results show that the degree of risk for not persisting exhibited by high borrowers 

varied by institutional type. 

As shown in table 2, the plurality of high borrowers at private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions had zero risk characteristics (42 percent), and 15 percent had high risk in 1999–2000. 

High borrowers were more likely to have had high risk than medium and low borrowers (15 

percent versus 8 and 9 percent). 

At public 4-year institutions, the highest percentage of undergraduates who borrowed high 

amounts had moderate risk for not persisting (39 percent), about one-quarter (24 percent) had 

zero risk characteristics, and 18 percent had high risk. As was found for borrowers at private notfor-profit 4-year institutions, a comparison of borrower groups revealed that high borrowers at 

public 4-year institutions were more likely to have had high risk than medium and low borrowers 

(18 percent versus 9 and 8 percent). High borrowers also were more likely to have had moderate 

risk than medium and low borrowers (39 percent versus 21 and 16 percent). 
Persistence/Attainment Risk (Nontraditional) Characteristics

16 

At public 2-year institutions, the largest percentage of high borrowers had moderate risk 

(46 percent) or high risk (33 percent) of not persisting (table 2). Eight percent had zero risk 

characteristics. No difference was detected among borrower groups in the high risk proportion. 

The majority of undergraduates who borrowed high amounts at private for-profit 

institutions had moderate risk (52 percent), about one-quarter (28 percent) had high risk, and 6 

percent had zero risk characteristics (table 2). A comparison of borrower groups showed that a 

lower percentage of high borrowers were at high risk for not persisting than were medium 

borrowers (28 percent versus 41 percent). 

Table 2.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and borrower status,

Table 2.—according to number of persistence/attainment risk characteristics: 1999–2000

Non- Low Medium High Non- Low Medium High

borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 35.8 59.0 63.1 42.4 36.4 54.1 46.1 23.6

Minimal risk (1) 14.2 18.6 18.4 16.6 19.6 22.2 24.5 19.6

Moderate risk (2–3) 25.9 13.0 10.9 25.6 27.5 15.6 20.8 39.2

High risk (4+) 24.2 9.4 7.6 15.3 16.6 8.1 8.6 17.7

Non- Low Medium High Non- Low Medium High

borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower borrower

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 8.9 17.8 12.4 7.7 6.9 17.6 10.6 6.4

Minimal risk (1) 14.3 19.1 11.4 13.0 15.1 22.2 12.6 14.1

Moderate risk (2–3) 40.1 31.9 43.5 46.3 40.0 27.9 35.9 51.9

High risk (4+) 36.7 31.2 32.7 33.0 38.0 32.3 40.9 27.6

NOTE: The risk index includes seven characteristics known to be negatively associated with persistence and attainment (Horn 1996; 

Horn and Premo 1995). The characteristics are: delaying enrollment; attending part-time; being financially independent; having

dependents other than a spouse; working full time while enrolled; having no high school diploma; and being a single parent.

Borrowers are those undergraduates who received loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding federal Parent

Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). Low borrowers had total annual loan amounts of $2,625 or less in 1999–2000; medium

borrowers had more than $2,625 but less than $6,625; and high borrowers had $6,625 or more. Detail may not sum to totals

because of rounding

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

Private not-for-profit 4-year Public 4-year

Public 2-year Private for-profit
17 

Types and Sources of Financial Aid 

This section examines the various types of financial aid (including loans, grants, and workstudy) that were received by each borrower group in order to explore how other types of financial 

aid are used along with loans to finance college attendance. Specifically, this section of the report 

presents the percentage of high borrowers who receive various types of loans and the average 

amounts received compared to other borrower groups. Other types of aid that each borrower 

group received are also noted. 

Loans 

High borrowers received an average of $9,680 in loan aid in 1999–2000. Ninety-eight 

percent of high borrowers received Stafford loans and about one-quarter received private loans 

(table 3). Consistent with the definition of borrower groups, students who borrowed high 

amounts were more likely than other borrower groups to have received various types of loans, 

including Stafford subsidized and unsubsidized loans, Perkins loans, state loans, and loans from 

private sources. Particularly interesting were the differences found for Stafford loans and private 

loans. Students who borrowed high amounts were more likely to have received a Stafford 

subsidized loan (89 percent) than both medium borrowers (81 percent) and low borrowers (72 

percent). In addition, high borrowers were most likely to have received a Stafford unsubsidized 

loan (83 percent), followed by medium borrowers (47 percent) and low borrowers (30 percent). 

Twenty-seven percent of undergraduates who borrowed high amounts received loans from 

private sources, a higher proportion than both medium borrowers (8 percent) and low borrowers 

(6 percent). This may be because some students who needed to borrow high amounts borrowed 

from these sources after reaching eligible federal loan limits. These also may have been students 

who borrowed high amounts primarily from non-federal sources because they were ineligible to 

receive certain federal loans. 

Grants and Work-Study 

Despite the larger percentages of high borrowers borrowing all types of loans, high 

borrowers are not financing price of attendance solely with borrowed funds. About three-quarters 

of high borrowers received some form of grant aid in 1999–2000 (table 3); the average amount of 
Types and Sources of Financial Aid

18 

grant aid was $4,667. Furthermore, each group of borrowers (high, medium, and low) was more 

likely to have received some form of grant aid than nonborrowers (71, 69, and 68 percent versus 

34 percent) and to have received higher average amounts of grant aid than nonborrowers. 

Similarly, each borrower group was more likely to have received specific types of grant aid than 

nonborrowers, including Pell grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 

(FSEOG), state grants, and institutional grants. Undergraduates who borrowed high and medium 

amounts received higher average amounts of specific types of grant aid than those who borrowed 

Table 3.—Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources and average

Table 3.—amount received, by borrower status: 1999–2000

Average Average Average Average Average

Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount

received received received received received received received received received received

Loans (excluding PLUS) † † 100.0 $2,043 100.0 $4,581 100.0 $9,680 29.0 $5,229

Federal (excluding PLUS) † † 94.0 2,078 98.0 4,421 98.2 7,685 27.9 4,643

Stafford (either) † † 91.0 2,092 97.4 4,232 98.2 7,352 27.6 4,492

Stafford subsidized † † 71.5 1,914 81.1 3,412 88.9 4,016 23.2 3,214

Stafford unsubsidized † † 30.1 1,778 47.0 2,888 83.4 4,374 14.9 3,328

Perkins † † 4.4 1,129 12.9 1,598 15.7 2,010 3.2 1,695

Non-federal † † 8.6 1,243 10.7 2,499 31.8 7,089 4.6 4,766

State † † 1.0 1,127 0.9 2,765 3.4 5,260 0.5 3,852

Institution † † 1.4 871 2.0 1,860 3.1 3,848 0.6 2,424

Private sources † † 6.3 1,328 8.0 2,594 26.9 7,313 3.6 5,100

Grants 34.4 $2,673 67.5 3,488 69.2 4,919 70.6 4,667 44.4 3,476

Federal1 14.8 1,879 43.6 1,999 42.1 2,247 46.5 2,391 23.1 2,063

Pell 14.5 1,790 42.7 1,872 41.2 2,019 45.6 2,139 22.6 1,910

FSEOG 2.9 500 11.6 600 13.1 828 16.2 823 5.9 678

Non-federal 31.2 2,266 46.9 3,237 52.7 4,808 50.1 4,516 36.7 3,086

State 9.3 1,340 24.4 1,702 25.3 2,096 22.4 2,172 13.6 1,681

Institution 11.5 2,833 23.7 3,551 32.9 4,995 29.7 4,614 16.7 3,722

Private sources 6.3 2,138 12.8 1,749 14.0 1,950 12.9 2,253 8.3 2,062

Work-study 2.1 1,692 10.9 1,505 16.2 1,639 12.6 1,764 5.4 1,653

†Not applicable.

1

Federal grant aid primarily includes Pell Grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), but also includes

Robert Byrd Scholarships and any other federal grants, fellowships, or traineeships received during 1999–2000.

NOTE: Borrowers are those undergraduates who received loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding Parent 

Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). Low borrowers had total annual loan amounts of $2,625 or less in 1999–2000; medium

borrowers had more than $2,625 but less than $6,625; and high borrowers had $6,625 or more. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

All

Nonborrower Medium borrower Low borrower High borrower undergraduates
 Type and Sources of Financial Aid 

19 

low amounts and those who did not borrow, including federal grant aid,14 Pell grants, FSEOG, 

non-federal grants, state grants, and institutional grants. 

 

14Federal grant aid primarily includes Pell Grants and FSEOG, but also includes Robert Byrd Scholarships and any other federal 

grants, fellowships, or traineeships received during 1999–2000. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21 

Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

This section provides an analysis analogous to the one presented in previous sections, 

which focused on a profile of borrowers as defined by total loans. The following analysis is 

limited to a particular subset of borrowers, those who had Stafford loans. The analysis considers 

separately those who borrowed under the subsidized program (Stafford subsidized borrowers), 

those who borrowed under the unsubsidized program (Stafford unsubsidized borrowers), and 

those who borrowed under either or both programs (Stafford total borrowers). For each set of 

borrowers, groups are defined based on the maximum allowed amounts for each program. (See 

“Definition of Borrower Groups” in “Data and Approach to Analysis” section for more detail.) 

The main interest in conducting this analysis is to examine the characteristics of Stafford 

maximum borrowers and to look at the other types of financial aid they received. 

Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics 

Unlike undergraduates who borrowed high amounts from all sources, Stafford total 

maximum and subsidized maximum borrowers tended to be age 23 or younger, (82 and 64 

percent),15 single (87 and 76 percent), and financially dependent (79 and 55 percent) (tables 4 

and 5). They were also more likely to have had each of these characteristics than their Stafford 

nonborrower counterparts. All Stafford maximum borrowers (total, subsidized, and 

unsubsidized) tended to be enrolled exclusively full time (79, 77, and 72 percent). Because 

dependent students have lower Stafford maximum allowed amounts than independent students, 

these findings may simply reflect the higher likelihood that dependent students will borrow the 

maximum amount, particularly for subsidized loans. It may also be that young, dependent 

students are more likely to attend 4-year institutions and therefore require Stafford maximum 

loan amounts to finance the higher prices of attendance.

In fact, Stafford maximum borrowers had relatively high prices of attendance and financial 

need unmet by grant aid. Specifically, the highest proportion of undergraduates who borrowed 

maximum Stafford amounts (total, subsidized, and unsubsidized) had prices of attendance 

between $10,000 and $14,999 (36, 38, and 40 percent) (tables 4, 5 and 6). In comparison to other 

borrower groups, these maximum borrowers were more likely to have had the highest prices of 

 

15When separated into two age categories, 18 percent of Stafford total maximum borrowers, 36 percent of subsidized maximum 

borrowers, and 34 percent of unsubsidized maximum borrowers were 24 years or older. 
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

22 

Table 4.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by total Stafford borrower status, according to

Table 4.—selected characteristics: 1999–2000

Less than 

maximum Maximum All

No Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

Male 44.6 38.8 43.8 43.7

Female 55.4 61.2 56.3 56.3

Age

23 years or younger 53.4 50.8 82.1 57.2

24–29 years of age 16.6 27.0 9.5 17.0

30 years or older 29.9 22.2 8.4 25.8

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 67.4 65.3 71.5 67.7

Black, non-Hispanic 11.2 16.9 14.4 12.4

Hispanic or Latino 12.5 11.3 8.1 11.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.6 4.7 4.6 6.1

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.9

Other 1.3 0.8 0.9 1.2

Marital status

Single, never married 63.3 66.1 86.6 67.1

Married 28.4 24.6 10.3 25.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed 8.4 9.3 3.1 7.7

Single parent status

Not a single parent 86.1 80.9 95.4 86.7

Single parent 13.9 19.1 4.6 13.3

Dependency status

Dependent 45.2 38.0 79.0 49.1

Independent 54.8 62.0 21.0 50.9

Parent income, quartile (dependent students)

Lowest quartile 24.0 31.3 25.1 25.0

Middle quartiles 48.2 54.5 53.3 50.0

Highest quartile 27.8 14.2 21.6 25.0

Independent student income, quartile

Lowest quartile 19.5 43.9 32.5 24.2

Middle quartiles 50.3 48.1 54.5 50.2

Highest quartile 30.2 8.0 13.0 25.6

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 8.9 7.7 3.7 7.8

High school graduate 31.0 40.0 30.4 32.3

Some college, including associate’s degree 20.4 22.9 24.5 21.5

Bachelor’s degree 22.0 17.5 24.3 21.7

Advanced degree 17.7 12.0 17.2 16.8

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 51.0 53.1 72.9 54.5

Delayed enrollment 49.0 46.9 27.1 45.5

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 40.4 65.9 78.9 49.3

Half time 19.3 13.1 4.2 16.3

Less than half time 24.3 2.7 1.4 18.2

Mixed1 16.0 18.4 15.5 16.3

See notes at end of table.
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

23 

Table 4.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by total Stafford borrower status, according to

Table 4.—selected characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Less than 

maximum Maximum All

No Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 46.1 29.9 38.9 42.7

Second-year undergraduate 28.8 22.1 23.9 27.1

Third-year undergraduate 9.8 21.7 19.3 12.9

Fourth-year undergraduate 13.7 22.3 16.0 15.3

Fifth-year undergraduate 1.6 4.0 1.9 2.0

Hours worked

Not employed 19.7 19.0 21.8 19.9

1–20 hours 19.2 29.3 40.5 23.6

21–34 hours 16.1 20.9 19.5 17.2

35 hours or more 45.0 30.8 18.2 39.3

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 10.9 17.8 35.2 15.2

Public 4-year 28.7 51.8 45.1 33.9

Public 2-year 57.9 18.2 6.1 45.6

Private for-profit 2.5 12.2 13.6 5.3

Degree program

Certificate 9.8 7.5 5.6 8.9

Associate’s degree 48.0 25.0 14.6 40.1

Bachelor’s degree 36.5 66.8 79.2 46.6

No undergraduate degree 5.8 0.8 0.7 4.4

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 2.1 0.5 0.3 1.6

Certificate 2.6 2.1 1.0 2.3

Associate’s degree 8.3 5.4 3.2 7.2

Bachelor’s degree 33.9 25.6 21.5 30.9

Master’s degree 37.0 46.5 51.2 40.3

Doctoral or first-professional degree 10.9 15.6 18.5 12.6

Don’t know 5.3 4.4 4.3 5.1

Student unmet need2

Less than $1,000 11.1 3.7 2.7 7.8

$1,000–$2,999 27.4 15.4 7.4 20.7

$3,000–$4,999 23.5 21.9 14.9 21.3

$5,000–$9,999 28.0 42.3 41.1 33.7

$10,000 and higher 10.0 16.8 33.8 16.5

Estimated price of attendance3

Less than $5,000 41.9 4.9 0.3 31.4

$5,000–$9,999 33.2 36.7 13.6 30.9

$10,000–$14,999 16.7 38.0 36.2 22.1

$15,000–$19,999 3.6 12.2 19.8 7.0

$20,000 and higher 4.7 8.2 30.2 8.7

1

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as

mixed. 2

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero

values were excluded for this analysis.

3

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, and

personal expenses.

NOTE: Stafford total loan recipients are those undergraduates who received either or both subsidized and unsubsidized loans in 

1999–2000. Stafford total borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the maximum amounts 

for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans combined for a given student’s class level. Stafford nonborrowers may have received

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

24 

Table 5.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by subsidized Stafford borrower status, according to

Table 5.—selected characteristics: 1999–2000

Less than 

No maximum Maximum

subsidized subsidized subsidized All

Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

Male 44.6 40.3 41.2 43.7

Female 55.4 59.8 58.8 56.3

Age

23 years or younger 55.2 63.6 64.2 57.2

24–29 years of age 16.0 19.9 20.4 17.0

30 years or older 28.8 16.5 15.5 25.8

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 68.3 67.0 65.0 67.7

Black, non-Hispanic 11.1 15.4 17.6 12.4

Hispanic or Latino 12.0 11.2 10.2 11.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.4 4.7 5.4 6.1

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9

Other 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.2

Marital status

Single, never married 64.6 74.7 75.9 67.1

Married 27.4 18.6 17.4 25.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed 8.0 6.7 6.8 7.7

Single parent status

Not a single parent 86.7 86.9 86.8 86.7

Single parent 13.3 13.1 13.2 13.3

Dependency status

Dependent 47.3 55.1 55.1 49.1

Independent 52.7 44.9 45.0 50.9

Parent income, quartile (dependent students)

Lowest quartile 21.8 30.1 37.4 25.0

Middle quartiles 47.8 58.6 54.4 50.0

Highest quartile 30.4 11.3 8.1 25.0

Independent student income, quartile

Lowest quartile 19.4 40.8 44.6 24.2

Middle quartiles 50.2 50.9 50.0 50.2

Highest quartile 30.4 8.3 5.4 25.6

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 8.4 6.6 5.8 7.8

High school graduate 30.7 37.6 35.5 32.3

Some college, including associate’s degree 20.5 24.0 24.2 21.5

Bachelor’s degree 22.4 18.9 20.6 21.7

Advanced degree 18.0 12.9 13.9 16.8

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 52.4 60.6 61.9 54.5

Delayed enrollment 47.6 39.4 38.1 45.5

See notes at end of table.
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

25 

Table 5.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by subsidized Stafford borrower status, according to

Table 5.—selected characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Less than 

No maximum Maximum

subsidized subsidized subsidized All

Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 42.3 67.6 76.7 49.3

Half time 18.6 11.3 6.5 16.3

Less than half time 23.0 2.7 1.4 18.2

Mixed1 16.1 18.4 15.4 16.3

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 45.3 27.7 40.4 42.7

Second-year undergraduate 28.4 20.9 24.7 27.1

Third-year undergraduate 10.5 23.9 17.7 12.9

Fourth-year undergraduate 14.1 23.9 15.0 15.3

Fifth-year undergraduate 1.7 3.7 2.2 2.0

Hours worked

Not employed 19.9 18.3 21.4 19.9

1–20 hours 20.1 33.6 36.7 23.6

21–34 hours 16.3 21.2 19.6 17.2

35 hours or more 43.7 26.9 22.4 39.3

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 11.6 21.0 32.8 15.2

Public 4-year 30.3 53.6 40.6 33.9

Public 2-year 55.4 14.8 8.9 45.6

Private for-profit 2.7 10.6 17.7 5.3

Degree program

Certificate 9.3 5.8 8.7 8.9

Associate’s degree 46.3 20.9 18.6 40.1

Bachelor’s degree 38.9 72.3 72.2 46.6

No undergraduate degree 5.5 1.1 0.5 4.4

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 2.0 0.5 0.3 1.6

Certificate 2.5 1.6 1.7 2.3

Associate’s degree 8.0 4.1 4.6 7.2

Bachelor’s degree 33.2 25.1 22.1 30.9

Master’s degree 37.8 48.3 48.9 40.3

Doctoral or first-professional degree 11.3 16.3 17.6 12.6

Don’t know 5.2 4.1 4.8 5.1

Student unmet need2

Less than $1,000 11.5 5.4 # 7.8

$1,000–$2,999 27.4 21.3 2.6 20.7

$3,000–$4,999 23.3 26.1 12.5 21.3

$5,000–$9,999 27.9 34.8 48.2 33.7

$10,000 and higher 10.0 12.4 36.7 16.5

See notes at end of table.
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

26 

Table 5.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by subsidized Stafford borrower status, according to

Table 5.—selected characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Less than 

No maximum Maximum

subsidized subsidized subsidized All

Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Estimated price of attendance3

Less than $5,000 39.8 4.3 0.2 31.4

$5,000–$9,999 32.9 35.5 14.2 30.9

$10,000–$14,999 17.8 36.4 37.6 22.1

$15,000–$19,999 4.1 12.7 20.3 7.0

$20,000 and higher 5.4 11.2 27.8 8.7

#Rounds to zero

1

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as

mixed.

2

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero

values were excluded for this analysis.

3

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and

supplies, room and board, and personal expenses.

NOTE: Stafford subsidized borrowers are those undergraduates who received Stafford subsidized loans in 1999–2000. Stafford

subsidized borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the maximum amounts for subsidized

loans for a given student’s class level. Stafford subsidized nonborrowers may have received other types of loans. Detail may not add

sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

27 

Table 6.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by unsubsidized Stafford borrower status, according

Table 6.—to selected characteristics: 1999–2000

Less than 

No maximum Maximum

unsubsidized unsubsidized unsubsidized All

Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

Male 44.0 40.3 43.9 43.7

Female 56.0 59.7 56.1 56.3

Age

23 years or younger 57.2 58.9 56.0 57.2

24–29 years of age 16.0 22.5 22.4 17.0

30 years or older 26.8 18.6 21.6 25.8

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 67.3 69.7 70.6 67.7

Black, non-Hispanic 11.7 17.1 15.5 12.4

Hispanic or Latino 12.2 8.4 9.0 11.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.6 3.0 3.6 6.1

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9

Other 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.2

Marital status

Single, never married 66.4 72.2 69.6 67.1

Married 25.9 19.2 23.1 25.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed 7.7 8.6 7.3 7.7

Single parent status

Not a single parent 86.8 84.1 89.3 86.7

Single parent 13.2 15.9 10.7 13.3

Dependency status

Dependent 49.2 49.2 49.0 49.1

Independent 50.8 50.8 51.0 50.9

Parent income, quartile (dependent students)

Lowest quartile 27.0 15.7 10.5 25.0

Middle quartiles 49.6 61.1 41.8 50.0

Highest quartile 23.4 23.2 47.7 25.0

Independent student income, quartile

Lowest quartile 21.9 42.5 30.5 24.2

Middle quartiles 50.1 49.4 53.5 50.2

Highest quartile 28.1 8.1 16.0 25.6

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 8.2 6.1 5.3 7.8

High school graduate 31.5 38.0 33.8 32.3

Some college, including associate’s degree 21.2 24.0 21.2 21.5

Bachelor’s degree 21.9 18.7 22.8 21.7

Advanced degree 17.1 13.3 17.0 16.8

See notes at end of table.
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

28 

Table 6.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by unsubsidized Stafford borrower status, according

Table 6.—to selected characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Less than 

No maximum Maximum

unsubsidized unsubsidized unsubsidized All

Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 54.0 57.4 57.6 54.5

Delayed enrollment 46.0 42.6 42.4 45.5

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 45.5 69.6 72.4 49.3

Half time 17.5 10.3 7.9 16.3

Less than half time 21.0 2.5 1.4 18.2

Mixed1 16.0 17.6 18.3 16.3

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 44.4 28.7 39.3 42.7

Second-year undergraduate 28.0 21.7 23.1 27.1

Third-year undergraduate 11.5 23.4 17.4 12.9

Fourth-year undergraduate 14.4 22.2 17.4 15.3

Fifth-year undergraduate 1.7 4.0 2.7 2.0

Hours worked

Not employed 19.8 18.0 22.9 19.9

1–20 hours 22.4 30.9 30.3 23.6

21–34 hours 16.8 21.3 17.6 17.2

35 hours or more 41.0 29.9 29.3 39.3

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 13.9 20.2 25.5 15.2

Public 4-year 31.8 49.8 42.9 33.9

Public 2-year 51.3 14.7 7.8 45.6

Private for-profit 3.0 15.4 23.8 5.3

Degree program

Certificate 8.9 7.9 9.6 8.9

Associate’s degree 43.3 23.2 20.0 40.1

Bachelor’s degree 42.8 68.1 69.8 46.6

No undergraduate degree 5.1 0.8 0.6 4.4

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 1.8 0.5 0.3 1.6

Certificate 2.4 1.9 1.6 2.3

Associate’s degree 7.6 4.9 4.5 7.2

Bachelor’s degree 32.2 24.3 23.8 30.9

Master’s degree 38.9 46.1 50.2 40.3

Doctoral or first-professional degree 12.0 17.3 15.0 12.6

Don’t know 5.1 4.9 4.6 5.1

Student unmet need2

Less than $1,000 8.3 7.0 4.3 7.8

$1,000–$2,999 22.4 16.8 7.7 20.7

$3,000–$4,999 23.1 18.2 7.4 21.3

$5,000–$9,999 33.4 36.3 33.0 33.7

$10,000 and higher 12.9 21.7 47.6 16.5

See notes at end of table.
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

29 

attendance. Not surprisingly, unsubsidized borrowers primarily had levels of unmet need that 

were higher than those of subsidized borrowers. The largest percentage of Stafford total 

maximum borrowers and Stafford subsidized maximum borrowers had unmet need in the range 

of $5,000 to $9,999 (41 and 48 percent), while unsubsidized Stafford borrowers primarily had 

levels of unmet need $10,000 and higher (48 percent) (tables 4, 5, and 6). In comparison to other 

borrower groups, each group of maximum borrowers had a higher percentage of students with 

the highest level of unmet need than less-than-maximum borrowers and nonborrowers. It is likely 

that the unsubsidized maximum borrowers were either not eligible for subsidized loans or had 

levels of unmet need that required borrowing under both programs. 

Stafford maximum borrowers were most likely to work 1–20 hours (total maximum 

borrowers, 41 percent; and subsidized maximum borrowers, 37 percent) or 1–20 hours and 35 

hours or more (unsubsidized maximum borrowers, 30 and 30 percent). Each group of maximum 

borrowers was less likely to have worked full time than their nonborrower counterparts. It is 

possible that the availability of the maximum amounts allowed some students the choice not to 

work full time while in school. However, it is not clear whether students who did not receive 

maximum loan amounts chose not to take these loans, failed to apply for financial aid, or were 

ineligible. 

Table 6.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by unsubsidized Stafford borrower status, according

Table 6.—to selected characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Less than 

No maximum Maximum

unsubsidized unsubsidized unsubsidized All

Stafford Stafford Stafford undergraduates

Estimated price of attendance3

Less than $5,000 36.2 3.7 0.8 31.4

$5,000–$9,999 32.2 30.2 13.8 30.9

$10,000–$14,999 19.3 38.5 39.5 22.1

$15,000–$19,999 4.8 15.6 24.1 7.0

$20,000 and higher 7.4 12.0 21.8 8.7

1

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as

mixed.

2

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero

values were excluded for this analysis.

3

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, and

personal expenses.

NOTE: Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are those undergraduates who received Stafford unsubsidized loans in 1999–2000.

Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the maximum amounts for

unsubsidized loans for a given student’s class level. Stafford unsubsidized nonborrowers may have received other types of loans.

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

30 

Persistence/Attainment Risk (Nontraditional) Characteristics 

Because the percentage of students with persistence/attainment risk (nontraditional) 

characteristics varied by institutional type, this analysis was conducted within four institutional 

types: private not-for-profit 4-year institutions; public 4-year institutions; public 2-year 

institutions; and private for-profit institutions. As in the previous section examining risk 

characteristics for all borrowers, one characteristic indicates minimal risk, two or three 

characteristics indicates moderate risk, and four or more characteristics indicates high risk (Horn 

1996). (See “Data and Approach to Analysis” section for more detail.) 

In all four institution types, Stafford total maximum and unsubsidized maximum borrowers 

were less likely to have had high risk for not persisting than their less-than-maximum borrower 

and nonborrower counterparts. Also, in both public 4-year institutions and private not-for-profit 

4-year institutions, all maximum borrowers tended to have zero risk characteristics (i.e., to have 

been traditional students). Detailed results for each institutional type are presented below. 

At private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, the highest percentage of undergraduates who 

borrowed maximum Stafford amounts (total, subsidized, and unsubsidized) had zero risk 

characteristics (66, 57, and 48 percent) (tables 7, 8, and 9). Also, maximum borrowers were less 

likely to have had high risk for not persisting. In the case of Stafford total borrowers, 5 percent of 

maximum borrowers had high risk compared to 23 percent of less-than-maximum borrowers and 

24 percent of nonborrowers (table 7). Subsidized and unsubsidized maximum borrowers showed 

the same pattern. 

At public 4-year institutions, the largest proportion of maximum borrowers (total, 

subsidized, and unsubsidized) also had zero risk characteristics (62, 41, and 53 percent). For both 

Stafford total borrowers and Stafford unsubsidized borrowers, maximum borrowers had a lower 

percentage of high risk students than less-than-maximum borrowers and nonborrowers. In the 

case of total Stafford borrowers, 4 percent of maximum borrowers were at high risk for not 

persisting compared to 17 percent of both less-than-maximum borrowers and nonborrowers 

(table 7). 
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

31 

At public 2-year institutions, the largest percentage of Stafford subsidized borrowers had 

moderate or high risk for not persisting (39 and 35 percent). The highest proportion of Stafford 

unsubsidized borrowers had moderate risk (43 percent) (tables 8 and 9). In the case of both 

Stafford total borrowers and Stafford unsubsidized borrowers, maximum borrowers were less 

likely to have had high risk than less-than-maximum borrowers and nonborrowers. For example, 

17 percent of Stafford unsubsidized maximum borrowers were high risk compared to 32 percent 

of unsubsidized less-than-maximum borrowers and 37 percent of unsubsidized nonborrowers 

(table 9). 

Table 7.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and total Stafford loan

Table 7.—borrower status, according to number of persistence/attainment risk characteristics: 1999–2000

No Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

Stafford

Maximum 

Stafford No Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

Stafford

Maximum 

Stafford

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 36.8 32.4 66.4 36.5 26.5 61.6

Minimal risk (1) 14.1 17.7 18.3 19.7 22.3 23.4

Moderate risk (2–3) 25.6 26.8 10.8 27.4 34.4 11.5

High risk (4+) 23.5 23.2 4.6 16.5 16.8 3.5

No Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

Stafford

Maximum 

Stafford No Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

Stafford

Maximum 

Stafford

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 8.9 9.2 29.9 7.1 4.3 15.0

Minimal risk (1) 14.3 12.4 28.1 14.9 9.9 20.2

Moderate risk (2–3) 40.1 38.5 32.4 40.0 38.6 44.1

High risk (4+) 36.7 39.9 9.6 38.0 47.2 20.7

NOTE: The risk index includes seven characteristics known to be negatively associated with persistence and attainment

(Horn 1996; Horn and Premo 1995). The characteristics are: delaying enrollment; attending part-time; being financially 

independent; having dependents other than a spouse; working full time while enrolled; having no high school diploma; and 

being a single parent. Stafford total loan recipients are those undergraduates who received either or both subsidized and 

unsubsidized loans in 1999–2000. Stafford total borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories

based on the maximum amounts for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans combined for a given student’s class level. 

Stafford nonborrowers may have received other types of loans. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

Private not-for-profit 4-year Public 4-year

Public 2-year Private for-profit
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

32 

At private for-profit institutions, the highest percentage of undergraduates who borrowed 

maximum Stafford amounts (total, subsidized, and unsubsidized) had moderate risk (44, 44, and 

49 percent) (tables 7, 8, and 9). Stafford total maximum and unsubsidized maximum borrowers 

were less likely to have high risk for not persisting than their less-than-maximum borrower and 

nonborrower counterparts. In the case of Stafford unsubsidized borrowers, 24 percent of 

maximum borrowers had high risk compared to 48 percent of less-than-maximum borrowers and 

35 percent of nonborrowers. Stafford subsidized maximum borrowers were less likely to have 

had high risk than subsidized less-than-maximum borrowers (table 9). 

Table 8.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and subsidized

Table 8.—Stafford loan borrower status, according to number of persistence/attainment risk characteristics:

Table 8.—1999–2000

No 

subsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

No 

subsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 40.1 47.4 57.3 38.9 38.9 41.2

Minimal risk (1) 14.5 19.5 17.7 20.1 23.7 21.6

Moderate risk (2–3) 23.7 19.0 15.9 25.8 25.9 25.2

High risk (4+) 21.7 14.1 9.2 15.2 11.4 12.0

No 

subsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

No 

subsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

subsidized 

Stafford

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 9.1 11.8 14.7 7.8 6.9 11.4

Minimal risk (1) 14.5 16.4 11.4 16.4 15.1 14.5

Moderate risk (2–3) 40.0 35.4 39.0 40.1 38.0 43.5

High risk (4+) 36.4 36.5 34.9 35.8 40.1 30.6

NOTE: The risk index includes seven characteristics known to be negatively associated with persistence and attainment

(Horn 1996; Horn and Premo 1995). The characteristics are: delaying enrollment; attending part-time; being financially 

independent; having dependents other than a spouse; working full time while enrolled; having no high school diploma; and 

being a single parent. Stafford subsidized borrowers are those undergraduates who received Stafford subsidized loans in 

1999–2000. Stafford subsidized borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the

maximum amounts for subsidized loans for a given student’s class level. Stafford subsidized nonborrowers may have

received other types of loans. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

Private not-for-profit 4-year Public 4-year

Public 2-year Private for-profit
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

33 

Types and Sources of Financial Aid 

This section examines the ways in which Stafford maximum borrowers financed education 

expenses in addition to obtaining Stafford loans. The analysis considers the various types of 

financial aid (including loans, grants, and work-study) that were received by Stafford maximum 

borrowers as well as the average amounts received. 

Table 9.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by sector of institution attended and unsubsidized 

Table 9.—Stafford loan borrower status, according to number of persistence/attainment risk characteristics: 

Table 9.—1999–2000

No 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

No 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 46.6 35.8 48.0 39.0 31.1 52.8

Minimal risk (1) 15.9 16.5 16.7 20.7 21.2 22.3

Moderate risk (2–3) 20.0 26.2 23.1 25.6 32.4 18.4

High risk (4+) 17.5 21.6 12.3 14.7 15.3 6.5

No 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

No 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Less than 

maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Zero risk characteristics 9.2 11.6 16.3 12.3 1.1 9.8

Minimal risk (1) 14.3 15.8 23.7 17.9 6.9 17.4

Moderate risk (2–3) 39.8 41.0 42.8 35.2 43.6 48.6

High risk (4+) 36.7 31.6 17.3 34.6 48.4 24.2

NOTE: The risk index includes seven characteristics known to be negatively associated with persistence and attainment

(Horn 1996; Horn and Premo 1995). The characteristics are: delaying enrollment; attending part-time; being financially 

independent; having dependents other than a spouse; working full time while enrolled; having no high school diploma; and 

being a single parent. Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are those undergraduates who received Stafford unsubsidized loans in 

1999–2000. Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the

maximum amounts for unsubsidized loans for a given student’s class level. Stafford unsubsidized nonborrowers may have

received other types of loans. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

Private not-for-profit 4-year Public 4-year

Public 2-year Private for-profit
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

34 

Loans 

Stafford total borrowers are those students who borrowed from one or both of the Stafford 

subsidized and Stafford unsubsidized programs in 1999–2000. As shown in table 10, 80 percent 

of Stafford total maximum borrowers received subsidized loans and 59 percent received 

unsubsidized loans. In addition, 43 percent of Stafford subsidized maximum borrowers also 

received Stafford unsubsidized loans (table 11). Likewise, 55 percent of unsubsidized maximum 

borrowers also received subsidized loans (table 12). 

Some students who borrowed Stafford maximum amounts also obtained loans from private 

sources. The findings for 1999–2000 indicate that a low percentage of maximum borrowers 

received private loans (total maximum borrowers, 13 percent; subsidized maximum borrowers, 

11 percent; and unsubsidized maximum borrowers, 11 percent) (table 10, 11 and 12). Further, 

maximum borrowers and less-than-maximum borrowers were more likely to have received 

private loans than Stafford nonborrowers. For example, in the case of Stafford total borrowers, 

13 percent of maximum borrowers received private loans compared to 7 percent of less-thanmaximum borrowers and 1 percent of nonborrowers (table 10). Maximum borrowers also 

received higher average amounts in private loans than less-than-maximum and nonborrowers. 

Grants and Work-Study 

Not all Stafford maximum borrowers financed the price of attending college solely with 

borrowed funds. Most Stafford maximum borrowers received some form of grant aid in 1999–

2000 (total maximum borrowers, 67 percent; subsidized maximum borrowers, 80 percent; and 

unsubsidized maximum borrowers, 54 percent) (tables 10, 11, and 12). Maximum borrowers also 

received higher average amounts of grant aid than nonborrowers (tables 10, 11, and 12). Stafford 

total maximum borrowers and subsidized maximum borrowers were more likely to have received 

work-study aid than their nonborrower counterparts. 
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

35 

Table 10.—Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources and average

Table 10.—amount received, by total Stafford loan borrower status: 1999–2000

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Loans (excluding PLUS) 1.9 $3,466 100.0 $4,260 100.0 $6,274 29.0 $5,229

Federal (excluding PLUS) 0.5 1,729 100.0 3,874 100.0 5,416 27.9 4,643

Stafford (either) † † 100.0 3,717 100.0 5,205 27.6 4,492

Stafford subsidized † † 87.7 2,852 80.4 3,577 23.2 3,214

Stafford unsubsidized † † 48.1 2,524 59.3 3,927 14.9 3,328

Perkins 0.4 1,691 8.8 1,705 12.2 1,690 3.2 1,695

Non-federal 1.5 3,898 9.0 4,032 15.6 5,572 4.6 4,766

State 0.2 2,280 0.8 3,420 1.7 4,759 0.5 3,851

Institution 0.2 2,352 1.1 1,880 2.1 2,721 0.6 2,424

Private sources 1.2 4,338 7.3 4,286 12.5 5,889 3.6 5,100

Grants 34.9 2,754 71.9 3,663 66.7 5,192 44.4 3,476

Federal1 15.1 1,898 54.7 2,145 34.3 2,310 23.1 2,063

Pell 14.8 1,802 53.9 1,976 33.4 2,055 22.6 1,910

FSEOG 3.1 532 15.4 660 11.7 893 5.9 678

Non-federal 31.6 2,348 47.4 3,258 52.7 5,164 36.7 3,086

State 9.5 1,374 25.4 1,768 23.6 2,217 13.6 1,681

Institution 11.8 2,929 23.0 3,401 35.1 5,261 16.7 3,722

Private sources 6.5 2,124 10.8 2,035 15.1 1,946 8.3 2,062

Work-study 2.3 1,707 10.4 1,658 16.9 1,614 5.4 1,653

†Not applicable.

1

Federal grant aid primarily includes Pell Grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), but also

includes Robert Byrd Scholarships and any other federal grants, fellowships, or traineeships received during 1999–2000.

NOTE: Stafford total borrowers are those undergraduates who received either or both subsidized and unsubsidized loans in

1999–2000. Stafford total loan recipients are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the

maximum amounts for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans combined for a given student’s class level. Stafford

nonborrowers may have received other types of loans. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

No Stafford

Less than maximum 

Stafford Maximum Stafford All undergraduates
Stafford Maximum Borrowers

36 

Table 11.—Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources and average

Table 11.—amount received, by subsidized Stafford loan borrower status: 1999–2000

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Loans (excluding PLUS) 7.7 $4,395 100.0 $4,189 100.0 $6,450 29.0 $5,229

Federal (excluding PLUS) 6.2 3,802 100.0 3,727 100.0 5,722 27.9 4,643

Stafford (either) 5.8 3,934 100.0 3,557 100.0 5,467 27.6 4,492

Stafford subsidized † † 100.0 2,388 100.0 3,903 23.2 3,214

Stafford unsubsidized 5.8 3,934 47.5 2,461 43.2 3,628 14.9 3,328

Perkins 0.5 1,703 10.0 1,662 14.4 1,713 3.2 1,695

Non-federal 2.2 4,432 10.9 3,879 13.6 5,663 4.6 4,766

State 0.3 3,515 1.0 3,306 1.2 4,648 0.5 3,851

Institution 0.3 2,397 1.3 1,750 2.1 2,782 0.6 2,424

Private sources 1.7 4,763 9.0 4,134 10.7 6,076 3.6 5,100

Grants 35.1 2,852 69.8 3,856 79.8 4,867 44.4 3,476

Federal1 14.4 1,898 46.7 1,958 56.2 2,394 23.1 2,063

Pell 14.1 1,800 45.8 1,795 55.2 2,161 22.6 1,910

FSEOG 2.9 537 13.5 653 17.9 834 5.9 678

Non-federal 32.0 2,478 50.9 3,780 53.8 4,737 36.7 3,086

State 9.5 1,397 26.8 1,787 27.9 2,184 13.6 1,681

Institution 12.6 3,111 26.2 3,950 33.6 4,961 16.7 3,722

Private sources 7.0 2,106 12.7 2,114 13.0 1,878 8.3 2,062

Work-study 2.4 1,693 12.4 1,628 17.9 1,634 5.4 1,653

†Not applicable.

1

Federal grant aid primarily includes Pell Grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), but

also includes Robert Byrd Scholarships and any other federal grants, fellowships, or traineeships received during 1999–2000.

NOTE: Stafford subsidized borrowers are those undergraduates who received Stafford subsidized loans in 1999–2000.

Stafford subsidized borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the maximum amounts

for subsidized loans for a given student’s class level. Stafford subsidized nonborrowers may have received other types of loans.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

No subsidized 

Stafford

Less than maximum 

subsidized Stafford

Maximum 

subsidized Stafford All undergraduates
 Stafford Maximum Borrowers 

37 

Table 12.—Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from various sources and average

Table 12.—amount received, by unsubsidized Stafford loan borrower status: 1999–2000

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Loans (excluding PLUS) 16.6 $4,096 100.0 $5,271 100.0 $7,340 29.0 $5,229

Federal (excluding PLUS) 15.3 3,483 100.0 4,767 100.0 6,529 27.9 4,643

Stafford (either) 14.9 3,251 100.0 4,651 100.0 6,442 27.6 4,492

Stafford subsidized 14.9 3,251 82.9 2,916 54.5 3,473 23.2 3,214

Stafford unsubsidized † † 100.0 2,234 100.0 4,548 14.9 3,328

Perkins 2.7 1,701 6.8 1,682 5.0 1,669 3.2 1,695

Non-federal 3.3 4,276 9.9 4,952 13.3 6,082 4.6 4,766

State 0.3 3,313 1.0 4,072 1.5 5,113 0.5 3,851

Institution 0.5 2,451 1.0 2,070 1.5 2,609 0.6 2,424

Private sources 2.6 4,606 8.2 5,191 10.9 6,398 3.6 5,100

Grants 41.6 3,397 65.5 3,767 54.4 3,810 44.4 3,476

Federal1 20.9 2,028 41.8 2,082 29.3 2,357 23.1 2,063

Pell 20.4 1,878 41.1 1,934 28.9 2,163 22.6 1,910

FSEOG 5.1 693 11.7 617 9.2 663 5.9 678

Non-federal 35.8 2,957 45.5 3,689 38.4 3,743 36.7 3,086

State 12.8 1,636 21.7 1,793 14.2 1,974 13.6 1,681

Institution 15.5 3,665 23.7 4,021 22.5 3,840 16.7 3,722

Private sources 7.8 2,084 11.6 2,075 11.2 1,872 8.3 2,062

Work-study 5.1 1,652 8.4 1,620 6.4 1,710 5.4 1,653

†Not applicable.

1

Federal grant aid primarily includes Pell Grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), but also

includes Robert Byrd Scholarships and any other federal grants, fellowships, or traineeships received during 1999–2000.

NOTE: Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are those undergraduates who received Stafford unsubsidized loans in 1999–2000.

Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the maximum

amounts for unsubsidized loans for a given student’s class level. Stafford unsubsidized nonborrowers may have received other

types of loans. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

No unsubsidized 

Stafford

Less than maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford All undergraduates
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
39 

Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid 

Thus far, the analysis has focused on the characteristics of different groups of 

undergraduate borrowers and the other types of aid they received. This section of the report 

examines all borrowers as a group and reviews whether borrowers with certain demographic and 

enrollment characteristics were more likely to have received specific types of loans and other aid 

or to have received differing average amounts. The main differences found in this section are 

related to federal Stafford loans and private loans. 

Stafford Loans 

Borrowers with certain characteristics were more likely to have received both subsidized 

and unsubsidized Stafford loans. These characteristics included being older than 23, being 

married versus single, being financially independent, and delaying enrollment in college. 

Borrowers attending private for-profit institutions were more likely to have received Stafford 

subsidized (92 percent) and unsubsidized loans (78 percent) in comparison to borrowers 

attending other types of institutions (table 13). Private for-profit institutions are likely to offer 

certificate programs, and borrowers enrolled in these programs were more likely to have received 

Stafford subsidized loans (91 percent) and Stafford unsubsidized loans (69 percent) compared to 

borrowers in other degree programs. These findings may reflect the higher financial need of 

independent undergraduates. It is also possible that because certificate programs are relatively 

short, students choose to obtain loans to support full time enrollment rather than working. 

As expected, given the different eligibility requirements of the Stafford subsidized and 

unsubsidized loan programs, borrowers with different income levels received these loans at 

different rates in 1999–2000. Low-income borrowers were more likely to have received Stafford 

subsidized loans than high-income borrowers. This was the case for both dependent students (94 

percent versus 37 percent) and independent students (94 percent versus 62 percent) (table 13). In 

addition, a larger percentage of high-income borrowers received Stafford unsubsidized loans than 

both middle- and low-income borrowers for both dependent students (74 percent versus 42 and 

21 percent) and independent students (79 percent versus 67 and 60 percent). Borrowers with high 

incomes also received higher average amounts of Stafford unsubsidized loans (table 14). 
Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid

40 

Table 13.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received loans from various sources, by selected

Table 13.—characteristics: 1999–2000

Federal Stafford Stafford Total

(excluding Stafford sub- unsub- non- Private

PLUS) (either) sidized sidized Perkins federal State Institution sources

Total1 96.9 95.8 80.4 51.7 11.2 15.7 1.6 2.1 12.5

Gender

Male 96.7 95.7 79.1 52.4 11.1 17.1 1.6 2.4 13.6

Female 97.1 95.9 81.4 51.2 11.4 14.7 1.5 1.9 11.7

Age

23 years or younger 97.0 95.7 76.5 44.1 13.2 17.6 2.0 2.5 13.9

24–29 years of age 97.5 96.7 91.4 66.0 8.6 11.2 0.7 1.1 9.4

30 years or older 96.1 95.1 84.8 68.8 5.8 12.2 1.0 1.5 9.8

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 96.8 96.0 77.5 52.9 11.2 16.5 1.8 2.4 13.0

Black, non-Hispanic 98.1 97.0 86.8 55.1 9.4 11.3 0.4 1.6 9.7

Hispanic or Latino 95.7 93.3 86.6 45.5 10.9 17.6 2.0 1.3 14.4

Asian/Pacific Islander 97.5 95.4 87.9 37.0 18.5 13.2 1.3 2.5 9.9

American Indian/Alaskan Native 96.4 96.0 84.2 53.5 8.0 15.5 1.1 0.3 14.8

Other 96.2 91.7 82.9 45.3 18.3 13.8 0.0 0.4 13.3

Marital status

Single, never married 96.7 95.6 78.3 47.2 12.7 16.5 1.7 2.1 13.0

Married 95.8 95.4 83.8 63.4 5.7 12.0 1.4 1.4 9.6

Separated, divorced, or widowed 95.8 94.7 88.4 66.9 8.3 12.8 1.2 2.3 9.4

Single parent status

Not a single parent 96.8 95.7 78.9 50.5 11.5 16.4 1.7 2.2 13.0

Single parent 98.0 96.4 92.2 60.9 8.9 10.4 0.7 1.2 8.6

Dependency status

Dependent 96.9 95.7 74.5 42.3 13.6 18.2 2.0 2.6 14.4

Independent 97.1 96.0 89.1 65.5 7.7 12.0 1.0 1.3 9.7

Parent income, quartile (dependent students)

Lowest quartile 97.7 95.3 93.6 20.8 20.2 15.2 1.0 2.8 12.1

Middle quartiles 97.1 96.2 78.6 41.5 13.7 18.5 2.1 2.5 14.7

Highest quartile 95.2 94.9 36.6 74.3 4.3 21.4 3.0 2.9 16.8

Independent student income, quartile

Lowest quartile 98.2 96.4 93.9 60.0 11.1 10.2 1.0 1.3 7.8

Middle quartiles 97.1 96.4 90.5 67.4 6.1 12.5 1.0 1.3 10.3

Highest quartile 92.0 91.9 61.5 78.5 1.6 15.8 1.0 1.5 14.1

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 95.9 94.0 87.6 52.1 9.7 15.3 2.0 1.9 12.2

High school graduate 97.6 96.3 83.9 52.5 10.5 13.6 1.0 1.7 11.4

Some college, including

 associate’s degree 97.3 96.3 81.6 48.9 12.3 15.8 2.1 2.1 12.5

Bachelor’s degree 96.9 95.7 75.2 49.5 12.2 17.3 2.1 2.5 13.2

Advanced degree 95.9 95.0 72.6 51.4 12.5 17.6 1.3 2.7 13.9

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 96.8 95.5 77.5 46.6 13.3 17.2 1.9 2.5 13.4

Delayed enrollment 97.3 96.3 85.4 60.6 7.8 12.0 1.1 1.4 10.2

See notes at end of table.
 Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid 

41 

Table 13.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received loans from various sources, by selected

Table 13.—characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Federal Stafford Stafford Total

(excluding Stafford sub- unsub- non- Private

PLUS) (either) sidized sidized Perkins federal State Institution sources

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 97.3 96.0 80.5 50.5 12.8 16.3 1.7 2.4 12.8

Half time 96.1 95.4 82.0 56.6 3.9 12.3 0.9 1.4 9.8

Less than half time 87.3 86.2 73.1 50.6 4.6 29.5 0.2 1.0 27.4

Mixed2 97.1 96.3 80.2 54.7 9.1 12.6 1.7 1.3 10.5

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 97.2 96.4 80.9 50.6 10.1 16.4 1.6 2.2 13.1

Second-year undergraduate 96.8 95.7 80.0 50.4 11.8 16.0 1.7 2.0 12.9

Third-year undergraduate 98.0 97.0 81.6 52.4 11.1 15.1 1.2 2.2 12.2

Fourth-year undergraduate 96.3 94.5 79.0 52.7 12.8 14.6 1.9 2.0 11.0

Fifth-year undergraduate 97.5 96.6 80.9 60.4 8.5 12.1 0.7 0.5 10.7

Hours worked

Not employed 97.0 95.9 78.2 51.1 10.7 14.4 1.3 2.0 11.6

1–20 hours 97.2 95.7 80.1 44.3 17.0 17.0 2.0 2.5 13.2

21–34 hours 96.3 95.3 80.3 49.7 9.3 15.8 2.1 1.8 12.3

35 hours or more 95.1 94.4 79.4 61.7 5.3 14.8 1.0 1.3 12.5

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 96.8 95.1 81.5 43.2 19.1 25.0 2.2 4.8 19.4

Public 4-year 97.4 96.1 77.4 49.9 11.8 11.8 1.1 1.4 9.6

Public 2-year 94.0 93.5 76.3 48.8 2.0 16.1 3.2 0.7 12.4

Private for-profit 98.1 97.8 92.0 78.1 3.5 12.1 1.2 1.5 9.8

Degree program

Certificate 96.1 95.8 90.9 69.0 1.7 14.8 1.7 2.9 10.5

Associate’s degree 95.9 95.3 81.6 57.1 3.2 14.9 2.1 0.8 12.2

Bachelor’s degree 97.3 96.0 79.1 48.5 14.4 16.0 1.5 2.4 12.8

No undergraduate degree 96.9 95.5 81.4 53.8 7.6 11.6 1.1 2.1 10.4

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 94.9 94.4 78.3 53.3 7.3 32.1 16.3 1.3 14.7

Certificate 95.5 95.4 88.0 59.6 0.9 12.6 2.8 3.0 7.4

Associate’s degree 94.9 93.9 80.6 56.1 4.0 16.1 4.1 1.0 11.3

Bachelor’s degree 95.9 95.2 79.7 51.9 8.6 15.1 1.4 2.1 12.1

Master’s degree 96.7 95.7 79.6 50.4 11.8 15.6 1.4 1.8 12.7

Doctoral or first-professional degree 97.2 95.6 79.6 49.6 15.5 15.3 1.6 2.9 11.4

Don’t know 96.5 95.8 82.8 55.7 12.6 14.0 1.5 1.9 11.2

Student unmet need3

Less than $1,000 95.2 94.9 69.2 83.1 1.1 16.5 5.1 1.2 12.5

$1,000–$2,999 96.1 94.5 86.4 51.8 4.5 13.2 1.5 1.4 10.7

$3,000–$4,999 97.6 95.7 92.4 36.1 8.4 12.3 1.4 0.9 10.5

$5,000–$9,999 98.3 96.8 94.9 38.2 15.4 12.7 1.3 2.1 9.6

$10,000 and higher 98.6 97.7 96.6 55.8 19.1 20.9 1.4 3.6 16.9

See notes at end of table.
Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid

42 

Table 13.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received loans from various sources, by selected

Table 13.—characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued

Federal Stafford Stafford Total

(excluding Stafford sub- unsub- non- Private

PLUS) (either) sidized sidized Perkins federal State Institution sources

Estimated price of attendance4

Less than $5,000 84.6 83.1 56.3 42.7 3.6 22.1 1.4 2.7 19.6

$5,000–$9,999 96.0 94.4 76.4 46.9 4.9 11.4 1.3 0.8 9.5

$10,000–$14,999 97.8 96.8 81.2 54.8 10.0 11.4 1.4 1.6 8.6

$15,000–$19,999 98.3 97.8 85.4 63.4 10.7 17.0 1.8 2.6 13.2

$20,000 and higher 97.3 95.8 82.8 43.1 24.3 27.8 2.6 5.0 21.9

1

Total percent receiving falls within the range of the subcategories for each characteristic. When it appears otherwise, this is due to a

subcategory being excluded from the table. 

2

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as

mixed.

3

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero values

were excluded for this analysis.

4

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, and

personal expenses.

NOTE: Borrowers are those undergraduates who received loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding Parent

Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), in 1999–2000. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
Table 14.—Average amount of loan aid received by undergraduate borrowers from various sources, by selected characteristics

Total 

(excluding 

PLUS)

Federal 

(excluding 

PLUS)

Stafford 

(either)

Stafford 

subsidized

Stafford 

unsubsidized Perkins Total non- federal Sta

Total $5,229 $4,643 $4,492 $3,214 $3,328 $1,695 $4,766 $3,85

Gender

Male 5,307 4,648 4,497 3,221 3,358 1,698 4,788 3,70Female 5,173 4,639 4,488 3,210 3,305 1,693 4,748 3,95

Age

23 years or younger 4,803 4,119 3,931 3,141 3,084 1,709 4,627 4,0124–29 years of age 6,079 5,686 5,588 3,395 3,488 1,602 4,771 30 years or older 6,165 5,748 5,697 3,278 3,841 1,711 5,681 

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 5,269 4,614 4,452 3,241 3,332 1,692 4,957 4,03Black, non-Hispanic 5,123 4,752 4,621 3,110 3,239 1,820 4,261 Hispanic or Latino 5,054 4,624 4,545 3,132 3,361 1,607 3,902 2,67Asian/Pacific Islander 5,424 4,787 4,578 3,415 3,681 1,570 5,242 American Indian/Alaskan Native 5,092 4,205 4,068 2,927 2,690 ‡ ‡ Other 5,143 4,628 4,412 3,102 3,249 2,200 ‡ 

Marital status

Single, never married 5,018 4,385 4,199 3,202 3,197 1,730 4,706 3,98Married 5,992 5,637 5,550 3,367 3,906 1,763 5,217 3,63Separated, divorced, or widowed 5,827 5,424 5,324 3,165 3,350 1,732 5,147 

Single parent status

Not a single parent 5,223 4,611 4,452 3,243 3,375 1,701 4,806 3,98

Single parent 5,272 4,883 4,802 3,023 3,026 1,635 4,303 

Dependency status

Dependent 4,709 3,999 3,800 3,145 3,060 1,703 4,634 4,19Independent 6,001 5,584 5,504 3,299 3,581 1,676 5,066 2,82

Parent income, quartile (dependent students)

Lowest quartile 4,518 4,045 3,779 3,254 2,660 1,693 3,862 3,03Middle quartiles 4,670 3,962 3,753 3,112 2,803 1,696 4,494 4,09Highest quartile 5,076 4,036 3,961 2,951 3,609 1,827 5,715 4,94

Independent student income, quartile

Lowest quartile 5,892 5,444 5,340 3,416 3,232 1,722 4,630 2,10Middle quartiles 5,960 5,557 5,483 3,214 3,527 1,613 5,094 3,48Highest quartile 6,618 6,358 6,337 3,190 4,932 ‡ 6,009 

See notes at end of table.
Table 14.—Average amount of loan aid received by undergraduate borrowers from various sources, by selected characteristics

Table 14.——Continued

Total 

(excluding 

PLUS)

Federal 

(excluding 

PLUS)

Stafford 

(either)

Stafford 

subsidized

Stafford 

unsubsidized Perkins Total non- federal Sta

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school $5,043 $4,719 $4,625 $3,052 $3,211 $1,736 $3,841 High school graduate 5,058 4,621 4,491 3,109 3,269 1,666 4,630 3,74Some college, including associate’s degree 5,278 4,547 4,367 3,202 3,260 1,693 4,996 4,19Bachelor’s degree 5,307 4,572 4,397 3,371 3,389 1,714 4,862 4,42Advanced degree 5,443 4,700 4,506 3,417 3,504 1,778 5,053 4,25

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 5,154 4,448 4,257 3,279 3,278 1,733 4,701 4,02Delayed enrollment 5,430 4,981 4,899 3,123 3,389 1,573 5,056 3,30

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 5,300 4,607 4,429 3,229 3,281 1,726 4,852 4,01Half time 4,905 4,510 4,490 2,875 3,403 1,146 4,768 Less than half time 4,322 4,667 4,631 3,188 3,286 ‡ 2,993 Mixed1 5,154 4,862 4,746 3,330 3,480 1,619 4,671 3,78

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 4,021 3,444 3,286 2,205 2,731 1,747 4,020 3,95Second-year undergraduate 4,784 4,150 3,986 2,882 2,992 1,662 5,076 3,78Third-year undergraduate 6,386 5,791 5,646 4,249 3,834 1,749 5,015 4,35Fourth-year undergraduate 6,283 5,726 5,600 4,090 3,917 1,630 5,335 3,67Fifth-year undergraduate 6,520 5,894 5,799 4,007 3,908 1,470 6,476 

Hours worked

Not employed 5,129 4,542 4,392 3,119 3,475 1,679 5,215 4,621–20 hours 5,329 4,636 4,392 3,395 3,342 1,730 4,801 4,0721–34 hours 5,098 4,525 4,402 3,245 3,190 1,734 4,648 3,5035 hours or more 5,233 4,864 4,806 3,070 3,404 1,606 4,361 2,89

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,450 5,132 4,853 3,694 3,723 1,776 5,892 5,19Public 4-year 4,890 4,568 4,419 3,354 3,307 1,655 3,718 3,28Public 2-year 3,356 3,052 3,035 2,191 2,390 ‡ 3,509 

Private for-profit 5,919 5,338 5,308 2,724 3,435 1,383 5,714 

See notes at end of table.
Table 14.—Average amount of loan aid received by undergraduate borrowers from various sources, by selected characteristics

Table 14.——Continued

Total 

(excluding 

PLUS)

Federal 

(excluding 

PLUS)

Stafford 

(either)

Stafford 

subsidized

Stafford 

unsubsidized Perkins Total non- federal Sta

Degree program

Certificate $5,167 $4,686 $4,671 $2,476 $3,222 $1,746 $4,611 Associate’s degree 4,210 3,852 3,823 2,465 2,858 1,535 4,064 3,26Bachelor’s degree 5,438 4,797 4,602 3,471 3,447 1,702 4,918 4,18

No undergraduate degree 4,606 4,519 4,437 3,060 3,245 ‡ ‡ 

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 4,141 2,964 2,844 2,056 2,016 ‡ ‡ 

Certificate 4,178 3,983 3,976 2,312 2,952 ‡ 3,002 Associate’s degree 4,211 3,857 3,827 2,381 2,987 ‡ 3,677 Bachelor’s degree 4,685 4,203 4,091 2,844 3,143 1,555 4,406 3,40Master’s degree 5,463 4,847 4,674 3,400 3,507 1,725 4,968 3,95Doctoral or first-professional degree 5,662 5,009 4,786 3,620 3,409 1,808 5,161 4,24Don’t know 5,073 4,539 4,323 2,955 3,038 1,828 5,036 

Student unmet need2

Less than $1,000 3,613 3,227 3,231 576 3,210 ‡ 3,403 $1,000–$2,999 3,425 3,084 3,088 1,797 2,642 965 3,031 $3,000–$4,999 3,829 3,490 3,429 2,671 2,249 1,481 3,728 $5,000–$9,999 5,324 4,923 4,721 3,581 3,062 1,697 3,908 4,04$10,000 and higher 7,571 6,116 5,796 3,739 3,677 1,852 7,321 4,95

Estimated price of attendance3

Less than $5,000 1,736 1,928 1,932 1,585 1,671 ‡ 1,331 $5,000–$9,999 3,381 3,261 3,248 2,424 2,586 1,270 2,412 1,75$10,000–$14,999 5,084 4,826 4,706 3,310 3,404 1,613 3,332 3,83$15,000–$19,999 6,343 5,572 5,402 3,453 3,684 1,745 4,868 4,55$20,000 and higher 7,282 5,399 4,998 3,820 3,771 1,870 7,452 5,32

‡Reporting standards not met. (Too few cases.)NOTE: Borrowers are those undergraduates who received loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding Parent Loans for Undein 1999–2000. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 

2Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero values were exclud3The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, and personal exp1Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as mixed.
Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid

46 

Multivariate Analysis 

As shown in the previous sections, several characteristics—age, marital status, dependency 

status, income, institution type, and degree program—distinguished borrowers who received 

Stafford subsidized and unsubsidized loans from those who did not. Some of these characteristics 

are related, such as age and dependency status. In order to examine the independent association 

of these characteristics with having received a Stafford loan, a multivariate analysis was 

conducted using a regression model to adjust for covariation of other characteristics. Two 

multivariate analyses were conducted concerning the receipt of Stafford loans: 1) for having 

received a subsidized loan; and 2) for having received an unsubsidized loan. Results are 

presented in table 15 and table 16. Each model contains the same set of demographic and 

enrollment characteristics as independent variables. The first column of each table shows the 

percentage of borrowers who received the Stafford loan without adjustments. The second column 

shows the corresponding percentages after being adjusted for covariation of the independent 

variables included in the regression equation. Asterisks indicate when a particular group differs 

significantly from the comparison group (shown in italics). 

Stafford Subsidized Loans 

The results presented in table 15 show that some variables continued to be associated with 

having received a Stafford subsidized loan relative to the comparison group both before and after 

adjusting for the covariation of other demographic and enrollment characteristics. These included 

being married, being financially independent, being low income, and having prices of attendance 

or unmet need higher than the lowest categories. Attending private for-profit institutions 

(compared to attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions) and attending exclusively full 

time (compared to attending less than half time) also were associated with having received a 

subsidized loan. 

Stafford Unsubsidized Loans 

Results presented in table 16 show that after adjusting for the covariation of other variables, 

certain demographic and enrollment characteristics continued to be associated with having 

received a Stafford unsubsidized loan in 1999–2000 relative to the comparison group. For 

example, these included being age 24–29, being financially independent, not being low income, 

and having prices of attendance higher than the lowest category (with the exception of $20,000 

and higher). Attending public 4-year or private for-profit institutions, enrolling in certificate or 

associate’s degree programs, and not attending half time or less than half time also were 
 Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid 

47 

Table 15.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received subsidized Stafford loans, and the

Table 15.—adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table:

Table 15.—1999–2000

Unadjusted 

percentage1

Adjusted 

percentage2

LS 

coefficient3 Standard error4

Gender

Male 79.1 78.9 † †

Female 81.4 * 79.6 0.70 .80 

Age

23 years or younger 76.5 78.7 † †

24–29 years of age 91.4 * 80.3 1.60 1.50 

30 years or older 84.8 * 80.5 1.80 1.90 

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 77.5 78.5 † †

Black, non-Hispanic 86.8 * 82.2 * 3.70 1.20 

Hispanic or Latino 86.6 * 79.4 0.90 1.40 

Asian/Pacific Islander 87.9 * 84.1 * 5.60 2.00 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 84.2 82.3 3.80 5.00 

Other 82.9 77.3 -1.20 3.90 

Marital status

Single, never married 78.3 78.1 † †

Married 83.8 * 85.1 * 7.00 1.40 

Separated, divorced, or widowed 88.4 * 79.2 1.10 2.00 

Single parent status

Not a single parent 78.9 79.3 † †

Single parent 92.2 * 79.6 0.30 1.60 

Dependency status

Dependent 74.5 76.1 † †

Independent 89.1 * 84.4 * 8.30 1.60 

Income percentile rank (all students)

Lowest quartile 93.8 93.5 † †

Middle quartiles 83.2 * 83.0 * -10.50 .90 

Highest quartile 42.9 * 39.3 * -54.20 1.40 

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 87.6 * 78.7 0.90 2.00 

High school graduate 83.9 * 80.4 * 2.60 1.10 

Some college, including associate’s degree 81.6 * 80.2 * 2.40 1.20 

Bachelor’s degree 75.2 77.8 † †

Advanced degree 72.6 78.6 0.80 1.30 

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 77.5 79.3 † †

Delayed enrollment 85.4 * 79.5 0.20 1.00 

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 80.5 79.1 † †

Half time 82.0 81.2 2.10 1.50 

Less than half time 73.1 * 67.7 * -11.40 3.90 

Mixed5 80.2 80.6 1.50 1.30 

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 80.9 80.3 † †

Second-year undergraduate 80.0 79.5 -0.80 1.10 

Third-year undergraduate 81.6 80.2 -0.10 1.20 

Fourth-year undergraduate 79.0 77.1 * -3.20 1.30 

Fifth-year undergraduate 80.9 78.3 -2.00 2.50 

See notes at end of table.
Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid

48 

Table 15.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received subsidized Stafford loans, and the

Table 15.—adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table:

Table 15.—1999–2000—Continued

Unadjusted 

percentage1

Adjusted 

percentage2

LS 

coefficient3 Standard error4

Hours worked

Not employed 78.2 79.7 † †

1–20 hours 80.1 80.3 0.60 1.10 

21–34 hours 80.3 79.8 0.10 1.30 

35 hours or more 79.4 77.4 -2.30 1.30 

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 81.5 78.8 † †

Public 4-year 77.4 * 78.4 -0.40 1.30 

Public 2-year 76.3 * 76.5 -2.30 2.40 

Private for-profit 92.0 * 86.7 * 7.90 2.10 

Degree program

Certificate 90.9 * 77.6 -2.30 2.50 

Associate’s degree 81.6 77.7 -2.20 2.00 

Bachelor’s degree 79.1 79.9 † †

No undergraduate degree 81.4 84.8 4.90 6.80 

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 78.3 78.7 -0.80 6.50 

Certificate 88.0 * 83.8 4.30 3.50 

Associate’s degree 80.6 78.3 -1.20 2.10 

Bachelor’s degree 79.7 79.5 † †

Master’s degree 79.6 79.7 0.20 1.00 

Doctoral or first-professional degree 79.6 77.8 -1.70 1.30 

Don’t know 82.8 79.5 0.00 2.00 

Student unmet need6

Less than $1,000 69.2 61.4 † †

$1,000–$2,999 86.4 * 82.6 * 21.20 2.50 

$3,000–$4,999 92.4 * 84.5 * 23.10 2.40 

$5,000–$9,999 94.9 * 80.7 * 19.30 2.30 

$10,000 and higher 96.6 * 74.2 * 12.80 2.50 

Estimated price of attendance7

Less than $5,000 56.3 47.4 † †

$5,000–$9,999 76.4 * 70.3 * 22.90 2.60 

$10,000–$14,999 81.2 * 78.4 * 31.00 2.70 

$15,000–$19,999 85.4 * 85.1 * 37.70 2.90 

$20,000 and higher 82.8 * 91.8 * 44.40 3.00 

†Not applicable for the reference group.

*p < .05. 1

The estimates are from the NPSAS:2000 Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

2

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table.

3 Least squares (LS) coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage.

4

Standard error of LS coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage.

5

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as mixed.

6

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero values

were excluded for this analysis.

7

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, 

and personal expenses.

NOTE: The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. Borrowers are those undergraduates who received

loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), in 1999–2000.

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
 Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid 

49 

Table 16.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received unsubsidized Stafford loans, and the

Table 16.—adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table:

Table 16.—1999–2000

Unadjusted 

percentage1

Adjusted 

percentage2

LS 

coefficient3 Standard error4

Gender

Male 52.4 51.0 † †

Female 51.2 51.0 0.00 1.07 

Age

23 years or younger 44.1 49.2 † †

24–29 years of age 66.0 * 55.0 * 5.80 1.93 

30 years or older 68.8 * 52.3 3.10 2.36 

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 52.9 51.6 † †

Black, non-Hispanic 55.1 55.3 * 3.70 1.50 

Hispanic or Latino 45.5 * 44.9 * -6.70 1.82 

Asian/Pacific Islander 37.0 * 38.1 * -13.50 2.68 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 53.5 56.0 4.40 6.42 

Other 45.3 45.5 -6.10 5.03 

Marital status

Single, never married 47.2 52.2 † †

Married 63.4 * 43.2 * -9.00 1.71 

Separated, divorced, or widowed 66.9 * 57.6 * 5.40 2.57 

Single parent status

Not a single parent 50.5 51.4 † †

Single parent 60.9 * 47.6 -3.80 2.03 

Dependency status

Dependent 42.3 42.5 † †

Independent 65.5 * 64.4 * 21.90 2.14 

Income percentile rank (all students)

Lowest quartile 40.6 36.9 † †

Middle quartiles 51.6 * 50.8 * 13.90 1.18 

Highest quartile 75.4 * 79.5 * 42.60 1.82 

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 52.1 44.9 * -6.90 2.57 

High school graduate 52.5 50.4 -1.40 1.39 

Some college, including associate’s degree 48.9 53.0 1.20 1.50 

Bachelor’s degree 49.5 51.8 † †

Advanced degree 51.4 50.0 -1.80 1.61 

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 46.6 50.8 † †

Delayed enrollment 60.6 * 51.3 0.50 1.28 

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 50.5 51.8 † †

Half time 56.6 * 43.9 * -7.90 2.03 

Less than half time 50.6 33.8 * -18.00 5.03 

Mixed5 54.7 * 51.9 0.10 1.71 

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 50.6 48.1 † †

Second-year undergraduate 50.4 49.5 1.40 1.39 

Third-year undergraduate 52.4 54.7 * 6.60 1.61 

Fourth-year undergraduate 52.7 52.4 * 4.30 1.71 

Fifth-year undergraduate 60.4 * 58.4 * 10.30 3.21 

See notes at end of table.
Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid

50 

Table 16.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received unsubsidized Stafford loans, and the

Table 16.—adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table:

Table 16.—1999–2000—Continued

Unadjusted 

percentage1

Adjusted 

percentage2

LS 

coefficient3 Standard error4

Hours worked

Not employed 51.1 50.7 † †

1–20 hours 44.3 * 49.0 -1.70 1.39 

21–34 hours 49.7 51.5 0.80 1.61 

35 hours or more 61.7 * 53.6 2.90 1.61 

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 43.2 47.0 † †

Public 4-year 49.9 * 50.9 * 3.90 1.61 

Public 2-year 48.8 * 43.5 -3.50 3.11 

Private for-profit 78.1 * 66.3 * 19.30 2.68 

Degree program

Certificate 69.0 * 55.9 * 6.30 3.21 

Associate’s degree 57.1 * 55.4 * 5.80 2.57 

Bachelor’s degree 48.5 49.6 † †

No undergraduate degree 53.8 43.4 -6.20 8.78 

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 53.3 46.5 -3.20 8.35 

Certificate 59.6 43.4 -6.30 4.50 

Associate’s degree 56.1 47.2 -2.50 2.68 

Bachelor’s degree 51.9 49.7 † †

Master’s degree 50.4 51.3 1.60 1.28 

Doctoral or first-professional degree 49.6 53.3 * 3.60 1.71 

Don’t know 55.7 51.2 1.50 2.57 

Student unmet need6

Less than $1,000 83.1 83.5 † †

$1,000–$2,999 51.8 * 56.6 * -26.90 3.21 

$3,000–$4,999 36.1 * 44.0 * -39.50 3.11 

$5,000–$9,999 38.2 * 43.7 * -39.80 3.00 

$10,000 and higher 55.8 * 61.6 * -21.90 3.21 

Estimated price of attendance7

Less than $5,000 42.7 37.2 † †

$5,000–$9,999 46.9 49.6 * 12.40 3.43 

$10,000–$14,999 54.8 * 56.7 * 19.50 3.53 

$15,000–$19,999 63.4 * 54.3 * 17.10 3.75 

$20,000 and higher 43.1 41.5 4.30 3.96 

†Not applicable for the reference group.

*p < .05. 1

The estimates are from the NPSAS:2000 Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

2

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table.

3 Least squares (LS) coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage.

4

Standard error of LS coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage.

5

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as mixed.

6

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero values

were excluded for this analysis.

7

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, 

and personal expenses.

NOTE: The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. Borrowers are those undergraduates who received

loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), in 1999–2000.

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
 Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid 

51 

associated with having received these types of loans. Before adjustment, single borrowers were 

less likely to have received unsubsidized loans in comparison to married borrowers. After 

adjusting for covariation, however, being single versus married was positively associated with 

having received an unsubsidized loan. 

Private Loans 

Given increased concern about private loan volume, it is worth noting that borrowers with 

certain characteristics were more likely to have obtained private loans in 1999–2000. Unlike 

those related to the likelihood of receiving Stafford loans, these characteristics included being 

age 23 or younger, single, financially dependent, and not delaying enrollment compared to other 

age, marital status, dependency, and delayed enrollment categories. In addition, a higher 

percentage of borrowers who attended on a less-than-half-time basis received private loans (27 

percent) compared to borrowers with other attendance patterns (exclusively full time, 13 percent; 

half time, 10 percent; and mixed, 11 percent) (table 13). However, less-than-half-time borrowers 

received a lower average private loan amount than undergraduates with other attendance patterns. 

(table 14). Undergraduates who attended less than half time may not have applied for federal 

financial aid at the same rate or were not eligible for other types of loans. 

Having a high income, high unmet need, and attending a private not-for-profit 4-year 

institution were all associated with higher rates of receiving private loans. Specifically, borrowers 

in the highest income quartile were more likely to have received private loans than borrowers in 

the lowest income quartile. This was the case for both dependent students (17 percent compared 

to 12 percent) and independent students (14 percent compared to 8 percent). In addition, 

borrowers with unmet need higher than $10,000 received private loans (17 percent) at a higher 

rate than borrowers with most other levels of unmet need ($5,000 to $9,999, 10 percent; $3,000 

to $4,999, 11 percent; and $1,000 to $2,999, 11 percent) (table 13). They also received higher 

average amounts ($7,958) than borrowers with all other levels of unmet need (table 14). Finally, 

borrowers attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were more likely to have received 

private loans (19 percent) than borrowers attending other institutional types (public 4-year, 10 

percent; public 2-year, 12 percent; and private for-profit, 10 percent) (table 13). Both borrowers 

attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions and those attending private for-profit 

institutions received higher average amounts of private loans than those attending public 4-year 

institutions and public 2-year institutions (table 14). 
Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid

52 

Multivariate Analysis 

As shown in the previous section, several characteristics distinguished borrowers who 

received private loans from those who did not receive these loans in 1999–2000. A multivariate 

analysis was conducted to examine the independent association of these characteristics to having 

received a private loan by adjusting for the possible covariation of related characteristics. Results 

of this multivariate analysis are presented in table 17. After adjusting for other variables, certain 

demographic and enrollment characteristics were associated with having received a private loan 

relative to the comparison group. These included attending less than half time compared to 

attending exclusively full time, attending a private not-for-profit 4-year institution compared to 

attending a public 4-year institution or a private for-profit institution, and being high or middle 

income in comparison to being low income. 
 Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid 

53 

Table 17.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received private loans, and the adjusted percentage

Table 17.—after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table: 1999–2000

Unadjusted 

percentage1

Adjusted 

percentage2

LS 

coefficient3 Standard error4

Gender

Male 13.6 13.1 † †

Female 11.7 * 11.9 -1.20 .82 

Age

23 years or younger 13.9 13.1 † †

24–29 years of age 9.4 * 11.7 -1.40 1.53 

30 years or older 9.8 * 10.7 -2.40 1.88 

Race-ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 13.0 12.5 † †

Black, non-Hispanic 9.7 * 10.8 -1.70 1.17 

Hispanic or Latino 14.4 15.7 * 3.20 1.41 

Asian/Pacific Islander 9.9 * 9.8 -2.70 2.11 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 14.8 15.9 3.40 5.05 

Other 13.3 13.5 1.00 3.99 

Marital status

Single, never married 13.0 12.8 † †

Married 9.6 * 10.9 -1.90 1.41 

Separated, divorced, or widowed 9.4 * 12.9 0.10 2.00 

Single parent status

Not a single parent 13.0 12.6 † †

Single parent 8.6 * 11.3 -1.30 1.64 

Dependency status

Dependent 14.4 12.8 † †

Independent 9.7 * 11.8 -1.00 1.64 

Income percentile rank (all students)

Lowest quartile 10.0 10.5 † †

Middle quartiles 13.0 * 12.8 * 2.30 .94 

Highest quartile 16.1 * 15.0 * 4.50 1.41 

Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 12.2 13.4 1.10 2.00 

High school graduate 11.4 12.1 -0.20 1.06 

Some college, including associate’s degree 12.5 13.2 0.90 1.17 

Bachelor’s degree 13.2 12.3 † †

Advanced degree 13.9 12.1 -0.20 1.29 

Delayed enrollment

Did not delay enrollment 13.4 12.6 † †

Delayed enrollment 10.2 * 12.1 -0.50 1.06 

Attendance status

Exclusively full time 12.8 12.2 † †

Half time 9.8 * 11.6 -0.60 1.53 

Less than half time 27.4 * 33.4 * 21.20 3.99 

Mixed5 10.5 * 12.7 0.50 1.29 

Class level (Stafford loan)

First-year undergraduate 13.1 13.7 † †

Second-year undergraduate 12.9 12.7 -1.00 1.06 

Third-year undergraduate 12.2 11.6 -2.10 1.29 

Fourth-year undergraduate 11.0 * 11.1 * -2.60 1.29 

Fifth-year undergraduate 10.7 12.3 -1.40 2.58 

See notes at end of table.
Likelihood of Receiving Certain Types of Financial Aid

54 

Table 17.—Percentage of undergraduate borrowers who received private loans, and the adjusted percentage

Table 17.—after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table: 1999–2000

Table 17.——Continued

Unadjusted 

percentage1

Adjusted 

percentage2

LS 

coefficient3 Standard error4

Hours worked

Not employed 11.6 11.5 † †

1–20 hours 13.2 11.8 0.30 1.17 

21–34 hours 12.3 12.7 1.20 1.29 

35 hours or more 12.5 14.0 2.50 1.29 

Type of institution attended

Private not-for-profit 4-year 19.4 15.7 † †

Public 4-year 9.6 * 12.4 * -3.30 1.29 

Public 2-year 12.4 * 12.8 -2.90 2.46 

Private for-profit 9.8 * 5.5 * -10.20 2.11 

Degree program

Certificate 10.5 15.8 4.10 2.58 

Associate’s degree 12.2 14.5 2.80 2.00 

Bachelor’s degree 12.8 11.7 † †

No undergraduate degree 10.4 10.5 -1.20 6.92 

Highest degree expected

No degree or certificate 14.7 7.4 -5.60 6.57 

Certificate 7.4 9.9 -3.10 3.64 

Associate’s degree 11.3 12.0 -1.00 2.11 

Bachelor’s degree 12.1 13.0 † †

Master’s degree 12.7 12.9 -0.10 1.06 

Doctoral or first-professional degree 11.4 11.2 -1.80 1.29 

Don’t know 11.2 12.0 -1.00 2.11 

Student unmet need6

Less than $1,000 12.5 11.4 † †

$1,000–$2,999 10.7 10.7 -0.70 2.46 

$3,000–$4,999 10.5 11.4 0.00 2.46 

$5,000–$9,999 9.6 11.2 -0.20 2.35 

$10,000 and higher 16.9 16.4 5.00 2.58 

Estimated price of attendance7

Less than $5,000 19.6 16.5 † †

$5,000–$9,999 9.5 10.2 * -6.30 2.70 

$10,000–$14,999 8.6 10.1 * -6.40 2.70 

$15,000–$19,999 13.2 13.2 -3.30 2.93 

$20,000 and higher 21.9 18.5 2.00 3.05 

†Not applicable for the reference group.

*p < .05. 1

The estimates are from the NPSAS:2000 Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

2

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table.

3 Least squares (LS) coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage.

4

Standard error of LS coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage.

5

Since full-time full-year students may be enrolled full time nine or more months and part time a few months, they are categorized as mixed.

6

Unmet need equals the attendance-adjusted student budget minus expected family contribution (EFC) minus total grant aid. Zero values

were excluded for this analysis.

7

The estimated price of attendance is the attendance-adjusted student budget, including tuition, books and supplies, room and board, 

and personal expenses.

NOTE: The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. Borrowers are those undergraduates who received

loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources, excluding Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), in 1999–2000.

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.
55 

Summary and Conclusions 

Twenty-nine percent of undergraduates borrowed from some source to help finance 

postsecondary education in 1999–2000. High borrowers in this group are of particular interest 

because of concerns about debt burden and loan default. A profile of high borrowers shows that 

they had a tendency to be older, independent students, to attend 4-year institutions (public and 

private), and to enroll exclusively full time. They were also more likely than medium and low 

borrowers to have been age 24 or older, married, and independent. In addition, both high 

borrowers and medium borrowers were more likely than low borrowers to have attended private 

not-for-profit 4-year institutions. High borrowers were also more likely than other borrower 

groups to have had the highest prices of attendance and levels of unmet need. All borrower 

groups were less likely than nonborrowers to have been high income, and nonborrowers were 

more likely to have worked full time. 

An examination of the persistence/attainment risk (nontraditional) characteristics of high 

borrowers within institution types revealed that, with the exception of students at private not-forprofit 4-year institutions, high borrowers most often had moderate or high risk. High borrowers at 

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions most often had zero risk characteristics. Differences 

among borrower groups in the likelihood of having high risk also varied by institution type. At 

both private not-for-profit 4-year institutions and public 4-year institutions, high borrowers were 

more likely to have had high risk than medium and low borrowers. At private for-profit 

institutions, a lower percentage of high borrowers had high risk than medium borrowers. 

High borrowers received an average of $9,680 in loan aid in 1999–2000. Ninety-eight 

percent of high borrowers received Stafford loans and about one-quarter received private loans 

(27 percent). Compared to other borrower groups, high borrowers were most likely to have 

received both Stafford subsidized loans and Stafford unsubsidized loans as well as private loans. 

In addition, 71 percent of high borrowers received some form of grant aid in 1999–2000, 

averaging $4,667. All borrower groups were more likely to have received some form of grant aid 

and to have received higher average amounts compared to nonborrowers. Borrowers were also 

more likely to have received specific types of grant aid, including Pell grants, FSEOG, state 

grants, and institutional grants, than nonborrowers. 

Analysis of 1999–2000 Stafford loan maximum borrower groups (total, subsidized, and 

unsubsidized) revealed that total maximum borrowers and subsidized maximum borrowers 
Summary and Conclusions

56 

tended to be young, single, financially dependent students. In addition, they were more likely to 

have had each of these characteristics than their Stafford nonborrower counterparts. Each group 

of Stafford maximum borrowers tended to be enrolled exclusively full time. Maximum 

borrowers also were more likely (compared to Stafford less-than-maximum borrowers and 

Stafford nonborrowers) to have had the highest prices of attendance and to have had the highest 

levels of unmet need. Finally, maximum borrowers primarily worked 1–20 hours (total and 

subsidized) or 1–20 hours and 35 hours or more (unsubsidized). All maximum borrowers were 

less likely than nonborrowers to have worked full time. 

The profile of the persistence/attainment risk characteristics of Stafford maximum 

borrowers within institution type shows that the highest proportion of maximum borrowers at 

private not-for-profit 4-year institutions and public 4-year institutions had zero risk 

characteristics. At private for-profit institutions, the largest percentage had moderate risk. At 

public 2-year institutions, they primarily had moderate risk (unsubsidized) or moderate and high 

risk (subsidized). In all four institution types, all three groups of maximum borrowers were less 

likely to have had high risk than less-than-maximum borrowers and nonborrowers (with the 

exception of subsidized borrowers at public 4-year institutions and subsidized borrowers at 

public 4-year institutions). It is important to note that in all four sectors, all total maximum 

borrowers were more likely to have had zero risk characteristics (to have been traditional 

students) compared to less-than-maximum borrowers and nonborrowers. 

In 1999–2000, 80 percent of Stafford total maximum borrowers received subsidized loans 

and 59 percent received unsubsidized loans. Stafford maximum borrowers also received private 

loans (total maximum borrowers, 13 percent; subsidized maximum borrowers, 11 percent; and 

unsubsidized maximum borrowers, 11 percent). Also, each group of maximum borrowers (total, 

subsidized, and unsubsidized) was more likely to have received private loans and to have 

received higher average amounts than less-than-maximum borrowers and nonborrowers. In 

addition, most maximum borrowers also received some form of grant aid (total maximum 

borrowers, 67 percent; subsidized maximum borrowers, 80 percent; and unsubsidized maximum 

borrowers, 54 percent). For each group of borrowers, maximum borrowers received higher 

average amounts of grant aid than nonborrowers. 

The final analysis of the report considers borrowers as a group and examines the likelihood 

of borrowers with certain demographic and enrollment characteristics receiving particular types 

of loans and other aid, as well as average amounts. As expected, low-income borrowers received 

Stafford subsidized loans at higher rates than high-income borrowers, and high-income 

borrowers received Stafford unsubsidized loans at higher rates than both middle- and low-income 

borrowers. Borrowers who attended private for-profit institutions and those who enrolled in 
 Summary and Conclusions 

57 

certificate programs were more likely to have received Stafford subsidized and unsubsidized 

loans. Also, borrowers older than 23, married, financially independent, and with delayed 

enrollment were more likely to have received both federal Stafford subsidized loans and Stafford 

unsubsidized loans than borrowers in other age, marital status, dependency, and delayed 

enrollment categories. 

A multivariate analysis revealed that after adjusting for the covariation of demographic and 

enrollment characteristics, certain variables continued to be associated with receiving Stafford 

subsidized and Stafford unsubsidized loans. Low-income borrowers and borrowers with the 

lowest levels of unmet need were least likely to have received unsubsidized loans and most likely 

to have received subsidized loans. Dependent borrowers were less likely to have received both 

subsidized and unsubsidized loans than independent borrowers, and borrowers attending private 

for-profit institutions were more likely to have received both types of loans (compared to 

borrowers attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions). In addition, borrowers who 

attended exclusively full time were more likely to have received subsidized loans (compared to 

those attending less than half time) and more likely to have received unsubsidized loans 

(compared to those attending half time and less than half time). 

Before adjusting for the covariation of other variables, borrowers with certain 

characteristics were more likely to have received private loans. In contrast to the findings related 

to Stafford loans, borrowers who were age 23 or younger, single, financially dependent, and who 

did not delay enrollment were more likely to receive private loans. Also, students who attended 

on a less-than-half-time basis were more likely to have received private loans but received lower 

average amounts. In addition, high-income borrowers (compared to low-income borrowers) with 

the highest prices of attendance, and borrowers with the highest levels of unmet need received 

private loans at higher rates. Borrowers with the highest prices of attendance and levels of unmet 

need also received higher average amounts. 

A multivariate analysis revealed that after adjusting for covariation among characteristics, 

borrowers who attended on a less-than-half-time basis (compared to those who attended 

exclusively full time) and borrowers who attended private not-for-profit 4-year institutions 

(compared to public 4-year and private for-profit institutions) were more likely to have received 

private loans. High- and middle-income borrowers received private loans at a higher rate. 

 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
59 

References 

Berkner, L. (2000). Trends in Undergraduate Borrowing: Federal Student Loans in 1989–90, 

1992–93, and 1995–96 (NCES 2000–151). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

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

Campaigne, D.E., and Hossler, D. (1998). How Do Loans Affect the Educational Decisions of 

Students?: Access, Aspirations, College Choice, and Persistence. In R. Fossey and M. 

Bateman (Eds.), Condemning Students to Debt: College Loans and Public Policy (pp. 47–

75). New York: Teachers College Press. 

Choy, S.P. (2000). Debt Burden Four Years Later (NCES 2000–188). U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

College Board. (2001). Trends in Student Aid. Washington, DC: Author. 

Dynarski, M. (1994). Who Defaults on Student Loans? Findings From the National 

Postsecondary Education Study. Economics of Education Review, 13(1): 55–68. 

Hoffman, R.D.R. (2002, March). Market Update: Private Loans. The Greentree Gazette, 60–62. 

Horn, L.J. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates: Trends in Enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and 

Persistence and Attainment Among 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 97–

578). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Horn, L.J., and Premo, M.D. (1995). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education 

Institutions: 1992–93 (NCES 96–237). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

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

Hossler, D., Braxton, J., and Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding Student College Choice. In 

J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 231–287) (Vol. 

5). New York: Agathon Press. 
References

60 

Knapp, L.G., and Seaks, T.G. (1992). An Analysis of the Probability of Default on Federally 

Guaranteed Student Loans. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3): 404–411. 

Redd, K. (1999). The Changing Characteristics of Undergraduate Borrowers. In J.E. King (Ed.), 

Financing a College Education: How it Works, How It’s Changing (pp. 78–97). Phoenix, 

AZ: The American Council on Education and Oryx Press. 

Volkwein, J.F., and Cabrera, A.F. (1998). Who Defaults on Students Loans? The Effects of 

Race, Class, and Gender on Borrower Behavior. In R. Fossey and M. Bateman (Eds.), 

Condemning Students to Debt: College Loans and Public Policy (pp. 47–75). New York: 

Teachers College Press. 
61 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The items were taken directly from the NPSAS:2000 

undergraduate Data Analysis Systems (DAS), the NCES software application that generates tables from the 

NPSAS:2000 data (see Appendix A for a description of the DAS). 

The variables listed in the index below are organized by sections in the order they appear in the report. The variables 

in the glossary are presented in alphabetical order by the variable label in the DAS, shown in bold, capital letters, 

and displayed along the right-hand side of each column. 

Glossary Index 

INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Institution type ..............................................AIDSECT 

Price of attendance....................................BUDGETA2 

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Gender .......................................................... GENDER 

Age........................................................................ AGE 

Race/ethnicity ...................................................RACE2 

Marital status ............................................... NBMARR 

Single parent status .................................... SINGLPAR 

Dependency status .........................................DEPEND 

Income percentile of dependent students ........PCTDEP 

Income percentile of independent 

 students .................................................... PCTINDEP 

Income percentile of all students...................PCTALL2 

Parent’s education..........................................NPARED 

Delayed postsecondary enrollment .......... DELAYENR 

Attendance intensity (all schools) .............ATTNPTRN 

Class level for student loans........................... UGLVL2 

Hours worked per week while enrolled...... NDHOURS 

Last degree program ................................... DEGLAST 

Highest degree planned.............................NEEXPEVR 

Unmet need.....................................................SNEED5 

Score on persistence/attainment 

 risk index...................................................RISKINDX 

FINANCIAL AID VARIABLES

Any loans/Average any loan amount ..........TOTLOAN 

Any federal loans/Average any federal 

 loan amount.................................................. TFEDLN 

Any Stafford loans/Average any 

 Stafford loan amount...............................STAFFAMT 

Any Stafford subsidized loans/Average 

 any Stafford subsidized loan amount ......... STAFSUB 

Any Stafford unsubsidized loans/ 

 Average any Stafford unsubsidized 

 loan amount .............................................STAFUNSB 

Any non-federal loans/Average any 

 non-federal loan amount ............................TNFEDLN 

Any state loans/Average state loan 

 amount ...................................................... STLNAMT 

Any institutional loans/Average 

 institutional loan amount ...........................INLNAMT 

Any private loans/Average private 

 loan amount .............................................PRIVLOAN 

Any grants/Average any grant amount .......... TOTGRT 

Any federal grants/Average any federal 

 grant amount..............................................TFEDGRT 

Any Pell grants/Average any Pell 

 grant amount..............................................PELLAMT 

Any FSEOG/Average any FSEOG 

 amount ......................................................SEOGAMT 

Any non-federal grants/Average any 

 non-federal grant amount........................ TNFEDGRT 

Any state grants/Average any state 

 grant amount............................................. STGTAMT 

Any institutional grants/Average any 

 institutional grant amount .......................INGRTAMT 

Any private grants/Average any private 

 grant amount................................................PRIVAID 

Any work-study/Average 

 work-study amount ...................................TOTWKST 

Stafford total maximum categories.............STAFCT2R 

Stafford subsidized maximum categories ...STAFFCT1 

Stafford unsubsidized maximum 

 categories..................................................STAFFCT3 
Appendix A—Glossary 

62 

DAS Variable Name 

Institutional Characteristics 

Institution type AIDSECT 

Indicates the level and control of the NPSAS institution. Institution level concerns the institution’s highest offering, 

and control concerns the source of revenue and control of operations. Doctorate- and nondoctorate-granting 4-year 

institutions are aggregated in this report. Students attending more than one institution in 1999–2000 are in a separate 

category and are excluded for the analyses in this report. Students attending public less-than-2-year and private notfor-profit less-than-4-year institutions also are excluded. 

Public 4-year Public institutions are supported primarily by public funds and 

operated by publicly elected or appointed officials who control 

the programs and activities. Public 4-year institutions award 

bachelor’s degrees or higher, including doctorate and firstprofessional degrees. First-professional degrees include 

chiropractic, pharmacy, dentistry, podiatry, medicine, 

veterinary medicine, optometry, law, osteopathic medicine, 

and theology. 

Private not-for-profit 4-year Private, not-for-profit institutions are controlled by an 

independent governing board and incorporated under section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Private, not-for-profit 

4-year institutions offer the same range of degrees as public 4-

year institutions. 

Public 2-year Public 2-year institutions are public institutions (described 

above) that do not confer bachelor’s degrees, but provide 2-

year programs that result in a certificate or an associate’s 

degree, or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the requirements 

for a bachelor’s degree or higher at a 4-year institution. 

Private for-profit Private for-profit institutions are privately owned and operated 

as profit-making enterprises. They include career colleges and 

proprietary institutions. They may be 4-year, 2-year, or lessthan-2-year institutions. Less-than-2-year institutions offer at 

least one program that is three months or longer and produces 

a terminal award or certificate. 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

63 

DAS Variable Name 

Price of attendance BUDGETA2 

Indicates the attendance-adjusted student budget at the NPSAS institution for students who attended only one 

institution in 1999–2000. It excludes students who attended more than one institution because the budget at the 

second institution is not known. For full-time, full-year students, it is the same as the full-time budget. The 

attendance-adjusted student budget is estimated based on tuition paid, number of months enrolled, and attendance 

status while enrolled. Average full-time nontuition costs are reduced for half-time (75 percent), unknown or mixed 

status (50 percent), and less-than-half-time (25 percent) students. Tuition is added to the estimated nontuition costs. 

Nontuition costs include books and supplies, room and board, transportation, and personal expenses. 

Less than $4,999 

$5,000 to $9,999 

$10,000 to $14,999 

$15,000 to $19,999 

$20,000 and higher 

Student Characteristics 

Age AGE 

Indicates student’s age as of 12/31/99. Calculated from date of birth. 

23 years or younger 

24–29 years of age 

30 years or older 

Attendance intensity (all schools) ATTNPTRN 

Indicates attendance intensity during the months enrolled during 1999–2000. 

Exclusively full time 

Half time 

Less than half time 

Mixed 

Since full-time, full-year students may be enrolled for 9 or more months full time plus a few part-time months, they 

are categorized as mixed. 

Last degree program DEGLAST 

Undergraduate’s degree program, indicating last program (including graduate and professional degrees) if the 

student was in more than one during the year. Based on student reported degree programs or the program indicated 

by the NPSAS sample institution. graduate and first-professional. Student’s indicating graduate and professional 

degree programs were excluded from the analysis in this report. 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

No undergraduate degree
Appendix A—Glossary

64 

DAS Variable Name 

Delayed postsecondary enrollment DELAYENR 

Indicates the number of years between high school graduation and entry into postsecondary education. Students are 

considered to have delayed enrollment if they enter postsecondary education one or more years after completing high 

school. 

Did not delay enrollment 

Delayed enrollment 

Dependency status DEPEND 

Indicates student’s dependency status for federal financial aid. Students were considered to be independent if they 

met any of the following criteria: 

• Student was age 24 or older as of 12/31/99; 

• Student was a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces; 

• Student was enrolled in a graduate or professional program (beyond a bachelor’s degree) in 1995-96; 

• Student was married; 

• Student was an orphan or ward of the court; 

• Student had legal dependents other than spouse. 

In addition, financial aid officers may designate students who do not meet these criteria to be independent, if the 

students can document that they are self-supporting. 

 

Gender GENDER

Indicates student gender. 

Male 

Female 

Marital status NBMARR 

Indicates student reported marital status. 

Single, never married 

Married 

Separated, divorced, or widowed 

Hours worked per week while enrolled NDHOURS 

Average number of hours worked per week while enrolled, as reported by students. Students were asked to exclude 

summer hours if not enrolled during the summer. 

Not employed 

1–20 hours 

21–34 hours 

35 hours or more 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

65 

DAS Variable Name 

Highest degree planned NEEXPEVR 

Indicates the highest degree that a student plans to pursue. 

No degree or certificate 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree or post-baccalaureate certificate 

Master’s degree 

Doctoral or first-professional degree 

Don’t know 

Parent’s education NPARED 

Indicates the highest level of education of either parent. 

Less than high school 

High school graduate 

Some college, including associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Advanced degree 

Income percentile of all students PCTALL2

Indicates income percentile for all students. The percentile is calculated separately for dependent and independent 

students and then combined into this variable. Each ranking thus compares the student only to other students of the 

same dependency status. Parents’ income is used if the student is dependent, and student’s own income is used if the 

student is independent. Total income in 1998 is used because this was the income reported on the financial aid 

applications and used for federal need analysis for the 1999–2000 academic year. 

Lowest quartile 

Middle quartiles 

Highest quartile 

Income percentile of dependent students PCTDEP

Indicates income percentiles for parents of dependent students in 1998. 

Lowest quartile 

Middle quartile 

Highest quartile 
Appendix A—Glossary

66 

DAS Variable Name 

Income percentile of independent students PCTINDEP 

Indicates income percentiles for independent students in 1998. 

Lowest quartile 

Middle quartile 

Highest quartile

Race/ethnicity RACE2 

Indicates student race/ethnicity. This race/ethnicity variable gives priority to Hispanic/Latino regardless of race and 

then to those who choose more than one race. However, students indicating more than one race are excluded from 

the analysis in this report. 

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of 

Hispanic origin). 

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of 

Africa, not of Hispanic origin. 

Hispanic or Latino A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of 

race. 

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origin in any of the peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or Pacific Islands. 

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine 

Islands, Samoa, India, and Vietnam. 

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North 

America and who maintains cultural identification through 

tribal affiliation or community recognition. 

Other A person not in one of the above categories. 

 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

67 

DAS Variable Name 

Score on persistence/attainment risk index RISKINDX 

Represents an index of risk from 0 to 7 for seven characteristics known to adversely affect persistence and 

attainment. These characteristics include delayed enrollment, attending part-time, being financially independent, 

having dependents other than a spouse, working full time while enrolled, having no high school diploma (including 

GED recipients), and being a single parent. 

0 Indicates student has zero risk characteristics. 

1 Indicates student has number of risk characteristics associated 

with minimal risk. 

2–3 Indicates student has number of risk characteristics associated 

with moderate risk. 

4 or more Indicates student has number of risk characteristics associated 

with high risk. 

Single parent status SINGLPAR 

Identifies independent students who were single parents in 1999–2000. Students were considered to be single parents 

if they had dependents and were not married. Because the number of dependents does not always distinguish 

between dependent children and other dependents such as parents or relatives, single parent is best interpreted as 

single caretaker. 

Not a single parent 

Single parent 

Unmet need SNEED5 

The definition of unmet need used in this report is different from the standard definition, which indicates remaining 

need after all financial aid. Because of the focus of this report on borrowing, a definition was employed that excludes 

loan aid and indicates the remaining need after only grant aid has been taken into account. Specifically, unmet need 

defined in this way is equal to the attendance-adjusted student budget (BUDGETA2) minus expected family 

contribution minus total grant aid (TOTGRT). In addition to need-based aid, grants include merit-based scholarships, 

employer tuition reimbursements, and many private scholarships (PRIVAID) that are not need-based. Negative 

values (indicating that there is no remaining need) are set to zero. Zero values were excluded from the analysis in this 

report. 

Less than $1,000 

$1,000 to $2,999 

$3,000 to $4,999 

$5,000 to $9,999 

$10,000 and higher 
Appendix A—Glossary

68 

DAS Variable Name 

Class level for student loans UGLVL2 

Indicates undergraduate class level for loans in 1999–2000. Graduate, first professional, and unclassified students 

were excluded from the analysis in this report. 

First year 

Second year 

Third year 

Fourth year 

Fifth year 

Financial Aid Variables 

Any institutional grants/Average any institutional grant amount INGRTAMT 

Indicates the total amount of institutional grant aid received in 1999–2000. Includes all grants and scholarships, 

tuition waivers, and graduate fellowships. The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any 

institutional grant aid. 

Any institutional loans/Average any institutional loan amount INLNAMT 

Indicates the loan amount from funds provided by the educational institution in 1999–2000. The percentage with a 

positive value is the percentage with any institutional loan aid. 

Any Pell grants/Average any Pell grant amount PELLAMT 

Indicates the federal Pell grant amount received at all institutions attended during 1999–2000. The percentage with a 

positive value is the percentage with any Pell grant aid. 

 

Any private grants/Average any private grant amount PRIVAID 

Indicates the amount of grants and scholarships from private outside sources received during 1999–2000. The 

percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any private grant aid. 

Any private loans/Average any private loan amount PRIVLOAN 

Indicates the amount of commercial or private source loans received for education in 1999–2000. The percentage 

with a positive value is the percentage with any private loan aid. 

Any FSEOG/Average any FSEOG amount SEOGAMT 

Indicates the total amount of Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) aid received in 1999–

2000. The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any FSEOG aid. 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

69 

DAS Variable Name 

Stafford subsidized maximum categories STAFFCT1 

Indicates whether the student borrowed the maximum amount allowable for undergraduates in Stafford subsidized 

loans during 1999–2000. Classifies the Stafford subsidized loan amount (STAFSUB) into categories based on 

maximum loan limits for Stafford subsidized loans. The maximum loan amounts in 1999–2000 were the same for 

dependent and independent students but differed by class level. The subsidized maximum for first-year students was 

$2,625; for second-year students, $3,500; for third-, fourth-, and fifth-year students, $5,500. 

Stafford total maximum categories STAFCT2R 

Indicates whether the student borrowed the maximum amount allowable for undergraduates in Stafford loans during 

1999–2000. Classifies the Stafford loan total amount (STAFFAMT) into categories based on maximum loan limits 

for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans combined. The normal maximum loan amounts in 1999–2000 were 

determined by the student's class level and dependency status according to the following table: 

Student year Dependent Independent 

First year $2,625 $6,625 

Second year $3,500 $7,500 

Third to fifth year $5,500 $10,500 

There are several exceptions to these normal limits. Dependent undergraduates with exceptional need whose parents 

were unable to qualify for a PLUS loan could qualify for an unsubsidized loan at the independent student maximum. 

Undergraduates in programs of continuous study lasting longer than the usual 9-10 months of an academic year were 

eligible for larger amounts than the normal academic year maximum. Students who borrowed beyond the normal 

limits are considered to have exceptional maximum amounts. This variable combines students who borrowed normal 

maximum and exceptional maximum amounts into one maximum category. 

None 

Less than maximum 

Maximum 

Stafford unsubsidized maximum categories STAFFCT3 

Indicates whether the student borrowed the maximum amount allowable for undergraduates in Stafford unsubsidized 

loans during 1999–2000. Classifies the Stafford unsubsidized loan amount (STAFUNSB) into categories based on 

maximum loan limits for unsubsidized Stafford loans. The normal maximum loan amounts in 1999–2000 were 

determined by the student's class level and dependency status according to the following table: 

Student year Dependent Independent 

First year $2,625 $4,000 

Second year $3,500 $4,000 

Third to fifth year $5,500 $5,000 
Appendix A—Glossary

70 

DAS Variable Name 

Stafford unsubsidized maximum categories—continued STAFFCT3 

There are several exceptions to these normal limits. Dependent undergraduates with exceptional need whose parents 

were unable to qualify for a PLUS loan could qualify for an unsubsidized loan at the independent student maximum. 

Independent students who were not qualified to receive the maximum (or any) subsidized Stafford loan amount could 

borrow up to the total Stafford maximum in unsubsidized loans. Students who borrowed beyond the normal limits 

are considered to have exceptional maximum amounts. This variable combines students who borrowed normal 

maximum and exceptional maximum amounts into one maximum category. Missing values were excluded from the 

analysis in this report. 

None 

Less than maximum 

Maximum 

Any Stafford loans/Average any Stafford loan amount STAFFAMT 

Indicates the total amount of Stafford loans (Direct, FFEL, subsidized, and unsubsidized) received during 1999–

2000, including loans to attend schools other than the NPSAS sample institution. The percentage with a positive 

value is the percentage with any Stafford loan aid. 

Any Stafford subsidized loans/Average any Stafford subsidized loan amount STAFSUB 

Indicates the amount of Stafford subsidized FFEL or Direct loans received during 1999–2000, including loans 

received to attend schools other than the NPSAS sample institution. The percentage with a positive value is the 

percentage with any Stafford subsidized loan aid.

Any Stafford unsubsidized loans/Average any Stafford unsubsidized loan amount STAFUNSUB 

Indicates the amount of Stafford unsubsidized FFEL or Direct loans received during 1999–2000, including loans 

received to attend schools other than the NPSAS sample institution. The percentage with a positive value is the 

percentage with any Stafford unsubsidized loan aid. 

Any state grants/Average any state grant amount STGTAMT 

Indicates the total amount of state grants, scholarships, and fellowships, including the federal portion of the 

Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships (LEAP) funds to states, received in 1999–2000. The percentage 

with a positive value is the percentage with any state grant aid. 

Any state loans/Average any state loan amount STLNAMT 

Indicates the total amount of state loans received in 1999–2000. The percentage with a positive value is the 

percentage with any state loan aid. 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

71 

DAS Variable Name 

Any federal grants/Average any federal grant amount TFEDGRT 

Indicates the total amount of federal grants received in 1999–2000. Includes primarily Pell Grants (PELLAMT) and 

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOGAMT), but also Robert Byrd Scholarships and any other 

federal grants, fellowships, or traineeships received during 1999–2000. Does not include federal veteran's benefits or 

military aid. The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any federal grant aid. 

Any federal loans/Average any federal loan amount TFEDLN 

Indicates the total amount of federal loans, excluding PLUS loans to parents, including loans received to attend 

schools other than the NPSAS sample institution. Includes Perkins (PERKAMT), Stafford (STAFFAMT), and 

federal loans through the Public Health Service received during 1999–2000. The percentage with a positive value is 

the percentage with any federal loan aid 

Any non-federal grants/Average any federal grant amount TNFEDGRT 

Indicates the total amount of grants from sources other than the federal government. The sum of state, institutional, 

and other grants, including private sources and employer aid. The variable is calculated by subtracting total federal 

grant aid (TFEDGRT) from total grant aid (TOTGRT) . The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with 

any non-federal grant aid. 

Any non- federal loans/Average any federal loan amount TNFEDLN 

Indicates the total amount of loans from sources other than the federal government. The sum of state, institutional, 

and other loans, including private and commercial loans. Does not include loans from family or friends. The variable 

is calculated by subtracting total federal loans (TFEDLN) from total loans (TOTLOAN) . The percentage with a 

positive value is the percentage with any non-federal loan aid. 

 

Any grants/Average any grant amount TOTGRT 

Indicates the total amount of all grants and scholarships: federal, state, institutional, and other received during 1999–

2000. Equal to the sum of all federal grants (TFEDGRT), state grants (STGTAMT), institutional grants 

(INGTAMT), and other grants that were not classified as federal, state, or institutional. Includes employer tuition 

reimbursements and grants from private sources (PRIVAID). The percentage with a positive value is the percentage 

with any grant aid. 

Any loans/Average any loan amount TOTLOAN 

Indicates the total amount of all loans to students: federal, state, institutional, and private sector received during 

1999–2000. Equal to the sum of federal loan amount (TFEDLN), state loan amount (STLNAMT), institutional loan 

amount (INLNAMT), and other loan amounts, which include private loan amounts (PRIVLOAN). Does not include 

PLUS loans (PLUSAMT). The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any loan aid. 
Appendix A—Glossary

72 

DAS Variable Name 

Any work-study/Average any work-study amount TOTWKST 

Indicates the total amount of all work-study awards received during 1999–2000. Equal to the sum of federal workstudy amount, state work-study amount, and institution work-study amount Institutions were asked to report the 

amount actually earned rather than the award amount, which may be higher. Research and teaching assistantships are 

not included. The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any work-study aid. 
73 

Appendix B—Technical Notes 

The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) 

The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) is a 

comprehensive nationwide study conducted by the Department of Education’s National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for 

postsecondary education. It also describes demographic and other characteristics of students 

enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample of about 50,000 

undergraduates enrolled at approximately 1,000 institutions. Students attending all types and 

levels of institutions are represented in the sample, including public and private institutions, lessthan-2-year institutions, 2-year institutions, and 4-year colleges and universities. The study is 

designed to address the policy questions resulting from the rapid growth of financial aid 

programs and the succession of changes in financial aid program policies since 1986. The first 

NPSAS was conducted in 1986–87, then again in 1989–90, 1992–93, 1995–96, and 1999–

2000.16

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are made only on samples of students, not on entire populations. Nonsampling 

errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete information about all 

students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions refused to participate, or 

students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences in 

interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in 

recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and imputing 

missing data. 

 

16 For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Methodology Report for the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES 2002–152) (Washington, D.C.: 

2002). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes

74 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:2000 

Undergraduate Data Analysis System (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to 

specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS:2000 data. With the DAS, users can 

replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the 

DAS calculates proper standard errors17 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For 

example, table B1 contains standard errors that correspond to table 12, and was generated by the 

DAS. If the number of valid cases is too low to produce a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), 

the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate. 

In addition to the tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected 

variables to be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlations 

matrix are the design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures 

generally compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the 

standard errors must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the NPSAS:2000 

stratified sampling method. (See discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the 

adjustment procedure.) 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at nces.ed.gov/DAS. For more information about 

the NPSAS:2000 Data Analysis System contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

NCES Postsecondary Studies Division 

1990 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 502-7334 

Internet address: Aurora.d’amico@ed.gov 

 

17 The NPSAS:2000 sample is not a simple random sample and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating 

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and 

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves 

approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor 

series method. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes 

75 

Statistical Procedures 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,18 or 

 

18 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the populations 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 

Table B1.—Standard errors for table 12: Percentage of undergraduates who received financial aid from

Table A1.—various sources and average amount received, by unsubsidized Stafford loan borrower status:

Table A1.—1999–2000

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Percent 

received

Average 

amount 

received 

Loans (excluding PLUS) 0.38 55.94 0.00 68.17 0.00 99.65 0.52 53.86

Federal (excluding PLUS) 0.34 27.67 0.00 50.18 0.00 65.54 0.50 37.94

Stafford (either) 0.34 22.90 0.00 48.00 0.00 64.42 0.50 37.81

Stafford subsidized 0.34 22.90 0.75 37.97 1.77 62.80 0.46 20.95

Stafford unsubsidized † † 0.00 24.75 0.00 35.12 0.38 30.84

Perkins 0.12 35.77 0.47 58.59 0.56 82.70 0.12 31.16

Non-federal 0.15 172.73 0.65 245.04 0.88 341.55 0.16 142.67

State 0.07 403.37 0.36 301.74 0.43 502.38 0.08 302.31

Institution 0.05 241.57 0.18 230.55 0.30 629.81 0.06 200.88

Private sources 0.11 196.92 0.58 283.42 0.72 374.24 0.13 160.27

Grants 0.05 60.80 0.18 96.56 0.30 117.32 0.56 56.17

Federal1 0.47 18.83 1.07 34.23 1.50 39.23 0.45 15.84

Pell 0.48 17.79 1.06 32.09 1.50 34.22 0.45 15.09

FSEOG 0.19 22.61 0.84 36.82 1.28 80.59 0.23 23.01

Non-federal 0.65 68.21 1.29 150.70 1.54 165.94 0.60 66.75

State 0.62 56.76 0.96 66.54 0.95 97.95 0.55 50.13

Institution 0.24 111.29 0.72 180.26 0.70 181.44 0.42 102.95

Private sources 0.24 63.74 0.72 140.27 0.70 126.34 0.22 55.68

Work-study 0.20 34.39 0.54 70.73 0.57 112.36 0.19 33.15

†Not applicable.

1

Federal grant aid primarily includes Pell Grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), but also

includes Robert Byrd Scholarships and any other federal grants, fellowships, or traineeships received during 1999–2000.

NOTE: Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are those undergraduates who received Stafford unsubsidized loans in 1999–2000.

Stafford unsubsidized borrowers are classified into maximum and less-than-maximum categories based on the maximum 

amounts for unsubsidized loans for a given student’s class level. Stafford unsubsidized nonborrowers may have received 

other types of loans. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000), Data Analysis System.

No unsubsidized 

Stafford

Less than maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford

Maximum 

unsubsidized 

Stafford All undergraduates
Appendix B—Technical Notes

76 

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values 

for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these to published 

tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariation term must be added to the formula: 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.19 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

sub tot sub

sub tot

se se pse

E E

2 2 2 + − 2

−

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.20 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistics is related not only to the observed differences in means or 

percentages but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. 

Hence, a small difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t

statistic. 

 

19 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 

20 Ibid. 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− =

1 2

2

2

2

1 2( )

1 2

se se r se se

E E

+ −

−
 Appendix B—Technical Notes 

77 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making 

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making 

paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these 

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more 

than one difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for 

statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of 

those comparisons taken together. 

Comparisons were made in this report only when p<.05/k for a particular pair-wise 

comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that 

the individual comparison would have p<.05 and that when k comparisons were made within a 

family of possible tests, the significance level of the comparisons would sum to p<.05.21

For example, in a comparison between males and females of average aid received only one 

comparison is possible (males vs. females). In this family, k = 1, and the comparison can be 

evaluated with Student’s t test. When students are separated into five racial-ethnic groups and all 

possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance level of each test must be p < 

.05/10, or .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows: 

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race-ethnicity, 

there are five racial-ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, 

black, non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and White, non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in the above 

equation yields: 

 

21 The standard that p<.05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the 

comparisons should sum to p<.05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p<.05/k for a particular family size 

and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical 

Association 56 (1970):52-64. 

2

( −1) = j j k

10

2

5(5 1) = − k =
Appendix B—Technical Notes

78 

Adjustment of Means to Control for Background Variation 

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional factors 

that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example, when 

examining the percentages of those who received a Stafford loan, it is impossible to know to 

what extent the observed variation is due to income differences and to what extent it is due to 

differences in other factors related to income, such as type of institution attended, parents’ 

education, and so on. However, if a nested table were produced showing income within type of 

institution attended within parents’ education, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the 

patterns. When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level of 

variations, one must use other methods to take such variations into account. 

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that were 

adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables.22 Adjusted means for subgroups were 

obtained by regressing the dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as gender, 

race-ethnicity, etc. Substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup characteristic(s) of interest and the 

mean percentages for the other variables results in an estimate of the adjusted percentage for the 

specified subgroup, holding all other variables constant. 

For example, consider a hypothetical case in which two variables, age and gender, are used 

to describe an outcome, Y (such as receiving a Stafford loan). The variables age and gender are 

recoded into a dummy variable representing age, A, and a dummy variable representing gender, 

G: 

Age A

24 years or older 1 

Less than 24 years old 0 

Gender G

Female 1 

Male 0 

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output 

from the DAS: 

 

22 For more information about weighted least squares regression, see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression: An 

Introduction, Vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980); William D. Berry and Stanley Feldman, Multiple 

Regression in Practice, Vol. 50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987). 

Y = a + β1A + β 2G
 Appendix B—Technical Notes 

79 

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other 

variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and 

the mean for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose Y 

represents receiving a Stafford loan, and is being described by age (A) and gender (G), coded as 

shown above, and the means for A and G are: 

Variable Mean

A 0.355 

G 0.521 

Next, suppose the regression equation results in: 

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter 

estimates and variable values into equation #. 

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.15 — 

A 0.17 1.000 

G 0.01 0.521 

 This results in: 

In this case the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 (compared to an unadjusted mean 

of 0.355) and represents the expected outcome for older students who resemble the average 

student across the other variables (in this example, gender). In other words the adjusted 

percentage of older students who received a Stafford loan is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for 

conversion to a percentage). 

One can produce a multivariate model using the DAS, since one of the output options of 

the DAS is a correlation matrix, computed using pairwise missing values and weighted to 

Y = 0.15 + (0.17 ) A + (0.01)G

∧

= 0.15 + (0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325

∧

Y
Appendix B—Technical Notes

80 

account for sampling design and nonresponse.23 This matrix can be used by most statistical 

software packages as the input data for least-squares regression. That is the approach used for 

this report, with an additional adjustment to incorporate the complex sample design into the 

statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular 

presentation, parameter estimates and standard errors were multiplied by 100 to match the scale 

used for reporting unadjusted and adjusted percentages. 

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing 

standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for 

NPSAS, this assumption is incorrect. When more precise software is not available, a better 

approximation of the standard errors is to multiply each standard error by the average design 

effect associated with the dependent variable (DEFT),24 where the DEFT is the ratio of the true 

standard error to the standard error computed under the assumption of simple random sampling. 

It is calculated by the DAS and is part of the correlation matrix output file. 

 

23 Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts who wish 

to use other than pairwise treatment of missing values to estimate probit/logit models (which are the most appropriate for models 

with categorical dependent variables) can apply for a restricted data license from NCES. See John H. Aldrich and Forrest D. 

Nelson “Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models,” Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 45. (Beverly Hills, 

CA: Sage University Press, 1984). 

24 The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D. Hold, and T.M.F. Smith (eds.), Analysis of 

Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).