NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report April 1996

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

How Low Income

Undergraduates Financed

Postsecondary Education:

1992-93

Susan P. Choy

Mark D, Premo

MPR Associates, Inc.

C. Dennis Carroll, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and improvement NCES 96-161
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and improvement

Sharon P, Robinson

Assistant Secretary

Nationai Center for Education Statistics

Jeanne E, Griffith

Acting Commissioner

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

analyzing, and reporting data reiated 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 US. 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

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20206-5574

May 1996

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. How Low hxwrne Urrdergmduates Financed

Postsecondw’y Education: 1992-93, NCES 96-161, by Susan P. Choy and Mark D. Premo. C. Dennis Carroll, projeot

officer. Washington, D. C.: 1996.

Contact:

Aurora D’Amico

(202) 219-1365
Highlights

Low Income Undergraduates

Overall, 20 percent of all undergraduates enrolled in 1992–93

were low income (that is, their family income was below 125

percent of the federally established poverty threshold for

their family size) (table 1). From 17 percent to 19 percent of

all undergraduates at public and private, not-for-profit 4-

year institutions and at public less-than-4-year

institutions were low income. In contrast, 42 percent of all

undergraduates at private, for-profit institutions were low

income.

Low income undergraduates were about as likely as other

undergraduates to enroll in public 4-year institutions (29

percent and 31 percent, respectively) and private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions (13 percent and 15 percent,

respectively)

(table 3). However, low income undergraduates were much more

likely than other undergraduates to enroll in private, forprofit institutions (16 percent versus 6 percent), and were

somewhat less likely to attend public less-than-4-year

institutions (39 percent versus 47 percent). 

In 1989–90, 76 percent of low income undergraduates reported

that the fact that an institution offered the course of study

they wanted was a very important consideration in their

choice of institution (table 4). They cited this factor far

more frequently than any other. However, financial factors

were important as well. Forty-five percent of low income

undergraduates reported that obtaining the financial aid

they needed was a very important consideration (compared with

20 percent of other undergraduates).

Educational Costs and Financial Need

The average budget for low income undergraduates who attended

full time, full year ranged from $8,100 at public less-than4-year institutions to $15,500 at private, not-for-profit 4-

year institutions (table 7). The average expected family

contribution (EFC) was $1,600.

Ninety-nine percent of all low income undergraduates had

financial need (table 7). The average need (budget minus EFC)

iii
was $9,400. Average need ranged from $7,000 at public lessthan-4-year institutions to $13,600 at private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions.

Financial Aid

In 1992–93, 88 percent of all low income undergraduates

attending full time, full year received some type of

financial aid (table 8). The average amount received was

$5,800. Eighty-four percent received grants, 48 percent

borrowed through student loan programs, and 15 percent

participated in work-study programs. Eighty-three percent

received some type of federal aid (table 9).

On average, financial aid covered 42 percent of studentreported costs for low income undergraduates attending full

time, full year; 65 percent of their aid was in the form of

grants, and 26 percent was in the form of loans (table 12).

Net Cost and Unmet Need

The average net cost (student-reported cost minus financial

aid) for the low income full-time, full-year undergraduate

and his or her family was $7,600

(table 13).

Their average unmet need (institutionally determined budget

minus financial aid minus EFC) was $4,900 (table 13).

Other Sources of Support

Low income, financially dependent undergraduates attending

full time, full year were less likely than their non low

income counterparts to receive direct contributions from

their parents (50 percent versus 78 percent) (tables 15 and

16). Low income dependent undergraduates who did get help

from their parents received an average of $2,800, compared

with $5,600 for non low income undergraduates.

Among full-time, full-year low income undergraduates who

worked while enrolled, the average was about 22 hours per

week. Those who worked earned an average of $4,200 during the

1992–93 academic year (including summer 1992). Compared with

their non low income counterparts, low income undergraduates

attending full time, full year were less likely to work while

enrolled (63 percent versus 77 percent) and were more likely

to borrow (48 percent versus 30 percent) (tables 15 and 16).

iv
Foreword

This report describes how low income undergraduates—that is, undergraduates

whose family income was below 125 percent of the federally established poverty

threshold for their family size—finance their postsecondary education. It examines

dependent, single independent, and independent students with dependents separately.

First, the report describes the demographic characteristics and enrollment patterns of

low income students and compares them with other undergraduates. It then examines

their financial need, the kinds and amounts of financial aid they received, and the

relationship between financial aid and cost. Next, it describes two important sources of

support other than financial aid: parental support and work. Finally, the report

examines persistence and attainment among low income students who enrolled in

postsecondary education for the first time in 1989–90.

The report uses data primarily from the 1992–93 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), a survey designed to answer fundamental questions

about financial aid and to detail undergraduates’ education expenses, sources, and

types of financial aid. The report also uses data from NPSAS:90 and the Beginning

Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study (BPS: 90/94), which followed a sample of

students identified in NPSAS:90 as first-time beginning postsecondary students in the

1989–90 academic year.

The estimates in this report were produced using the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) Data Analysis System (DAS), a software application that

allows users to specify and generate tables from NPSAS and BPS data files. Each

estimate produced in a table is accompanied by the standard error and weighted

sample size on which the estimate was based. The DAS is available to anyone

interested in further exploring the NPSAS or BPS (see appendix B for a more detailed

discussion and directions for obtaining a copy).

We hope that readers of this report will find it informative and useful. We

welcome recommendations for improving the format, content, or analysis to make

subsequent reports even more informative and accessible.

John H. Ralph

Acting Associate Commissioner

Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Division

v
Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all who contributed to the production of this report. At

MPR Associates, special thanks go to Lutz Berkner and Laura Horn for their technical

guidance and helpful comments throughout this study. Andrea Livingston edited the

report, Mary Sukkestad formatted the tables, Lynn Sally prepared the graphics, and Don

Eike formatted and assembled the final version. 

We would also like to acknowledge the careful review and thoughtful comments

of the following reviewers: Dennis Carroll, Mary Frase, Robert Burton, Sal Corrallo, and

Linda Zimbler at NCES; Jacqueline King from the College Board; and Kent Phillippe

from the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC).

vi
Table of Contents

Page

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

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

Definition of “Low Income” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Income and Dependency Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Comparison with Other Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Enrollment Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Considerations in Choosing an Institution . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Financial Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Method for Assessing Financial Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Budgets and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Expected Family Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Financial Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Financial Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Types of Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Sources of Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Relationship Between Financial Aid and Cost . . . . . . . . . . 30

Ratio of Financial Aid to Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Net Cost and Unmet Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Sources of Support Other Than Financial Aid . . . . . . . . . . 37

Parental Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Parental Contributions, Work, and Loans . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Persistence and Attainment Among Low Income Students . . . . . 45

Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix A: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vii
List of Tables

Table Page

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to income status, by selected student

and institutional characteristics: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to dependency status, age, and

marital status, by income and dependency status: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to selected student and

institutional characteristics, by income and dependency status: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Percentage of undergraduates who rated various reasons for selecting

the institution attended as “very important,“ by income group and

dependency status: 1989–90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to local residence,

by institution type and income group: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 Average tuition for undergraduates attending full time, full year, by type of

institution and income group: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7 Average cost, budget, expected family contribution, financial need, and percentage

with need for low income undergraduates attending full time, full year,

by dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

8 Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year who received

various types of financial aid and the average amounts received by aided students,

by dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

9 Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year who

received financial aid from various sources and the average amounts received

by aided students, by dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . 26

10 Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year who received

various types of grants and the average amounts received by aided students, by

dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

11 Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year who obtained

various types of loans and the average amounts borrowed by students who borrowed, by

dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

12 Mean aid ratios for low income undergraduates attending full time, full year, by

dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

viii
List of Tables—Continued

Table Page

13 Mean net cost, EFC, need, and unmet need for low income

undergraduates

attending full time, full year, by dependency status and

type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

14 Percentage distribution of low income undergraduates attending

full time, full

year according to Stafford Loan status, by selected financial

characteristics: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

15 Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time,

full year who had

various sources of support and average amounts received by

supported students, by selected student characteristics:

1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

16 Percentage of non low income undergraduates attending full time,

full year who had various sources of support and average amounts

received by supported students, by selected student

characteristics: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

17 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 first-time beginners seeking

any degree

according to enrollment status in 1994, by income group in

1989–90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

18 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 first-time beginners seeking

a bachelor’s degree according to enrollment status in 1994, by

income group in 1989–90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

19 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who had

either attained a degree or who were still enrolled as of spring

1994, and the adjusted percentage

after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed

in the table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

B1 Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of low income

undergraduates attending full time, full year who received

various types of financial aid and the average 

amounts received by aided students, by dependency status and type

of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

ix
List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Percentage of undergraduates who were low income, by type of

institution:

1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by income and

dependency status:

1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to

race–ethnicity, by income and dependency status: 1992–93 . . . 8

4 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to parents’

education, by income and dependency status: 1992–93 . . . . . . 11

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to type of

institution, by income and dependency status: 1992–93 . . . . . 12

6 Average expected family contribution for dependent students, by

family income: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7 Average expected family contribution for single independent

students, by family income: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

8 Average expected family contribution for independent students

with dependents, by family income: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . 20

9 Percentage of full-time, full-year low income undergraduates

receiving aid and

average amount received by aided students, by type of

institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

10 Average percentage of total aid received by aided low income

undergraduates from federal, state, and institutional sources,

by type of institution: 1992–93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

11 Average total cost, net cost, and unmet need for low income

undergraduates

attending full time, full year, by type of institution: 1992–9333

x
Introduction

For students considering pursuing a postsecondary degree or

certificate, one of the most critical deciding factors is their

ability to marshal the necessary financial resources. Paying for

undergraduate education has always been seen as primarily the

family’s responsibility to the extent they can afford to do so.

Tapping their own resources, students and their families use current

income, savings, and borrowing against assets. Students sometimes

work while still in high school to earn money for college, and the

majority work while enrolled in postsecondary education.1 Parents

may start saving for their children’s education many years before the

child enrolls. Sometimes they take an additional job or borrow

against assets such as a house. Low income families rarely have

substantial savings to draw upon or assets to borrow against, and are

unlikely to have very much discretionary income after paying for

housing, food, clothing, and other basic necessities. In short,

without financial assistance, postsecondary education would be out

of reach for most low income students.

The federal government has established a broad range of student

financial aid programs to provide low income students with the

opportunity to participate in postsecondary education. Some of this

aid has been in the form of grants, and some in the form of loans and

work study. States and institutions do their part, too. Many states

provide substantial funding for postsecondary institutions,

allowing them to keep tuition well below the actual cost of educating

a student, and some have their own student financial aid programs as

well. Institutions and other organizations have also helped by

providing large amounts of need-based aid. In 1992–93, the federal

government awarded $23.4 billion dollars in general aid to

postsecondary students; states, $2.1 billion; and institutions and

other organizations, $7.3 billion.2

This report examines how low income students pay for their

postsecondary education, focusing on the importance of financial

aid. The report begins by describing the demographic and enrollment

characteristics of low income undergraduates and by comparing their

characteristics to those of other undergraduates. It then examines

low income students’ educational costs, financial need, and their

 

1

See Laura Horn, Undergraduates W ho W ork W hile Enrolled in Postsecondary Education: 1989–90

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1994), NCES 94-

311, for a description of how much undergraduates work while enrolled.

2The College Board, Washington Office, Trends in Student A id: 1984 to 1994 (Washington, D.C.: 1994),4.

1
use of financial aid and other sources of financial support. Finally,

it compares the persistence and attainment of low income and other

students.

The primary source of data for the analysis was the 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93). These data are

supplemented with data from two other postsecondary education

surveys: NPSAS:90 for information not available from NPSAS:93 on

students’ reasons for choosing institutions; and the Beginning

Postsecondary Students

2
Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94) for information on persistence and

attainment for NPSAS:90 students who began their postsecondary

education in 1989–90.3

Definition of “Low Income”

For this analysis, “low income” undergraduates are defined as

students with a family income below 125 percent of the federally

established poverty threshold for their family size.4 For 1991, the

poverty thresholds and 125 percent of these levels were as follows:5

Family Poverty 125 percent of the 

size threshold poverty threshold

1 $7,086 $8,858

2 9,165 11,456

3 10,860 13,575

4 13,924 17,405

5 16,456 20,570

6 18,587 23,234

This definition has several advantages. First, it is

independent of who goes to college. In other words, the low income

students in this analysis are poor relative to the general

population, rather than just the lowest income students who enroll in

postsecondary education. Second, the federal poverty levels are

stated in terms of both income and family size, allowing for

appropriate comparisons between single students and students in

larger families. Third, the poverty levels are adjusted for

inflation and updated annually, permitting meaningful comparisons

over time.

The decision to use 125 percent of the poverty threshold as the

cutoff for this study was partly practical, reflecting a desire not

to go too far above the poverty level, but at the same time to get a

large enough sample to be able to find differences among subgroups.

It is worth noting that 125 percent is also a commonly used cutoff

point for reporting on low income families (see the Statistical

Abstract of the United States, for example). 

 

3

See appendix B for more information on NPSAS and BPS.

4

Income is defined as the sum of adjusted gross income and untaxed income.

5U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical A bstract of the United States: 1994

(Washington, D.C.: 1994), 480. The 1991 income was used to determine a student’s eligibility for financial aid

in 1992–93.

3
Overall, 20 percent of all undergraduates enrolled in 1992–93

were low income according to this definition (table 1). Low income

students made up roughly similar proportions of the total student

population at public less-than-4-year and 4-year institutions, and

at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions (17 percent to 19

percent) (figure 1). Private, for-profit institutions, in contrast,

had a much larger concentration of low income students (42 percent).

However, relatively few students (only 8 percent of all

undergraduates) enrolled in this type of institution (see table 3).

4
Table 1—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to income status, by

selected student 

and institutional characteristics: 1992–93

Low income Not low income

Total 20.2 79.8 

Gender

Male 17.9 82.1 

Female 21.9 78.1 

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 35.2 64.8 

Asian/Pacific Islander 21.8 78.2 

Black, non-Hispanic 32.8 67.2 

Hispanic 30.6 69.4 

White, non-Hispanic 17.0 83.0 

Dependency status 

Dependent 11.5 88.5 

Single independent 30.7 69.3 

Independent with dependents 25.8 74.2 

Single parent status

Not a single parent 17.1 82.9 

Single parent 57.1 42.9 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 17.4 82.6 

Public 4-year 19.4 80.6 

Private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year27.9 72.1 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 18.2 81.8 

Private, for-profit 42.2 57.8 

Degree program

Associate's 19.0 81.0 

Bachelor's 18.3 81.7 

Certificate/formal award 29.3 70.7 

Other undergraduate 20.2 79.8 

Attendance status—first term enrolled in 1992–93

Full-time 24.7 75.3 

Part-time, half-time or more 20.5 79.5 

Part-time, less than half-time 10.9 89.2 

Delay in postsecondary enrollment

No delay 14.9 85.1 

1 year 23.3 76.7 

2–4 years 28.9 71.1 

5 years or more 23.8 76.2 

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

5
Figure 1—Percentage of undergraduates who were low income, by type of institution:

1992–93

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Certain groups were particularly likely to be in the low income

category, most notably minorities and single parents (table 1). In

1993–94, about one-third of black, non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and

Native American undergraduates and more than half (57 percent) of

single parent undergraduates were low income. In contrast, 17

percent of white, non-Hispanic undergraduates and 17 percent of

undergraduates who were not single parents were low income. 

Income and Dependency Status

Although the definition of low income used in this analysis has no connection to the

financial aid system, it is important to understand that whether or not a student was

categorized as low income was related to the student’s dependency status for financial aid

purposes. Whose income is counted in the calculation of the student’s family income varies

with dependency status. From a financial aid perspective, there are three quite distinct groups

of undergraduates: 

1) Dependent students (48 percent of all undergraduates)

Undergraduates less than 24 years old are considered dependent for financial aid

purposes unless they meet one of the criteria for independence described below, which

6
relatively few do. The vast majority (87 percent) of undergraduates less than 24 years of age

were considered financially dependent in 1992–93 (table 2).

Under current financial aid policy, the parents of dependent students are expected to

pay for their children’s education to the extent they can afford to do so. Therefore, dependent

students’ eligibility for financial aid takes into account parents’ incomes and other aspects of

their financial circumstances whether or not the parents actually contribute.

For this analysis, dependent students who came from 4-person families were defined

as low income if their parents’ income was less than $17,405. The level was lower if the

family was smaller and higher if the family was larger. In 1992–93, 12 percent of all

dependent undergraduates were from low income families (table 1).

Table 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to dependency status,

age, and marital

status, by income and dependency status: 1992–93

 Low income 

 

Independent

All Not low Single with

students income Total Dependentindependent

dependents

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Dependency status

 Dependent 47.9 51.2 26.2 100.0 (*) (*) 

 Single independent 20.5 18.3 32.0 (*) 100.0 (*) 

 Independent with dependents 31.6 30.5 41.9 (*) (*) 100.0 

Dependency status (less than 24 years old)

 Dependent 86.9 93.9 52.4 100.0 (*) (*) 

 Single independent 5.5 2.6 20.1 (*) 100.0 (*) 

 Independent with dependents 7.6 3.5 27.5 (*) (*) 100.0 

Age

 Less than 24 years 55.1 54.5 50.1 100.0 31.4 33.0 

 24–29 years 17.1 15.7 25.6 (*) 46.2 26.0 

 30 years or older 27.8 29.8 24.3 (*) 22.4 41.0 

Marital status

 Not married or separated 74.5 72.4 82.2 97.7 100.0 59.3 

 Married 25.5 27.6 17.8 2.3 (*) 40.7

*Not applicable.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Percentages for “all students” include

students with missing income data. Therefore, the percentages for all students may be higher

or lower than the percentages for low income and not low income students. For example, the

percentage of all students less than 24 years old (55.1 percent) is greater than the

percentages for both low income students (50.1 percent) and not low income students (54.5

percent).

7
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

8
2) Single independent students6 (20 percent of all undergraduates)

Undergraduates 24 years or older are considered financially

independent of their parents for financial aid purposes, regardless

of their parents’ incomes and whether or not their parents provide

them with any financial assistance. In 1992–93, about two-thirds of

single independents were at least 24 years old and therefore were

considered independent simply because of their age (table 2). For

single independent students, “family income” includes only the

student’s income.

Undergraduates less than 24 years old were considered

financially independent of their parents if they were not claimed as

a tax exemption by their parents for the 2 years before the beginning

of the academic year for which they were applying for financial aid

and had at least $4,000 in financial resources; if they were military

veterans; if they were wards of the court; or if both parents were

deceased and they had no legal guardian.7 In 1992–93, only 6 percent

of all undergraduates less than 24 years old met one of these

criteria.

About one-third (31 percent) of all single independents were

defined as low income for this analysis (that is, they had incomes of

less than $8,858) (table 1). Some of these students may have had low

incomes temporarily because they were enrolled in postsecondary

education and not working or only working a limited amount. Others

may have had low incomes on a longer term basis because they had

difficulty finding steady work or a well-paying job (they might have

been returning for further education to improve their employment

prospects). Low income single independents may or may not have come

from disadvantaged backgrounds; their parents’ incomes were not

considered in assessing their need for financial aid.

3) Independent students with dependents (32 percent of all

undergraduates)

Undergraduates with dependents of their own are considered

financially independent of their parents regardless of their age.

 

6

“Single independent” students are more precisely “independents without dependents,” and therefore could

include students who are married but separated and therefore technically not “single.” However, the term “single

independents” is used in this report because it is less cumbersome and easier to distinguish from “independents

with dependents.”

7The Higher Education Amendments of 1992 changed the definition of independent, making it more difficult for

students less than 24 years old to file financial aid applications as independents. Starting in 1993–94, it was no

longer possible for students to apply for financial aid as independents on the grounds they were not claimed as

tax exemptions for 2 years and could document resources of more than $4,000 per year.

9
Spouses count as dependents except in the rare instance where a

student is married and still claimed as a tax exemption by his or her

parents; in such cases, the student would still be considered

dependent. In 1992–93, 32 percent of all undergraduates and 8 percent

of undergraduates under 24 years of age were independents with

dependents (table 2). For purposes of determining eligibility for

financial aid, a married independent student’s family income

includes the student’s and his or her spouse’s income.

Twenty-six percent of all independents with dependents were in

the low income category (table 1). This group includes a relatively

large number of single parents (59 percent of low income independents

with dependents were not married or were separated) (table 2). Also

likely to be in the group of low income independents with dependents

are married students with spouses who were also students and married

students with children whose spouses worked only part time or not at

all.

To summarize, figure 2 shows the distribution of the entire

undergraduate population by income and dependency status in 1992–93.

Almost half (48 percent) of all undergraduates were dependent.

However, relatively few of them came from low income families. Larger

proportions of single independents and independents with dependents

were low income. Because spouses are considered dependents for

financial aid purposes, many students in the “independents with

dependents” category have a spouse who works. Thus, it is not

surprising that a greater proportion of single independents, who

have only their own incomes to rely upon, would be in the low income

category.

Figure 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by income and dependency

status: 1992–93

10
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

11
Comparison With Other Students

Demographic Characteristics

As a group, low income students were much more likely than other

undergraduates to be minority (36 percent compared with 21 percent)

(figure 3 and table 3).8 Within the low income student population,

dependent students were more likely than either type of independent

student to belong to a minority group. Among dependent students, 20

percent were Hispanic; 19 percent were black, non-Hispanic; 8

percent were Asian/Pacific Islander; and 1 percent were American

Indian/Alaskan Native.

Low income undergraduates also tended to have less welleducated parents than other students. More than one-half (54

percent) of low income undergraduates had parents with only a high

school education or less, compared with 43 percent of other

undergraduates (figure 4). Because of the close relationship between

income and education, it is not surprising that dependent students

from low income families had parents with relatively low educational

attainment (57 percent had only a high school education or less).

Among low income students, single independents had the best educated

parents: 45 percent had parents

Figure 3—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to race–ethnicity,

by

income and dependency status: 1992–93

 

8As shown in figure 3 and table 3, 64 percent of low income students and 79 percent of other students were

white, non-Hispanic, leaving 36 percent and 21 percent, respectively, minority.

12
NOTE: Percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

13
Table 3—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to selected student

and instituional

characteristics, by income and dependency status: 1992–93

 Low income 

Independent

All Not low Single with

students income TotalDependentindependent

dependents 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Gender

Male 44.5 45.6 39.5 44.0 55.0 25.0 

Female 55.5 54.4 60.5 56.0 45.0 75.0 

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.9 0.8 1.7 1.4 2.0 1.8 

Asian/Pacific Islander 4.0 4.0 4.4 7.6 4.6 2.4 

Black, non-Hispanic 10.3 8.8 17.0 19.2 12.4 19.1 

Hispanic 8.0 7.1 12.5 20.2 8.5 10.7 

White, non-Hispanic 76.8 79.3 64.4 51.7 72.6 66.0 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 45.4 47.4 39.3 32.5 34.8 47.1 

Public 4-year 31.0 30.8 29.3 35.5 38.1 18.8 

Private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year1.6 1.5 2.2 2.1 1.5 

2.9 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 14.3 14.6 12.8 18.5 13.1 9.0 

Private, for-profit 7.7 5.7 16.3 11.4 12.6 22.2 

Degree program

Associate’s 39.0 39.9 36.9 35.9 31.9 41.4 

Bachelor’s 42.7 43.1 38.1 46.9 49.0 24.3 

Undergraduate certificate 13.8 12.4 20.4 13.5 15.0 29.0 

Other undergraduate 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.7 4.2 5.3 

Highest level expect to complete

Certificate/award 4.5 4.1 6.6 2.6 4.4 10.8 

Associate’s degree 7.6 7.5 8.0 5.9 4.9 11.6 

Bachelor’s degree 31.1 31.2 30.8 32.0 25.0 34.4 

Master’s, doctoral, or first-professional 56.8 57.2 54.7 59.5 

65.7 43.3 

Attendance status—first term enrolled

in 1992–93

Full-time 52.5 49.0 63.9 72.8 66.0 56.8 

Part-time, half-time or more 21.0 21.0 21.5 17.7 20.5 24.7 

Part-time, less than half-time26.5 30.1 14.6 9.5 13.6 18.5 

Attendance pattern

Full-time, full-year 32.8 31.6 34.9 44.2 37.9 26.8 

Full-time, part-year 13.4 11.5 21.8 20.6 20.5 23.4 

Part-time, full-year 25.6 26.7 21.1 17.7 20.0 24.1 

Part-time, part-year 28.1 30.2 22.2 17.5 21.6 25.6 

Delay in postsecondary enrollment

No delay 57.3 61.1 45.4 66.8 43.2 32.1 

1 year 12.4 11.1 14.3 18.9 12.5 12.6 

2–4 years 10.9 9.0 15.5 13.6 17.0 15.6 

14
5 years or more 19.4 18.8 24.8 0.7 27.3 39.6

15
Table 3—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to selected student

and institutional

characteristics, by income and dependency status: 1992–93—Continued

 Low income 

Independent

All Not low Single with

students income TotalDependentindependent

dependents 

Hours worked per week while enrolled

None 20.6 18.0 32.8 27.7 24.7 41.6 

1–14 9.7 9.7 9.6 12.0 10.9 7.3 

15–24 18.0 17.7 19.9 26.3 23.5 13.6 

25 or more 51.6 54.6 37.7 34.0 40.9 37.5 

Highest education level of parents

High school or less 44.7 42.8 54.2 56.7 45.1 59.4 

Some college, less than a bachelor's 19.8 19.9 19.4 19.3 19.0 

19.7 

Bachelor’s degree 19.3 20.1 15.8 16.6 19.8 12.2 

Advanced degree 16.2 17.3 10.7 7.5 16.1 8.7

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Percentages for “all students” include

students with missing income data. Therefore, the percentages for all students may be higher

or lower than the percentages for both low income and not low income students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

with a high school education or less, a proportion similar to that of

undergraduates who were not low income. As indicated earlier, low

income single independents may be poor because they are students, but

they do not necessarily come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Low

income independents with dependents tended to have less welleducated parents than single independents (59 percent had parents

with only a high school education) (table 3). They may have been more

likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, but another possible

explanation or contributing factor may be that low income

independents with dependents were more likely than low income single

independents to be 30 years or older (table 2), increasing the

likelihood that their parents belonged to a generation less likely to

have attended college.

Enrollment Patterns

Low income undergraduates were about as likely as other undergraduates to enroll in

public 4-year institutions (29 percent and 31 percent, respectively) and private, not-for-profit

4-year institutions (13 percent and 15 percent, respectively) (figure 5 and table 3). However,

low income students were much more likely than other students to enroll in private, for-profit

institutions, and were somewhat less likely to attend public less-than-4-year institutions.

16
Low income undergraduates were more likely than other undergraduates to enroll full

time in their first term in 1992–93 and to enroll full time for only part of the year. This

pattern reflects, in part, low income students’ greater numbers at private, for-profit

institutions, which tend to have shorter, full-time programs. However, greater full-time

17
Figure 4—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to parents'

education, by income and

dependency status: 1992–93

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

attendance may also reflect the fact that, for independent students,

attending full time makes it more likely their income will be low

because they have less time to work.

Low income students differed from their non low income

counterparts in their choice of degree program, with low income

students being more likely to enroll in a certificate program and

less likely to enroll in a bachelor’s degree program. However,

despite the differences in where they enrolled and their immediate

academic goals, low income and other undergraduates had similar

long-term academic goals, with similar proportions in each group

aspiring eventually to associate’s, bachelor’s, and advanced

degrees.

18
Figure 5—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to type of

institution, by income and

dependency status: 1992–93

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

19
Considerations in Choosing an Institution

In 1989–90, 76 percent of low income undergraduates reported

that the fact that an institution offered the course of study they

wanted was a very important consideration in their choice of

institution.9 They cited this factor far more frequently than any

other (table 4). However, financial considerations were important as

well. Forty-five percent of low income students reported that

obtaining the financial aid they needed was a very important

consideration (compared with only 20 percent of other students). Low

income students were also more likely than other students to report

that other factors that had financial implications (lower tuition

and other expenses, a good reputation for placement, and being able

to finish in a shorter time) were very important.

Although students were not asked in NPSAS:93 why they chose the

institution in which they enrolled, there is some evidence of efforts

on the part of low income students to try to reduce costs. For

example, low income students at 4-year institutions were more likely 

Table 4—Percentage of undergraduates who rated various reasons for selecting the

institution attended as

“very important,” by income group and dependency status: 1989–90

Tuition School Could

Offered Could School and other had good finishObtained

course of go to Could School was expensesreputation in

financial

study school live had good close were for shorter aid

wanted and work at homereputationto home less placement time needed

Total 72.6 51.3 50.5 50.4 43.4 36.8 36.1 29.2 24.4

Low income

Total 75.9 48.8 50.6 52.6 44.8 42.2 41.2 37.1 45.3

Dependency status

Dependent 71.6 43.2 39.7 51.9 36.6 40.7 45.8 26.6 52.7

Single independent80.9 49.0 64.1 53.4 52.9 41.7 40.4 45.6 47.7

Independent with

dependents 74.8 52.7 46.6 52.4 43.6 43.9 38.4 37.4 37.9

Not low income

Total 71.9 51.8 50.4 49.9 43.1 35.5 34.9 27.1 19.5

Dependency status

 

9The 1989–90 data are reported here because these questions were not asked in NPSAS:93. The BPS students

whose persistence and attainment are examined later were part of NPSAS:90.

20
Dependent 66.9 38.9 34.4 51.8 34.3 35.7 40.6 21.1 20.3

Single independent80.0 63.8 75.9 48.0 56.2 34.3 27.6 36.0 19.5

Independent with

dependents 74.7 73.4 59.2 47.2 49.4 36.7 28.8 31.6 17.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

21
than other undergraduates (24 percent compared with 20 percent) to

live with their parents or relatives. This can be an important

strategy for reducing housing and, possibly, transportation costs

(table 5). Based on tuition and fees paid by students who attended

full time, full year, low income undergraduates appear to be

sensitive to tuition charges. Except at public less-than-4-year

institutions, low income undergraduates enrolled full time, full

year paid a lower average amount for tuition and fees than their

counterparts who were not low income at the same type of institution

(table 6). This suggests that low income students may be choosing

lower cost rather than high-cost private institutions and less

expensive public institutions over more expensive ones as a way of

keeping down their educational costs.

Table 5—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to local residence,

by institution type and

income group: 1992–93

Off campus,

On with parents Other

campus or relatives off campus

Total

Total 12.8 28.1 59.0 

Income group

Low income 10.7 29.4 59.9 

Not low income 13.5 27.3 59.2 

Less-than-4-year*

Total 2.5 34.2 63.2

Income group

Low income 3.2 33.4 63.4 

Not low income 2.4 33.6 64.0 

4-year

Total 25.2 21.1 53.8

Income group

Low income 21.1 24.0 55.0 

Not low income 26.8 19.9 53.3 

Private, for-profit

Total 3.1 32.5 64.4 

Income group

Low income 2.8 33.3 63.8 

Not low income 3.3 31.3 65.4

22
*Excluding private, for-profit institutions. Most private, for-profit institutions are

less-than-4-year, but they are distinct from public and private, not-for-profit less-than4-year institutions.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Totals include students with missing

income data. Therefore, the percentages for totals may be higher or lower than the

percentages for both low income and not low income students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

23
Table 6—Average tuition for undergraduates attending full time, full year, by type

of institution and

income group: 1992–93

Public Private, notless-than- Public for-profit Private,

4-year 4-year 4-year for-profit

Total $1,160 $2,987 $11,194 $5,823

Income group

Low income 1,169 2,601 8,784 5,332

Not low income 1,171 3,033 11,634 6,164

NOTE: Totals include students with missing income data. Therefore, the amounts for all

students may be greater or less than the amounts for both low income and not low income

students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

24
Financial Need

Method for Assessing Financial Need 

To assess a student’s need for financial aid, a financial aid

officer starts by establishing an appropriate budget that takes into

account direct educational expenses and reasonable living expenses.

Direct educational expenses include tuition, fees, books, and

supplies. Living expenses include room and board if living on campus,

or rent and food if living off campus; personal expenses;

transportation; and any special items a student requires, such as

child care or special equipment needed because of a handicapping

condition. 

What the family is expected to pay is calculated using a formula

that takes into account family income and assets, the size of the

family, and the number of other family members enrolled in

postsecondary education. This calculated amount becomes the

“expected family contribution” (EFC) and is independent of where the

student chooses to enroll. In other words, the EFC is the same

regardless of whether the student chooses an institution with a

tuition of $1,500 or $15,000. The student is eligible for the amount

of financial aid needed to make up the difference between the EFC and

the budget, although there is no guarantee that the financial aid

funds will be available to meet the need fully.

Over the years, the methodology used to calculate the EFC has

changed many times as policymakers have attempted to achieve both

simplicity and fairness and to ration limited funds. Each adjustment

to the formula has changed who is eligible for financial aid and how

much. The debate over whose income and assets should be included and

how they should be treated continues. Some issues that still exist

include the age of the student at which the parents’ income should no

longer count; how a noncustodial parent’s or stepparent’s income

should be treated when parents are divorced; what assets should be

sheltered; what percentage of their assets parents should be

expected to contribute; and how much the student should be expected

to earn.10

In 1992–93, there were minimum EFCs (although these have since

been eliminated). The minimum EFC for dependent students was $700 for

the first year and $900 afterwards; for single independent students,

 

10For comments on the current state of need analysis, see National Association of Student Financial

Administrators, Need Analysis: Does it Still W ork? (Washington, D.C.), June 1995.

25
it was $1,200. There was no minimum EFC for independent students with

dependents.

Figures 6–8 show the relationship between the average budgets

for full-time, full-year students at various types of institutions

and the average EFCs at each income level in 1992–93. The difference

between the budgets and the EFCs was the average amount of financial

aid for which students were eligible at each income level. 

26
On average, families with incomes under $50,000 would have been

eligible for some financial aid to support a dependent full-time,

full-year undergraduate at an average-cost postsecondary

institution of any type in 1992–93 (figure 6). With higher incomes,

families were eligible for financial aid only at the more costly

institutions. Full-time, full-year single independent students with

incomes under about $20,000 would have been eligible for some

financial aid at an average-cost postsecondary institution of any

type (figure 7). Independent students with dependents of their own

had the lowest EFCs, on average, because they had no minimum EFC. With

incomes under $50,000 they would have been eligible for financial aid

to meet the average costs of attending any type of institution full

time, full year (figure 8).

The discussion of costs and financial aid that follows is

limited to low income students who attended full time, full year

because of the difficulty of making comparisons among students whose

attendance patterns vary as widely as those in the group of students

who attend part time and/or part year. Forty-four percent of low

income dependent students attended full time, full year, as did 38

percent of low income single independents and 27 percent of

independents with dependents (table 3). The discussion is also

limited to undergraduates who attended only one institution, because

of the need to have a consistent

picture of aid and costs. One percent of all full-time, full-year undergraduates attended more

than one institution during the 1992–93 academic year.11

 

11U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

27
Figure 6—Average expected family contribution for dependent students, by family

income: 1992–93

NOTE: Too little financial aid-related information was available for students with family incomes of $100,000 or more to

estimate an EFC reliably. The horizontal lines on the figure represent the average student budgets for full-time, full-year

students at the indicated type of institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

28
Figure 7—Average expected family contribution for single independent students, by

family income:

1992–93

NOTE: Too little financial aid-related information was available for students with family incomes of $50,000 or more to

estimate an EFC reliably. The horizontal lines on the figure represent the average student budgets for full-time, full-year

students at the indicated type of institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

29
Figure 8—Average expected family contribution for independent students with

dependents, by family

income: 1992–93

NOTE: Too little financial aid-related information was available for students with family incomes of $50,000 or more to

estimate an EFC reliably. The horizontal lines on the figure represent the average student budgets for full-time, full-year

students at the indicated type of institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Budgets and Costs

Turning specifically to low income students attending full time, full year, average

budgets ranged from $8,100 at public less-than-4-year institutions to $15,500 at private, notfor-profit 4-year institutions (table 7).12 For dependent full-time, full-year low income

students, the average budget was about the same as the average student-reported costs at each

type of institution, but for their independent counterparts (both single independents and

 

12It should be pointed out that only 30 percent of low income students attending private, for-profit institutions

were enrolled full time for a full year; most were enrolled in programs lasting less than 1 year. Thus, the

majority of students at private, for-profit institutions would not be paying tuition as high as $13,000 for their

programs. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.

30
independents with dependents), the average student-reported cost tended to be higher than the

average budget.13

 

13All differences for independent students were statistically significant except for single independent students at

private, for-profit institutions.

31
Table 7—Average cost, budget, expected family contribution, financial need, and

percentage with need

for low income undergraduates attending full time, full year, by dependency

status and type of

institution: 1992–93

 Average 

Attendance- Expected

adjusted Student family Financial Percent

total costs1 budget2 contribution3 need4 with

need

Total

Total $12,631 $10,916 $1,607 $9,421 99.4

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 10,085 8,106 1,067 7,035 100.0

Public 4-year 11,414 9,696 1,805 8,004 99.2

Private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year 12,078 10,061 999 9,062

100.0

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 17,256 15,478 2,148 13,594 98.8

Private, for-profit 14,068 12,929 1,181 11,811 99.7

Dependent

Total 11,347 10,957 1,924 9,270 99.3

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 7,230 7,156 1,319 5,837 100.0

Public 4-year 9,876 9,316 2,044 7,515 99.1

Private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year 9,105 9,303 1,610 7,693

100.0

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 16,063 15,452 2,140 13,743 99.2

Private, for-profit 12,144 12,921 1,613 11,308 100.0

Single independent

Total 12,627 11,224 2,493 8,834 98.8

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 9,438 8,506 2,194 6,304 100.0

Public 4-year 11,458 9,949 2,370 7,637 98.9

Private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 18,116 16,120 3,105 13,207 97.5

Private, for-profit 13,906 13,321 2,583 10,995 99.0

Independent with dependents

Total 13,941 10,543 337 10,201 100.0

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 11,740 8,277 273 8,004 100.0

Public 4-year 13,940 9,871 367 9,504 100.0

Private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year 14,311 10,682 261 10,420

100.0

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 18,584 14,393 466 13,928 100.0

Private, for-profit 14,767 12,735 339 12,383 100.0

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

1Student-reported annual living expenses adjusted for months enrolled.

2Budget established by institution.

3Amount family expected to pay.

32
4Student budget minus expected family contribution. In this table, the difference between

the average student budget and the average expected family contribution is not exactly equal

to the average financial need because of missing data for each variable. 

NOTE: Averages computed including zero values.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

33
Expected Family Contributions

The average EFC for low income students who attended full time,

full year was $1,600 in 1992–93 (table 7). Because the EFC is

independent of the cost of attending, the differences in average EFCs

across institution types reflect the differences in the income,

family size, and dependency status of the students who attended each

type of institution.14 Among low income students attending full time,

full year, the average EFC was greatest ($2,500) for single

independent students, who are expected to contribute a substantial

part of their income and savings to supporting their educational

costs. The average EFCs for dependent students and independent

students with dependents were about $1,900 and $300, respectively.

Financial Need

A student’s need for financial aid is the difference between the institutionally

determined budget for the student and the student’s EFC. Virtually all low income students

enrolling full time, full year (99 percent) had financial need in 1992–93 (table 7). The average

need (including the few with zero need) was $9,400. As would be expected given cost

differences, the average need for low income students varied by type of institution, ranging

from $7,000 at public less-than-4-year institutions to $13,600 at private, not-for-profit 4-year

institutions.

Among low income undergraduates enrolling full time, full year, dependent and single

independent students had similar financial need, on average ($9,300 and $8,800, respectively).

The average financial need of independent students with dependents was somewhat greater

($10,200). This reflects the fact that they had no minimum EFC and may also be related to

the types of institutions they attended. Independents with dependents had a greater propensity

than other students to attend the higher cost private, for-profit institutions; however, they were

also more likely to attend the less costly public, less-than-4-year institutions (see table 3).

 

14Dependency status is relevant because dependents, single independents, and independents with dependents have

different minimum contributions and are subject to different rules about how their income and assets are treated.

34
Financial Aid

The vast majority (88 percent) of low income students who

enrolled full time, full year in 1992–93 received some type of

financial aid (table 8). The average amount aided students received

varied by institution type, ranging from $3,400 at public less-than4-year institutions to $9,300 at private, not-for-profit 4-year

institutions.

Types of Aid

Grants are the foundation of student financial aid for low income students. Depending

on the type of institution, between 80 percent and 95 percent of full-time, full-year low

income students received grants (figure 9 and table 8). The average amount received in the 

Figure 9—Percentage of full-time, full-year low income undergraduates receiving

aid and average amount

received by aided students, by type of institution: 1992–93

35
—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

36
Table 8—Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year who

received various

types of financial aid and the average amounts received by aided students,

by dependency status

and type of institution: 1992–93

Total aid Grants Loans Work–study

Average Average Average Average

Percentamount Percentamount Percentamount Percentamount

Total

Total 88.1 $5,764 84.0 $3,485 48.3 $3,465 15.0 $1,388

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 83.5 3,352 80.2 2,365 20.2 2,549 10.3 1,560

Public 4-year 86.6 5,638 81.6 3,193 54.9 3,371 14.8 1,371

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 97.0 4,802 95.1 3,257 39.7 2,892 3.7 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 92.8 9,318 89.7 6,046 62.4 3,901 30.0 

1,264

Private, for-profit 92.3 4,745 88.4 2,313 54.9 3,658 3.6 — 

Dependent

Total 89.1 6,188 85.8 4,126 48.8 2,957 20.5 1,315

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 83.1 2,831 81.4 2,242 11.7 — 15.1 — 

Public 4-year 86.8 5,181 82.7 3,302 50.3 2,722 16.1 1,341

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 99.3 4,710 99.0 3,058 38.4 — 3.9 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 93.5 9,781 90.6 6,902 62.1 3,279 37.3 

1,224

Private, for-profit 96.7 5,267 93.5 2,408 65.7 3,336 1.9 — 

Single independent

Total 88.2 5,944 82.9 3,319 51.5 3,824 12.7 1,365

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 82.6 3,094 78.0 2,085 20.7 — 7.0 — 

Public 4-year 87.9 5,764 81.6 3,049 57.9 3,671 12.2 1,359

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year — — — — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 92.6 9,385 88.4 5,654 62.7 4,547 26.3 

1,313

Private, for-profit 90.9 5,271 87.6 2,258 58.5 4,242 2.2 — 

Independent with dependents

Total 87.0 5,129 83.4 2,996 44.3 3,581 12.0 1,540

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 84.3 3,733 81.0 2,585 23.7 2,938 10.3 — 

Public 4-year 84.1 6,194 79.8 3,273 57.2 3,778 17.3 1,433

Private, not-for-profit 

less-than-4-year 94.3 5,111 94.1 3,530 41.9 — 5.2 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 91.5 8,058 89.9 4,664 62.5 4,227 19.1 

1,332

Private, for-profit 91.5 4,308 87.1 2,308 49.6 3,450 4.9 — 

37
—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

38
form of grants was in the $2,300–$3,300 range except at private, notfor-profit 4-year institutions, where it was $6,000 (table 8).

Loans were used less frequently, with 48 percent of low income

students borrowing. Students at public less-than-4-year

institutions were the least likely to borrow (20 percent). Between 40

percent and 62 percent borrowed in other types of institutions. The

average loan 

ranged from $2,500 to $3,900, depending on the type of institution.

The differences reflect, at least in part, higher borrowing limits

for upper-division students as well as cost differences among

institution types.

Work-study aid was far more common at private, not-for-profit

4-year institutions than at other types of institutions. Thirty

percent of full-time, full-year low income undergraduates

participated in work study in that type of institution in contrast to

15 percent or less at other types of institutions. However, the

average amount earned by participants was roughly similar at each

type of institution ($1,300 to $1,600).

Receipt of some types of aid varied by dependency status.

Similar percentages of dependents, single independents, and

independents with dependents received grants, but single

independents were more likely than independents with dependents to

borrow. Dependent students were more likely than either type of

independent student to participate in work-study programs.

Sources of Aid

The federal government was the major source of all types of

financial aid. With respect to grants, the Pell grant program was the

most important. Overall, 84 percent of full-time, full-year low

income undergraduates received some type of grant aid; 78 percent

received federal grant aid; and 76 percent received a Pell grant

(tables 8, 9, and 10). The average Pell grant was $2,100 (table 10),

just $300 less than the 1992–93 maximum allowable award of $2,400.15

Full-time, full-year low income students at private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions received larger amounts of federal grant

aid ($2,800, on average) than their counterparts at other types of

institutions. This was partly due to slightly larger Pell amounts,

but also because they were considerably more likely than their

 

15The maximum Pell grant was also limited by educational costs. Students at low-tuition public institutions were

not always eligible for the maximum $2,400.

39
counterparts in other types of institutions to receive Supplementary

Education Opportunity Grants (SEOGs) (table 10).16

Participation in loan programs varied considerably by type of

institution. However, at each type of institution, almost all of the

students with loans had federal loans, and most of these students had

Stafford loans (tables 8, 9, and 11). About one out of five full-time,

 

16The difference in the average Pell grant at private, not-for-profit 4-year and less-than-4-year institutions was

not statistically significant.

40
Table 9—Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year who

received financial

aid from various sources and the average amounts received by aided

students, by dependency

status and type of institution: 1992–93

Any

Any Federal Federal Any

institutional

federal aid grant loan state aid aid 

Per-Average Per-Average Per-Average Per-Average PerAverage

centamount centamount centamount centamount centamount

Total

Total 82.6 $4,453 77.6 $2,339 47.6 $3,408 33.5 $1,586 24.8 $2,689 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 76.6 2,872 75.5 2,026 19.9 2,568 33.0 915 11.2 840 

Public 4-year 80.9 4,699 74.6 2,389 54.1 3,330 36.5 1,458 25.4 1,440 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 95.3 3,817 95.0 2,371 39.7 2,871 38.4 1,645 16.1 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 86.3 5,718 78.0 2,773 61.1 3,772 43.5 2,351 51.7 

4,647 

Private, for-profit 91.0 4,328 87.2 2,089 54.6 3,622 10.2 1,874 7.5 1,655 

Dependent

Total 84.7 4,332 78.9 2,404 48.2 2,905 36.1 1,837 32.8 3,146 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 74.6 2,378 70.0 1,840 11.7 — 29.1 — 18.9 — 

Public 4-year 82.9 4,084 76.9 2,329 49.7 2,702 36.6 1,563 28.8 1,411 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 99.3 3,774 99.0 2,427 38.4 — 43.6 — 15.0 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 89.0 5,497 82.0 2,863 61.1 3,154 44.7 2,519 55.3 

5,160 

Private, for-profit 96.2 4,861 93.1 2,128 65.2 3,359 11.9 — 6.8 — 

Single independent

Total 80.5 4,707 73.9 2,284 50.6 3,753 32.2 1,599 24.7 2,686 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 73.4 2,523 73.0 1,793 19.7 — 25.9 920 13.0 — 

Public 4-year 80.4 4,953 72.7 2,366 57.1 3,614 35.4 1,437 21.8 1,557 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year — — — — — — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 82.6 5,996 71.3 2,704 61.0 4,361 42.2 2,359 53.5 

4,564 

Private, for-profit 89.3 4,847 84.9 2,091 58.5 4,225 10.6 — 8.2 — 

Independent with dependents

Total 82.8 4,312 80.1 2,328 43.9 3,539 32.5 1,289 16.7 1,786 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 79.5 3,273 79.5 2,229 23.7 2,938 39.0 880 6.7 — 

Public 4-year 78.4 5,321 74.4 2,536 56.2 3,739 38.4 1,324 26.4 1,316 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 94.1 3,877 93.9 2,396 41.9 — 39.1 — 16.9 — 

41
Private, not-for-profit 4-year 86.3 5,789 80.3 2,662 61.4 4,203 43.1 1,921 40.0 

3,140 

Private, for-profit 90.1 3,889 86.5 2,075 49.2 3,375 9.4 1,870 7.4 — 

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

42
Table 10—Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year

who received various

types of grants and the average amounts received by aided students, by

dependency status and

type of institution: 1992–93

Any federal Pell SEOG State Institutional 

Per-Average Per-Average Per-Average Per-Average PerAverage

centamount centamount centamount centamount centamount

Total

Total 77.6 $2,339 76.1 $2,111 23.1 $781 29.7 $1,486 21.9 $2,665 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 75.5 2,026 73.2 1,932 17.1 432 27.8 836 11.2 830 

Public 4-year 74.6 2,389 74.1 2,188 20.4 717 33.3 1,338 21.4 1,364 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 95.0 2,371 94.5 2,241 19.1 — 29.8 — 14.3 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 78.0 2,773 75.2 2,247 36.4 1,158 39.0 2,264 47.9 

4,596 

Private, for-profit 87.2 2,089 85.9 1,967 22.9 560 8.2 1,552 5.2 1,077 

Dependent

Total 78.9 2,404 77.6 2,117 24.7 955 33.7 1,749 29.7 3,197 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 70.0 1,840 68.3 1,801 14.4 — 27.5 — 18.9 — 

Public 4-year 76.9 2,329 76.5 2,136 18.6 803 35.3 1,477 24.6 1,366 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 99.0 2,427 98.8 2,209 23.4 — 30.0 — 9.9 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 82.0 2,863 79.6 2,243 41.9 1,268 41.4 2,453 51.9 

5,167 

Private, for-profit 93.1 2,128 91.0 2,042 21.1 574 8.1 — 6.5 — 

Single independent

Total 73.9 2,284 72.3 2,100 19.2 723 27.8 1,458 22.2 2,579 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 73.0 1,793 70.4 1,790 12.4 — 19.5 — 13.0 — 

Public 4-year 72.7 2,366 72.3 2,206 17.3 634 31.6 1,297 18.9 1,420 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year — — — — — — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 71.3 2,704 67.6 2,233 30.3 1,027 36.7 2,170 48.3 

4,466 

Private, for-profit 84.9 2,091 83.2 1,956 19.6 678 9.0 — 7.8 — 

Independent with dependents

Total 80.1 2,328 78.6 2,117 25.7 658 27.8 1,192 13.8 1,658 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 79.5 2,229 77.0 2,063 21.1 508 33.0 794 6.6 — 

Public 4-year 74.4 2,536 73.7 2,248 29.1 716 33.3 1,161 20.7 1,266 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 93.9 2,396 93.9 2,332 14.9 — 31.8 — 16.9 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 80.3 2,662 78.1 2,275 34.0 1,043 37.6 1,928 37.4 

2,992 

Private, for-profit 86.5 2,075 85.6 1,948 25.0 511 7.9 — 3.6 — 

43
—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

44
Table 11—Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year

who obtained various

types of loans and the average amounts borrowed by students who borrowed,

by dependency

status and type of institution: 1992–93

Any federal Stafford SLS Perkins 

Average Average Average Average

Percentamount Percentamount Percentamount Percentamount

Total

Total 47.6 $3,408 45.1 $2,850 6.8 $2,753 10.4 $1,316

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 19.9 2,568 19.1 2,229 2.4 — 2.3 — 

Public 4-year 54.1 3,330 50.5 2,906 6.5 2,618 12.1 1,255 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 39.7 2,871 38.2 2,344 6.5 — 1.8 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 61.1 3,772 57.4 2,949 9.2 3,133 21.1 

1,379 

Private, for-profit 54.6 3,622 54.0 2,945 11.4 2,580 4.0 1,817 

Dependent

Total 48.2 2,905 45.3 2,644 1.2 — 12.6 1,307 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 11.7 — 11.7 — 0.0 — 0.1 — 

Public 4-year 49.7 2,702 46.3 2,572 1.0 — 10.7 1,125 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 38.4 — 38.4 — 0.4 — 5.1 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 61.1 3,154 56.7 2,684 1.5 — 25.1 

1,443 

Private, for-profit 65.2 3,359 65.2 3,145 4.1 — 4.8 — 

Single independent

Total 50.6 3,753 47.9 2,993 10.9 2,766 10.6 1,324 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 19.7 — 17.7 — 1.4 — 2.3 — 

Public 4-year 57.1 3,614 53.9 3,011 10.6 2,651 11.0 1,336 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year — — — — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 61.0 4,361 57.7 3,181 15.7 3,055 20.4 

1,287 

Private, for-profit 58.5 4,225 57.2 3,079 19.3 2,881 6.9 — 

Independent with dependents

Total 43.9 3,539 41.7 2,900 8.0 2,769 8.0 1,317 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 23.7 2,938 23.2 2,345 4.0 — 3.4 — 

Public 4-year 56.2 3,739 51.1 3,214 8.3 2,551 16.6 1,298 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 41.9 — 38.7 — 3.3 — 0.0 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 61.4 4,203 58.7 3,155 16.1 3,328 12.7 

1,341 

Private, for-profit 49.2 3,375 48.8 2,781 9.8 2,362 2.3 — 

45
—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

46
full-year low income students at private, not-for-profit 4-year

institutions took out a Perkins loan, a much greater proportion than

at any other type of institution (table 10).

It should be noted that students' access to federal campus-based aid (SEOG, Perkins,

and College Work-Study programs) varies from one institution to another for reasons other

than student financial need. The allocation of campus-based aid to institutions has a historical

basis. Not all institutions participate, and institutions have different amounts to distribute.

Older institutions that have been participating for a long time have the largest amounts.

State aid (which is primarily grant aid) was another important source of aid for low

income students, with 34 percent of those who attended full time, full year receiving an

average of $1,600 (table 9). State aid was less available to those at private, for-profit

institutions than at other types of institutions (10 percent received state aid compared with

one-third or more elsewhere). Many state programs do not provide awards to students in

private, for-profit institutions.

Institutional aid was an important source of aid for full-time, full-year low income

students at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions: 52 percent received institutional aid

averaging $4,600 (table 9). Their counterparts at other types of institutions were much less

likely to receive this type of aid. Public institutions usually have relatively little need-based

aid to distribute. In many states, most need-based aid at public institutions is awarded directly

to students through state grant programs rather than through the institutions.

47
Relationship Between Financial Aid and Cost

Ratio of Financial Aid to Total Cost

On average, financial aid covered 42 percent of the student-reported cost of attending

for low income undergraduates enrolling full time, full year in 1992–93 (table 12).17 Sixty-five

percent of their aid was in the form of grants, and 26 percent in the form of loans.

The different ratios across institution types reflect in part differences in the cost of

attending. Pell grants are normally awarded to financially needy students first, with other

grants, loans, and work-study aid added where unmet need still exists. For example, the

average ratio of loans to total aid was 11 percent at public less-than-4-year institutions, but 32

percent at public 4-year institutions, where average costs were higher (see table 7). 

Overall, the federal government was the source of most financial aid (77 percent, on

average). State aid programs added another 10 percent, and institutional aid programs, 9

percent. Differences in these ratios across institution types reflect the availability of various

sources of aid at different types of institutions. For example, the relative unavailability of

state and institutional aid at private, for-profit institutions increased students’ reliance on

federal aid. On average, 93 percent of the aid to full-time, full-year low income students at

private, for-profit institutions came from federal sources, compared with 65 percent to 81

percent at other types of institutions (figure 10).

Institutional aid accounted for an average of 21 percent of all aid to students in

private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions who received aid. However, institutional sources were

relatively unimportant in other types of institutions: 9 percent in public 4-year institutions and

even less elsewhere.

Net Cost and Unmet Need

The net cost to the student is the amount left after subtracting

the total amount of financial aid (grants, loans, and work study)

from the total student-reported cost. In 1992–93, full-time, fullyear low income undergraduates had an average net cost of $7,600,

ranging from $6,500 at public 4-year to $9,700 at private, for-profit

institutions (figure 11 and

table 13). While financial aid does not equalize educational costs

across types of institutions, it does have an impact on the relative

costs of attending some types of institutions. For example, while the

average total cost of attending a public less-than-4-year

 

17This includes students without aid. Because 99 percent of all full-time, full-year low income students had

financial need and thus would have been eligible for financial aid, it seemed more appropriate to include all of

them in the calculation of the ratios in this table, rather than to limit the calculation to just those who received

aid.

48
institution was less than the average total cost of attending a

public 4-year institution ($10,100 compared with $11,400, table 7),

the average net cost was not less ($7,300 compared with $6,500, table

13).

49
Table 12—Mean aid ratios for low income undergraduates attending full time, full

year, by dependency

status and type of institution: 1992–93

Total aid/

student- Federal State

Institutional

reported Grants/ Loans/ aid/ aid/ aid/

cost total aidtotal aid total aid total aidtotal aid

Total

Total 42.0 65.1 26.4 76.7 10.0 9.1 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year31.1 77.2 11.4 78.5 10.6 4.2 

Public 4-year 46.0 60.0 31.8 75.9 11.0 8.6 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 45.9 74.4 18.0 81.2 10.9 3.2 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 51.5 64.8 26.7 64.7 12.0 

20.5 

Private, for-profit 33.3 61.7 34.0 93.0 3.6 1.9 

Dependent

Total 49.1 69.2 22.9 73.8 11.3 12.5 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year35.8 83.4 7.4 74.9 11.6 13.0 

Public 4-year 48.8 66.6 26.2 75.5 12.3 8.9 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 52.8 77.6 16.3 87.3 8.9 1.4 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 57.6 69.7 21.8 63.8 11.8 

22.0 

Private, for-profit 44.6 56.4 35.9 94.0 3.6 1.1 

Single independent

Total 42.8 59.9 30.3 74.6 9.5 9.6 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year29.5 74.2 11.5 75.9 8.1 2.6 

Public 4-year 47.0 55.3 35.3 75.5 10.3 8.7 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year — — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 49.1 59.5 30.4 62.2 12.3 

22.4 

Private, for-profit 35.8 56.7 39.2 91.5 3.4 2.3 

Independent with dependents

Total 34.0 66.7 25.9 82.0 9.3 4.9 

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year30.0 76.3 13.2 81.6 11.6 1.3 

Public 4-year 39.6 57.3 34.8 77.4 10.1 8.1 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 41.3 74.2 17.9 80.7 13.3 2.6 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 40.9 62.4 31.8 71.6 12.2 

13.6 

Private, for-profit 28.4 65.9 30.8 93.3 3.6 1.9 

50
—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

NOTE: The ratio “total aid/student-reported cost” was calculated for all students; the other

ratios were calculated for aided students only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

51
Figure 10—Average percentage of total aid received by aided low income

undergraduates from federal,

state, and institutional sources, by type ofinstitution: 1992–93

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Financial aid reduced educational costs for full-time, fullyear low income students. Nevertheless, a substantial gap remained

between their average net cost of $7,600 and their average EFC of

$1,600.

Unmet need, for financial aid purposes, is what remains after subtracting financial aid

and the EFC from the budget established by the institution (not student-reported costs). In

1992–93, 94 percent of all full-time, full-year low income students had unmet need (table 13).

The overall average unmet need (including students with zero need) was $4,900, and ranged

from $3,700 at public 4-year institutions to $8,100 at private, for-profit institutions.18

Independents with dependents had the greatest unmet need at each type of institution,

reflecting their lower EFCs and partially reflecting the maximum award limits in grant and

loan programs.

 

18The average unmet need was somewhat lower than the gap between net costs and the EFC. This can be

explained by the fact that unmet need is calculated with reference to the institutionally determined budget

(which averaged $10,900, table 7), while net costs are calculated with reference to student-reported costs (which

averaged $12,600).

52
In part, the unmet need also reflects an apparent reluctance of low income students to

borrow. Despite their unmet need, full-time, full-year low income students did not always

53
Figure 11—Average total cost, net cost, and unmet need for low income

undergraduates attending full

time, full year, by type of institution: 1992–93

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

borrow as much as they could have through the Stafford loan program

(table 14). A full 64 

percent of those with $2,000 or more in unmet need did not take out a

Stafford loan, and another 15 percent borrowed less than the maximum.

Those with the lowest net costs and lowest unmet need (less than

$1,000) were more likely than those with net costs or unmet need

greater than $2,000 to have borrowed the maximum. This pattern is

expected, because borrowing contributed to reducing their need and

net cost.

54
Table 13—Mean net cost, EFC, need, and unmet need for low income undergraduates

attending full time,

full year, by dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93

Expected

family Financial aid need2 Unmet need3 

Net contribution With need With unmet

need 

cost1 (EFC) Average4PercentAverage Average4PercentAverage

Total

Total $7,552 $1,607 $9,421 99.4 $9,479 $4,938 94.1 $5,250 

Institution type 

Public less-than-4-year7,285 1,067 7,035 100.0 7,035 4,550 98.7 4,610 

Public 4-year 6,530 1,805 8,004 99.2 8,068 3,658 90.4 4,048 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 7,334 999 9,062 100.0 9,062 4,984 96.8 5,151 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year8,608 2,148 13,594 98.8 13,765 5,960 93.5 

6,375 

Private, for-profit 9,703 1,181 11,811 99.7 11,844 8,087 98.4 8,222 

Dependent

Total 5,835 1,924 9,270 99.3 9,331 4,185 92.3 4,532 

Institution type 

Public less-than-4-year4,879 1,319 5,837 100.0 5,837 3,563 97.4 3,659 

Public 4-year 5,381 2,044 7,515 99.1 7,582 3,356 90.4 3,711 

Private, not-for-profit 

less-than-4-year 4,399 1,610 7,693 100.0 7,693 3,619 90.9 3,982 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year6,917 2,140 13,743 99.2 13,855 5,275 92.4 

5,707 

Private, for-profit 7,051 1,613 11,308 100.0 11,308 6,939 95.0 7,304 

Single independent

Total 7,388 2,493 8,834 98.8 8,937 4,407 91.2 4,830 

Institution type 

Public less-than-4-year6,892 2,194 6,304 100.0 6,304 4,175 97.5 4,282 

Public 4-year 6,392 2,370 7,637 98.9 7,724 3,273 87.0 3,763 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year — — — — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year9,422 3,105 13,207 97.5 13,549 5,994 91.8 

6,532 

Private, for-profit 9,157 2,583 10,995 99.0 11,106 7,126 97.8 7,283 

Independent with dependents

Total 9,473 337 10,201 100.0 10,201 6,269 98.8 6,345 

Institution type 

Public less-than-4-year8,586 273 8,004 100.0 8,004 5,211 100.0 5,211 

Public 4-year 8,733 367 9,504 100.0 9,504 4,872 96.5 5,050 

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 9,322 261 10,420 100.0 10,420 6,157 100.0 6,157 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year11,213 466 13,928 100.0 13,928 7,545 99.2 

7,610 

Private, for-profit 10,826 339 12,383 100.0 12,383 8,940 99.7 8,966 

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

55
1Attendance-adjusted total cost minus total aid.

2Attendance-adjusted budget minus EFC.

3Attendance-adjusted budget minus EFC and aid.

4Includes all low income undergraduates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

56
Table 14—Percentage distribution of low income undergraduates attending full

time, full year according

to Stafford Loan status, by selected financial characteristics: 1992–93

 Stafford loan amount 

None Some Maximum

Total

Total 55.0 21.3 23.8 

Net cost1

Less than $1,000 33.5 29.7 36.8 

$1,000–$1,999 44.4 28.8 26.8 

$2,000–$4,999 47.7 25.3 27.0 

$5,000–$9,999 57.7 20.0 22.4 

$10,000 or more 66.0 15.6 18.5 

Unmet need2

Less than $1,000 26.3 40.9 32.8 

$1,000–$1,999 30.9 35.8 33.3 

$2,000 or more 63.7 15.4 20.9 

Aid status

Not aided 100.0 (

3) (3) 

Aided 48.9 24.1 27.0 

Dependent

Total 54.7 23.5 21.9 

Net cost1

Less than $1,000 35.8 37.1 27.2 

$1,000–$1,999 46.9 24.2 28.9 

$2,000–$4,999 54.4 24.7 20.9 

$5,000–$9,999 59.9 21.5 18.6 

$10,000 or more 63.2 15.0 21.9 

Unmet need2

Less than $1,000 32.8 40.9 26.3 

$1,000–$1,999 40.7 32.0 27.3 

$2,000 or more 64.0 16.6 19.4 

Aid status

Not aided 100.0 (

3) (3) 

Aided 49.1 26.4 24.5 

Single independent

Total 52.1 22.7 25.2 

Net cost1

Less than $1,000 27.5 29.2 43.2 

$1,000–$1,999 43.8 29.1 27.2 

$2,000–$4,999 40.8 27.6 31.6 

$5,000–$9,999 57.1 20.8 22.1 

$10,000 or more 65.0 17.6 17.4 

Unmet need2

Less than $1,000 25.6 40.9 33.6 

$1,000–$1,999 27.3 41.1 31.6 

$2,000 or more 62.7 14.9 22.3 

Aid status

Not aided 100.0 (

3) (3) 

Aided 45.8 25.7 28.5 

57
Table 14—Percentage distribution of low income undergraduates attending full

time, full year according

to Stafford Loan status, by selected financial characteristics:

1992–93—Continued

 Stafford loan amount 

None Some Maximum

 Independent with dependents

Total 58.3 17.5 24.3 

Net cost1

Less than $1,000 39.0 12.6 48.4 

$1,000–$1,999 37.7 43.1 19.2 

$2,000–$4,999 45.6 22.8 31.6 

$5,000–$9,999 56.2 17.4 26.4 

$10,000 or more 67.7 14.5 17.9 

Unmet need2

Less than $1,000 5.0 40.8 54.2 

$1,000–$1,999 17.5 33.1 49.4 

$2,000 or more 64.3 15.0 20.7 

Aid status

Not aided 100.0 (

3) (3) 

Aided 52.0 20.1 27.9 

1Attendance-adjusted total cost minus total aid.

2Attendance-adjusted budget minus EFC and aid.

3Not applicable.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

58
Sources of Support Other Than Financial Aid

Although the federal and state governments, postsecondary

institutions, and other organizations provide substantial amounts of

student financial aid, the net cost to full-time, full-year low

income undergraduates and their families was $6,500 to $10,000 in

1992–93, depending on the type of institution attended (see table

13). These amounts are well beyond the EFCs. 

Where do low income students obtain the funds they need to cover

their educational costs? Because the NPSAS data provide only partial

information on the financial circumstances of students and their

families, this question cannot be answered with precision. However,

NPSAS does provide some information on two of the most important

sources of funds: parental support and student earnings.

Parental Support

The financial aid system has different expectations about parental support for

dependent and independent students. Parents of dependent students are expected to help pay

their children’s educational costs, while there is no such expectation for parents of

independent students. It is therefore appropriate to look at parental support separately for

dependent and independent students.

Dependent Students

Low income families often have difficulty helping their children pay for their

education. In 1992–93, 50 percent of low income dependent undergraduates who attended full

time, full year received money from their parents. Among those who did, the average amount

was $2,800 (table 15). In contrast, 78 percent of the full-time, full-year dependent

undergraduates who were not from low income families received money from their parents.

They received an average of $5,600, about twice as much as their low income counterparts

(table 16).

Of particular interest is parental support to the low income dependent students who

did not receive financial aid (although only 11 percent of full-time, full-year low income

dependent undergraduates were in this position, table 8). The unaided students were much

more likely than their aided counterparts to receive parental contributions (77 percent

compared with 46 percent), and they received more, on average ($6,000 compared with

$1,900) (table 15). This suggests that while the parents of low income dependent students

without financial aid in 1992–93 had low incomes in 1991 (the reference year for determining

income), they had other financial resources. For example, they may not have been low income

on a long-term basis and may have been able to accumulate savings before 1991, or a

noncustodial parent may have made a substantial contribution.

59
Nine percent of low income dependent undergraduates attending full time, full year

received loans from their parents, averaging $1,800 (table 15). A similar percentage

(11 percent) of their non low income counterparts received loans from their parents (table 16),

but the non low income students received more, on average ($3,100 compared with $1,800),

reflecting their families’ greater resources.

Parents often make non-cash contributions to their students’

support in addition to or in place of direct financial assistance.

For example, students may live at home while enrolled or during the

summer, allowing them to reduce their housing costs and save money

from summer jobs to cover educational expenses. Parents may offer a

variety of other types of support, such as furniture, meals,

clothing, or the use of a car, to name only a few. It is very difficult

to attach a dollar value to this kind of assistance. 

Independent Students

Although parents are not expected to help their independent

children pay for their education, 39 percent of low income single

independent undergraduates attending full time, full year received

parental contributions averaging $3,500 in 1992–93 (table 15). Their

non low income counterparts were less likely to receive such help (31

percent) (table 16). This is not surprising, because the students who

were not low income would have had less need for parental support. Low

income independent students may or may not have low income parents.

Whether or not their parents contribute is influenced by both their

willingness to contribute and their financial ability to do so.

Parental contributions to independents with dependents

followed a similar pattern, with low income students also being more

likely to receive assistance. Twenty-one percent of low income

students attending full time, full year received contributions from

their parents, in contrast to 12 percent of their non low income

counterparts (tables 15 and 16).

Work

The majority of full-time, full-year low income students worked in 1992–93: 63

percent worked while enrolled, and 68 percent worked at some point during the year (table

15). They were actually less likely than their non low income counterparts to work at some

point during 1992–93 (tables 15 and 16). This was true for dependent students and

independent students with dependents; single independent students were about equally likely

to work whether or not they were low income.

While one might expect low income independent students attending full time, full year

to be less likely than their non low income counterparts to work (not working makes them

60
more likely to have low incomes), it is not obvious why the same would be true for low

income dependent students attending full time, full year. One possibility is that their family

backgrounds give them less access to jobs. Among dependent students who worked while

attending full time, full year, the average hours worked per week

while enrolled were similar (about 20 hours) for low and non low

income students, which suggests that scheduling demands may not be a

factor.

61
Table 15—Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year

who had various sources of support and average amounts received by supported students, by selected

student

characteristics: 1992–93

Contributions Loans Worked whileEarnings during Loans through

from parents from parents enrolled AY 1992–931 loan programs

Average Average Average Average

Average

Percent amount Percentamount Percenthours Percent amount Percentamount2

Total

Total 37.1 $2,930 9.6 $2,077 63.2 22 67.9 $4,157 48.3 $3,465 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 33.5 1,817 6.1 — 63.0 18 74.3 3,001 71.1 3,929 

$1,000–$1,999 37.8 1,066 4.8 — 51.6 20 57.3 2,971 58.5 3,036 

$2,000–$4,999 34.9 1,383 8.2 1,517 60.3 20 67.8 3,329 56.1 3,544 

$5,000–$9,999 37.3 2,142 8.7 1,582 65.6 24 69.1 4,167 45.8 3,399 

$10,000 or more 39.9 5,552 14.1 2,679 65.2 25 66.6 5,521 36.3 3,338 

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 36.6 2,051 6.5 1,838 76.1 21 81.5 3,828 77.8 3,375 

$1,000–$1,999 31.4 1,773 10.1 1,377 67.8 20 79.4 3,379 74.0 3,195 

$2,000 or more 37.9 3,219 10.1 2,176 60.3 23 63.6 4,369 39.2 3,560 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 22.3 2,229 8.5 1,559 48.2 25 52.0 4,797 45.9 3,450 

$500–$999 45.2 2,431 10.2 1,408 57.9 21 67.6 2,869 44.1 2,958 

$1,000–$1,999 41.6 3,136 10.0 2,439 69.9 21 74.3 3,635 51.9 3,758 

$2,000 or more 44.9 3,551 10.0 2,703 80.5 23 82.5 4,943 51.0 3,502 

Aid status

Not aided 58.9 4,924 12.3 2,463 70.7 23 70.2 5,190 (

5) — 

Aided 33.0 2,257 9.1 1,982 61.8 22 67.5 3,981 54.8 3,465 

Loan status

Did not borrow 39.4 3,552 9.1 1,920 59.5 23 62.5 4,376 (

5) — 

Borrowed 34.5 2,080 10.1 2,240 67.5 22 73.5 3,958 100.0 3,465 

Dependent

Total 49.9 2,801 9.1 1,840 67.4 21 75.1 3,175 48.8 2,957 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 41.2 1,129 5.4 — 66.3 16 80.1 2,372 70.9 2,957 

$1,000–$1,999 50.6 1,126 3.1 — 45.2 18 55.5 2,097 55.9 2,608 

$2,000–$4,999 48.3 1,374 8.8 — 57.2 18 68.9 2,364 48.8 2,923 

$5,000–$9,999 48.5 1,742 10.5 1,674 80.0 23 83.0 3,845 43.1 3,089 

$10,000 or more 60.8 7,654 12.8 2,840 72.7 23 78.1 4,152 39.8 3,045 

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 43.4 1,343 6.5 — 78.6 20 83.6 3,280 71.2 2,888 

$1,000–$1,999 38.3 1,577 10.0 — 61.8 18 81.4 2,855 64.8 2,774 

$2,000 or more 53.7 3,312 9.7 2,080 65.0 21 71.3 3,197 38.9 3,037 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 48.5 — 5.1 — 62.3 — 74.4 3,403 50.4 3,177 

$500–$999 48.4 2,446 10.1 1,493 57.1 21 68.3 2,536 45.4 2,864 

$1,000–$1,999 52.6 3,206 8.7 — 64.8 19 71.4 2,769 54.9 3,039 

$2,000 or more 50.1 3,228 8.4 — 87.4 22 91.0 4,270 49.7 2,994 

Aid status

Not aided 77.1 5,965 11.9 — 75.5 21 76.5 3,940 (

5) — 

Aided 45.5 1,931 8.7 1,709 66.2 21 74.9 3,063 54.8 2,957 

62
Table 15—Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year

who had various sources

of support and average amounts received by supported students, by selected

student

characteristics: 1992–93—Continued

Contributions Loans Worked while Worked during Loans through

from parents from parents enrolled AY 1992–931 loan programs

Average Average Average Average

Average

Percent amount Percentamount Percenthours Percent amount Percentamount2

Dependent (continued)

Loan status

Did not borrow 50.5 $3,568 8.2 $1,535 64.8 21 70.4 $3,379 (

5) — 

Borrowed 49.1 1,892 10.1 2,116 70.2 20 79.8 2,996 100.0 2,957 

Single independent

Total 39.2 3,467 11.4 2,713 74.3 23 77.1 4,566 51.5 3,824 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 36.0 2,931 7.5 — 68.4 20 76.3 3,805 75.8 4,614 

$1,000–$1,999 26.2 — 9.9 — 79.8 22 80.7 4,160 61.0 3,749 

$2,000–$4,999 31.7 1,544 9.4 1,902 72.7 21 76.2 4,103 64.6 3,918 

$5,000–$9,999 38.5 3,010 7.5 2,418 70.8 24 75.0 4,560 46.2 3,658 

$10,000 or more 50.3 5,308 20.3 3,388 81.2 23 80.4 5,361 37.4 3,467 

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 37.1 3,159 7.5 — 81.5 23 86.4 4,420 79.5 3,697 

$1,000–$1,999 35.0 1,993 12.7 — 81.7 22 85.9 4,026 76.5 3,466 

$2,000 or more 40.2 3,707 12.0 2,997 71.9 23 73.5 4,707 40.6 3,996 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 13.4 — 19.9 — 72.3 — 84.9 4,607 65.6 3,350 

$500–$999 — — 2.2 — 72.4 — 75.4 — 44.5 3,554 

$1,000–$1,999 38.2 3,199 11.2 2,466 72.6 21 76.7 3,911 51.4 4,001 

$2,000 or more 42.1 3,864 11.3 3,029 76.6 23 77.3 5,386 51.1 3,706 

Aid status

Not aided 59.0 4,718 13.2 — 81.8 21 80.9 4,906 (

5) — 

Aided 35.1 3,031 11.1 2,427 72.9 23 76.4 4,506 58.4 3,824 

Loan status

Did not borrow 42.7 4,156 10.0 3,269 72.9 23 74.3 4,663 (

5) — 

Borrowed 35.4 2,566 12.9 2,271 75.8 23 79.7 4,482 100.0 3,824 

Independent with dependents

Total 21.2 2,260 8.3 1,439 48.7 25 51.2 4,981 44.3 3,581 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 11.1 — 5.0 — 48.6 — 56.6 3,315 62.9 5,089 

$1,000–$1,999 20.9 — 2.3 — 27.6 — 30.3 — 62.3 — 

$2,000–$4,999 15.4 — 5.1 — 47.0 22 52.9 3,790 56.3 3,912 

$5,000–$9,999 23.4 1,478 8.1 — 47.0 25 49.9 4,030 48.1 3,366 

$10,000 or more 23.4 3,358 10.7 1,720 52.4 27 52.8 6,568 34.2 3,378 

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 8.6 — 3.3 — 53.1 20 58.2 3,848 95.5 3,777 

$1,000–$1,999 13.1 — 5.8 — 57.6 22 65.9 3,268 88.3 3,379 

$2,000 or more 22.7 2,325 8.8 1,329 47.8 25 49.7 5,242 38.3 3,575 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 21.2 2,289 8.2 1,512 46.7 25 49.5 4,928 44.7 3,473 

63
$500–$999 16.4 — 15.5 — 57.0 24 57.1 5,672 30.7 3,848 

$1,000–$1,999 22.1 — 2.9 — 65.3 19 63.0 4,724 44.4 4,635 

$2,000 or more — — — — — — — — 60.1 4,596 

64
Table 15—Percentage of low income undergraduates attending full time, full year

who had various sources

of support and average amounts received by supported students, by selected

student

characteristics: 1992–93—Continued

Contributions Loans Worked while Worked during Loans through

from parents from parents enrolled AY 1992–931 loan programs

Average Average Average Average

Average

Percent amount Percentamount Percenthours Percent amount Percentamount2

Independent with dependents (continued)

Aid status

Not aided 42.3 $3,502 11.8 — 56.2 29 54.6 $7,051 (

5) — 

Aided 16.9 1,634 7.6 1,642 47.3 24 50.6 4,579 51.0 3,581 

Loan status

Did not borrow 25.1 2,592 9.3 926 43.9 26 45.4 5,335 (

5) — 

Borrowed 15.8 1,524 6.9 2,377 55.3 23 58.8 4,622 100.0 3,581

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

1Includes earnings in summer 1992.

2Average amount includes only students with loans.

3Attendance-adjusted total cost minus total aid.

4Attendance-adjusted budget minus EFC and aid.

5Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System. 

Full-time, full-year low income students who were working while

enrolled worked an average of 22 hours per week. They earned an

average of $4,200 during the year (including summer). Dependent

students earned less, on average, than independent students ($3,200

compared with $4,600 for single independents and $5,000 for

independents with dependents). The lower earnings for dependent

students may reflect their younger age. Average earnings for low

income students enrolled full time, full year were less than those

for their non low income counterparts, who earned an average of

$4,900.

Parental Contributions, Work, and Loans

Parental contributions, work, and loans are sometimes

substituted for one another. If parents are unable or unwilling to

contribute or if students do not want to accept parental help, the

major alternatives are work and loans. The tradeoff between work and

loans reflects borrowing limits set by loan programs, availability

of jobs, time available to work, and students’ willingness to go into

debt.

Loans and Parental Contributions

65
Borrowing was associated with lower parent contributions for

full-time, full-year low income students. Among dependent students,

about one-half received parental contributions whether or not they

borrowed, but students with loans received less from their parents,

on average ($3,600 compared with $1,900) (table 15). Among

independent students, those who borrowed were less likely than those

who did not borrow to receive help from their parents, and if they did

receive help, the average amount was less.

66
Table 16—Percentage of non low income undergraduates attending full time, full

year who had various

sources of support and average amounts received by supported students, by

selected student

characteristics: 1992–93

Contributions Loans Worked whileEarnings during Loans through

from parents from parents enrolled AY 1992–931 loan programs

Average Average Average Average

Average

Percent amount Percentamount Percenthours Percent amount Percentamount2

Total

Total 67.6 $5,504 10.7 $3,058 77.1 22 79.0 $4,893 29.9 $3,460 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 56.4 2,124 11.3 2,287 73.4 16 81.1 2,429 69.6 3,751 

$1,000–$1,999 56.9 1,677 8.2 — 72.3 20 74.7 3,306 47.7 3,408 

$2,000–$4,999 65.7 2,311 10.7 1,671 81.8 21 83.2 3,930 38.7 3,421 

$5,000–$9,999 71.2 3,729 10.4 2,382 80.9 22 82.3 4,638 29.5 3,308 

$10,000 or more 67.0 8,764 11.0 4,193 72.9 23 75.0 5,854 22.5 3,595 

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 74.9 5,641 10.3 3,052 80.2 21 82.9 4,595 24.9 3,172 

$1,000–$1,999 62.0 4,180 12.5 2,140 82.5 22 81.9 4,322 46.2 3,252 

$2,000 or more 62.1 5,564 10.8 3,255 74.2 23 75.3 5,274 31.9 3,685 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 23.2 2,832 7.4 — 70.0 24 69.8 7,171 60.5 3,936 

$500–$999 48.5 1,807 10.4 1,779 64.9 23 70.4 4,359 50.5 3,157 

$1,000–$1,999 42.7 2,258 9.2 2,337 75.5 22 79.1 5,201 51.1 3,382 

$2,000 or more 72.0 5,811 10.9 3,213 78.3 22 79.9 4,827 26.0 3,461 

Aid status

Not aided 74.1 6,476 10.7 3,178 75.7 23 75.4 5,505 (

5) — 

Aided 60.8 4,248 10.6 2,928 78.7 21 82.6 4,351 57.3 3,460 

Dependent

Total 77.8 5,597 11.3 3,141 78.8 20 81.2 3,910 28.1 3,206 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 60.0 2,137 10.0 2,523 76.4 16 83.7 2,334 69.9 3,542 

$1,000–$1,999 61.0 1,677 8.7 — 74.3 20 76.9 3,088 46.6 3,149 

$2,000–$4,999 68.7 2,339 10.7 1,722 82.2 21 83.8 3,735 36.7 3,187 

$5,000–$9,999 78.3 3,781 10.9 2,387 82.1 21 83.5 4,093 27.0 3,114 

$10,000 or more 85.0 9,070 12.5 4,470 74.3 20 77.8 4,056 19.2 3,243 

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 79.8 5,691 10.6 3,169 80.8 20 83.7 4,073 23.8 3,079 

$1,000–$1,999 68.4 4,324 13.8 2,208 82.8 21 82.5 3,616 42.6 3,088 

$2,000 or more 77.2 5,691 11.8 3,340 76.3 21 78.4 3,772 29.5 3,325 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 64.4 3,341 14.1 — 76.0 22 83.0 3,756 49.6 3,275 

$500–$999 60.5 1,950 11.2 1,122 65.7 18 74.1 2,220 54.7 2,801 

$1,000–$1,999 64.0 1,991 10.3 2,084 76.8 19 83.1 2,783 57.0 3,063 

$2,000 or more 79.3 5,884 11.4 3,297 79.6 21 81.4 4,042 24.7 3,250 

Aid status

Not aided 82.7 6,556 10.9 3,176 78.1 22 78.0 4,605 (

5) — 

Aided 72.2 4,353 11.9 3,104 79.7 19 84.5 3,247 55.6 3,206 

Single independent

Total 30.6 $4,186 8.5 $2,276 77.2 29 75.7 $9,803 34.5 $4,470 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 — — — — — — — — 64.4 — 

$1,000–$1,999 — — — — — — — — — — 

$2,000–$4,999 23.3 — 4.4 — 81.9 27 81.1 6,757 65.0 5,073 

67
$5,000–$9,999 29.6 2,136 8.3 — 80.6 27 80.0 7,971 38.1 3,914 

$10,000 or more 34.8 6,078 8.2 3,204 75.0 31 72.9 12,087 23.2 4,452 

68
Table 16—Percentage of non low income undergraduates attending full time, full

year who had various

sources of support and average amounts received by supported students, by

selected student

characteristics: 1992–93—Continued

Contributions Loans Worked whileEarnings during Loans through

from parents from parents enrolled AY 1992–931 loan programs

Average Average Average Average

Average

Percent amount Percentamount Percenthours Percent amount Percentamount2

Single independent (continued)

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 19.0 2,942 8.1 — 80.9 30 80.8 10,892 37.4 3,671 

$1,000–$1,999 40.0 — 8.3 — 84.5 26 82.8 7,646 49.8 4,215 

$2,000 or more 38.7 5,282 9.4 3,135 74.8 28 72.4 9,315 42.6 5,028 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 — — — — — — — — 51.2 — 

$500–$999 — — — — — — — — — — 

$1,000–$1,999 19.2 — 13.3 — 76.8 24 78.7 6,563 69.5 4,451 

$2,000 or more 32.3 4,367 8.9 2,316 78.1 29 76.7 9,963 38.2 4,508 

Aid status

Not aided 40.0 5,100 8.6 3,368 68.5 29 65.5 11,405 (

5) — 

Aided 22.9 2,886 8.3 1,339 84.3 29 83.9 8,813 62.1 4,470 

Independent with dependents

Total 11.8 2,750 6.8 2,578 66.5 30 64.7 10,751 39.9 4,151 

Net cost3

Less than $1,000 — — — — — — — — — — 

$1,000–$1,999 — — — — — — — — — — 

$2,000–$4,999 31.9 — 17.7 — 71.0 25 65.9 6,869 57.4 4,884 

$5,000–$9,999 11.3 2,923 5.7 — 66.4 30 68.4 9,619 52.9 4,069 

$10,000 or more 11.1 2,939 6.6 2,651 67.7 30 64.9 11,376 34.8 4,047 

Unmet need4

Less than $1,000 8.5 — 5.7 — 60.4 30 60.8 11,834 39.6 4,187 

$1,000–$1,999 5.5 — 1.4 — 77.0 26 74.1 9,601 88.6 3,574 

$2,000 or more 12.6 2,904 7.4 2,780 66.9 30 64.8 10,687 37.4 4,195 

Expected family contribution (EFC)

Less than $500 10.6 1,862 5.5 — 67.7 25 64.9 8,480 64.5 4,015 

$500–$999 23.9 — 9.6 — 62.1 33 61.5 10,028 38.4 4,158 

$1,000–$1,999 10.2 4,963 6.9 — 73.5 28 72.1 9,991 36.4 3,964 

$2,000 or more 10.6 2,658 6.7 — 63.8 33 61.5 12,247 31.6 4,386 

Aid status

Not aided 12.8 4,161 10.4 3,101 61.1 33 57.1 12,653 (

5) — 

Aided 11.0 1,541 4.3 1,666 70.4 28 70.0 9,681 64.3 4,151 

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

1Includes earnings in summer 1992.

2Average amount includes only students with loans.

3Attendance-adjusted total cost minus total aid.

4Attendance-adjusted budget minus EFC and aid.

5Not applicable.

NOTE: Totals include students with missing data on characteristics shown in the detail. 

Therefore, the percentages or amounts for all students may be higher or lower than any of the

percentages or amounts shown in the detail.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

69
Loans and Work

Full-time, full-year low income students who borrowed were more

likely than students who did not borrow to work, perhaps reflecting

their greater need for funds.19 However, the amount of time worked

while enrolled was about the same whether students borrowed or not:

among low income students who attended full time, full year, students

who did not borrow worked an average of 23 hours per week when

enrolled, and those who did borrow worked an average of 22 hours.

Parental Contributions and Work

Low income students attending full time, full year who received

less than $1,000 from their parents worked more while enrolled, on

average (23 hours per week), than those who received $1,000 or more

from their parents (19 hours). This suggests that when parents are

unable or unwilling to contribute, students work more.20

 

19Considering low income students separately by dependency status, the difference was statistically significant

for independents with dependents, but not for dependents or single independents.

20U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

70
Persistence and Attainment Among Low Income

Students

A frequent concern is that low income students may be forced to

drop out or interrupt their education for financial reasons. In fact,

among undergraduates enrolling in postsecondary education for the

first time in 1989–90 who were seeking a degree or certificate, low

income students were more likely than other students to have not

attained and not be enrolled in 1994 (44 percent compared with 36

percent) (table 17). Limiting consideration to students seeking a

bachelor’s degree, the relationship was the same (although

bachelor’s degree seekers overall were less likely to be no longer

enrolled): 30 percent of low income students had not completed their

degree and were no longer enrolled, compared with 24 percent of other

students (table 18).

Table 17—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 first-time beginners seeking any

degree according to

enrollment status in 1994, by income group in 1989–90

Completed No longer

any degree Still enrolled enrolled

Total 49.7 12.9 37.5

Income group

Low income 46.6 9.9 43.5

Not low income 50.6 13.6 35.9

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis

System.

Table 18—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 first-time beginners seeking a

bachelor's degree according to enrollment status in 1994, by income group in 1989–90

Completed

 bachelor's degree Still enrolled

No With No With No Changed

inter- inter- Path inter- inter- longer degree

ruption ruption unknown ruption ruption enrolled

objective

Total 37.8 5.9 0.9 13.8 7.4 24.7 9.6

Income group

71
Low income 28.0 4.5 1.8 15.2 8.1 29.8 12.5

Not low income 39.3 6.1 0.8 13.6 7.3 23.7 9.3

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis

System.

If low income students were more likely than other students to

have to interrupt their studies for financial reasons, this should be

most evident among students seeking bachelor’s degrees, because they

take longer to complete. However, both groups were about equally

likely to have interrupted their enrollment and returned whether

they completed their studies or were still enrolled in 1994.

Persistence is affected by a variety of factors other than

income. This study’s approach of controlling for group differences

by crosstabulation has limitations with survey data: sample size

limits the number of cells into which the data can be usefully

subdivided, and there are complex interrelationships among variables

that cannot be disentangled in tabular analyses. 

To overcome these limitations, linear models are frequently

used to examine several sets of variables simultaneously. One such

model, linear regression, is used here to estimate these effects

(adjusted means).21 The regression model takes into account the

effect of all variables in the model simultaneously and thus controls

for interrelationships among variables that can influence tabular

findings. By estimating the joint effect of all variables taken

together, regression models can be used to test individual

parameters while holding constant the influence of other variables.

Of particular interest here is whether the pattern of greater

likelihood of leaving without completing or reenrolling found among

low income students is related to their low income status, or whether

it is related to other characteristics associated with persistence

that are more common among low income students. Table 19 shows the

adjusted percentages of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students

seeking degrees who completed any degree by 1994 or were still

enrolled, taking into account other student characteristics. The

unadjusted means are included for comparison.

 

21Appendix B contains a description of the means adjustment method. A logistic regression model would be an

alternative to a linear regression model.

72
Low income was not a significant predictor of attaining any

degree or being still enrolled in postsecondary education when other

variables in the model were taken into consideration.

Characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of attaining any

degree or being still enrolled included being female, having parents

with a bachelor’s degree or higher (compared with high school or

less), receiving parental contributions, and having taken out a loan

in at least one year.22 Characteristics associated with a lower

likelihood of attaining any degree or being still enrolled were being

black, non-Hispanic (compared with white, non-Hispanic), enrolling

part time to start, and borrowing from parents.

 

22It should be noted, however, that income and borrowing are likely to be related. In addition, for dependent

students, parental education and income are related.

73
Table 19—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who had either

attained a degree or

who were still enrolled as of spring 1994, and the adjusted percentage

after taking into account

the covariation of the variables listed in the table1

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage2percentage3coefficient4 error5

Total 64.0 64.0 0.510

Gender

Female 65.6 66.0* 0.042 0.017

Male 62.2 61.8 † † 

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native — 74.7 0.109 0.089

Asian/Pacific Islander 74.1 71.6 0.078 0.044

Black, non-Hispanic 57.3 56.4* -0.073 0.036

Hispanic 64.3 71.0 0.072 0.042

White, non-Hispanic 64.2 63.7 † † 

Dependency status

Independent 47.9 62.2 -0.025 0.040

Dependent 69.6 64.7 † † 

Institution type

Private, not-for-profit

Less-than-2-year 79.9 87.6 0.210 0.120

2- to 3-year 60.3 56.6 -0.100 0.059

4-year 79.4 68.0 0.014 0.030

Private, for-profit 

Less-than-2-year 68.8 72.7 0.061 0.048

2- to 3-year 56.4 57.6 -0.090 0.050

4-year — 81.9 0.153 0.616

Public 

Less-than-2-year 56.4 67.5 0.009 0.073

2- to 3-year 53.4 60.5 -0.061 0.034

4-year 73.3 66.6 † † 

Attendance status 1989–90

Part-time 44.0 55.3* -0.115 0.033

Full-time 70.7 66.8 † † 

Income group

 Low income 58.2 61.9 -0.026 0.024

 Not low income 65.7 64.5 † † 

Number of dependents in 1989–90

Dependents 48.1 65.5 0.017 0.040

No dependents 66.8 63.8 † † 

Delayed entry after high school

Delayed 47.3 62.3 -0.024 0.028

No delay 72.0 64.7 † † 

Parent's education

Some college, less than bachelor's degree65.3 63.2 0.038 0.021

Bachelor's degree 73.5 69.1* 0.097 0.021

Advanced degree 79.3 73.3* 0.139 0.026

High school or less 56.9 59.4 † † 

74
75
Table 19—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who had either

attained a degree or

who were still enrolled as of spring 1994, and the adjusted percentage

after taking into account

the covariation of the variables listed in the table1—Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage2percentage3coefficient4 error5

Financial contribution from parents in 1989–94

Received parent contributions 72.4 68.7* 0.146 0.028

No parent contributions 46.9 54.1 † † 

Loan from parents in 1989–94

Received loan from parents 69.4 60.3* -0.049 0.021

No loan from parents 66.2 65.2 † † 

Average hours worked/week while enrolled 1989–90

1–14 hours/week 78.6 69.1 0.049 0.028

15–24 hours/week 69.6 64.7 0.004 0.023

25 or more hours/week 58.1 62.7 -0.016 0.022

No work while enrolled 65.9 64.2 † † 

Student education loan 1989–94

Received education loan 76.0 72.7* 0.128 0.020

Did not receive education loan 58.2 59.9 † † 

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

*p ≤ .05, comparing to the reference group, indicated by †.

†Not available for reference group.

1The last group in each category is the reference group for comparison.

2Estimates from BPS:90/94 Data Analysis System.

3Percentages adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see

appendix B for details).

4Weighted least squares (WLS) coefficient (see appendix B for details).

5Standard error of WLS coefficient, adjusted for design effect (see appendix B for details).

NOTE: Total includes students with missing data on characteristics shown in the detail.

Therefore, the percentage for all students may be higher or lower than any of the percentages

shown in the detail.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis

System.

76
Summary and Conclusion

Twenty percent of all undergraduates have family incomes below

125 percent of the poverty threshold established by the federal

government for their family size. The average budget for a full-time,

full-year low income undergraduate in 1992–93 was $10,900. However,

according to the methodologies for calculating financial need, the

expected average EFC for low income students was only $1,600, leaving

a large gap between educational costs and what low income families

were expected to pay.

To help provide low income students with the opportunity to

enroll in postsecondary education, the federal and state

governments, the institutions in which students enroll, and other

organizations supply a substantial amount of financial aid to help

low income students pay for their postsecondary education. In

1992–93, 88 percent of all low income undergraduates who attended

full time, full year received some form of aid (grants, loans, or work

study), averaging a total of $5,800 for those receiving aid.

Financial aid covered an average of 42 percent of their total costs.

For aided students, 65 percent of the aid was in the form of grants, on

average, and 26 percent was in the form of loans.

Despite this financial aid, full-time, full-year low income

students, on average, were left with costs that exceeded their EFC.

The average net cost for these students (the amount the student and

his or her family had to pay after subtracting total financial aid

from student-reported costs) was $7,600 (considerably higher than

the average EFC of $1,600).

Exactly how students cover these costs is unknown. However, the

NPSAS data provide some information on parent contributions and

work, two major sources of support. While low income students

attending full time, full year were less likely than those who were

not low income to receive parental contributions (37 percent

compared with 68 percent), those who did receive money from their

parents received an average of $2,900. Full-time, full-year students

worked an average of 22 hours per week while enrolled, whether or not

they were low income. Those with low incomes who worked earned an

average of $4,200 during the 1992–93 academic year (including the

summer).

According to these data, parental support and work do not appear

to have been sufficient to cover low income students’ net costs, on

average, yet they still somehow managed to attend. How? One

77
possibility is that students overestimated their costs. It is very

difficult for most people to remember exactly what they have spent on

living expenses during any given year, especially if they are not

living on campus and receiving room and board bills. Another

possibility is that students actually earned more than they

reported. Many students pick up extra cash through short-term jobs

(sometimes lasting only a day), and this income may not have been

included. They may also have underestimated the amount of money they

received from their parents or they may have received substantial inkind contributions from their parents or others.

78
Appendix A

Glossary

This glossary is arranged in alphabetical order. The variables were taken directly from

the NCES NPSAS:93 Undergraduate Data Analysis System (DAS), as well as the NPSAS:90

DAS and the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study Second Followup

(BPS:94) DAS. These are NCES software applications that generate tables from the

NPSAS:93, NPSAS:90, and BPS:94 data, respectively. A description of the DAS software can

be found in appendix B. The labels in parentheses correspond to the names of the variables in

the DAS.

Age as of 12/31/92 (AGE)

Less than 24 Student was 23 years old or younger as of 12/31/92.

24 to 29 years Student was between 24 and 29 years old as of 12/31/92.

30 years old or older Student was 30 years old or older as of 12/31/92.

Attendance pattern (ATTNSTAT)

Attendance pattern describes the student’s full- or part-time attendance while enrolled, as

defined by the institution, and the number of months a student was enrolled during the year.

Students were considered to have been enrolled for a full year if they were enrolled at least 9

months between July 1992 and June 1993.

Full-time, full-year Student was enrolled full time, for the full year, at one or more

institutions.

Full-time, part-year Student was enrolled full time, for part of the year, at one or more 

institutions.

Part-time, full-year Student was enrolled part time, for the full year, at one or more

institutions.

Part-time, part-year Student was enrolled part time, for part of the year, at one or more 

institutions.

Attendance status: intensity (ATTEND2)

Student’s attendance status, as defined by the institution, during the fall or during the first

month enrolled after October 1992.

79
Full-time Student was enrolled full time in the first term enrolled.

Half-time or more Student was enrolled less than full time, but at least half time in the

first term enrolled.

Less than half-time Student was enrolled less than half time or an unknown amount in the

first term enrolled.

Considerations in Selecting the Institution (COURSOFF; SCHNWRK; LIVEHOME;

GD_REP; SCHCLOSE; TUITLESS; PLACEMNT; SHORTER; FINAID)

Students were asked to indicate whether certain reasons were “very important,” “somewhat

important,” or “not important” to them in deciding upon the school they attended in fall 1989.

Table 4 reports the percentages of students who reported the following reasons were “very

important”:

The school offered the course of study the student wanted.

The student could work while attending the school.

The student could live at home.

The school had a good reputation.

The school was close to home.

The tuition and other direct school expenses were less at the school than at other schools.

The school had a good reputation for placing its graduates.

The student could finish the course in a short period of time.

The student obtained the financial aid needed at the school.

Contribution from parents (SPARSPRT)

Student-reported amount of direct monetary contribution from both parents for academic year

1992–93 school expenses, not including loans or income-in-kind.

Degree program (PROGRAM)

Degree program in which the student was enrolled; reported by the institution.

Associate’s Student was pursuing an associate’s degree.

Bachelor’s Student was pursuing a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science

degree.

Certificate/formal award Student was pursuing a certificate or other formal program other

than an associate’s or bachelor’s degree.

Other undergraduate Student was not in any of the above programs.

80
Delayed enrollment in postsecondary education (DELAYENR)

Student delayed enrollment into postsecondary education. Immediate enrollment is defined as 

entry into PSE the same calendar year as graduating from high school or receiving a GED.

The assumption is that high school graduation takes place in May or June and entry into PSE

takes place the subsequent summer or fall of the same year.

Did not delay Student entered PSE the same calendar year as high school graduation

or GED receipt.

1 year Student entered PSE in the year after the year of high school graduation

or GED receipt. Note that in the rare event a high school student

graduated in December and entered PSE the following January, the

student would be considered a delayed entrant.

2–4 years Student entered PSE 2 to 4 years after the year of high school

graduation or GED receipt.

5 years or more Student entered PSE 5 years or more after the year of high school 

graduation or GED receipt.

Dependency status for financial aid (DEPEND2)

Dependent Student was considered financially dependent for financial aid purposes.

Single independent Student was considered financially independent for financial aid

purposes and had no dependents.

Independent with Student was considered financially independent for financial aid

dependents purposes and had dependents. Spouses were considered dependents.

Enrollment status in 1994:

Persistence toward a bachelor’s degree (PERABA)

Persistence and attainment toward a bachelor’s degree. Includes all undergraduates who were

first-time beginners in the 1989-90 academic year and who reported at any time during their

postsecondary careers that they were seeking a bachelor’s degree (not institution-based). This

variable tracks their persistence and attainment toward a bachelor’s degree from the first time

undergraduates indicated that they were seeking a degree. 

Completer, no interruption Student earned the bachelor’s degree without any

interruptions longer than 4 months.

Completer, with interruption Student earned the bachelor’s degree with at least

one interruption of more than 4 months.

81
Still enrolled, no interruption Student was still seeking the bachelor’s degree in

1994, and had not interrupted study for more than

4 months.

Still enrolled, with interruption Student was still seeking the bachelor’s degree in

1994, and had interrupted study for more than 4

months at least once.

No longer enrolled Student was seeking the bachelor’s degree, had

stopped enrollment and had not re-enrolled.

Changed degree objective Student had been seeking the bachelor’s degree

but had since stated a different goal.

Enrollment status in 1994:

Persistence toward any degree (PERADEG)

Persistence and attainment toward any degree or certificate. Includes all undergraduates who

were first-time beginners in the 1989–90 academic year who were seeking a degree or

certificate. This variable shows where students ended up by the second followup with respect

to specific degree attained and current enrollment.

Completed any degree Student earned a certificate, associate’s degree, or

bachelor’s degree.

Still enrolled Student was enrolled in a degree or certificate program

in 1994.

No longer enrolled Student had stopped enrollment and was not enrolled in

1994.

Expected family contribution (EFC4)

Expected family contribution (EFC) as recorded by the institution. EFC is the amount of

financial support for the student’s undergraduate education that is expected to be provided by

the student’s family, or directly by the student if the student was financially independent. This

amount is used to determine financial need, and is based upon dependency status, family

income and assets, family size, and the number of children enrolled in postsecondary

education. If this information was not available from the institution, then it was gathered from

the financial aid system, from the student interview, or was imputed from student income.

The average EFC is the average for all undergraduates.

Federal aid amount (TFEDAID)

Total amount of federal financial aid, including loans, grants, work study, and all other federal

aid, excluding VA/DOD aid.

82
Federal aid/total aid (FEDPCT)

The proportion of total aid from federal sources, expressed as a percentage. The average ratio

of federal aid to total aid is the average ratio for all students who received any aid.

Federal grants (TFEDGRT)

Total federal grants, including Pell grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

(SEOG), and other federal grants, scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships. These are all

forms of student financial aid that do not require repayment or employment. This information

was taken from financial aid records, as well as directly from the students.

Federal loans (TFEDLN)

Total federal loans to undergraduates, except PLUS loans (which are made to parents). Loans

are a type of student financial aid that advances funds that are evidenced by a promissory

note requiring the recipient to repay the specified amounts under prescribed conditions.

Includes Perkins, Stafford, Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS), and all other federal loan

programs. If this information was not available from financial aid records, student-reported

information was used.

Financial need (Student budget minus expected family contribution) (SNEED3)

Financial need, equal to the sum of tuition actually charged and total non-tuition budget

components, adjusted for attendance status (BUDGETAJ) less expected family contribution

(EFC4). Students whose EFC exceeded need were assigned a value of zero for this variable.

The average need is the average for all students, including those whose EFC was zero.

Grants (TOTGRT)

Total grants received in 1992–93. Grants are a type of student financial aid that does not

require repayment or employment. Grants include scholarships and fellowships. Employer aid

is also considered a grant.

Grants/total aid (GRTPCT)

The proportion of total aid that was grant aid, expressed as a percentage. The average ratio of

grants to total aid is the average ratio for all students who received any aid.

Gender of student (GENDER)

Male

Female

83
Highest level of education ever expect to complete (ANYHILVL)

The highest level of education students reported they hoped to achieve.

Certificate/formal award Student expected to earn a vocational certificate or license; or 

to attend college, but not to earn a bachelor's degree.

Associate’s degree Student expected to earn an associate’s degree but not a

bachelor’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree Student expected to earn a bachelor’s degree but not an

advanced degree.

Advanced Degree Student expected to earn a master’s, doctoral, or firstprofessional degree.

Highest level of parent education (PAREDUC)

The highest level of education completed by the student’s parents (mother or father,

whichever was highest).

High school or less Neither parent had any postsecondary education. Both

parents graduated from high school or received a General

Educational Development certificate (GED), or did not

complete high school.

Some college One or both parents had some postsecondary education,

less than a bachelor’s degree but including an associate’s

degree.

Bachelor’s degree One or both parents earned a bachelor’s degree as their

highest award.

More than a bachelor’s degree One or both parents earned an advanced degree

including a master’s degree, Ph.D., M.D., and so on.

Hours worked per week while enrolled in 1992–93 (EMWKHR3)

The average number of hours worked per week while enrolled (including work study). If a

student reported being employed during the month, the average number of hours worked per 

week was derived based on the starting and ending dates and the hours reported for each job 

during the survey interview. Note that this variable only represents the average hours a

student worked while working and enrolled. Thus, if a student worked an average of 20 hours

per week while enrolled for 6 months and then did not work for the remaining 3 months of

enrollment, the average hours would still be 20 hours per week.

84
Income: percent of poverty level (PCTPOV91)

Total income in 1991 as a percentage of federal poverty level thresholds for that year, as

defined by the Bureau of the Census, based upon income, family size, and dependency status.

(Income in 1991 was reported on financial aid applications for the 1992–93 academic year.) If

the student was independent, the student’s income and family size were used. If the student

was dependent, parents’ income and family size were used. The maximum ratio was set at

1,000 percent, and all values above that were set at 1,000 percent. A value below 100 percent

means the family was below the poverty income level in 1991. Poverty cutoffs for 1991 were

based upon family size as follows:

Family size Poverty threshold

1 $7,086

2 $9,165

3 $10,860

4 $13,924

5 $16,456

6 or more $18,587

Income: percent of poverty level (PCTPVRTY): Tables 4, 17, and 18 only

Total income in 1988 as a percentage of federal poverty level thresholds for that year, as

defined by the Bureau of the Census, based upon income, family size, and dependency status.

(Income in 1988 was reported on financial aid applications for the 1989–90 academic year). If

the student was independent, student’s income and family size were used. If the student was

dependent, parents’ income and family size were used. A value below 100 percent means the

family was below the poverty income level in 1988. Poverty cutoffs for 1988 were based

upon family size as follows:

Family size Poverty threshold

1 $ 6,155

2 $ 7,958

3 $ 9,056

4 $12,092

5 $14,305

6 or more $16,149

Institutional aid/total aid (INSTPCT)

The proportion of total aid that was institutional aid, expressed as a percentage. The average

ratio of institutional aid to total aid is the average ratio for all students who received any aid.

85
Institutional aid amount (INSTAMT)

Total institutional aid amount. Institutional aid includes grants and loans from the institution

attended, work-study positions, and research and teaching assistantships. It also includes

assistantships funded by federal research grants.

Institutional grants (INGRTAMT)

Total amount of grants provided by the institution. Grants are a type of student financial aid

that do not require repayment or employment. This aid includes both need-based and nonneed-based tuition waivers, employee-related tuition waivers, and school-based academic and

athletic scholarships.

Institutional level and control (SECTOR_B)

Institution type by level and control. Institution level indicates the institution’s highest

offering (length of program and type of certificate, degree, or award), and control indicates

the source of revenue and control of operations. 

Public less-than-4-year Public less-than-4-year institution.

Public 4-year Public 4-year institution.

Private, not-for-profit Private independent less-than-4-year institution.

less-than-4-year

Private, not-for-profit Private independent 4-year institution.

4-year

Private, for-profit Private, for-profit institution.

Local residence (LOCRES2)

On campus Student lived in institution-owned living quarters for students on

campus.

Off campus, with parents Student lived with parents or other relatives off campus.

or relatives

Other Student lived off campus, not with parents or other relatives.

Loans/total aid (LOANPCT)

The percentage of total aid that was loans, expressed as a percentage. This variable is based

on the ratio of TOTLOAN to TOTAID. The average ratio of loans to total aid is the average

ratio for all students who received aid.

86
Loans (TOTLOAN)

Total loans received between 1992–93. This includes all loans through federal, state, or

institutional programs except PLUS loans (which are made to parents). Loans are a type of

student financial aid that advances funds evidenced by a promissory note requiring the

recipient to repay the specified amounts under prescribed conditions.

Longitudinal sample weight (BPS94AWT)

Primary cross-sectional and longitudinal weight for BPS data used in the multivariate analysis.

This weight allows for analysis of trends up through the 1993–94 academic year among the

population of students who were first-time beginners in postsecondary education in the

1989–90 academic year. This weight takes advantage of both the BPS first followup

(1991–92) and second followup (1993–94) surveys.

Marital status in 1992–93 (SMARITAL)

Student’s marital status as of NPSAS interview date.

Not married or separated

Married

Net Cost: Total costs minus aid (NETCST1)

Net costs of attendance after all financial aid, adjusted for attendance. Equal to studentreported total costs of attendance (tuition and non-tuition expenses), adjusted for attendance

status (TOTCOSTA), minus the total amount of all aid (TOTAID). The average cost is the

average for all students, including those who did not report costs that exceeded total aid.

Pell grants (PELLAMT)

Total Pell grant amount. Grants are a type of student financial aid that does not require

repayment or employment. Pell grants are awarded to undergraduates who have not yet earned

a bachelor’s degree and are intended as a financial base to which other forms of aid may be

added. Award amounts were based upon need, the cost of the institution attended, and

attendance status. To be eligible, students must attend at least half time. The maximum award

in 1992–93 was $2,400.

Perkins loan amount (PERKAMT)

Amount of federal Perkins loan. The Perkins loan is a campus-based low interest loan for

students who show exceptional financial need. Total awards, including awards from all

previous years, cannot exceed $9,000 for undergraduate students.

87
Race–ethnicity (RACE)

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the original 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.

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

American Indian/ A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

Alaskan Native America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal

affiliation or community recognition.

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).

Single parent (SINGLPAR)

Students who had dependents but were not married. Note that in the rare case a student was

caring for dependents who were not the student’s children (e.g., elderly parents or relatives)

and the student was not married, the student is identified as a single parent. 

Stafford amount (STAFFAMT)

Amount of Stafford loans during 1992–93. This includes all Stafford loans taken out at all

institutions the student attended during the year. Stafford loans are long-term, low-interest

loans administered by the federal government. Students borrow money for education expenses

directly from banks or other lending institutions. The loans are guaranteed by the federal

government. This program was formerly known as the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL)

program.

Stafford loan amount categories (STAFFCAT)

Stafford loan amounts, ordered into three categories:

None Student did not receive a Stafford loan.

Some Student received a Stafford loan of less than $4,000 (the maximum 

amount).

Maximum Student received the maximum Stafford loan amount.

88
State aid amount (STATEAMT)

Total amount of state aid received in 1992–93. State aid includes state-based grants, loans,

workstudy, and other state-based awards.

State aid/total aid (STAPCT)

The proportion of total aid that was state aid, expressed as a percentage. The average ratio of

state aid to total aid is the ratio for all students who received any aid.

State grants (STGTAMT)

Total state-based grants, scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships, including the federal

portion of State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG). These are all forms of student financial aid

that do not require repayment or employment. If this information was not available from

financial aid records, student-reported information was used.

Student budget, attendance-adjusted (BUDGETAJ)

Total student budget, equal to the sum of tuition actually charged and total non-tuition budget

components, adjusted for attendance status. The average budget is the average for all students

who had tuition and/or non-tuition expenses.

Student earnings, academic year (WKINC)

Total student income from all jobs between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993, including

workstudy and assistantships, regardless of dependency status. These data were based upon

student-reported information.

Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOGAMT)

The Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG) is a campus-administered federal

grant available to undergraduates who show exceptional financial need. Grants are a type of

student financial aid that does not require repayment or employment. The SEOG is intended

to supplement the Pell grant, and priority is given to undergraduates who have received a Pell

grant. The maximum award is $4,000 per year. Eligibility for a SEOG grant does not

guarantee receipt of an award, as funds available to each institution are limited. Eligibility is

not based upon intensity of enrollment, so undergraduates who are enrolled less than half time

may be eligible for a SEOG grant.

Supplemental Loan for Students amount (SLSAMT)

Amount of federal SLS (Supplemental Loan for Students). SLS loans are variable-interest rate

(maximum 12 percent) loans that are awarded to independent undergraduates who are

attending school at least half time. For students in full-year programs, the maximum loan

amount is $4,000, provided the total of all loans does not exceed $20,000. SLS loans are

offered by commercial lenders and interest accrues while the student is enrolled.

89
Total aid (TOTAID)

Total amount of all financial aid received from all sources, including federal, state, institution,

and other sources. The percentage of students who received any financial aid is the percentage

with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average

for all students who received any financial aid.

Total aid/student-reported cost (AIDCST2)

Ratio of total aid to student-reported total cost, adjusted for attendance. The average ratio is

the average for all students who reported having costs of attendance.

Total amount of parent loans to student (SPARLOAN)

Student-reported sum of loans from both parents for 1992–93 academic year.

Total costs (TOTCOSTA)

Student-reported total costs, including tuition and fees and all other costs. The average amount

is the average for all students, including those who did not report having any of these costs.

Unmet need: Student budget minus expected family contribution and aid (SNEED4)

Unmet need, equal to the sum of tuition actually charged and total non-tuition budget

components, adjusted for attendance status (BUDGETAJ) less expected family contribution

(EFC4) and total aid received that is subject to EFC limitations. Students whose expected

family contribution and EFC-based aid exceeded need were assigned a value of zero for this

variable. 

Work study (TOTWKST)

Total work-study aid received. Work-study programs provide partial reimbursement of wages

paid to students. They may be sponsored by the federal or state governments or by the

institution.

90
Appendix B

Technical Notes and Methodology

The 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

The need for a nationally representative database on postsecondary student financial

aid prompted the U.S. Department of Education to conduct the National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS), a survey conducted every three years beginning in 1987. The

NPSAS sample was designed to include students enrolled in all types of postsecondary

education. Thus, it included students enrolled in public institutions; private, not-for-profit

institutions; and private, for-profit institutions. The sample included students at 4-year and 2-

year institutions, as well as students enrolled in occupationally specific programs that lasted

for less than 2 years. United States service academies were not included in the institution

sample because of their unique funding and tuition base, and certain other type of institutions

were also excluded.23

NPSAS:93 included a stratified sample of approximately 66,000 eligible students

(about 52,000 of whom were undergraduates) from about 1,100 institutions. Students were

included in the sample if they attended a NPSAS-eligible institution; were enrolled between

July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993; and were enrolled in one or more courses or programs

including courses for credit, a degree or formal award program of at least 3 months’ duration,

or an occupationally or vocationally specific program of at least 3 months’ duration.

Regardless of their postsecondary status, however, students who were also enrolled in high

school were excluded.

The 1992–93 NPSAS survey sample, while representative and statistically accurate,

was not a simple random sample. Instead, the survey sample was selected using a more

complex three-step procedure with stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection

at each level. First, postsecondary institutions were initially selected within geographical

strata. Once institutions were organized by zip code and state, they were further stratified by

control (i.e., public; private, not-for-profit; or private, for-profit) and offering (less-than-2-year,

2- to 3-year, 4-year nondoctorate-granting, and 4-year doctorate-granting). Sampling rates for

students enrolled at different institutions and levels (undergraduate or other) varied, resulting

in better data for policy purposes, but at a cost to statistical efficiency.

For each student in the NPSAS sample, there were up to three sources of data. First,

institution registration and financial aid records were extracted. Second, a Computer Assisted

Telephone Interview (CATI) was conducted with each student. Finally, a CATI designed for

 

23Other excluded institutions were those offering only avocational, recreational, or

remedial courses; those offering only in-house business courses; those offering only

programs of less than 3 month’s duration; and those offering only correspondence

courses.

91
the parents or guardians of a subsample of students was conducted. Data from these three

sources were synthesized into a single system with an overall response rate of about 85 

percent.

For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult Methodology Report for the 1993

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (Longitudinal Studies Branch, Postsecondary

Education Statistics Division, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics, NCES 95-211.

Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study

The Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study (BPS) follows NPSAS:90

students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1989–90. The first

followup was conducted in spring 1992 and the second in spring 1994. BPS collected

information from students on their persistence, progress, and attainment and on their labor

force experience using a CATI. Approximately 8,000 students were included in the BPS

sample.

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 non-sampling errors. Sampling errors occur

because observations are made only on samples of students, not on entire populations. Nonsampling errors occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire

populations.

Non-sampling 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.

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:93

Undergraduate Data Analysis System (DAS) and the BPS:90/94 DAS. The DAS software

makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS data.

With the DAS, users can recreate or expand upon the tables presented in this report. In

addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors24 and weighted

 

24The NPSAS 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

92
sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B.1 presents the

standard errors that correspond to table 8 in the text. If the number

of valid cases is too small to produce an estimate, the DAS prints the

message “low-N” instead of the estimate.

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation

matrix of selected variables to be used for linear regression models.

Also output with the correlation matrix are the design effects (DEFT)

for all the variables identified 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 stratified sampling

method. (See discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the

adjustment procedure.)

For more information about the NCES NPSAS:90, NPSAS:93, and

BPS:90/94 Data Analysis Systems, contact:

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Longitudinal Studies Branch

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address: Aurora_D’Amico@ED.GOV

Statistical Procedures

Two types of statistical procedures were employed in this report: testing differences

between means, and adjustment of means after controlling for covariation among a group of

variables. Each procedure is described below.

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, or

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t

values for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these

with published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing.

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the

following formula:

(1)

 

Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor

series method.

93
where E1

 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding

standard errors. Note that this formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the

estimates were not independent (for example, when comparing the percentages across a

94
Table B1—Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of low income undergraduates

attending full time, full

year who received various types of financial aid and the average amounts

received by aided

students, by dependency status and type of institution: 1992–93

Total aid Grants Loans Work study 

Average Average Average Average

Percentamount Percentamount Percentamount Percentamount

Total

Total 0.74 139.90 0.81 78.53 1.63 57.65 0.86 48.05

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 2.06 120.09 2.45 67.50 2.93 134.09 1.37 132.47

Public 4-year 1.03 115.08 1.20 60.56 1.89 54.94 0.98 52.77

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 1.81 452.10 0.95 221.23 6.74 316.37 0.83 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 1.15 578.68 1.58 381.25 4.61 127.35 2.78

62.12

Private, for-profit 1.99 425.60 2.11 152.49 6.30 178.95 2.36 — 

Dependent

Total 1.15 218.32 1.37 133.95 2.44 68.80 1.50 50.39

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 4.89 172.65 4.75 114.94 4.80 — 4.19 — 

Public 4-year 1.54 195.80 1.78 92.63 3.23 77.41 1.62 77.16

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 0.67 438.88 0.67 118.38 5.43 — 0.41 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 1.73 791.46 2.49 555.37 5.95 135.82 4.31

68.48

Private, for-profit 1.48 420.33 2.39 113.66 5.20 189.84 0.42 — 

Single independent

Total 0.85 142.62 1.03 84.09 1.58 92.44 1.01 63.05

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 2.73 171.71 3.58 104.67 3.61 — 2.29 — 

Public 4-year 1.20 97.04 1.46 63.42 1.98 81.78 1.18 106.33

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year — — — — — — — — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 1.25 290.49 1.45 256.72 2.51 182.83 2.45

75.32

Private, for-profit 2.34 469.14 2.79 130.05 5.79 381.80 1.16 — 

Independents with dependents

Total 1.21 177.16 1.23 75.08 2.33 77.79 1.49 125.59

Institution type

Public less-than-4-year 2.82 194.02 3.25 70.76 3.82 217.65 1.98 — 

Public 4-year 1.72 122.84 1.87 89.96 2.50 93.64 1.67 107.01

Private, not-for-profit

less-than-4-year 4.48 513.64 4.49 385.65 6.89 — 1.70 — 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 1.41 350.73 1.48 287.00 3.06 234.98 2.35

160.64

Private, for-profit 2.49 539.62 2.70 207.00 7.56 173.52 3.87 — 

95
—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

96
percentage distribution), a covariance term was added to the

denominator of the t-test

formula.

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 statistic 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.

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 pairwise 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 for k comparisons within a

family of possible comparisons, the significance level for all the

comparisons will sum to 

p ≤ .05.25

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of males and females

who enrolled in postsecondary education only one comparison is

possible (males versus females). In this family, k=1, and the

comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the significance

level. When students are divided 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 p ≤ .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows:

(2)

 

25The 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: 52–64.

97
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, Asian/Pacific Islander, black nonHispanic, Hispanic, and white non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 2,

Adjustment of Means

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 completed a degree, it is impossible to know to what

extent the observed variation is due to low income status 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 table were produced showing income within,

type of institution within parent's education within, for example, 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 variation, one must use other methods to take such variation 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. Adjusted means for subgroups were

obtained by regressing the dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as gender,

race–ethnicity, parents’ education, etc. Substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup

characteristic(s) of interest and the mean proportions for the other variables results in an

estimate of the adjusted proportion 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 completing a degree). The variables age and

gender are recoded into a dummy variable representing age and a dummy variable

representing gender:

Age A

24 years or older 1

Under 24 years old 0

and

Gender G

Female 1

Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output from

the DAS:

∧

Y = a+ β1A + β2G (3)

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean

of all other variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for

98
that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and the mean for the dummy

variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose

we had a case where Y=was being described by age (A) and gender (G),

coded as shown above, and the means for A and G are:

99
Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

Suppose the regression equation results in:

∧

Y = 0.15 + (0.17)A + (0.01)G (4)

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes

the appropriate parameter values into equation 3.

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.15 —

A 0.17 1.000

G 0.01 0.521

This results in:

∧

Y = 0.15 + (0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325 (5)

In this case the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 and

represents the expected outcome for older students who look like the

average student across the other variables (in this example,

gender).

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate

model using NPSAS:93 or BPS:90/94 data, since one of the output

options of the DAS is a correlation matrix, computed using pair-wise

missing values.26 This matrix can be used by most commercial

regression packages as the input data to produce least-squares

regression estimates of the parameters. That was the general

approach used for this report, with two additional adjustments

described below to incorporate the complex sample design into the

statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates.

Most commercial regression packages assume simple random

sampling when computing standard errors of parameter estimates.

Because of the complex sampling design used for NPSAS:93, this

assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard

errors is to multiply each standard error by the average design

 

26Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also

limits the range of models. Analysts who wish to use different error assumptions

than pairwise or to estimate probit/logit models can apply for a restricted data

license from NCES.

100
effect of the dependent variable (DEFT),27 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

produced with the correlation matrix.

 

27The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D.

Holt, and T.M.F. Smith, eds. Analysis of Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1989).

101