NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report November 1999

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Students at Private, For-Profit

Institutions

Ronald A. Phipps

Katheryn V. Harrison

Jamie P. Merisotis

The Institute for Higher Education Policy

Larry Bobbitt, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2000-175
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary Phillips

Acting Commissioner

Division of Postsecondary Studies

C. Dennis Carroll

Associate Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

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

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

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

practitioners, data users, and the general public.

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

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

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

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

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

November 1999

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is

http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Students at Private, For-Profit

Institutions, NCES 1999–178, by Ronald A. Phipps, Katheryn V. Harrison, and Jamie P. Merisotis. Project

Officer: Larry Bobbitt. Washington, D.C.: 1999.

Contact:

Aurora D’Amico

(202) 219–1365
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1992 reauthorization of the Higher

Education Act (HEA) of 1965 contained

provisions that mandated institutions participating in Title IV student assistance programs to meet significantly more rigorous

eligibility conditions than were previously

required. These provisions were added in an

attempt to reduce fraud and abuse in the student aid programs. Since then, additional

legislative and regulatory oversight mechanisms have been implemented. For-profit

institutions—often called proprietary or private career schools—were an intended focus

of these changes.

For-profit institutions have been influenced by these changes more than any other

segment of the postsecondary education

community. This sector’s share of federal

Stafford subsidized loan dollars awarded has

declined from a peak of 28 percent in 1988-

89 to 8 percent in 1995-96.1 Between Fiscal

Years 1992 and 1994 the number of forprofit institutions participating in the Federal

Family Education Loan (FFEL) program decreased by 14 percent. Furthermore the share

of federal Pell Grants awarded to students

attending for-profit institutions fell from 19

 

1The College Board, Trends in Student Aid (Washington,

DC: The College Board, 1998).

percent in 1992-93 to 13 percent in 1995-

96.2 In light of these changes, it is important

to explore how students at private, for-profit

institutions may have been affected.

Except as noted, all findings reported

below apply to students at less-than-4-year

institutions. Other less-than-4-year institutions are defined as public and private, notfor-profit institutions. Comparisons are

made between the years 1992-93 and 1995-

96.

Profile of Students

Students attending less-than-4-year,

for-profit institutions in 1995-96 primarily

were white (58 percent), age 23 or younger

(46 percent), and female (67 percent). They

were also independent (71 percent), delayed

their enrollment for a year or more after high

school (69 percent), attended full-time for at

least part of the academic year (80 percent),

and worked while enrolled (61 percent).

(See figure A.)

Compared to students at other lessthan-4-year institutions in 1995-96, these

students were more likely to be female,

 

2Ibid.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv

black, single parents, independent, and in the

lowest income quartile (for both dependent

and independent students).

With respect to enrollment characteristics, students at less-than-4-year, for-profit

institutions in 1995-96 were more likely to

have delayed their enrollment for a year or

more after high school, have attended fulltime for at least part of the academic year,

and have not worked while enrolled compared to students at other less-than-4-year

institutions.

Between 1992-93 and 1995-96, there

was little change in the demographic and

enrollment characteristics of students at lessthan-4-year, for-profit institutions. The

same is true for their counterparts at other

less-than-4-year institutions.

Paying for College

In 1995-96, students at less-than-4-

year, for-profit institutions were more likely

than students at other less-than-4-year institutions to have received any financial aid (78

percent compared to 36 percent), a loan from

any source (56 percent compared to 9 percent), and a grant from any source (56 percent compared to 29 percent).

Figure A—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according to selected 

Figure A—characteristics, by control of institution: 1995-96

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

 39%

 17% 16%

 28% 31% 

 69% 

17% 18% 17%

 48% 49% 51% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Not employed 1-20 hours 21-34 hours 35 hours or more Did not delay

enrollment

 Delayed enrollment

Percent

Private, for-profit less-than-4-year Other less-than-4-year

Hours worked while enrolled Delayed enrollment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

v

The federal government was the most

extensive provider of financial aid to students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1995-96 (figure B). Seventy-one

percent received federal aid, 11 percent state

aid, 10 percent institutional aid, and 2 percent employer aid. Sixty-six percent of aid

recipients were awarded only federal aid.

Between 1992-93 and 1995-96,

changes occurred in how students at lessthan-4-year, for-profit institutions financed

their educations. While the federal government remained the most extensive provider

of student financial aid, the percentage of

students receiving non-federal aid rose from

12 percent to 27 percent.

Profile of Borrowers

Borrowers at less-than-4-year, forprofit institutions were more likely than nonborrowers to be age 23 or younger (50 percent compared to 41 percent). They were

Figure B—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who 

Figure B—received financial aid from various sources: 1992-93 and 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

 71%

27%

11%

10%

5%

9%

1%

4%

5%

12%

 71%

3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

State grants

Institutional loans

Institutional aid

State aid

Non-federal aid

Federal aid (except

VA/DOD)

Percent

1992-93

1995-96
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

less likely to be in the highest income quartile. Nine percent of both dependent and

independent students were in the highest income quartile, compared to 28 percent and

16 percent, respectively, of non-borrowers.

Research on loan default identifies at

least four risk factors associated with higher

default levels.3 These factors include students who: (1) are black; (2) are independent; (3) are from low-income families; and

 

3Mark Dynarski, “Who Defaults on Student Loans? Findings from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.”

Economics of Education Review 13 (1994): 55-68, and

Mathtech, Inc., “Methodology for Adjusting Cohort Default Rates” (Princeton, NJ: 1995).

(4) do not have traditional high school diplomas. Of borrowers at less-than-4-year,

for-profit institutions in 1995-96, 17 percent

had none of these risk factors, 33 percent

had one, 30 percent had two, 17 percent had

three, and 3 percent had all four risk factors

(figure C).

These students were more likely to

have had a greater number of loan default

risk factors than borrowers at other lessthan-4-year institutions. Fifty percent of

borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions had two or more default risk factors, compared to 35 percent of borrowers at

Figure C—Percentage distribution of undergraduate borrowers enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according to

Figure C—number of loan default risk factors, by control of institution: 1995-96

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-93 and 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

Private, for-profit

Four

3%

Three 

17%

Two

30%

One

33%

None

17%

Other

One

35%

Two

23%

Three 

11% None

30%

Four

1%
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vii

other less-than-4-year institutions. The percentage of students with no risk factors was

17 percent and 30 percent, respectively.

There were no significant differences

between 1992-93 and 1995-96 in the number

of loan default risk factors for either students

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

their counterparts at other institutions.

4-Year, For-Profit Institutions

Over the past several years, the prominence of 4-year, for-profit postsecondary

institutions that offer programs leading to a

baccalaureate degree and beyond has increased.

In 1995-96, undergraduate students at

4-year, for-profit institutions were different

than those students at less-than-4-year, forprofit institutions. They were less likely to

be female (43 percent compared to 67 percent), have not worked while enrolled (15

percent compared to 39 percent), and have

delayed their enrollment for a year or more

after high school (53 percent compared to 69

percent).

Differences also were evident with regard to financing behavior. The average

amounts of federal loans and grants received

by students at 4-year, for-profit institutions

were higher than those for students at lessthan-4-year, for-profit institutions. They

also were more likely to receive employer

aid. However, their average state grant was

likely to be lower.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ix

FOREWORD

This report examines the financing patterns of students at private, for-profit institutions,

and profiles changes in the demographic and enrollment characteristics of these students, including receipt of financial aid, between 1992-93 and 1995-96. There are three levels of private,

for-profit institutions: less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year institutions. This analysis focuses on

students attending less-than-4-year private, for-profit institutions—a combination of 2-year and

less-than-2-year, for-profit institutions. Due to high standard errors and low sample sizes, it is

difficult to analyze any changes between 1992-93 and 1995-96 in the 4-year sector. However,

because of the growing prominence of the 4-year private, for-profit sector, an essay on students

attending these institutions also is provided.

The estimates in this report were produced using the 1992-93 and 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96), which provide information regarding

the distribution of undergraduates by type (level and control) of institution attended, student

characteristics, enrollment patterns, and receipt of financial aid. Students at other (public and

private, not-for-profit) less-than-4-year institutions were used as a comparison group. 
x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to this report. At The Institute for

Higher Education Policy, Colleen O’Brien reviewed the analysis at various stages and provided

excellent editing assistance. Thanks also to Mark Harvey for preparing tables and graphics and

assembling the final report, and Alisa Federico Cunningham for analytical support and feedback.

We would like to thank several of our partners at MPR Associates, including Laura Horn for outstanding project management, Lutz Berkner for analytical advice and direction, Vicky Dingler for

variable construction, and Helen Jang for overall project support. In addition, we would like to

thank the reviewers of this report for their insightful comments. National Center for Education

Statistics reviewers included Steve Broughman, Shelly Burns, and Bruce Taylor. Thanks also to

Dan Goldenberg of the Department of Education.
xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

List of Figures........................................................................................................................ xv

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

Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

Data and Definitions............................................................................................................ 3

Profile of Students Attending Less-than-4-Year, For-Profit Institutions.......................... 5

Characteristics of Students Attending Less-than-4-Year, For-Profit Institutions in

1995-96................................................................................................................................ 6

Comparison to Students at Other Less-than-4-Year Institutions in 1995-96 ...................... 8

Changes in Student Characteristics Between 1992-93 and 1995-96................................. 10

Paying For College ................................................................................................................ 15

Financing Behavior of Students at Less-than-4-Year, For-Profit Institutions

in 1995-96 ......................................................................................................................... 15

Comparison to Financing Behavior of Students at Other Less-than-4-Year Institutions

in 1995-96 ......................................................................................................................... 23

Changes in Financing Behavior Between 1992-93 and 1995-96 ...................................... 24

Profile of Borrowers.............................................................................................................. 31

Characteristics of Borrowers at Less-than-4-Year, For-Profit Institutions in

1995-96.............................................................................................................................. 31

Comparison to Borrowers at Other Less-than-4-Year Institutions in 1995-96 ................. 35

Changes in Borrower Characteristics Between 1992-93 and 1995-96.............................. 38

Likelihood of Borrowing................................................................................................... 41

Risk Factors Associated with Loan Default ...................................................................... 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xii

Page

4-Year, For-Profit Institutions............................................................................................. 51

Summary ................................................................................................................................ 57

Appendix A—Glossary ......................................................................................................... 59

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .............................................................. 87
xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96.........8

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1992-93........ 11

3 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received

financial aid from various sources, by level and control of institution: 1995-96........... 17

4 Average amount of financial aid received from various sources for undergraduates

enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions, by level and control of institution: 1995-96 .. 18

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

who received financial aid according to aid package, by level and control of

institution: 1995-96 ........................................................................................................ 21

6 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received

financial aid from various sources, by level and control of institution: 1992-93........... 25

7 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

who received financial aid according to aid package, by level and control of

institution: 1992-93 ........................................................................................................ 26

8 Average amount of financial aid received from various sources for undergraduates

enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions, by level and control of institution: 1992-93 .. 28

9 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year, for-profit

institutions according to selected characteristics, by borrower status and level of

institution: 1995-96 ........................................................................................................ 33

10 Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in less-than4-year institutions according to selected characteristics, by level and control of

institution: 1995-96 ........................................................................................................ 36
LIST OF TABLES

xiv

Table Page

11 Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in lessthan-4-year institutions according to selected characteristics, by level and control of

institution: 1992-93 .......................................................................................................39

12 Percentage distribution of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who

borrowed a Title IV loan (except PLUS), and the adjusted percentage after taking

into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table: 1992-93.....................43

13 Percentage distribution of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who

borrowed a Title IV loan (except PLUS), and the adjusted percentage after taking

into account the covariation of the variables listed in the table: 1995-96.....................46

14 Percentage distribution of undergraduate borrowers enrolled in less-than-4-year

institutions according to number of loan default risk factors, by level and control of

institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96 ..................................................................................49

15 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in for-profit institutions

according to selected characteristics, by level of institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96.....54

16 Financing behavior of students at for-profit institutions, by level of institution:

1992-93 and 1995-96 ....................................................................................................56

B1 Standard errors for table 1.............................................................................................94

B2 Standard errors for table 2.............................................................................................96
xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

A Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

according to selected characteristics, by control of institution: 1995-96 ..................... iv

B Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions

who received financial aid from various sources: 1992-93 and 1995-96...................... v

C Percentage distribution of undergraduate borrowers enrolled in less-than-4-year

institutions according to number of loan default risk factors, by control of

institution: 1995-96 ...................................................................................................... vi

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by level and control of institution: 1995-

96................................................................................................................................... 5

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96....... 7

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

who received financial aid from various sources, by level and control of institution:

1995-96........................................................................................................................ 16

4 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

who received financial aid according to aid package, by type of aid and control of

institution: 1995-96 ..................................................................................................... 19

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

who received financial aid according to aid package, by source of aid and control

of institution: 1995-96................................................................................................. 20

6 Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in lessthan-4-year institutions according to selected characteristics, by level and control

of institution: 1995-96................................................................................................. 32

7 Percentage distribution of undergraduate borrowers enrolled in less-than-4-year

institutions according to number of loan default risk factors, by control of

institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96 ................................................................................ 50
LIST OF TABLES

xvi

Figure Page

8 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in for-profit institutions

according to selected characteristics, by level of institution: 1995-96........................ 52
1

INTRODUCTION

The 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965—the legislation that

contains provisions for federal financial aid—featured amendments that required institutions

participating in Title IV student assistance programs to meet significantly more stringent eligibility conditions than previously were required. These provisions were added in an attempt to reduce fraud and abuse in the student aid programs. Since then, additional legislative and

regulatory oversight mechanisms have been implemented. For-profit institutions—often called

proprietary or private career schools—were an intended focus of these changes: prior to the federal changes, default rates at these institutions had been among the highest, a troubling fact given

the large numbers of low-income students enrolled in these schools.1

In light of these changes to the Higher Education Act, it is important to explore how students at private, for-profit institutions have been affected. Although the percentage of undergraduate students attending private, for-profit institutions is relatively small, their participation in

the federal financial aid programs is important to federal financial aid policy. What are the

demographic and enrollment characteristics of students at for-profit institutions? Has the enrolled student population at these institutions changed? Are these students’ attendance patterns

different than those of other students? Have the ways in which they pay for their education been

altered? What has happened to student borrowing at for-profit institutions relative to students in

other sectors?

BACKGROUND

For-profit institutions differ from traditional higher education institutions in several important ways. Many private, for-profit institutions offer programs that are less than a year in

length. Many have programs that are fundamentally vocational in nature, and they generally do

not grant degrees. As described by Lee and Merisotis,2 one of the most important characteristics

of for-profit institutions is the goal of realizing a profit for private owners. Decision-making at

proprietary schools is in the hands of the owners, and teaching positions are less permanent be-

 

1John B. Lee and Jamie Merisotis, Proprietary Schools: Programs, Policies, and Prospects, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education

Report No. 5 (Washington, DC: The George Washington University, 1990).

2Ibid.
INTRODUCTION

2

cause instructors do not have tenure. Moreover, these institutions are less likely to have a board

of trustees. For-profit institutions tend to be more sensitive to market forces and often shift programs quickly to meet the needs of employers and the interests of students. They offer literally

hundreds of programs, the majority of which are in office technology and personal service. The

technical fields include auto mechanics and computer-related programs, but programs range from

broadcast technology to architectural engineering.3

One of the major changes implemented in the 1992 reauthorization addressed default rates

under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. The threshold percentage for institutional eligibility (based on default rates for three consecutive years) was reduced from 30 percent

in Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to 25 percent thereafter. However, there were several other amendments related to program participation and program review that had a direct effect upon the ability of private, for-profit institutions to operate. Some of the changes are as follows.

• Private, for-profit schools deriving more than 85 percent of their revenues from Title IV

funds were no longer eligible to participate in the federal aid programs.

• Institutions that offered courses of study of less than 600 hours in length were ineligible

for Title IV programs, unless the institution had a graduation rate and job placement rate

of 70 percent or higher.

• The Secretary of Education was given the responsibility to determine whether an institution met financial responsibility standards and criteria with respect to operating losses, net

worth, asset-to-liability ratios, and operating fund deficits based on an audited or certified

financial statement.

• The Secretary also was given the discretion to assign priority for program reviews to institutions under a variety of criteria including: (1) a default rate in excess of 25 percent, or

that placed the institution in the highest 25 percent of institutions; (2) a default dollar volume in the highest 25 percent of institutions; (3) a significant fluctuation in loan volume

or grant awards; and (4) a high annual drop-out rate.4

Private, for-profit institutions have been influenced by these changes more than any other

segment of the postsecondary education community. The share of Pell Grants awarded to students attending private, for-profit institutions fell from 19 percent in 1992-93 to 13 percent in

1995-96. This sector’s share of Stafford subsidized loan dollars awarded also has declined from

 

3Ibid, pp.15-16, 20.

4In addition to these amendments, a system of state monitoring was established under the State Postsecondary Review Program.

However, a variety of higher education institutions protested the action and the 104th Congress moved first to eliminate funding

for the State Postsecondary Review Entities (SPREs), and then to strike the provision from the Act. Following this Congressional action, the U.S. Department of Education suspended enforcement of the provision. See U.S. General Accounting Office,

Student Loan Defaults: Department of Education Limitations in Sanctioning Problem Schools, GAO/HEHS-95-99 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June, 1995).
 INTRODUCTION

3

a peak of 28 percent in 1988-89 to 10 percent in 1992-93 to 8 percent in 1995-96.5 Between FY

1992 and FY 1994 the number of private, for-profit institutions participating in the FFEL program decreased by 14 percent.6 These trends provide striking evidence that these policy and program changes affected the private, for-profit sector of postsecondary education.

DATA AND DEFINITIONS

This report uses data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to

examine in more detail the effects of legislative changes on the private, for-profit sector beyond

fluctuations in their share of federal aid dollars. The 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96) provides information regarding the distribution of students by type (level

and control) of institution attended, student demographic characteristics, enrollment patterns, and

receipt of financial aid. The 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93)

provides similar information. The use of these two data sets permits the analysis of student financing patterns in the context of changes made to federal financial aid programs in the 1992

reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

In particular, these data can be used to illustrate the types of students that are borrowing

through the federal Title IV programs7 while attending private, for-profit institutions. This is an

important issue given the concerns about high default rates at these institutions relative to students in other sectors. Previous research on loan defaults suggests that there are specific student

characteristics associated with a higher probability of default.8 Comparing students who borrowed in 1992-93 with those who borrowed in 1995-96 can help to determine if there has been a

change in the proportion of students with risk characteristics who borrow while attending private,

for-profit institutions.

This report also references a loan default index, which identifies specific demographic and

enrollment characteristics associated with higher default levels in previous studies. They include

 

5The College Board, Trends in Student Aid (Washington, DC: The College Board, 1998).

6U.S. Department of Education. Federal Student Loan Programs Data Book FY94-FY96 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, 1997).

7Because the analysis in this report is focused on student financing behavior, it includes all Title IV student aid programs except

for the Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program.

8Mark Dynarski, “Who Defaults on Student Loans? Findings from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.” Economics

of Education Review 13 (1994): 55-68, and Mathtech, Inc., “Methodology for Adjusting Cohort Default Rates” (Princeton, NJ:

1995).
INTRODUCTION

4

students who: (1) are black; (2) are independent; (3) are from low-income families; and (4) do

not have traditional high school diplomas.9

There are three levels of private, for-profit institutions: less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year

institutions. The analysis in this report focuses on those students attending less-than-4-year, forprofit institutions—a combination of 2-year, for-profit institutions and less-than-2-year, for-profit

institutions. Due to high standard errors and low sample sizes, it is difficult to analyze any

changes between 1992-93 and 1995-96 in the 4-year, for-profit sector. However, because of the

growing prominence of certain 4-year private, for-profit institutions, an essay on students attending these institutions also is provided.

 

9Ibid.
5

PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-

YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

The demographic and enrollment characteristics of students attending less-than-4-year, forprofit institutions help to provide the context for how they pay for their education. The following

discussion focuses on: (1) the characteristics of students attending less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1995-96; (2) a comparison of these students with students at less-than-4-year public

and private, not-for-profit institutions in 1995-96; and (3) an analysis of the changes in the characteristics of students from 1992-93 to 1995-96.

Figure 1—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by level and control of institution: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Private, for-profit

6%

Public

78%

Two-year, 2%

Less-than-2-year, 3%

Four-year, 1%

Private, not-for-profit

16%
PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

6

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT

INSTITUTIONS IN 1995-96

Six percent of all students in postsecondary education in 1995-96 attended a private, forprofit institution, with 5 percent at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. A profile of these students shows that they were likely to be white, age 23 or younger, independent, and female (figure

2 and table 1). Moreover, these students were likely to have delayed their enrollment by a year or

more after high school, and to have attended full-time for at least part of the academic year.

Sixty-one percent of students attending less-than-4-year private, for-profit institutions worked

while enrolled. Fifty-eight percent of students attending less-than-4-year private, for-profit institutions were white, 46 percent were age 23 or younger, 71 percent were independent, 45 percent had children, and 67 percent were female. Sixty-nine percent delayed their enrollment in

postsecondary education by a year or more after high school and 80 percent attended full-time for

at least part of the academic year.
 PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

7

Figure 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according to selected

Figure 2—characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

 21% 

 33% 

 67% 

 58% 

 17% 

 3% 1% 

 43% 

 57% 

 69% 

 13% 12% 

 4% 1% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 Male Female White, nonHispanic Black, nonHispanic Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

 American

Indian/Alaskan

Native

Percent

Gender Race-ethnicity

 46% 

 22% 

 32% 29%

 71% 

 43% 

 21% 

 36% 38% 

 62% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 23 years or younger 24-29 years of age 30 years or older Dependent Independent

Percent

Age Dependency status

 69% 

 31% 

 7% 

 15%

.4%

 78%

 51% 49% 

 4% 1%

 7%

 89%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 High school

diploma

 A diploma through

the GED or

equivalent

 A certificate of high

school completion

 No high school

equivalent

 Did not delay

enrollment

 Delayed enrollment

Percent

Private, for-profit less-than-4-year Other less-than-4-year

High school degree Delayed enrollment
PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

8

COMPARISON TO STUDENTS AT OTHER LESS-THAN-4-YEAR INSTITUTIONS IN

1995-96

In 1995-96, the characteristics of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were

considerably different than those of students attending other less-than-4-year institutions. Students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were more likely than their counterparts at other

less-than-4-year institutions to be female, black, single parents, independent, and in the lowest

income quartile for both dependent and independent students. In addition, students at less-than4-year, for-profit institutions were more likely to delay their enrollment for a year or more after

high school, attend full-time for at least part of the academic year, and not work while enrolled.

Table 1—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according to selected 

Table 1—characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

Private, for-profit Other

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 27.5 40.3 32.9 43.1 43.2 42.2

 Female 72.5 59.7 67.1 56.9 56.8 57.8

Age

 23 years or younger 43.7 48.9 45.9 43.9 43.5 43.7

 24-29 years of age 20.9 23.2 21.8 20.8 20.8 20.9

 30 years or older 35.4 28.0 32.3 35.3 35.8 35.5

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 54.6 62.9 58.1 69.6 69.4 68.4

 Black, non-Hispanic 22.9 18.8 21.2 12.4 12.6 13.4

 Hispanic 18.3 14.1 16.5 12.5 12.4 12.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 3.1 3.7 3.4 4.4 4.4 4.3

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.1 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1

Marital status 

 Not married 67.9 72.4 69.8 71.6 71.3 71.1

 Married 26.0 22.5 24.5 26.0 26.3 26.1

 Separated 6.2 5.1 5.7 2.5 2.5 2.8

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 74.3 80.9 77.1 85.3 85.2 84.4

 Single parent 25.7 19.1 23.0 14.7 14.8 15.6

Disability status

 Student has a disability 9.5 5.5 7.8 6.0 6.1 6.2

 Student does not have a disability 90.6 94.5 92.2 94.0 93.9 93.8
 PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

9

Table 1—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according to selected 

Table 1—characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96—Continued

Private, for-profit Other

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Dependency status

 Dependent 25.1 34.9 29.2 38.4 37.9 37.1

 Independent 74.9 65.1 70.8 61.6 62.1 62.9

 Independent, no dependents 26.4 25.7 26.1 30.4 30.5 30.1

 Independent, with dependents 48.5 39.4 44.7 31.2 31.6 32.9

Independent student total income, quartile

 Lower quartile 42.6 37.0 40.4 20.8 21.2 23.2

 Middle quartiles 46.2 49.7 47.6 54.1 53.9 53.2

 Upper quartile 11.3 13.2 12.0 25.2 24.9 23.6

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 45.3 39.5 42.4 27.2 27.6 28.7

 Middle quartiles 36.4 44.3 40.4 53.3 53.0 52.1

 Upper quartile 18.3 16.2 17.2 19.5 19.4 19.2

Parents’ highest education 

 Less than high school 16.8 10.1 13.9 11.2 11.3 11.5

 High school graduate 51.0 51.1 51.0 40.1 10.5 41.4

 Some college, including AA 15.9 17.3 16.5 20.5 20.3 20.0

 Bachelor’s degree 11.0 13.7 12.2 17.5 17.4 17.0

 Advanced degree 5.3 7.8 6.4 10.7 10.5 10.1

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 74.1 83.0 77.8 89.2 89.0 87.9

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 15.4 13.6 14.7 6.7 6.9 7.6

 A certificate of high school completion 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6

 No high school equivalent 9.9 3.2 7.1 3.6 3.6 3.9

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 25.6 39.7 31.2 49.5 49.0 47.2

 Delayed enrollment 74.4 60.3 68.9 50.5 51.0 52.8

Attendance status

 Full-time 87.2 70.7 80.3 29.1 31.2 35.7

 Part-time 12.8 29.3 19.7 70.9 68.8 64.3

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 45.9 29.8 39.1 16.4 17.2 19.2

 1-20 hours 15.8 18.1 16.7 17.5 17.6 17.5

 21-34 hours 14.0 18.6 15.9 16.9 17.0 16.9

 35 hours or more 24.4 33.5 28.3 49.2 48.3 46.5

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.
PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

10

Sixty-seven percent of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were female,

compared to 57 percent at other less-than-4-year institutions. Black students comprised a greater

percentage of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions, 21 percent compared to 13 percent at other less-than-4-year institutions. There was no statistically significant difference in

Hispanic students, 17 percent and 12 percent, respectively. Twenty-three percent of students at

less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were single parents, compared to 15 percent at other lessthan-4-year institutions. Seventy-one percent were independent (compared to 62 percent), and 45

percent were independent with children (compared to 32 percent). Fifteen percent of students at

less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions had received a General Educational Development certificate (GED), compared to 7 percent of students at other less-than-4-year institutions. Forty percent of independent and 42 percent of dependent students at less-than-4-year, for-profit

institutions were in the lowest income quartile, compared to 21 percent of independent and 28

percent of dependent students at other less-than-4-year institutions.

 In addition, 69 percent of students attending less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions had

delayed their enrollment by a year or more after high school, compared to 51 percent of students

at other less-than-4-year institutions. Eighty percent attended full-time for at least part of the

academic year (compared to 31 percent), and 39 percent were not employed while enrolled, in

contrast to 17 percent of students at other less-than-4-year institutions.

CHANGES IN STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN 1992-93 AND 1995-96

There was little change in the demographic and enrollment characteristics of students at

less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions between 1992-93 and 1995-96. The percentage of students who delayed their enrollment by a year or more after high school increased from 63 percent10 to 69 percent, and the percentage of students who had obtained a GED increased from 11

percent to 15 percent.

 

10The actual percentage is 63.48 percent, which rounds to 63.5 percent as shown in table 2, and to 63 percent as it appears in the

text.
 PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

11

Sixty-six percent of students who attended less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1992-

93 and 67 percent in 1995-96 were female. The percentages of white students were not significantly different (from 49 percent to 58 percent), nor were the percentages of black students (27

compared to 21 percent) and Hispanic students (18 percent in 1992-93 and 17 percent in 1995-

96). There was no statistical difference in the percentages of independent students (69 compared

to 71 percent), and the percentage of independent students in the lowest income quartile remained comparable, 46 percent compared to 40 percent.

Table 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according to 

Table 2—selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1992-93

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 25.9 52.5 34.3 44.0 43.7 42.6

 Female 74.1 47.5 65.7 56.0 56.3 57.5

Age

 23 years or younger 48.3 56.1 50.8 43.6 43.3 44.2

 24-29 years of age 21.2 19.8 20.7 19.5 19.5 19.7

 30 years or older 30.6 24.1 28.5 36.9 37.2 36.1

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 47.0 53.6 49.1 73.9 73.7 70.9

 Black, non-Hispanic 29.7 21.2 27.1 10.3 10.4 12.3

 Hispanic 17.7 19.3 18.2 9.4 9.4 10.4

 Asian/Pacific Islander 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.4

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.0

Marital status 

 Not married 68.1 73.9 70.0 64.9 64.8 65.4

 Married 25.7 22.4 24.6 33.0 33.0 31.9

 Separated 6.2 3.7 5.4 2.1 2.2 2.6

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 73.2 85.5 77.2 91.4 91.1 89.4

 Single parent 26.8 14.5 22.8 8.6 8.9 10.6

Disability status

 Student has a disability 8.7 6.8 8.1 7.9 8.0 8.0

 Student does not have a disability 91.3 93.2 91.9 92.1 92.0 92.0

Other
PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

12

Table 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according to 

Table 2—selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1992-93—Continued

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Dependency status

 Dependent 27.0 40.2 31.3 37.8 37.5 36.7

 Independent 73.0 59.8 68.7 62.2 62.6 63.3

 Independent, no dependents 28.5 33.0 29.9 34.3 34.3 33.7

 Independent, with dependents 44.5 26.8 38.8 28.0 28.3 29.6

Independent student total income, percentile rank

 Lower quartile 49.1 38.0 46.0 18.9 19.5 23.0

 Middle quartiles 40.5 52.7 43.9 51.5 51.5 50.5

 Upper quartile 10.5 9.3 10.2 29.6 29.0 26.5

Parents’ total income, percentile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 49.0 41.9 46.0 26.5 26.5 28.6

 Middle quartiles 44.6 49.4 46.6 58.4 58.7 57.4

 Upper quartile 6.4 8.7 7.3 15.1 14.8 14.0

Parents’ highest education 

 Less than high school 22.2 13.6 19.3 13.0 13.4 14.0

 High school graduate 42.4 48.0 44.3 38.0 38.2 38.8

 Some college, including AA 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.3 21.1 20.8

 Bachelor’s degree 10.5 12.7 11.2 17.0 16.8 16.3

 Advanced degree 6.9 7.7 7.2 10.7 10.6 10.2

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 71.7 88.9 77.2 91.7 91.3 89.6

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 11.9 7.9 10.6 5.4 5.7 6.3

 A certificate of high school completion 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7

 No high school equivalent 16.0 2.7 11.8 2.2 2.3 3.4

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 34.1 40.8 36.5 48.2 47.6 46.4

 Delayed enrollment 65.9 59.2 63.5 51.8 52.4 53.6

Attendance status

 Full-time 80.4 78.3 79.8 23.9 25.2 31.8

 Part-time 19.6 21.7 20.2 76.1 74.9 68.2

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 55.8 32.2 48.1 21.6 22.1 24.7

 1-20 hours 13.9 18.7 15.5 17.8 17.7 17.5

 21-34 hours 11.7 15.6 13.0 15.3 15.1 14.9

 35 hours or more 18.6 33.5 23.5 45.4 45.1 42.9

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

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

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Other
 PROFILE OF STUDENTS ATTENDING LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

13

There were very few changes in the demographic and enrollment characteristics of students

at other less-than-4-year institutions between 1992-93 and 1995-96. Demographically, the percentage of these students who were married dropped from 33 percent in 1992-93 to 26 percent in

1995-96, and the percentage of single parents grew from 9 percent to 15 percent.

In terms of enrollment characteristics, a greater percentage of students at other less-than-4-

year institutions attended full-time for at least part of the academic year, increasing from 25 percent in 1992-93 to 31 percent in 1995-96. At the same time, a smaller percentage of students did

not work while enrolled, down from 22 percent in 1992-93 to 17 percent in 1995-96.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15

PAYING FOR COLLEGE

This section examines how students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions financed their

education in 1995-96. In addition, their financing patterns are compared to students attending

less-than-4-year public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

FINANCING BEHAVIOR OF STUDENTS AT LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT

INSTITUTIONS IN 1995-96

In 1995-96, 78 percent of the students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received

at least some financial aid (table 3). The federal government was the major source of financial

aid. Seventy-one percent of students received federal aid, while 11 percent received state aid, 10

percent received institutional aid, and 2 percent received aid from employers (figure 3). The average amount of federal aid (excluding veterans’ aid or military benefits)11 was $4,400, average

state aid was $2,700, average institutional aid was $1,500, and the average employer aid amount

was $3,700 (table 4).

 

11Veterans’ aid and military benefits are subsequently referred to in the text and tables as VA (Veterans Affairs)/DOD

(Department of Defense).
PAYING FOR COLLEGE

16

The federal student loan programs were an important resource for students at less-than-4-

year, for-profit institutions. Fifty-four percent of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received a federal Stafford loan, 50 percent received subsidized Stafford loans, 32 percent

received unsubsidized Stafford loans,12 and 3 percent received federal Perkins loans (table 3).

Five percent of students received institutional loans and less than 1 percent received state loans

or loans from other sources. The average federal loan amounts in 1995-96 were as follows:13

Stafford (all)—$3,900; Stafford subsidized—$2,300; Stafford unsubsidized—$2,900; and Perkins—$1,400 (table 4). The sample sizes were too small for reliable estimates of average

amounts of state and other loans; however, the average institutional loan amount was $1,900.

 

12Students can receive both subsidized and unsubsidized federal Stafford loans during the same year.

13This average excludes federal Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), since only parents are eligible for PLUS loans

and the focus of this analysis is how students paid for their education.

Figure 3—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received

Figure 3—financial aid from various sources, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

 2% 

 10% 11% 

 71% 

 7% 9% 6% 

 22% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 Federal aid (except VA/DOD) State aid Institutional aid Employer aid

Source of aid

Percent

Private, for-profit less-than-4-year Other less-than-4-year
 PAYING FOR COLLEGE

17

Table 3—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received financial aid 

Table 3—from various sources, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total aid 77.7 78.6 78.1 35.2 36.0 39.9

 Federal aid (except VA/DOD) 70.1 72.7 71.2 21.0 21.7 26.3

 Non-federal aid 26.1 28.1 26.9 22.9 23.3 23.7

 State aid 7.7 15.5 10.9 6.1 6.5 6.9

 Institutional aid 12.9 6.6 10.2 8.3 8.6 8.8

 Other aid (including VA/DOD) 6.8 8.4 7.5 10.6 10.6 10.3

 Employer aid 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 6.8 6.4

Loans (except PLUS) 54.7 58.7 56.4 8.6 9.2 13.6

 Federal (except PLUS) 52.1 58.4 54.8 8.3 9.0 13.2

 Stafford (all) 50.8 57.9 53.8 8.1 8.7 12.9

 Stafford subsidized 48.9 52.6 50.4 6.9 7.4 11.4

 Stafford unsubsidized 31.1 33.3 32.0 3.4 3.8 6.4

 Perkins 1.5 5.1 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.7

 Non-federal 7.6 1.8 5.2 0.3 0.5 0.9

 State 0.1 0.1 0.1 †† †

 Institutional 6.8 1.6 4.6 0.3 0.4 0.8

 Other 0.6 0.2 0.5 0 † 0.1

Grants 56.5 55.8 56.2 28.9 29.4 31.9

 Federal 51.6 48.0 50.1 16.6 17.0 20.0

 Pell 51.2 47.7 49.7 16.6 16.9 20.0

 SEOG 12.4 12.4 12.4 3.2 3.1 4.0

 Non-federal 13.3 20.1 16.2 19.1 19.3 19.0

 State 5.4 13.9 9.0 5.5 5.8 6.1

 Institutional 6.3 4.8 5.7 7.2 7.4 7.2

 Other 1.8 2.8 2.2 7.6 7.5 7.0

†Values are less than 0.05.

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

Other

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.
PAYING FOR COLLEGE

18

Federal grants also played an important role in how these students financed their education.

In 1995-96, a total of 50 percent of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received

some type of federal grant, with 50 percent receiving a federal Pell Grant and 12 percent receiving a federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG).14 Fourteen percent of stu-

 

14Students can receive both Pell and SEOG awards during the same year.

Table 4—Average amount of financial aid received from various sources for undergraduates enrolled in 

Table 4—less-than-4-year institutions, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total aid $4,770 $5,143 $4,928 $2,113 $2,242 $2,729

 Federal aid (except VA/DOD) 4,310 4,592 4,431 2,565 2,658 3,103 

 Non-federal aid 2,631 2,503 2,575 901 989 1,156 

 State aid 3,214 2,301 2,672 808 973 1,222 

 Institutional aid 1,643 1,252 1,537 564 635 733 

 Other aid (including VA/DOD) 3,363 3,157 3,266 1,031 1,067 1,214 

 Employer aid 4,159 3,009 3,685 463 494 587 

Loans (except PLUS) 3,927 4,023 3,969 2,994 3,128 3,451 

 Federal (except PLUS) 3,857 3,959 3,902 3,070 3,184 3,461 

 Stafford (all) 3,895 3,884 3,890 3,084 3,200 3,467 

 Stafford subsidized 2,211 2,457 2,319 2,382 2,409 2,372 

 Stafford unsubsidized 2,894 2,871 2,884 2,514 2,583 2,722 

 Perkins 1,963 1,230 1,441 1,392 1,388 1,408 

 Non-federal 1,825 2,607 1,940 — 1,364 681 

 State —— — — — —

 Institutional 1,839 — 1,933 — 1,269 527 

 Other —— — — — —

Grants 1,879 2,044 1,948 1,274 1,341 1,440 

 Federal 1,555 1,523 1,543 1,472 1,480 1,494 

 Pell 1,494 1,408 1,459 1,403 1,408 1,420 

 SEOG 304 471 374 369 389 384 

 Non-federal 1,952 2,036 1,996 649 742 841 

 State 2,800 2,067 2,323 768 926 1,116 

 Institutional 800 775 791 577 646 657 

 Other 3,165 3,076 3,119 524 557 632 

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

Other
 PAYING FOR COLLEGE

19

dents at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received the maximum Pell Grant.15 The average

federal Pell and SEOG awards received were $1,500 and $370, respectively. Highlighting grants

from sources outside the federal government, 9 percent of students received state grants, 6 percent received institutional grants, and 2 percent received grants from other sources. The average

grants from non-federal sources ranged from $790 for institutional grants, to $2,300 for state

grants, to $3,100 in grants from other sources.

The financial aid packages that students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received

were varied. Twenty percent of the students received only loans, 21 percent received only grants,

and 42 percent received a combination of loans and grants (table 5 and figure 4). Nearly twothirds (66 percent) received federal aid only, reflecting the overall dominance of federal student

aid programs (table 5 and figure 5). Ten percent received a combination of federal and institutional aid, 9 percent received a combination of federal and state aid, 5 percent received a combination of federal and other aid, and 4 percent received state aid only.

 

15U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

Figure 4—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received 

Figure 4—financial aid according to aid package, by type of aid and control of institution: 1995-96

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

Other

Grants only

60%

Other 

combinations

18%

Loans only

9%

Loans & 

grants

13%

Private, for-profit

Loans only

20%

Loans & 

grants

42%

Grants only

21%

Other 

combinations

17%
PAYING FOR COLLEGE

20

The prominence of the federal programs also can be seen in the types of aid students received. Ninety-one percent of students who borrowed received federal loans only, while 5 percent16 were awarded a combination of federal and institutional loans and 3 percent received

institutional loans only. Seventy-one percent of grant recipients were awarded federal grants

only, 10 percent received a combination of federal and state grants, 7 percent received a combination of federal and institutional grants, and 5 percent received state grants only.

 

16The actual percentage is 5.49 percent, which rounds to 5.5 percent as shown in table 5, and to 5 percent as it appears in the

text.

Figure 5—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received 

Figure 5—financial aid according to aid package, by source of aid and control of institution: 1995-96

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

Private, for-profit

Federal & 

institutional

10%

Federal & state

9%

Federal & 

other

5% State only

4%

Other 

combinations

7%

Federal only

66%

Other

Federal & 

other

3%

State only

4%

Federal & 

state

10%

Federal only

35%

Other 

combinations

40%

Federal & 

institutional

8%
 PAYING FOR COLLEGE

21

Table 5—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received 

Table 5—financial aid according to aid package, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Package by type of aid (all combinations) 1996

 Loans only 19.1 20.2 19.6 8.9 9.1 11.0

 Grants only 22.8 19.0 21.2 60.9 59.8 52.8

 Work-study only 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Other only1 3.5 3.7 3.6 7.9 8.0 7.2

 Loans & grants 42.3 42.5 42.3 12.4 13.0 18.3

 Loans & work-study 0 † † 0.2 0.2 0.2

 Loans & other 4.7 5.1 4.9 0.8 1.0 1.7

 Grants & work-study 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.0 2.8 2.3

 Grants & other 3.3 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.4

 Work-study & other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Loans, grants, & work-study 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6

 Loans, grants, & other 4.2 6.2 5.0 1.3 1.5 2.1

 Loans, work-study, & other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Grants, work-study, & other 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.2

 Loans, grants, work-study, & other † 0.1 † 0.1 0.1 0.1

Package by source of aid (all combinations) 1996

 Federal only 66.5 64.2 65.5 35.1 35.2 40.7

 State only 4.8 2.2 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.9

 Institutional only 1.9 1.2 1.6 11.2 11.0 9.3

 Other only2 2.7 3.6 3.1 23.3 22.3 18.8

 Federal & state 4.1 15.3 8.8 10.2 10.1 9.9

 Federal & institutional 13.4 5.5 10.0 7.9 8.2 8.5

 Federal & other 5.1 5.0 5.0 2.9 3.1 3.4

 State & institutional 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3

 State & other 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4

 Institutional & other 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.7 1.4

 Federal, state, & institutional 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.6 1.9 1.6

 Federal, state, & other 0.2 1.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.9

 Federal, institutional, & other 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

 State, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0 † 0

 Federal, state, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3

Other
PAYING FOR COLLEGE

22

Table 5—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received 

Table 5—financial aid according to aid package, by level and control of institution: 1995-96—Continued

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Grant package by source of aid (all combinations) 1996

 Federal only 76.5 63.9 71.3 33.9 34.4 40.4

 State only 4.8 5.9 5.3 4.4 5.0 5.0

 Institutional only 1.6 3.5 2.4 13.6 13.7 11.8

 Other only2 2.2 3.2 2.6 22.8 21.7 18.6

 Federal & state 4.3 17.0 9.6 11.9 11.7 11.3

 Federal & institutional 9.1 3.4 6.7 8.0 7.8 7.7

 Federal & other 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.1

 State & institutional 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3

 State & other 0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4

 Institutional & other 0 0.2 0.1 1.2 1.2 1.0

 Federal, state, & institutional 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.8 1.6

 Federal, state, & other 0 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5

 Federal, institutional, & other 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

 State, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0 † †

 Federal, state, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Loan package by source of aid (all combinations) 1996

 Federal only 86.2 96.9 90.9 96.6 95.2 93.5

 State only 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

 Institutional only 4.5 0.3 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.6

 Other only2 0.1 0.1 0.1 † 0.1 0.1

 Federal & state 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 †

 Federal & institutional 8.0 2.3 5.5 0.4 1.9 3.3

 Federal & other 1.1 0.3 0.7 † 0.1 0.3

 State & institutional 0 0 0 0 0 0

 State & other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Institutional & other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Federal, state, & institutional 0 0 0 0 † †

 Federal, state, & other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Federal, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0 † †

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

1

Other aid is aid not classified as grants, loans, or work-study. It includes teaching and research assistantships, PLUS loans,

veterans’ benefits and military aid, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA.

2

Other aid is received from a source other than federal, state, or institutional.

Other

†Values are less than 0.05.

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.
 PAYING FOR COLLEGE

23

COMPARISON TO FINANCING BEHAVIOR OF STUDENTS AT OTHER LESS-THAN-4-

YEAR INSTITUTIONS IN 1995-96

There were several differences in terms of how students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions financed their education compared to students attending other less-than-4-year institutions. Consistent with their greater likelihood of being in the lowest income quartile and their

higher average tuition and fees,17 students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were more

likely to receive aid than students at other less-than-4-year institutions. These students were

more likely than students at other less-than-4-year institutions to have received any financial aid

(78 percent compared to 36 percent), a loan from any source (56 percent to 9 percent), and a

grant from any source (56 percent to 29 percent). Students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were more likely than students at other less-than-4-year institutions to be awarded federal

aid (71 percent compared to 22 percent); 50 percent received Pell Grants, compared to 17 percent; 12 percent were awarded SEOG aid, versus 3 percent; and 55 percent received federal

loans, compared to 9 percent. Fourteen percent of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were awarded the maximum Pell Grant, compared to 4 percent of students at other lessthan-4-year institutions.18

Consistent with their greater likelihood of being in the lowest income quartile and their

higher average tuition and fees, students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were more

likely to receive higher average award amounts than students at other less-than-4-year institutions. For example, total aid for students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions was higher

than for students at other less-than-4-year institutions, $4,900 compared to $2,200. Students at

less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions also received greater average federal and institutional loan

awards—$3,900 and $1,900—compared to students at other less-than-4-year institutions who

received average loan amounts of $3,200 and $530, respectively. In addition, average state grants

($2,300 compared to $930) and employer aid ($3,700 compared to $490) were substantially

higher.

Analyzing how students’ financial aid was packaged reveals several differences. A higher

percentage of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received only loans compared to

students at other less-than-4-year institutions, 20 percent compared to 9 percent. A smaller per-

 

17In 1995-96, the average tuition and fees at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were $5,300, while the average tuition and

fees at less-than-4-year, public and private not-for-profit institutions were $680. In 1992-93, they were $4,600 and $590, respectively. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-93 and 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and 96), Data Analysis System.

18U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.
PAYING FOR COLLEGE

24

centage of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions than students at other less-than-4-

year institutions were awarded only grants, 21 percent compared to 60 percent. The role of federal aid was not as dominant for students at other institutions. While 66 percent of students at

less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received only federal aid, 35 percent of students at other

less-than-4-year institutions did so. Aid from other sources played a larger role for students at

other less-than-4-year institutions. The percentages of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who received only institutional aid or only aid from other sources were smaller than at

other less-than-4-year institutions: 2 percent compared to 11 percent were awarded institutional

aid only, while 3 percent compared to 22 percent received only aid from other sources.

Among students who received grants, 71 percent of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit

institutions received federal grants only, compared to 34 percent of students at other less-than-4-

year institutions. Two percent of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were

awarded institutional grants only, compared to 14 percent at other less-than-4-year institutions.

Three percent of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were awarded grants from

other sources only, compared to 22 percent at other less-than-4-year institutions.

CHANGES IN FINANCING BEHAVIOR BETWEEN 1992-93 AND 1995-96

The percentage of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who received aid

from non-federal sources increased between 1992-93 and 1995-96, from 12 percent (table 6) to

27 percent. Likewise, the percentage of these students who received federal aid only decreased

from 81 percent19 in 1992-93 (table 7) to 66 percent in 1995-96. The increase in the percentage

of students who received non-federal aid may be explained partially by a corresponding increase

in the percentage of students who obtained institutional aid, from 4 percent to 10 percent. While

the percentage of students who borrowed through federal programs did not change significantly

(47 percent in 1992-93 compared to 55 percent in 1995-96), the percentage who obtained a loan

from a non-federal source increased from 2 percent to 5 percent. In addition, the percentage of

students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who were awarded non-federal grants rose

from 8 percent in 1992-93 to 16 percent in 1995-96.

 

19The actual percentage is 81.47 percent, which rounds to 81.5 percent as shown in table 7, and to 81 percent as it appears in the

text.
 PAYING FOR COLLEGE

25

Table 6—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received financial aid from 

Table 6—various sources, by level and control of institution: 1992-93

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total aid 75.2 77.0 75.8 31.5 32.2 37.6

 Federal aid (except VA/DOD) 70.5 71.4 70.8 18.4 19.2 25.6

 Non-federal aid 10.4 15.0 11.9 14.8 15.2 14.8

 State aid 3.4 8.3 5.0 6.7 6.8 6.6

 Institutional aid 4.4 2.8 3.9 4.7 5.0 4.9

 Other aid (including VA/DOD) 4.7 8.4 5.9 10.7 10.7 10.1

 Employer aid 1.5 4.4 2.4 7.6 7.5 6.8

Loans (except PLUS) 42.3 57.0 47.0 6.7 7.1 12.1

 Federal (except PLUS) 41.7 56.7 46.5 6.4 6.8 11.7

 Stafford (all) 40.4 56.0 45.4 5.9 6.4 11.2

 Stafford subsidized **   **  ** **

 Stafford unsubsidized   **  ** ** **

 Perkins 1.9 3.7 2.5 0.6 0.6 0.8

 Non-federal 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.6

 State 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Institutional 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2

 Other 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

Grants 61.4 52.9 58.6 28.4 29.0 32.6

 Federal 57.9 45.0 53.8 16.3 16.9 21.4

 Pell 56.7 43.8 52.5 15.5 16.0 20.6

 SEOG 10.3 11.9 10.8 2.8 2.9 3.9

 Non-federal 6.4 11.5 8.1 13.1 13.4 12.7

 State 1.3 6.4 2.9 5.7 5.7 5.4

 Institutional 3.9 2.4 3.4 4.1 4.3 4.2

 Other 1.9 2.9 2.2 4.5 4.5 4.2

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

**Program did not exist in 1992-93.

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

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

Other
PAYING FOR COLLEGE

26

Table 7—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received 

Table 7—financial aid according to aid package, by level and control of institution: 1992-93

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Package by type of aid (all combinations) 1993

 Loans only 12.7 18.4 14.6 4.3 4.5 7.0

 Grants only 40.4 22.8 34.7 68.0 67.2 59.1

 Work-study only 0.3 0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

 Other only1 2.6 2.4 2.5 4.2 4.1 3.7

 Loans & grants 36.7 37.4 36.9 12.4 12.9 18.9

 Loans & work-study † 0 † 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Loans & other 2.7 10.3 5.2 0.7 0.8 1.9

 Grants & work-study 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.5 2.5 1.9

 Grants & other 0.9 0.8 0.9 3.7 3.7 3.0

 Work-study & other † 0 † 0 0 †

 Loans, grants, & work-study 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.3 1.2 1.0

 Loans, grants, & other 3.2 6.8 4.4 1.7 2.0 2.6

 Loans, work-study, & other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Grants, work-study, & other † 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4

 Loans, grants, work-study, & other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

Package by source of aid (all combinations) 1993

 Federal only 84.4 75.4 81.5 35.9 36.4 47.7

 State only 2.1 1.6 1.9 5.0 4.7 4.0

 Institutional only 1.2 0.2 0.9 6.1 6.2 4.9

 Other only2 2.4 5.3 3.4 27.3 26.2 20.5

 Federal & state 2.1 8.8 4.3 13.3 13.2 10.9

 Federal & institutional 3.7 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.4 4.2

 Federal & other 3.0 5.2 3.7 2.5 2.7 2.9

 State & institutional 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3

 State & other 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3

 Institutional & other 0.3 0 0.2 2.2 2.1 1.6

 Federal, state, & institutional 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.3 1.1

 Federal, state, & other † 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.7

 Federal, institutional, & other 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6

 State, institutional, & other 0 † † 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Federal, state, institutional, & other † 0 † 0.2 0.3 0.2

Other
 PAYING FOR COLLEGE

27

Table 7—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions who received 

Table 8—financial aid according to aid package, by level and control of institution: 1992-93—Continued

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Grant package by source of aid (all combinations) 1993

 Federal only 88.1 74.0 84.0 38.1 38.6 48.7

 State only 0.6 4.2 1.6 5.2 5.1 4.3

 Institutional only 1.7 2.1 1.8 6.9 7.2 6.0

 Other only2 3.0 8.7 4.6 28.0 27.0 22.0

 Federal & state 1.2 7.6 3.1 12.8 12.6 10.5

 Federal & institutional 3.8 2.1 3.3 3.8 4.1 3.9

 Federal & other 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3

 State & institutional 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4

 State & other 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2

 Institutional & other 0.4 0 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.4

 Federal, state, & institutional 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.9 1.0 0.8

 Federal, state, & other 0 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.2

 Federal, institutional, & other 0.4 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

 State, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1

 Federal, state, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Loan package by source of aid (all combinations) 1993

 Federal only 96.1 97.0 96.4 93.4 93.5 94.9

 State only 0.2 0 0.1 1.1 1.0 0.6

 Institutional only 0.7 0 0.4 1.3 1.2 0.8

 Other only2 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.4 1.4 0.9

 Federal & state 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3

 Federal & institutional 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6

 Federal & other 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.7

 State & institutional 0 0 0 0 0 0

 State & other 0 † † 0.3 0.2 0.1

 Institutional & other † 0 † 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Federal, state, & institutional † 0 † 0 0 †

 Federal, state, & other † 0 † 0 0 †

 Federal, institutional, & other 0.1 0 † 0 0 †

 State, institutional, & other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other

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

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

†Values are less than 0.05.

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

1

Other aid is aid not classified as grants, loans, or work-study. It includes teaching and research assistantships, PLUS loans,

veterans’ benefits and military aid, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA. 2

Other aid is received from a source other than federal, state, or institutional.
PAYING FOR COLLEGE

28

Table 8—Average amount of financial aid received from various sources for undergraduates enrolled in 

Table 8—less-than-4-year institutions, by level and control of institution: 1992-93

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total aid $3,788 $4,973 $4,175 $1,880 $1,963 $2,514

 Federal aid (except VA/DOD) 3,549 4,522 3,864 2,244 2,292 2,829 

 Non-federal aid 2,426 2,525 2,466 889 946 1,096 

 State aid 2,522 1,890 2,185 728 785 916 

 Institutional aid 1,520 1,904 1,608 844 875 948 

 Other aid (including VA/DOD) 2,952 3,446 3,179 814 844 1,012 

 Employer aid 3,050 — 594 3,397 622 744 

Loans (except PLUS) 3,417 3,836 3,580 2,556 2,582 3,062 

 Federal (except PLUS) 3,375 3,745 3,520 2,593 2,605 3,053 

 Stafford (all) 2,526 2,687 2,590 2,245 2,258 2,424 

 Stafford subsidized **   **  ** ** 

 Stafford unsubsidized   **  ** ** ** 

 Perkins 1,617 1,386 1,505 989 993 1,181 

 Non-federal 2,311 — 1,189 2,743 1,321 1,798 

 State —— — — — —

 Institutional —— — — — 1,622

 Other 2,027 — 2,512 — — 2,009

Grants 1,901 2,083 1,954 1,244 1,285 1,433 

 Federal 1,739 1,721 1,734 1,375 1,394 1,499 

 Pell 1,639 1,618 1,633 1,313 1,334 1,428 

 SEOG 541 515 531 494 504 513 

 Non-federal 2,035 2,331 2,171 812 843 947 

 State 1,846 1,837 1,839 665 705 781 

 Institutional 1,389 1,426 1,397 776 806 865 

 Other 2,868 — 827 3,372 835 996 

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

**Program did not exist in 1992-93.

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

Other

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

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.
 PAYING FOR COLLEGE

29

The average amount of aid awarded to students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions

changed from 1992-93 to 1995-96. Average total aid increased from $4,200 (table 8) to $4,900.

Average federal grants, however, declined from $1,700 to $1,500, which may reflect, in part, the

decline in the maximum Pell Grant award—from $2,400 to $2,340—between 1992-93 and 1995-

96.20 Changes in the average total loan and average federal loan amounts were not statistically

significant: average total loans were $3,600 and $4,000, respectively. However, the average federal Stafford loan did increase from $2,600 to $3,900.

The trends for students at other less-than-4-year institutions were similar. The percentage

of students at other less-than-4-year institutions who received aid from non-federal sources rose

from 15 percent in 1992-93 to 23 percent in 1995-96. Changes in institutional aid were significant: the percentage who received institutional aid increased from 5 percent in 1992-93 to 9 percent in 1995-96. The percentage of students who borrowed from any source increased from 7

percent to 9 percent, as did the percentage who received a federal Stafford loan (from 6 percent

to 9 percent).

Similar to the for-profit sector, the average amount of aid awarded to students at other lessthan-4-year institutions increased from 1992-93 to 1995-96. Average total aid increased from

$2,000 to $2,200, average total loans rose from $2,600 to $3,100, average federal loans increased

from $2,600 to $3,200, and average state grants grew from $710 to $930.

 

20The College Board, Trends in Student Aid (Washington, DC: The College Board, 1998).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
31

PROFILE OF BORROWERS

It is important to explore how students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions have been

affected by changes to the Higher Education Act, particularly with respect to borrowing, given

the high default rates at these institutions relative to students in other sectors. This section provides a demographic and enrollment profile of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1995-96, as well as comparing them with students at other less-than-4-year institutions.

In addition, changes in the characteristics of borrowers between 1992-93 and 1995-96 are analyzed. Finally, risk factors associated with loan default are discussed for students at both lessthan-4-year, for-profit institutions and other less-than-4-year institutions in 1995-96.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS AT LESS-THAN-4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT

INSTITUTIONS IN 1995-96

 Similar to all students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1995-96, a profile of

borrowers shows that they were likely to be white, young, independent, female, to attend fulltime for at least part of the academic year, and delay their enrollment for a year or more after

high school (figure 6 and table 9). Fifty-nine percent of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit

institutions were white, 50 percent were age 23 or younger, and 69 percent were independent.

Sixty-five percent were female, 83 percent attended full-time for at least part of the academic

year, and 68 percent of borrowers had delayed their enrollment for a year or more after high

school.
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

32

Figure 6—Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

Figure 6—according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

 35% 

 65% 

 59% 

 21% 17% 

 3% 1% 

 72% 

 35% 

 65% 

 14% 

 9% 

 3% 1% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 Male Female White, nonHispanic Black, nonHispanic Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

 American

Indian/Alaskan

Native

Percent

Gender Race-ethnicity

 69% 

 31% 

 25% 24% 

 50% 

 59% 

 41% 

 24% 27% 

 49% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 23 years or younger 24-29 years of age 30 years or older Dependent Independent

Percent

Age Dependency status

 68% 

 32% 

 7% 

 17% 

 76% 

.3%

 48% 52% 

 2% 

 11% 

 87% 

.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 High school diploma A diploma through

the GED or equivalent

 A certificate of high

school completion

 No high school

equivalent

 Did not delay

enrollment

 Delayed enrollment

Percent

Private, for-profit less-than-4-year Other less-than-4-year

High school degree Delayed enrollment
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

33

 Comparing demographic and enrollment characteristics of borrowers and non-borrowers at

less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1995-96 reveals that borrowers were more likely to be

younger and to be employed while enrolled. Moreover, independent borrowers were less likely

to be in the highest income quartile than independent non-borrowers. Fifty percent of borrowers

at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were age 23 or younger compared to 41 percent of nonborrowers, and 33 percent of borrowers did not work while enrolled compared to 47 percent of

non-borrowers. In addition, 9 percent of independent borrowers were in the upper income quartile compared to 16 percent of independent non-borrowers.

Table 9—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions 

Table 9—according to selected characteristics, by borrower status and level of institution: 1995-96

Less-than2-year2-year Total Less-than2-year2-year Total

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 29.9 40.9 35.1 25.0 39.3 30.1

 Female 70.1 59.1 64.9 75.0 60.7 69.9

Age

 23 years or younger 48.2 52.9 50.3 38.9 43.2 40.6

 24-29 years of age 22.6 26.6 24.4 19.0 18.3 18.7

 30 years or older 29.2 20.5 25.3 42.1 38.5 40.7

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 53.6 64.2 58.5 55.6 60.9 57.5

 Black, non-Hispanic 20.7 20.4 20.6 25.3 15.9 22.0

 Hispanic 21.7 12.6 17.4 14.7 16.7 15.4

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.7 2.4 2.6 3.5 5.9 4.4

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.4 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8

Marital status 

 Not married 67.9 76.3 71.6 67.9 67.0 67.5

 Married 24.0 19.0 21.8 28.2 27.4 27.9

 Separated 8.1 4.7 6.6 4.0 5.7 4.6

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 75.8 80.4 77.9 72.6 81.5 76.0

 Single parent 24.2 19.6 22.1 27.4 18.5 24.0

Disability status

 Student has a disability 7.1 5.5 6.3 12.0 5.5 9.7

 Student does not have a disability 93.0 94.5 93.7 88.0 94.5 90.3

Borrowers Non-borrowers
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

34

Table 9—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions 

Table 9—according to selected characteristics, by borrower status and level of institution: 1995-96—Continued

Less-than2-year2-year Total Less-than2-year2-year Total

Dependency status

 Dependent 26.4 36.8 31.1 23.6 32.2 26.9

 Independent 73.6 63.2 68.9 76.4 67.8 73.1

 Independent, no dependents 25.7 25.1 25.4 27.2 26.5 26.9

 Independent, with dependents 47.9 38.1 43.5 49.2 41.3 46.1

Independent student total income, quartile

 Lower quartile 44.6 38.3 42.0 40.4 35.4 38.6

 Middle quartiles 46.8 52.8 49.3 45.5 45.7 45.6

 Upper quartile 8.6 8.9 8.7 14.1 18.8 15.8

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 49.1 40.0 44.3 40.6 38.9 39.8

 Middle quartiles 40.9 51.4 46.4 31.1 33.0 32.0

 Upper quartile 10.0 8.7 9.3 28.4 28.1 28.3

Parents’ highest education 

 Less than high school 17.7 7.1 12.7 15.7 15.6 15.7

 High school graduate 54.2 55.5 54.8 47.3 42.9 45.7

 Some college, including AA 14.7 17.7 16.2 17.3 16.5 17.0

 Bachelor’s degree 9.3 13.2 11.1 13.0 14.8 13.6

 Advanced degree 4.1 6.5 5.2 6.7 10.2 8.0

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 70.2 83.0 75.9 78.4 82.9 80.2

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 17.7 15.3 16.6 13.0 11.2 12.3

 A certificate of high school completion 0.6 † 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

 No high school equivalent 11.5 1.7 7.1 8.1 5.4 7.0

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 24.3 41.9 32.0 27.0 35.8 30.0

 Delayed enrollment 75.7 58.1 68.0 73.0 64.2 70.0

Attendance status

 Full-time 89.5 75.6 83.3 84.6 63.5 76.6

 Part-time 10.5 24.4 16.7 15.4 36.5 23.4

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 39.6 24.6 32.5 52.4 38.5 47.4

 1-20 hours 15.9 21.3 18.4 15.7 12.6 14.6

 21-34 hours 16.2 23.7 19.7 11.6 10.0 11.1

 35 hours or more 28.3 30.4 29.3 20.3 38.8 26.9

†Value is less than 0.05.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Borrowers Non-borrowers
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

35

COMPARISON TO BORROWERS AT OTHER LESS-THAN-4-YEAR INSTITUTIONS IN

1995-96

Several differences were evident regarding the demographic and enrollment characteristics

of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions and borrowers at other less-than-4-year

institutions. Borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were more likely to be single

parents (22 percent compared to 15 percent), to be independent with children (44 percent compared to 33 percent), and to have a GED (17 percent compared to 11 percent). Other differences

in enrollment patterns include the following: borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions

were more likely than borrowers at other less-than-4-year institutions to not work while enrolled

(33 percent compared to 20 percent), to have delayed enrollment by a year or more after high

school (68 percent compared to 48 percent), and to have attended full-time for at least part of the

academic year (83 percent versus 50 percent). There was no significant difference with respect to

race.
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

36

Table 10—Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

Table 10—according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 29.9 40.9 35.1 33.6 35.2 35.2

 Female 70.1 59.1 64.9 66.4 64.8 64.9

Age

 23 years or younger 48.2 52.9 50.3 49.4 49.0 49.5

 24-29 years of age 22.6 26.6 24.4 27.6 27.1 26.1

 30 years or older 29.2 20.5 25.3 23.0 23.9 24.5

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 53.6 64.2 58.5 71.9 72.3 67.0

 Black, non-Hispanic 20.7 20.4 20.6 15.1 14.2 16.6

 Hispanic 21.7 12.6 17.4 9.2 8.9 12.1

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.4 3.1

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.4 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.1

Marital status 

 Not married 67.9 76.3 71.6 77.3 76.6 74.7

 Married 24.0 19.0 21.8 18.5 19.5 20.3

 Separated 8.1 4.7 6.6 4.2 4.0 5.0

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 75.8 80.4 77.9 84.6 85.0 82.3

 Single parent 24.2 19.6 22.1 15.4 15.0 17.8

Disability status

 Student has a disability 7.1 5.5 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.3

 Student does not have a disability 93.0 94.5 93.7 93.8 93.6 93.7

Dependency status

 Dependent 26.4 36.8 31.1 42.1 41.1 37.2

 Independent 73.6 63.2 68.9 57.9 58.9 62.8

 Independent, no dependents 25.7 25.1 25.4 25.0 25.9 25.7

 Independent, with dependents 47.9 38.1 43.5 32.9 33.0 37.1

Independent student total income, quartile

 Lower quartile 44.6 38.3 42.0 37.3 36.2 38.7

 Middle quartiles 46.8 52.8 49.3 54.1 54.3 52.2

 Upper quartile 8.6 8.9 8.7 8.6 9.5 9.2

Other
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

37

Table 10—Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions

Table 10—according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1995-96—Continued

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 49.1 40.0 44.3 26.9 27.7 33.0

 Middle quartiles 40.9 51.4 46.4 60.7 60.0 55.7

 Upper quartile 10.0 8.7 9.3 12.4 12.3 11.4

Parents’ highest education 

 Less than high school 17.7 7.1 12.7 7.4 7.6 9.5

 High school graduate 54.2 55.5 54.8 50.7 50.4 52.1

 Some college, including AA 14.7 17.7 16.2 15.3 15.5 15.8

 Bachelor’s degree 9.3 13.2 11.1 16.7 17.1 14.9

 Advanced degree 4.1 6.5 5.2 9.9 9.4 7.9

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 70.2 83.0 75.9 86.7 87.1 82.8

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 17.7 15.3 16.6 10.8 10.6 12.9

 A certificate of high school completion 0.6 † 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3

 No high school equivalent 11.5 1.7 7.1 2.2 2.0 4.0

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 24.3 41.9 32.0 53.4 52.3 44.0

 Delayed enrollment 75.7 58.1 68.0 46.6 47.7 56.0

Attendance status

 Full-time 89.5 75.6 83.3 45.2 49.6 62.6

 Part-time 10.5 24.4 16.7 54.8 50.4 37.5

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 39.6 24.6 32.5 19.1 19.9 24.6

 1-20 hours 15.9 21.3 18.4 28.0 28.0 24.4

 21-34 hours 16.2 23.7 19.7 22.3 21.6 20.9

 35 hours or more 28.3 30.4 29.3 30.6 30.6 30.1

†Value is less than 0.05.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

Other
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

38

CHANGES IN BORROWER CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN 1992-93 AND 1995-96

Between 1992-93 and 1995-96, there were few changes in the demographic and enrollment

characteristics of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. The percentage of borrowers who obtained a GED increased from 11 percent to 17 percent (tables 10 and 11). The

percentage of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who did not work while enrolled decreased from 42 percent to 33 percent.

There were no significant differences in the race-ethnicity of borrowers between 1992-93

and 1995-96: the percentage of white borrowers remained comparable (57 percent in 1992-93

and 59 percent in 1995-96); the percentage of Hispanic borrowers was consistent as well, 14

percent compared to 17 percent; and the percentage of black borrowers stayed relatively the

same, 24 percent in 1992-93 compared to 21 percent in 1995-96. There were no significant

changes in the percentage of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who were

independent (69 percent in both years), who had delayed their enrollment by a year or more after

high school (65 percent and 68 percent), and who were independent and in the lowest income

quartile (47 percent compared to 42 percent).
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

39

Table 11—Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in less-than-4-year 

Table 11—institutions according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1992-93

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 23.8 53.4 35.1 38.7 37.9 36.5

 Female 76.2 46.6 64.9 61.3 62.1 63.5

Age

 23 years or younger 54.2 56.2 55.0 48.3 48.2 51.5

 24-29 years of age 21.6 22.1 21.8 22.5 22.1 22.0

 30 years or older 24.2 21.8 23.2 29.2 29.7 26.5

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 55.3 59.6 56.9 73.8 74.7 66.5

 Black, non-Hispanic 23.7 24.4 23.9 13.2 12.6 17.8

 Hispanic 14.9 12.8 14.1 6.3 6.5 10.0

 Asian/Pacific Islander 5.0 2.2 4.0 4.8 4.3 4.2

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.0 1.9 1.6

Marital status 

 Not married 70.6 73.7 71.8 68.3 68.3 70.0

 Married 24.0 22.7 23.5 28.4 28.0 25.7

 Separated 5.4 3.6 4.7 3.2 3.8 4.2

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 74.6 84.4 78.5 83.4 82.9 80.7

 Single parent 25.4 15.6 21.5 16.6 17.1 19.3

Disability status

 Student has a disability 6.1 5.7 6.0 9.5 8.8 7.5

 Student does not have a disability 93.9 94.3 94.0 90.5 91.2 92.6

Dependency status

 Dependent 27.3 36.3 30.9 34.5 34.4 32.7

 Independent 72.7 63.7 69.1 65.5 65.7 67.4

 Independent, no dependents 30.4 34.3 32.0 28.5 28.0 29.9

 Independent, with dependents 42.3 29.4 37.2 37.0 37.6 37.4

Independent student total income, quartile

 Lower quartile 50.9 40.2 47.1 44.1 44.0 45.5

 Middle quartiles 41.3 50.6 44.7 48.1 47.2 45.9

 Upper quartile 7.8 9.2 8.3 7.8 8.8 8.6

Other
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

40

Table 11—Percentage distribution of undergraduates who borrowed while enrolled in less-than-4-year 

Table 11—institutions according to selected characteristics, by level and control of institution: 1992-93

Table 11——Continued

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 61.3 45.0 53.6 52.0 50.6 52.0

 Middle quartiles 34.7 49.2 41.5 44.0 44.4 43.1

 Upper quartile 4.0 5.8 4.9 4.0 5.0 4.9

Parents’ highest education 

 Less than high school 18.6 11.9 16.0 13.7 13.4 14.6

 High school graduate 47.8 47.0 47.5 40.7 41.5 44.3

 Some college, including AA 18.8 17.9 18.5 22.9 22.8 20.8

 Bachelor’s degree 9.1 14.8 11.4 14.1 13.8 12.7

 Advanced degree 5.6 8.3 6.7 8.6 8.5 7.7

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 78.0 90.4 82.7 91.7 90.9 86.9

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 14.0 6.7 11.2 6.3 6.8 9.0

 A certificate of high school completion 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

 No high school equivalent 7.6 2.1 5.5 1.3 1.7 3.5

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 32.4 38.7 34.9 39.3 40.2 37.7

 Delayed enrollment 67.6 61.3 65.1 60.7 59.8 62.3

Attendance status

 Full-time 85.7 84.5 85.2 43.8 46.5 65.6

 Part-time 14.3 15.5 14.8 56.2 53.5 34.4

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 49.3 30.0 41.8 34.1 33.6 37.5

 1-20 hours 16.6 18.7 17.4 27.0 27.3 22.6

 21-34 hours 14.1 16.0 14.8 17.3 17.4 16.2

 35 hours or more 20.1 35.3 26.0 21.6 21.7 23.7

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

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

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

Other
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

41

Several demographic and enrollment characteristics of borrowers at other less-than-4-year

institutions, however, did change significantly. In 1992-93, 34 percent of borrowers did not work

while attending school, but by 1995-96, the percentage had dropped to 20 percent. Furthermore,

the percentage of borrowers at other less-than-4-year institutions who delayed their enrollment

decreased from 60 percent in 1992-93 to 48 percent in 1995-96. Changes in the proportion of

student borrowers by race-ethnicity were not statistically significant.

LIKELIHOOD OF BORROWING

In order to measure the association of a single variable with the likelihood of borrowing

apart from its relationship to other factors, the effects of related variables must be controlled. In

these analyses, a least squares regression model was used to measure how each demographic and

enrollment characteristic was associated with the likelihood of a student borrowing in 1995-96

and in 1992-93. The model is used to estimate the proportion of students at less-than-4-year, forprofit institutions who had received Title IV loans (except PLUS) in the stated academic year.

The independent variables include the four risk factors most often associated with loan default:

(1) being black; (2) being independent; (3) being from a low-income family; and (4) not having a

traditional high school diploma. In addition, other demographic and enrollment characteristics

are included as independent variables, such as gender, age, marital status, single parent status,

disability status, parents’ highest education level, delayed enrollment status, attendance status,

and the average hours worked per week while enrolled. The regression coefficients were used to

adjust the original estimates, taking into account the joint effects of all the independent variables

(see appendix B for details on the methodology).

The results are displayed in tables 12 and 13. The original (unadjusted) estimates of the

proportion of students who were awarded a Title IV loan (except PLUS) in the given academic

year are in the first column. The adjusted percentages after controlling for the variation of all

other variables in the model can be found in the second column. Asterisks indicate a statistically

significant difference between the percentage of students who had borrowed at a less-than-4-year,

for-profit institution in a given category and its reference group (always the italicized group in

each category).

In 1992-93, two variables had one or more characteristics that showed a statistically significant difference in the likelihood of borrowing (compared to their reference characteristics) before

controlling for the effects of other variables: disability status and type of high school degree (table 12). Students with disabilities were less likely to have borrowed than those who were not
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

42

disabled (33 percent versus 45 percent). Students who had a certificate of high school completion were more likely than those with no equivalent to a high school degree—those who did not

complete high school—to borrow (60 percent versus 21 percent). Students with a high school

diploma or a GED (or other equivalent high school degree) also were more likely than those with

no high school degree or equivalent to have borrowed. However, after controlling for the effects

of other variables, disability status did not show a statistically significant difference, while the

type of high school degree continued to show a statistically significant difference. Students with

a high school diploma or a GED were more likely than those without a high school degree to

have borrowed.

Four other variables had one or more characteristics that showed a statistically significant

difference in the likelihood of borrowing (compared to their reference characteristics) after controlling for the effects of other variables: age; dependency status; attendance status; and average

hours worked while enrolled. Students age 30 or older were less likely to have borrowed than

those age 23 or younger (36 percent versus 54 percent). Dependent students were less likely to

have borrowed than independent students (36 percent compared to 52 percent). Students who

attended on a part-time basis were less likely than full-time students to have borrowed (35 percent compared to 50 percent). Those who worked an average of 35 hours or more per week

while enrolled were more likely to have borrowed than those who were not employed (54 percent

versus 41 percent).

In summary, in 1992-93, disability status showed statistically significant differences before

controlling for other variables, but did not show such differences after the adjustment. The type

of high school degree showed statistically significant differences in the likelihood of borrowing

both before and after controlling for the effects of other variables. Before adjustment the characteristics of age, dependency status, attendance status, and average hours worked while enrolled

were not significantly different than their reference groups, but after controlling for other variables were statistically different.
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

43

Table 12—Percentage distribution of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who borrowed

Table 12—a Title IV loan (except PLUS), and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the 

Table 12—covariation of the variables listed in the table:1

 1992-93

Adjusted LS Standard 

percentage3 coefficient4 error5

Total 46.4 46.8 46.9 10.5

Gender

 Male 46.6 47.2 0.6 4.9

 Female 45.0 46.6 † †

Age

 23 years or younger 50.3 53.8 † †

 24-29 years of age 48.9 44.7 -9.1 6.9

 30 years or older 37.9 -17.7 6.7

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 51.9 51.8 † †

 Black, non-Hispanic 39.6 41.8 -10.0 5.4

 Hispanic 34.6 41.1 -10.7 6.4

 Asian/Pacific Islander 41.2 44.8 -7.0 11.0

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 37.4 44.8 -7.0 18.7

Marital status

 Not married 48.2 47.6 † †

 Married 44.7 44.6 -2.9 6.2

 Separated 40.7 46.9 -0.6 10.3 

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 47.1 47.7 † †

 Single parent 43.7 43.9 -3.8 6.9

Disability status6

 Student has a disability 35.7 -12.1 7.9

 Student does not have a disability 45.0 47.8 † †

Dependency status

 Dependent 46.0 -15.2 7.4

 Independent 46.5 51.5 † †

Income status6

 Low-income 46.8 49.2 3.9 5.1

 Not low-income 47.1 45.4 † †

 36.3* 

Unadjusted

percentage2

 36.1* 

 32.5* 
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

44

Table 12—Percentage distribution of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who borrowed 

Table 12—a Title IV loan (except PLUS), and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the 

Table 12—covariation of the variables listed in the table:1

 1992-93—Continued

Adjusted LS Standard 

percentage3 coefficient4 error5

Parents’ highest education

 Less than high school 36.5 45.1 -4.1 6.2

 High school graduate 47.4 49.2 † †

 Some college, including AA 45.5 45.0 -4.2 5.9

 Bachelor’s degree 44.8 46.3 -2.9 7.2

 Advanced degree 41.2 42.4 -6.8 8.7

DUC4

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 21.7 7.2

 A diploma through the GED or other equivalent 22.5 9.2

 A certificate of high school completion 60.4 32.9 32.8

 No high school equivalent 21.4 27.5 † †

SDEGz

Delayed enrollment6

 Did not delay enrollment 47.0 43.5 -5.3 4.6

 Delayed enrollment 50.4 48.8 † †

ELAYEz

Attendance status

 Part-time 39.5 -14.5 5.4

 Full-time 48.5 49.8 † †

TTNSTz

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 38.2 41.4 † †

 1-20 hours 49.3 50.1 8.6 6.4

 21-34 hours 50.3 50.2 8.8 6.9

 35 hours or more 48.7 12.4 5.6

*p < .05.

†Not applicable for the reference group.

6

The range of the unadjusted percentage values for the row variable does not include the unadjusted percentage 

value of the total due to missing data.

 49.0* 

Unadjusted

percentage2

4

Least squares (LS) coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

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

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

2

The estimates are from the NPSAS:93 Data Analysis System.

1

The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared.

5

Standard error of LS coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

3

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B).

 48.4* 

 60.4* 

 53.8* 

 49.2* 

 50.0* 

 35.3* 
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

45

The student demographic and enrollment characteristics that were significantly different

than their reference groups prior to adjustment in 1995-96 were different than in 1992-93 (table

13). In 1995-96, students who were 30 years of age or older were less likely to have borrowed

than those age 23 or younger (43 percent compared to 60 percent). Also, students who worked

an average of 21 to 34 hours per week while enrolled were more likely to have borrowed than

those who were not employed (70 percent versus 48 percent).

The characteristics of age and average hours worked per week while enrolled remained related to borrowing even after the adjustment. Students who were age 30 or older were less likely

to have borrowed than those age 23 or younger (43 percent compared to 62 percent). Students

who worked while enrolled (regardless of the number of hours worked) were more likely to have

borrowed than those who did not work while enrolled (46 percent versus 60 percent for those

who worked 1 to 20 hours, 64 percent for those who worked 21 to 34 hours, and 59 percent for

those who averaged 35 or more hours of work per week while enrolled).

There was one variable that showed a significant difference in the likelihood of borrowing

only after controlling for other variables. After adjustment, Asian/Pacific Islanders were less

likely to have borrowed than their white counterparts (36 percent compared to 57 percent).
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

46

Table 13—Percentage distribution of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who borrowed 

Table 13—a Title IV loan (except PLUS), and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the 

Table 13—covariation of the variables listed in the table:1

 1995-96

 Unadjusted Adjusted LS Standard 

Percentage2 percentage3 coefficient4 error5

Total 54.8 54.7 66.2 11.4

Gender

 Male 58.9 58.3 5.5 4.4

 Female 52.6 52.8 † †

Age

 23 years or younger 60.0 61.5 † †

 24-29 years of age 61.2 57.8 -3.7 6.8

 30 years or older -18.7 6.6

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 56.8 56.6 † †

 Black, non-Hispanic 53.5 53.6 -3.0 5.2

 Hispanic 56.1 53.8 -2.9 5.8

 Asian/Pacific Islander 32.6 -20.2 10.0

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 63.9 65.8 9.2 22.4

Marital status

 Not married 56.2 55.5 † †

 Married 48.6 49.9 -5.7 6.4

 Separated 63.2 65.3 9.7 9.8

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 55.4 55.8 † †

 Single parent 52.8 51.0 -4.9 6.8

Disability status6

 Student has a disability 46.8 47.1 -8.3 7.6

 Student does not have a disability 52.7 55.4 † †

Dependency status

 Dependent 58.3 46.1 -12.2 8.2

 Independent 53.3 58.3 † †

Income status

 Low-income 54.5 53.3 -2.5 4.6

 Not low-income 54.9 55.8 † †

 43.0* 42.8* 

 36.4* 
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

47

Table 13—Percentage distribution of students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions who borrowed 

Table 13—Title IV loan (except PLUS), and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the 

Table 13—covariation of the variables listed in the table:1

 1995-96—Continued

 Unadjusted Adjusted LS Standard 

Percentage2 percentage3 coefficient4 error5

Parents’ highest education

 Less than high school 56.2 55.2 -2.6 6.2

 High school graduate 64.7 57.8 † †

 Some college, including AA 59.3 50.4 -7.4 5.8

 Bachelor’s degree 57.6 50.3 -7.5 6.8

 Advanced degree 49.5 40.3 -17.5 9.4

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 53.4 53.0 -4.1 8.4

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 62.1 62.5 5.4 9.2

 A certificate of high school completion — 54.6 -2.5 31.6

 No high school equivalent 55.0 57.1 † †

Delayed enrollment6

 Did not delay enrollment 59.6 56.7 2.9 5.0

 Delayed enrollment 57.4 53.8 † †

Attendance status

 Part-time 47.3 47.1 -9.5 5.2

 Full-time 57.8 56.6 † †

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 48.1 45.6 † †

 1-20 hours 63.0 13.9 6.0

 21-34 hours 18.8 6.2

 35 hours or more 61.9 13.8 5.2

*p < .05.

†Not applicable for the reference group.

6

The range of the unadjusted percentage values for the row variable does not include the unadjusted percentage 

value of the total due to missing data.

 59.4* 

3

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

4

Least squares (LS) coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

5

Standard error of LS coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

1

The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared.

2

The estimates are from the NPSAS:96 Data Analysis System.

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

69.9* 

 59.5* 

 64.4* 
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

48

RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LOAN DEFAULT

Research on the specific demographic and enrollment characteristics of loan defaulters

identifies at least four risk factors associated with higher default levels. These factors include

students who: (1) are black; (2) are independent; (3) are from low-income families; and (4) do

not have traditional high school diplomas. The literature suggests that there is a positive correlation between these identified student characteristics and student loan default.21 Of borrowers at

less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1995-96, 17 percent had zero risk factors, 33 percent

had one, 30 percent had two, 17 percent had three, and 3 percent had all four risk factors (figure 7

and table 14).

In 1995-96, borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were more likely to have

had a greater number of loan default risk factors than borrowers at other less-than-4-year institutions. Seventeen percent of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions compared to 30

percent of borrowers at other less-than-4-year institutions had no loan default risk factors, 30

percent versus 23 percent had two factors, and 17 percent versus 11 percent had three. Fifty percent of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions had two or more default risk factors

compared to 35 percent of borrowers at other less-than-4-year institutions. 22

 

21Mark Dynarski, “Who Defaults on Student Loans? Findings from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.” Economics

of Education Review 13 (1994): 55-68, and Mathtech, Inc., “Methodology for Adjusting Cohort Default Rates” (Princeton, NJ:

1995).

22U..S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.
 PROFILE OF BORROWERS

49

There were no significant differences between 1992-93 and 1995-96 in the percentage of

borrowers with two or more risk factors at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. For students

at other less-than-4-year institutions, there also were no significant differences between 1992-93

and 1995-96 in the percentage of borrowers with two or more risk factors (36 percent in 1992-93

compared to 35 percent in 1995-96).

Table 14—Percentage distribution of undergraduate borrowers enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according

Table 14—to number of loan default risk factors, by level and control of institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96

None One Two Three Four Two or more

Total 25.0 34.0 26.0 13.2 1.8 41.0

Private, for-profit total 17.1 32.6 30.2 17.2 2.9 50.3

 Private, for-profit 2-year 22.4 35.6 26.9 13.5 1.7 42.0

 Private, for-profit less-than-2-year 12.7 30.3 32.9 20.3 3.8 57.0

Other, total* 30.0 34.9 23.4 10.6 1.2 35.2

 Public, 2-year 30.8 33.5 23.4 11.0 1.3 35.7

Total 20.9 39.1 28.9 10.2 1.0 40.0

Private, for-profit total 17.2 38.3 29.5 13.5 1.5 44.5

 Private, for-profit 2-year 23.1 41.8 25.3 9.2 0.7 35.2

 Private, for-profit less-than-2-year 13.5 36.0 32.2 16.2 2.1 50.5

Other, total* 24.5 39.8 28.3 7.1 0.4 35.7

 Public, 2-year 24.4 39.7 28.6 7.0 0.3 35.9

Number of loan default risk factors

1992-93

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-93 and 1995-96 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

1995-96
PROFILE OF BORROWERS

50

Figure 7—Percentage distribution of undergraduate borrowers enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions according

Figure 7—to number of loan default risk factors, by control of institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-93 and 1995-96 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

17% 17%

24%

30%

38%

33%

40%

35%

30%

28% 23%

13%

17%

7%

11%

30%

2% 3% 0.4% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

 Private, for-profit less-than4-year 1992-93 Private, for-profit less-than4-year 1995-96 Other less-than4-year 1992-93 Other less-than4-year 1995-96

Percent

None One Two Three Four
51

4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

Over the past several years, the prominence of 4-year, for-profit postsecondary institutions

that offer programs leading to a baccalaureate degree and beyond has increased. The University

of Phoenix and schools owned by DeVry Inc. are well-known examples of institutions in this

sector. Due to high standard errors and low sample sizes, appropriate analysis of changes in student characteristics or financing behavior between 1992-93 and 1995-96 was not possible. However, sufficient data were available to compare the differences of students attending 4-year, forprofit institutions with students attending less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions, as discussed

below.

In 1995-96, undergraduate students attending 4-year, for-profit institutions were likely to be

independent and not married, and not likely to be single parents (figure 8 and table 15). Seventy

percent of students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were independent, 65 percent were not married, and 13 percent were single parents. Fifty-seven percent of the students were male. Thirtyseven percent were age 23 or younger, 23 percent were between 24 and 29 years old, and 40 percent were age 30 or older.

Enrollment data show that students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were likely to attend

full-time for at least part of the academic year, and likely to delay their enrollment for a year or

more after high school. Sixty-five percent of students at 4-year, for-profit institutions attended

full-time for at least part of the academic year, while 53 percent delayed their enrollment.
4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

52

Figure 8—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in for-profit institutions according to selected

Figure 8—characteristics, by level of institution: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

 1% 3% 

 17% 21% 

 58% 

 33% 

 67% 

 .3% 

 6% 

 18% 15% 

 60% 

 43% 

 57% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 Male Female White, nonHispanic Black, nonHispanic Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

 American

Indian/Alaskan

Native

Percent

Gender Race-ethnicity

 46% 

 22% 

 32% 29% 

 71% 

 37% 

 23% 

 40% 

 30% 

 70% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 23 years or younger 24-29 years of age 30 years or older Dependent Independent

Percent

Age Dependency status

 69% 

 31% 

 7% 

 15% 

 78% 

.4%

 53% 

 47% 

.4% 1% 

 11% 

 88% 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 High school diploma A diploma through

the GED or equivalent

 A certificate of high

school completion

 No high school

equivalent

 Did not delay

enrollment

 Delayed enrollment

Percent

Less-than-4-year 4-year

High school degree Delayed enrollment
 4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

53

In 1995-96, the demographic and enrollment characteristics of students attending 4-year,

for-profit institutions differed considerably from those of students attending less-than-4-year, forprofit institutions. The proportion of the population that was female at 4-year institutions was

smaller than at less-than-4-year institutions—43 percent compared to 67 percent. Fifteen percent

of the students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were not employed while enrolled, in contrast to

39 percent of students who attended less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. Sixty-five percent of

students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were enrolled full-time, compared to 80 percent of the

students enrolled at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. Fifty-three percent of students who

attended 4-year, for-profit institutions had delayed their enrollment by a year or more after high

school; at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions, the percentage was 69 percent. Twenty-five

percent of independent students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were in the lowest income quartile compared to 40 percent of the independent students at the less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. At the same time, 29 percent of independent students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were

in the upper income quartile compared to 12 percent of their counterparts at less-than-4-year, forprofit institutions.
4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

54

Table 15—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in for-profit institutions according to 

Table 15—selected characteristics, by level of institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96

Less-than4-year4-year Less-than4-year4-year

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

 Male 32.9 56.8 34.3 46.7

 Female 67.1 43.2 65.7 53.3

Age

 23 years or younger 45.9 37.1 50.8 42.4

 24-29 years of age 21.8 23.1 20.7 24.9

 30 years or older 32.3 39.8 28.5 32.8

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 58.1 60.4 49.1 67.3

 Black, non-Hispanic 21.2 15.3 27.1 18.6

 Hispanic 16.5 17.9 18.2 7.6

 Asian/Pacific Islander 3.4 6.1 4.3 6.3

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.9 0.3 1.4 0.2

Marital status 

 Not married 69.8 65.3 70.0 64.5

 Married 24.5 31.9 24.6 32.9

 Separated 5.7 2.9 5.4 2.7

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 77.1 87.1 77.2 93.0

 Single parent 23.0 12.9 22.8 7.0

Disability status

 Student has a disability 7.8 4.3 8.1 3.5

 Student does not have a disability 92.2 95.7 91.9 96.6

Dependency status

 Dependent 29.2 30.2 31.3 30.9

 Independent 70.8 69.8 68.7 69.1

 Independent, no dependents 26.1 32.8 29.9 42.5

 Independent, with dependents 44.7 37.0 38.8 26.7

Independent student total income, quartile

 Lower quartile 40.4 25.2 46.0 26.3

 Middle quartiles 47.6 45.5 43.9 38.8

 Upper quartile 12.0 29.3 10.2 34.9

1995-96 1992-93
 4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

55

Compared to students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions, students at 4-year, forprofit institutions financed their education differently. The average amount of federal loans obtained by students at 4-year, for-profit institutions was higher than the average obtained by students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions—$5,500 compared to $3,900 (table 16). The

trend was the opposite for state grant aid. The average state grant received by students who attended 4-year, for-profit institutions was $880, lower than the average state grant of $2,300 for

Table 15—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in for-profit institutions according to 

Table 15—selected characteristics, by level of institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96—Continued

Less-than4-year4-year Less-than4-year4-year

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 42.4 47.0 46.0 40.5

 Middle quartiles 40.4 34.6 46.6 36.9

 Upper quartile 17.2 18.4 7.3 22.7

Parents’ highest education 

 Less than high school 13.9 8.4 19.3 13.1

 High school graduate 51.0 44.0 44.3 32.6

 Some college, including AA 16.5 19.1 18.0 17.2

 Bachelor’s degree 12.2 16.4 11.2 17.6

 Advanced degree 6.4 12.2 7.2 19.6

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 77.8 88.3 77.2 94.4

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 14.7 10.8 10.6 4.0

 A certificate of high school completion 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4

 No high school equivalent 7.1 0.4 11.8 1.2

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 31.2 47.2 36.5 45.9

 Delayed enrollment 68.9 52.8 63.5 54.1

Attendance status

 Full-time 80.3 65.1 79.8 53.0

 Part-time 19.7 34.9 20.2 47.0

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 39.1 15.4 48.1 20.0

 1-20 hours 16.7 14.0 15.5 16.4

 21-34 hours 15.9 13.0 13.0 13.9

 35 hours or more 28.3 57.6 23.5 49.7

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-93 and 1995-96 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

1995-96 1992-93
4-YEAR, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS

56

students attending less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. Finally, there was a significant difference in the percentage of students who received employer aid. About one in 10 students (11

percent) who were enrolled at 4-year, for-profit institutions received employer aid compared to 2

percent of students who attended less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions. 

Table 16—Financing behavior of students at for-profit institutions, by level of institution: 1992-93 and 1995-96

Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average

Total aid 78.1 $4,928 74.7 $5,956 75.8 $4,175 60.4 $5,397

 Federal aid (except VA/DOD) 71.2 4,431 63.7 5,836 70.8 3,864 47.8 5,252 

 Non-federal aid 26.9 2,575 27.3 2,687 11.9 2,466 18.9 2,390 

 State aid 10.9 2,672 6.9 1,241 5.0 2,185 8.8 1,264 

 Institutional aid 10.2 1,537 5.3 2,183 3.9 1,608 7.2 1,596 

 Other aid (including VA/DOD) 7.5 3,266 16.9 3,142 5.9 3,179 18.7 2,520 

 Employer aid 2.0 3,685 11.2 2,757 2.4 3,397 13.1 2,659 

Loans (except PLUS) 56.4 3,969 52.2 5,490 47.0 3,580 43.2 4,256 

 Federal (except PLUS) 54.8 3,902 51.9 5,451 46.5 3,520 43.2 4,233 

 Stafford (all) 53.8 3,890 51.4 5,241 45.4 2,590 42.5 3,061 

 Stafford subsidized 50.4 2,319 45.3 3,343 **   ** 

 Stafford unsubsidized 32.0 2,884 35.0 3,376 **   ** 

 Perkins 3.0 1,441 9.2 1,471 2.5 1,505 4.1 1,237 

 Non-federal 5.2 1,940 0.7 — 1.7 2,743 1.1 —

 State 0.1 — 0.2 — 0.2 — 0 —

 Institutional 4.6 1,933 0.3 — 0.5 — 0.2 —

 Other 0.5 — 0.2 — 1.1 2,512 0.9 —

Grants 56.2 1,948 52.8 2,140 58.6 1,954 40.6 2,599 

 Federal 50.1 1,543 38.9 1,699 53.8 1,734 26.7 1,803 

 Pell 49.7 1,459 38.7 1,480 52.5 1,633 26.4 1,596 

 SEOG 12.4 374 15.7 560 10.8 531 8.8 673 

 Non-federal 16.2 1,996 21.9 2,145 8.1 2,171 15.9 2,394 

 State 9.0 2,323 6.4 878 2.9 1,839 8.6 1,203 

 Institutional 5.7 791 4.8 2,052 3.4 1,397 4.1 1,417 

 Other 2.2 3,119 11.5 2,739 2.2 3,372 7.6 —

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-93 and 1995-96 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93 and NPSAS: 96), Data Analysis System.

Less-than-4-year 4-year

1995-96 1992-93

—Sample size was too small for a reliable estimate.

**Program did not exist in 1992-93.

Less-than-4-year 4-year
57

SUMMARY

This report examined the financing patterns of students at private, for-profit institutions,

and profiled changes in the demographic and enrollment characteristics of these students, including receipt of financial aid, between 1992-93 and 1995-96. The analysis focused more specifically on student borrowing through the federal Title IV programs (excluding PLUS).

The overall findings of this report indicate that the demographic and enrollment characteristics of students attending less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions in 1995-96 were female, white,

age 23 or younger, independent, delayed their enrollment for a year or more after high school,

attended full-time for at least part of the academic year, and did not work while enrolled. They

were more likely than their counterparts at other less-than-4-year institutions to be female, black,

single parents, independent, and in the lowest income quartile. These characteristics remained

consistent between 1992-93 and 1995-96, with no significant changes in the student population.

The federal government was the most extensive provider of financial aid in 1995-96 to students attending less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions, followed by states, institutions, and employers. While this pattern was similar to that in 1992-93, there were some significant changes

in how these students financed their educations. The percentage of students who received aid

from non-federal sources increased from 12 percent to 27 percent.

The demographic and enrollment characteristics of borrowers at less-than-4-year, for-profit

institutions were similar to those of all students in that sector and changed little between 1992-93

and 1995-96. Comparing the characteristics of borrowers to non-borrowers reveals that borrowers were generally younger, in the lowest income quartile, and worked while enrolled. Borrowers

at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions were more likely than those at other less-than-4-year

institutions to have more risk factors associated with loan default, including being black, independent, from a low-income family, and not having a traditional high school diploma. There

were no differences in these characteristics between 1992-93 and 1995-96.

The number of 4-year, for-profit postsecondary institutions that offer programs leading to a

baccalaureate degree and beyond has increased. The students that attended these institutions in

1995-96 were different than those students that attended less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions.
SUMMARY

58

Students in the 4-year, for-profit sector were more likely to be male, employed while enrolled,

and not to have delayed their enrollment for a year or more after high school.

There also were differences with regard to financing behavior. The average amounts of

federal loans and grants received by students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were higher than the

amounts that students at less-than-4-year, for-profit institutions received. However, state aid differed: students at 4-year, for-profit institutions received lower average state grant amounts. In

addition, students at 4-year, for-profit institutions were more likely to receive employer aid than

students at less-than-4-year institutions.
59

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

The variables in this glossary were taken directly from the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96 Data Analysis System (DAS). This is an NCES

software application that generates tables from the NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96 data. 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. Variables from NPSAS:93 are given first, followed by

those from NPSAS:96.

NPSAS:93

Demographic and enrollment characteristics

Age (AGE)

23 years or younger Student was 23 years old or younger as of 12/31/92.

24-29 years of age Student was between 24 and 29 years of age as of 12/31/92.

30 years or older Student was 30 years old or older as of 12/31/92.

Attendance status (ATTNST8)

Attendance status describes the student’s full- or part-time attendance while enrolled during

1992-93, as defined by the institution.

Full-time Student was enrolled 8 or more months full-time, or attended less than 8 months,

all months full-time.

Part-time Student was enrolled 8 or more months, but less than 8 months full-time, or attended less than 8 months, all or some months part-time.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

60

Delayed enrollment (DELAYENR)

Student delayed enrollment into postsecondary education (PSE). Immediate enrollment is defined as entry into PSE during the same calendar year as graduating from high school or receiving a General Educational Development certificate (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 enrollment Student entered PSE the same calendar year as high school

graduation or GED receipt.

Delayed enrollment Student entered PSE, but delayed their enrollment for a year or

more after high school.

Dependency status (DEPEND4)

Dependent A student was considered dependent if he or she did not meet any of the

criteria for independence (see below).

Independent A student was considered independent if he or she met one or more of the

following criteria:

Twenty-four years of age or older as of 12/31/92.

Was a veteran.

Was an orphan or ward of the court.

Had legal dependents, other than spouse.

Was married, and not claimed by parents on 1992 tax returns.

Was a graduate student and not claimed as a dependent by parents on 1992

tax return.

Was a single undergraduate, not claimed as a dependent by parents on

either 1990 or 1991 tax returns, and was self-sufficient for two years prior

to receiving any federal aid.
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

61

 Independent, no dependents A student was considered independent if he or she met any

of the criteria for independence (see above). In addition,

the student did not have any dependents (other than spouse

if married).

 Independent, with dependents A student was considered independent if he or she met any

of the criteria for independence (see above). In addition,

the student had at least one dependent (not including

spouses).

Disability status (DISABLTY)

Student does not have a disability A student was not considered to have a disability if they did

not indicate such (see below).

Student has a disability A student was considered to have a disability if they indicated having any of the following:

Hearing impairment.

Speech disability or limitation.

Orthopedic or mobility limitation.

Specific learning disability.

Vision impairment that cannot be corrected by glasses, or

legally blind.

Other type of disability.

Gender (GENDER)

Male

Female

Average hours worked per week while enrolled (EMWKHR4)

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
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

62

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.

Not employed Student reported no hours of work during enrollment.

1-20 hours Student worked 1-20 hours per week while enrolled.

21-34 hours Student worked 21-34 hours per week while enrolled.

35 or more Student worked full time while enrolled.

High school degree or equivalent (HSDEG)

Form in which the high school degree or equivalent was received.

High school diploma

A diploma through the General Educational Development certificate (GED) or other equivalent

A certificate of high school completion

No high school equivalent

Independent student total income, quartile (PCTINDEP)

Percentile rank of independent student’s total income in 1991. Calculated for independent students only. Equal to the proportion of the sample of independent students who had an income

lower than the sample student.

Lower quartile Income falls at or below the 25th percentile of independent students’ income distribution.

Middle quartiles Income falls between the 26th percentile and 75th percentile of independent

students’ income distribution.

Upper quartile Income falls at or above the 76th percentile of independent students’ income distribution.
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

63

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students) (PCTDEP)

Percentile rank of parents’ total income in 1991. Calculated for dependent students only. Equal

to the proportion of the sample of dependent students’ parents who had an income lower than

sample student’s parents.

Lower quartile Income falls at or below the 25th percentile of dependent students’ parents’

income distribution.

Middle quartiles Income falls between the 26th percentile and 75th percentile of dependent

students’ parents’ income distribution.

Upper quartile Income falls at or above the 76th percentile of dependent students’ parents’

income distribution.

Income status (PCTPOV91)

Total 1991 income as a percentage of the federal poverty level thresholds for 1991, based on

family size, total income, and dependency. Refers to the family of the parents of dependent students and the student’s own family if independent.

Low-income Income was less than 100 percent of the federal poverty threshold.

Not low-income Income was 100 percent or more of the federal poverty threshold.

Parents’ highest education (PEDUC)

The highest level of education completed by either of the student’s parents (mother or father,

whoever had the highest level).

Less than high school Neither parent graduated from high school or received a GED 

certificate.

High school graduate One or both parents graduated from high school or received a GED

certificate.

Some college, including AA One or both parents had some postsecondary education, less than a

bachelor’s degree, but could include an associate’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree One or both parents earned a bachelor’s degree.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

64

Advanced degree One or both parents earned an advanced degree, including a master’s degree, Ph.D., M.D., etc.

Race-ethnicity (RACE2R)

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of

Hispanic origin).

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or

South American, or other Spanish culture or origin,

regardless of race.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having 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.

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

North America and who maintains cultural identification

through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Marital status (SMARITAL)

Student marital status. Since almost all dependent students were not married, dependent students

for whom there was no information were assumed to be unmarried.

Not married Student was not currently married.

Married Student was currently married.

Separated Student was currently divorced, widowed, or separated.
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

65

Single parent status (SINGLPAR)

Students who had dependents but were not married. Note that in the case that a student was caring for dependents who were not the student’s children (i.e., elderly parents or relatives) and the

student was not married, the student was identified as a single parent.

Not a single parent

Single parent

Type of institution (SECTOR)

Indicates the level and control of the NPSAS institution where the student was surveyed during

1992-93.

Public 2-year Included in “other, public 2-year,” “other, total,” and “total, lessthan-4-year institutions.”

Public less-than-2-year Included in “other, total” and “total, less-than-4-year institutions.”

Private, not-for-profit 2-year Included in “other, total” and “total, less-than-4-year institutions.”

Private, not-for-profit less- Included in “other, total” and “total, less-than-4-year institutions.”

than-2-year

Public 4-year (Not used in this analysis)

Private, not-for-profit 4-year (Not used in this analysis)

Level of private, for-profit institution (PRIVFP)

Indicates the level of the private, for-profit NPSAS institution where the student was surveyed

during 1992-93.

4-year Included in “private, for-profit 4-year.”

2-year Included in “private, for-profit less-than-4-year.”

Less-than-2-year Included in “private, for-profit less-than-4-year.”
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

66

Loan default risk factors (LNDEFI)

Represents an index of risk based on the sum of four possible characteristics that have been

shown to be associated with defaulting on student loans. These four factors are:

Being black

Being financially independent

Being from a low-income family

Not having a traditional high school diploma

Financial aid variables

Total aid (TOTAIDR2)

Total amount of financial aid received from all sources (federal, state, institutional, other) in

1992-93, including loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of aid. Positive values on this

variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received aid.

Federal aid (except VA/DOD) (TFEDAID)

Total amount of federal financial aid received in 1992-93, including loans, grants, work-study,

and all other federal aid, but excluding veterans’ benefits (VA/DOD). Positive values on this

variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Non-federal aid (TNFEDAID)

Total amount of non-federal aid from states, institutions, and other sources (not federal) in 1992-

93, including loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of aid. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

State aid (STATEAMT)

Total amount of financial aid awarded by states in 1992-93, including loans, grants, work-study,

and all other types of aid. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

67

Institutional aid (INSTAMT)

Total amount of financial aid received from postsecondary institutions in 1992-93, including

loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of aid. Positive values on this variable were also

used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Other aid (OTHERAMR)

Total amount of aid received from a source other than federal, state, or institutional in 1992-93.

Other aid includes veterans’ benefits (VA/DOD), loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of

aid. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who

received this category of aid.

Employer aid (EMPLAMTR)

Total amount of financial aid received from employers in 1992-93. It is equal to the sum of tuition waivers for employees and employee tuition reimbursement. Positive values on this variable

were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Loans (except PLUS) (TOTLOANR)

Total amount of loans received in 1992-93. This includes all loans from federal, state, institutional, or other 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. Positive values on this variable were

also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Federal loans (except PLUS) (TFEDLNR)

Total amount of loans received in 1992-93 from federal sources. PLUS loans (which are made to

parents) are not included. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Federal Stafford (all) loan (STAFFR)

Total amount of federal Stafford loans received in 1992-93. This includes all Stafford loans

taken out at all institutions the student attended during the academic year. Stafford loans are

long-term, low-interest loans administered by the federal government. Students borrow money

for educational 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. In 1992-93 the federal Stafford loan program consisted only of subsidized
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

68

loans. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who

received this category of aid.

Federal Perkins loan (PERKAMT)

Total amount of federal Perkins loans received in 1992-93. 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. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Non-federal loans (TNFEDLN)

Total amount of loans received in 1992-93 from non-federal sources (state, institutional, and

other). Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who

received this category of aid.

State loans (STLNAMT)

Total amount of state loans received in 1992-93. Positive values on this variable were also used

to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Institutional loans (INLNAMT)

Total amount of institutional loans received in 1992-93. Positive values on this variable were

also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Other loans (OTHLNAMT)

Total amount of loans received in 1992-93 from a source other than federal, state, or institutional.

Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Grants (TOTGRTR)

Total amount of grants received in 1992-93 from federal, state, institutional, and other sources.

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 grant aid. Positive values
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

69

on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category

of aid.

Federal grants (TFEDGRT)

Total amount of federal grants received in 1992-93, including Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), and other federal grants, scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships. These are all forms of financial aid that do not require repayment or employment. Does

not include veterans’ benefits (VA/DOD). Positive values on this variable were also used to

identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Federal Pell Grant (PELLAMT)

Total amount of Pell Grant received in 1992-93. 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. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Federal SEOG grant (SEOGAMT)

Total amount of SEOG grants received in 1992-93. The Supplemental Educational Opportunity

Grant (SEOG) is a campus-administered federal grant available to undergraduates without a

bachelor’s degree who show exceptional financial need. The SEOG is intended to supplement

the Pell Grant, and priority is given to undergraduates who have received a Pell Grant. The

maximum award was $4,000 per year in 1992-93. 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 attendance status, so undergraduates who are enrolled less than half-time may be eligible

for a SEOG grant. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of

students who received this category of aid.

Non-federal grants (TNFEDGRT)

Total amount of loans received in 1992-93 from non-federal sources (state, institutional, and

other). Grants include scholarships and fellowships. Employer aid is also considered grant aid.

Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

70

State grants (STGTAMT)

Total amount of state-based grants, scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships, including the

federal portion of State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG) received in 1992-93. Positive values on

this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of

aid.

Institutional grants (INGRTAMT)

Total amount of institutional grant aid received in 1992-93. Positive values on this variable were

also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Other grants (OTHGTAMT)

Total amount of grants received in 1992-93 from a source other than federal, state, or institutional. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who

received this category of aid.

Package by type of aid (all combinations) 1993 (AIDTYPE)

Identification of federal aid combinations received by students in 1992-93 by the type of aid received (loans, grants, work-study, other).

Loans only

Grants only

Work-study only

Other only

Loans & grants

Loans & work-study

Loans & other

Grants & work-study

Grants & other
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

71

Work-study & other

Loans, grants, & work-study

Loans, grants, & other

Loans, work-study, & other

Grants, work-study, & other

Loans, grants, work-study, & other

Package by source of aid (all combinations) 1993 (AIDSRC)

Identification of financial aid received by students in 1992-93 by the source of aid (federal, state,

institutional, and other).

Federal only

State only

Institutional only

Other only

Federal & state

Federal & institutional

Federal & other

State & institutional

State & other

Institutional & other

Federal, state, & institutional

Federal, state, & other

Federal, institutional, & other
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

72

State, institutional, & other

Federal, state, institutional, & other

Loan package by source of aid (all combinations) 1993 (LOANSRC)

Identification of combinations of loans received by students in 1992-93 by the source of aid (federal, state, institutional, and other). (See above for different combinations.)

Grant package by source of aid (all combinations) 1993 (GRNTSRC)

Identification of combinations of grants received by students in 1992-93 by the source of aid

(federal, state, institutional, and other). (See above for different combinations.)

Borrowed a Title IV loan (except PLUS) (T4AMT1R)

Total amount of federal Title IV loans received in 1992-93. Title IV loans include Perkins loans,

Stafford loans, Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS), and income contingent loans. PLUS

loans (which are made to parents) are not included. Positive values on this variable were also

used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid. This variable was

used as the basis for the borrowers section.

NPSAS:96

Demographic and enrollment characteristics

Age (AGE)

23 years or younger Student was 23 years old or younger as of 12/31/95.

24-29 years of age Student was between 24 and 29 years of age as of 12/31/95.

30 years or older Student was 30 years old or older as of 12/31/95.

Attendance status (ATTNST1)

Attendance pattern describes the student’s full- or part-time attendance while enrolled during

1995-96, as defined by the institution.
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

73

Full-time Student was enrolled 8 or more months full-time, or attended less than 8

months, all months full-time.

Part-time Student was enrolled 8 or more months, but less than 8 months full-time or

attended less than 8 months, all or some months part-time.

Delayed enrollment (DELAYED)

Student delayed enrollment into postsecondary education (PSE). 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 enrollment Student entered PSE the same calendar year as high school

graduation or GED receipt.

Delayed enrollment Student entered PSE, but delayed their enrollment for a year or

more after high school.

Dependency status (DEPEND4)

Dependent A student was considered dependent if he or she did not meet any of the

criteria for independence (see below).

Independent A student was considered independent by meeting one or more of the following criteria:

Age twenty-four or older as of 12/31/95 (born before January 1, 1972).

A veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Enrolled in a graduate or professional program (beyond a bachelor’s degree) in 1995-96.

Married.

Orphan or ward of the court.

Had legal dependents, other than spouse.

 Independent, no dependents A student was considered independent if he or she met any

of the criteria for independence (see above). In addition,
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

74

the student did not have any dependents (other than spouse

if married).

 Independent, with dependents A student was considered independent if he or she met any

of the criteria for independence (see above). In addition,

the student had at least one dependent (not including

spouses).

Disability status (DISABIL)

Student does not have a disability A student was not considered to have a disability if they did

not indicate such (see below).

Student has a disability A student was considered to have a disability if they indicated having any of the following:

Hearing impairment.

Other health-related limitation.

Learning disability.

Orthopedic or mobility limitation.

Speech disability or limitation.

Visual impairment.

Gender (GENDER)

Male

Female

Average hours worked per week while enrolled (HRSWORK)

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
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

75

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.

Not employed Student reported no hours of work during enrollment.

1-20 hours Student worked 1-20 hours per week while enrolled.

21-34 hours Student worked 21-34 hours per week while enrolled.

35 or more Student worked full-time while enrolled.

High school degree or equivalent (HSDEG)

Form in which the high school degree or equivalent was received.

High school diploma

A diploma through the General Educational Development certificate (GED) or other equivalent

A certificate of high school completion

No high school equivalent

Independent student total income, quartile (PCTINDEP)

Percentile rank of independent student’s total income in 1994. Calculated for independent students only. Equal to the proportion of the sample of independent students who had an income

lower than the sample student.

Lower quartile Income falls at or below the 25th percentile of independent students’ income distribution.

Middle quartiles Income falls between the 26th percentile and 75th percentile of independent

students’ income distribution.

Upper quartile Income falls at or above the 76th percentile of independent students’ income distribution.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

76

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students) (PCTDEP)

Percentile rank of parents’ total income in 1994. Calculated for dependent students only. Equal

to the proportion of the sample of dependent students’ parents who had an income lower than

sample student’s parents.

Lower quartile Income falls at or below the 25th percentile of dependent students’ parents’

income distribution.

Middle quartiles Income falls between the 26th percentile and 75th percentile of dependent

students’ parents’ income distribution.

Upper quartile Income falls at or above the 76th percentile of dependent students’ parents’

income distribution.

Income status (PCTPOV94)

Total 1994 income as a percentage of the federal poverty level thresholds for 1994, based on

family size, total income, and dependency. Refers to the family of the parents of dependent students and the student’s own family if independent.

Low-income Income was less than 100 percent of the federal poverty threshold.

Not low-income Income was 100 percent or more of the federal poverty threshold.

Parents’ highest education (PAREDUC)

The highest level of education completed by either of the student’s parents (mother or father,

whoever had the highest level).

Less than high school Neither parent graduated from high school or received a

GED certificate.

High school graduate One or both parents graduated from high school or received

a GED certificate.

Some college, including AA One or both parents had some postsecondary education,

less than a bachelor’s degree, but could include an associate’s degree.
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

77

Bachelor’s degree One or both parents earned a bachelor’s degree.

Advanced degree One or both parents earned an advanced degree, including a

master’s degree, Ph.D., M.D., etc.

Race-ethnicity (RACE)

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of

Hispanic origin).

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or

South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having 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.

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

North America and who maintains cultural identification

through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Marital status (SMARITAL)

Student marital status. Since almost all dependent students were not married, dependent students

for whom there was no information were assumed to be unmarried.

Not married Student was not currently married.

Married Student was currently married.

Separated Student was currently divorced, widowed, or separated.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

78

Single parent status (SINGLPAR)

Students who had dependents but were not married. Note that in the remote case that a student

was caring for dependents who were not the student’s children (i.e., elderly parents or relatives)

and the student was not married, the student was identified as a single parent.

Not a single parent

Single parent

Type of institution (SECTOR_C)

Indicates the level and control of the NPSAS institution where the student was surveyed during

1995-96.

Public 2-year Included in “other, public 2-year,” “other, total,” and “total, lessthan-4-year institutions.”

Public less-than-2-year Included in “other, total” and “total, less-than-4-year institutions.”

Private, not-for-profit 2-year Included in “other, total” and “total, less-than-4-year institutions.”

Private, not-for-profit less- Included in “other, total” and “total, less-than-4-year institutions.”

than-2-year

Public 4-year (Not used in this analysis)

Private, not-for-profit 4-year (Not used in this analysis)

Level of private, for-profit institution (PRIVFP)

Indicates the level of the private, for-profit NPSAS institution where the student was surveyed

during 1995-96.

4-year Included in “private, for-profit 4-year.”

2-year Included in “private, for-profit less-than-4-year.”

Less-than-2-year Included in “private, for-profit less-than-4-year.”
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

79

Loan default risk factors (LNDEFI)

Represents an index of risk based on the sum of four possible characteristics that have been

shown to be associated with defaulting on student loans. These four factors are:

Being black

Being from a low-income family

Not having a traditional high school diploma

Being financially independent

Financial aid variables

Total aid (TOTAID)

Total amount of financial aid received from all sources (federal, state, institutional, other) in

1995-96, including loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of aid. Positive values on this

variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received aid.

Federal aid (except VA/DOD) (TFEDAID)

Total amount of federal financial aid received in 1995-96, including loans, grants, work-study,

and all other federal aid, but excluding veterans’ benefits (VA/DOD). Positive values on this

variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Non-federal aid (TNFEDAID)

Total amount of non-federal aid from states, institutions, and other sources (not federal) in 1995-

96, including loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of aid. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

State aid (STATEAMT)

Total amount of financial aid awarded by states in 1995-96, including loans, grants, work-study,

and all other types of aid. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

80

Institutional aid (INSTAMT)

Total amount of financial aid received from postsecondary institutions in 1995-96, including

loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of aid. Positive values on this variable were also

used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Other aid (including VA/DOD) (OTHERSCR)

Total amount of aid received from a source other than federal, state, or institutional in 1995-96.

Other aid includes veterans’ benefits (VA/DOD), loans, grants, work-study, and all other types of

aid. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who

received this category of aid.

Employer aid (EMPLYAMT)

Total amount of financial aid received from employers in 1995-96. It is equal to the sum of tuition waivers for employees and employee tuition reimbursement. Positive values on this variable

were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Loans (except PLUS) (TOTLOAN)

Total amount of loans received in 1995-96. This includes all loans from federal, state, institutional, or other 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. Positive values on this variable were

also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Federal loans (except PLUS) (TFEDLN)

Total amount of loans received in 1995-96 from federal sources. PLUS loans (which are made to

parents) are not included. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Federal Stafford loan (STAFFAMT)

Total amount of federal Stafford loans received in 1995-96. 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 educational expenses directly from banks or other lending institutions. The loans are guaranteed by the
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

81

federal government. This program was formerly known as the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL)

program. In 1995-96 the federal Stafford loan program consisted of both subsidized and unsubsidized loans. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Federal Stafford subsidized loan (STAFSUB)

Total amount of federal Stafford subsidized loans received in 1995-96. This includes all subsidized Stafford loans taken out at all institutions the student attended during the year. There are

two categories of federal Stafford subsidized loans. Under the Direct loan program, the federal

government makes loans directly to students and parents through schools. Under the Federal

Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, private lenders such as banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations usually make the loans. Although the source of funds is different, both

programs provide the same types of loans. A subsidized loan is awarded on the basis of financial

need. If a student qualifies for a subsidized loan, the federal government pays the interest on the

loan until the student begins repayment, and during authorized periods of deferment thereafter.

Annual loan limits vary considerably.

Federal Stafford unsubsidized loan (STAFUNSB)

Total amount of federal Stafford unsubsidized loans received in 1995-96. This includes all unsubsidized Stafford loans taken out at all institutions the student attended during the year. There

are two categories of federal Stafford unsubsidized loans. Under the Direct loan program, the

federal government makes loans directly to students and parents through schools. Under the

FFEL Program, private lenders such as banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations

usually make the loans. Although the source of funds is different, both programs provide the

same types of loans. An unsubsidized loan is not awarded on the basis of need. If a student

qualifies for an unsubsidized loan, they are charged interest from the time the loan is disbursed

until it is paid in full. Students can choose to pay the interest or allow it to accumulate. If the

student allows the interest to accumulate, it will be capitalized (added to the principal amount of

the loan). Annual loan limits vary considerably.

Federal Perkins loan (PERKAMT)

Total amount of federal Perkins loans received in 1995-96. The Perkins loan is a campus-based,

low-interest loan for students who show exceptional financial need. For undergraduates, total

annual awards cannot exceed $3,000, and the maximum amount that can be borrowed is $15,000.

Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

82

Non-federal loans (TNFEDLN)

Total amount of loans received in 1995-96 from non-federal sources (state, institutional, and

other). Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who

received this category of aid.

State loan (STLNAMT)

Total amount of state loans received in 1995-96. Positive values on this variable were also used

to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Institutional loans (INLNAMT)

Total amount of institutional loans received in 1995-96. Positive values on this variable were

also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Other loans (OTHLNAMT)

Total amount of loans received in 1995-96 from a source other than federal, state, or institutional.

Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

Grants (TOTGRT)

Total amount of grants received in 1995-96 from federal, state, institutional, and other sources.

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 grant aid. Positive values

on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category

of aid.

Federal grants (TFEDGRT)

Total amount of federal grants received in 1995-96, including Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), and other federal grants, scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships. These are all forms of financial aid that do not require repayment or employment. Does

not include veterans’ benefits (VA/DOD). Positive values on this variable were also used to

identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

83

Federal Pell Grant (PELLAMT)

Total amount of Pell Grant received in 1995-96. Pell Grants are awarded to undergraduates who

have not yet received a bachelor’s or first professional degree. They are intended as a financial

base, to which other financial aid awards can be added. The amount of a Pell Grant depends on

estimated family contribution (EFC), cost of attendance, and attendance status (i.e. full-time or

part-time, full-year or part-year). In 1995-96 the maximum Pell Grant amount was $2,340. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received

this category of aid.

Federal SEOG grant (SEOGAMT)

Total amount of SEOG grants received in 1995-96. The Supplemental Educational Opportunity

Grant (SEOG) is a campus-administered federal grant available to undergraduates without a

bachelor’s degree who show exceptional financial need. The SEOG is intended to supplement

the Pell Grant, and priority is given to undergraduates who have received a Pell Grant. The

maximum award was $4,000 per year in 1995-96. 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 attendance status, so undergraduates who are enrolled less than half-time may be eligible

for a SEOG grant. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of

students who received this category of aid.

Non-federal grants (TNFEDGRT)

Total amount of loans received in 1995-96 from non-federal sources (state, institutional, and

other). Grants include scholarships and fellowships. Employer aid is also considered grant aid.

Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.

State grants (STGTAMT)

Total amount of state-based grants, scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships, including the

federal portion of State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG) received in 1995-96. Positive values on

this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of

aid.

Institutional grants (INGRTAMT)

Total amount of institutional grant aid received in 1995-96. Positive values on this variable were

also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

84

Other grants (OTHGTAMT)

Total amount of grants received in 1995-96 from a source other than federal, state, or institutional. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who

received this category of aid.

Package by type of aid (all combinations) 1996 (AIDTYPE)

Identification of federal aid combinations received by students in 1995-96 by the type of aid received (loans, grants, work-study, other).

Loans only

Grants only

Work-study only

Other only

Loans & grants

Loans & work-study

Loans & other

Grants & work-study

Grants & other

Work-study & other

Loans, grants, & work-study

Loans, grants, & other

Loans, work-study, & other

Grants, work-study, & other

Loans, grants, work-study, & other
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

85

Package by source of aid (all combinations) 1996 (AIDSRC)

Identification of financial aid received by students in 1995-96 by the source of aid (federal, state,

institutional, and other).

Federal only

State only

Institutional only

Other only

Federal & state

Federal & institutional

Federal & other

State & institutional

State & other

Institutional & other

Federal, state, & institutional

Federal, state, & other

Federal, institutional, & other

State, institutional, & other

Federal, state, institutional, & other

Loan package by source of aid (all combinations) 1996 (LOANSRC)

Identification of combinations of loans received by students in 1995-96 by the source of aid (federal, state, institutional, and other). (See above for different combinations.)
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

86

Grant package by source of aid (all combinations) 1996 (GRNTSRC)

Identification of combinations of grants received by students in 1995-96 by the source of aid

(federal, state, institutional, and other). (See above for different combinations.)

Borrowed a Title IV loan (except PLUS) (T4LNAMT1)

Total amount of federal Title IV loans received in 1995-96. Title IV loans include Perkins loans

and Stafford loans (subsidized and unsubsidized). PLUS loans (which are made to parents) are

not included. Positive values on this variable were also used to identify the percentage of students who received this category of aid. This variable was used as the basis for the borrowers

section.
87

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

THE NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY (NPSAS:93 AND

NPSAS:96)

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide

study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education. It is designed to address the policy questions resulting from the rapid growth of financial aid programs

and the succession of changes in financial aid policies since 1986. The study also describes

demographic and other characteristics of students enrolled. Students attending all types and levels of institutions are represented in the sample, including those in public and private institutions,

and those in less-than-2-year institutions, 2-year institutions, and 4-year colleges and universities.

The NPSAS study has been conducted in 1986-87, 1989-90, 1992-93, and 1995-96.

NPSAS:96 was based on a nationally representative sample of approximately 41,400 undergraduates (including 27,000 student interviews) enrolled in about 830 postsecondary education institutions. NPSAS:93 included a stratified sample of approximately 52,000

undergraduates from about 1,100 institutions.

For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult Methodology Report for the 1993 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 92-080, June 1992) or National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study, 1995-96 (NPSAS:96) Methodology Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 98-073, October 1997). Both

documents are available from the Postsecondary Studies Division at NCES.
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

88

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because

observations are made only on samples of students, not on entire populations. Nonsampling errors occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete information

about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in

recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and imputing

missing data.

DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96

Data Analysis System (DAS) software developed by NCES. The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own tables (cross tabulations) from the NPSAS:96 and

NPSAS:93 data. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this

report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors and weighted

sample sizes for these estimates. For example, tables B1 and B2 (at the end of this appendix)

contain standard errors that correspond to tables 1 and 2, and were generated by the DAS. If the

number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), the DAS

prints the message “low n” instead of an estimate.

In addition to tables, the DAS will produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to be

used for linear regression models. The design effects (DEFTs) for all the variables identified in

the correlation matrix also are produced. 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:96 and NPSAS:93 stratified

sampling method (see discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the adjustment procedure). For more information about the NPSAS:96 or NPSAS:93 Data Analysis Systems or to

obtain access to them, consult the NCES DAS website (www.pedar-das.org) or contact:
 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

89

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Postsecondary Studies Division

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address: Aurora_D’Amico@ed.gov

WEIGHTS

Two sets of weights were used in this analysis: (1) the full sample weight, whose primary

source of data was from the institution or the central processing system (CPS); and (2) the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) weight, which was based on students who were interviewed. In cases in which information was obtained only from students, estimates were

calculated using the CATI weight.

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 in the report were tested using Student’s t statistics. Statistical significance was determined by calculating t values for differences between pairs of means or

proportions and comparing these with published values of t for two-tailed hypothesis testing, using a 5 percent probability of a Type I error (a significance level of 0.05).

Student’s t values may be computed for comparisons using these tables’ estimates with the

following formula:

 (1)

where E1 and E2 are estimates to be compared, and se1 and se2 are the corresponding standard

errors. Note that this formula is only valid for independent estimates. When estimates were not

independent (for example, when comparing the percentages across a percentage distribution; in

this report, down a column), a covariance term was added to the denominator of the t-test formula:

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− =
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

90

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.23 The estimates, standard errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS.

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons

based on large t statistics appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the

magnitude of the t statistics is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a

small difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison is 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” is tested for statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those comparisons

taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p<.05/k for a particular pair-wise comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the

individual comparison would have p<.05 and that when k comparisons were made within a family of possible tests, the significance level of the comparisons would sum to p<.05.24

For example, in a comparison between males and females of average aid received only one

comparison is possible (males vs. females). In this family, k = 1, and the comparison can be

evaluated with Student’s t test. When students are 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 .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows.

 

23U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note From the Chief Statistician, No. 2, 1993.

24The standard that p<.05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the comparisons should sum to p<.05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p<.05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association

56 (1970):52-64.

1 2

2

2

2

1 2( )

1 2

se se r se se

E E

t

+ −

− =

(2)
 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

91

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race-ethnicity,

there are five racial-ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander,

black, non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and white, non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in the above

equation yields:

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 borrowed across income groups, it is impossible to know to

what extent the observed variation is due to differences in other factors related to income such as

age, race-ethnicity, parents’ education, and so on. However, if a nested table were produced

showing income within age groups, within race-ethnicity categories, and within parents’ education, 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.25 The dependent variable—borrowing

a Title IV loan (except PLUS)—was regressed on a set of descriptive variables such as attendance status, gender, and race-ethnicity. 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 probability of the outcome for a given individual, holding all other variables constant.

Then, the probability for the individual is multiplied by 100 to obtain the adjusted percentage of

the specified subgroup experiencing the outcome of interest.26 For example, consider a hypothetical case in which two variables, attendance status and gender, are used to describe an out-

 

25For more information about regression, see M. S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression, Vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, Inc., 1980); and W. D. Berry and S. Feldman, Multiple Regression in Practice, Vol. 50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987).

26For more information about the use of linear regression for a binary outcome, see J. H. Aldrich and F. D. Nelson, Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models, Vol. 45 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, Inc., 1984).

2

( −1) = j j k

10

2

5(5 1) = − k =
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

92

thetical case in which two variables, attendance status and gender, are used to describe an outcome, Y (such as borrowing a Title IV loan). The attendance status and gender variables are recorded as dummy variables, one representing attendance and one representing gender:

Attendance status A

Full-time 1

Part-time 0

Gender G

Female 1

Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output

from the DAS:

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and the

mean for the dummy variables representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose we had a

case where Y was being described by attendance status (A) and gender (G), coded as shown

above, and the means for A and G are:

Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

Suppose the regression equation results in:

Y = 0.15 + (0.17 ) A + (0.01)G

∧

Y = a + β1A + β2G
 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

93

To estimate the adjusted value for full-time students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter values into equation X.

Variable Parameter Value

 a 0.15 —

A 0.17 1.000

G 0.01 0.521

This results in:

In this case the adjusted mean for full-time students is 0.325 (compared to an unadjusted

mean of 0.355) and represents the expected outcome for full-time students who look like the average student across the other variables (in this example, gender). In other words the adjusted

percentage of full-time students who received a Title IV loan is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for

conversion to a percentage).

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using NPSAS:96 and

NPSAS:93 data, since one of the output options of the DAS is a correlation matrix, computed

using pair-wise missing values.27 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 additional adjustments (described below) to incorporate the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates.

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for the

NPSAS:96 and NPSAS:93, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to multiply each standard error by the average design effect of the dependent variable (DEFT),28 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.

 

27Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts who wish

to use other than pairwise treatment of missing values or to estimate probit/logit models can apply for a restricted data license

from NCES. 28The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, Holt, D., and Smith, T.M.F., eds., Analysis of Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).

= 0.15 + (0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325

∧

Y
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

94

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Gender

 Male 4.02 5.12 3.21 1.43 1.38 1.28

 Female 4.02 5.12 3.21 1.43 1.38 1.28

Age

 23 years or younger 2.76 3.31 2.12 1.16 1.11 1.02

 24-29 years of age 1.17 1.41 0.91 0.78 0.75 0.68

 30 years or older 2.67 2.49 1.87 1.15 1.10 1.01

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 4.49 3.45 2.98 2.00 1.90 1.75

 Black, non-Hispanic 3.85 2.56 2.47 1.22 1.16 1.08

 Hispanic 4.00 2.78 2.60 1.46 1.38 1.28

 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.69 0.99 0.55 0.56 0.54 0.49

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.40 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.30 0.27

Marital status 

 Not married 1.91 1.99 1.38 1.05 1.00 0.92

 Married 1.71 1.75 1.22 1.05 1.00 0.91

 Separated 0.89 0.74 0.60 0.31 0.30 0.28

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 1.78 1.66 1.27 0.81 0.77 0.71

 Single parent 1.78 1.66 1.27 0.81 0.77 0.71

Disability status

 Student has a disabililty 1.46 0.79 0.93 0.49 0.47 0.44

 Student does not have a disability 1.46 0.79 0.93 0.49 0.47 0.44

Dependency status

 Dependent 2.17 3.26 1.86 1.11 1.07 0.98

 Independent 2.17 3.26 1.86 1.11 1.07 0.98

 Independent, no dependents 1.99 2.01 1.43 0.97 0.92 0.85

 Independent, with dependents 2.24 2.81 1.78 1.15 1.10 1.01

Independent student total income, quartile

 Lower quartile 2.80 1.94 1.88 0.94 0.89 0.84

 Middle quartiles 2.21 1.75 1.51 1.25 1.18 1.07

 Upper quartile 1.58 1.57 1.15 1.32 1.24 1.12

Table B1—Standard errors for table 1 

Other
 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

95

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 5.02 3.15 2.96 1.50 1.45 1.37

 Middle quartiles 3.36 2.39 2.08 1.42 1.37 1.28

 Upper quartile 3.24 1.85 1.86 1.15 1.11 1.04

Parents’ highest education level

 Less than high school 2.26 1.24 1.42 0.89 0.85 0.78

 High school graduate 2.48 2.69 1.83 1.59 1.51 1.39

 Some college, including AA 1.77 1.37 1.17 1.14 1.09 1.00

 Bachelor’s degree 1.45 1.49 1.06 1.23 1.17 1.07

 Advanced degree 0.98 1.32 0.80 1.05 1.00 0.91

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 2.07 1.74 1.43 0.85 0.81 0.75

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 1.45 1.40 1.02 0.55 0.52 0.49

 A certificate of high school completion 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.13

 No high school equivalent 1.91 1.13 1.23 0.52 0.50 0.46

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 1.93 2.95 1.70 1.50 1.43 1.31

 Delayed enrollment 1.93 2.95 1.70 1.50 1.43 1.31

Attendance status

 Full-time 2.51 1.04 2.42 1.27 1.26 1.20

 Part-time 2.51 1.04 2.42 1.27 1.26 1.20

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 3.14 2.92 2.32 1.12 1.08 1.02

 1-20 hours 1.50 1.26 1.01 1.02 0.97 0.89

 21-34 hours 1.33 1.78 1.09 1.06 1.01 0.92

 35 hours or more 2.52 2.83 1.96 1.54 1.48 1.37

Other

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Data Analysis System.

Table B1—Standard errors for table 1—Continued
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

96

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Gender

 Male 4.27 4.30 3.63 0.74 0.76 0.85

 Female 4.27 4.30 3.63 0.74 0.76 0.85

Age

 23 years or younger 2.52 2.88 1.95 0.89 0.90 0.85

 24-29 years of age 1.04 1.67 0.85 0.55 0.53 0.47

 30 years or older 2.23 2.08 1.72 0.92 0.89 0.84

Race-ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 5.06 6.79 4.16 1.25 1.19 1.24

 Black, non-Hispanic 3.33 5.50 2.94 0.88 0.85 0.87

 Hispanic 3.82 2.44 2.74 0.63 0.61 0.69

 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.46 2.82 1.34 0.36 0.34 0.33

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.19 0.49 0.19 0.47 0.45 0.40

Marital status 

 Not married 1.54 2.66 1.43 0.86 0.81 0.76

 Married 1.76 2.56 1.53 0.86 0.82 0.78

 Separated 0.65 0.77 0.54 0.18 0.17 0.16

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 2.76 2.12 2.20 0.35 0.35 0.44

 Single parent 2.76 2.12 2.20 0.35 0.35 0.44

Disability status

 Student has a disabililty 1.12 1.41 0.88 0.40 0.38 0.36

 Student does not have a disability 1.12 1.41 0.88 0.40 0.38 0.36

Dependency status

 Dependent 2.38 3.67 2.14 0.90 0.91 0.88

 Independent 2.38 3.67 2.14 0.90 0.91 0.88

 Independent, no dependents 1.93 2.75 1.60 0.78 0.75 0.69

 Independent, with dependents 2.85 3.10 2.47 0.67 0.65 0.71

Independent student total income, quartile

 Lower quartile 3.58 2.83 2.89 0.81 0.80 0.87

 Middle quartiles 2.07 2.36 1.81 1.17 1.10 0.98

 Upper quartile 1.95 1.73 1.52 1.20 1.14 1.05

Table B2—Standard errors for table 2

Other
 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

97

Private, for-profit

Total

Less-than2-year

2-year Total Public 

2-year

Total*

Parents’ total income, quartile (dependent students)

 Lower quartile 4.77 4.92 3.46 1.18 1.16 1.13

 Middle quartiles 4.00 4.58 3.03 1.07 1.12 1.08

 Upper quartile 1.24 2.34 1.20 0.88 0.85 0.76

Parents’ highest education level

 Less than high school 2.01 1.61 1.58 0.59 0.57 0.53

 High school graduate 1.54 2.99 1.46 0.93 0.88 0.81

 Some college, including AA 1.03 1.57 0.90 0.58 0.54 0.50

 Bachelor’s degree 0.93 1.90 0.90 0.65 0.63 0.58

 Advanced degree 0.57 1.83 0.73 0.52 0.50 0.46

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 4.50 2.08 3.40 0.58 0.55 0.74

 A diploma through the GED or equivalent 0.95 1.26 0.77 0.44 0.42 0.40

 A certificate of high school completion 0.13 0.23 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.14

 No high school equivalent 5.06 1.06 3.60 0.35 0.33 0.55

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 1.51 3.28 1.55 0.80 0.83 0.80

 Delayed enrollment 1.51 3.28 1.55 0.80 0.83 0.80

Attendance status

 Full-time 3.73 4.66 2.88 1.08 1.07 1.12

 Part-time 3.73 4.66 2.88 1.08 1.07 1.12

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Not employed 2.03 3.62 2.20 0.73 0.70 0.71

 1-20 hours 1.21 2.37 1.18 0.59 0.58 0.55

 21-34 hours 0.95 1.54 0.88 0.52 0.49 0.44

 35 hours or more 1.58 3.09 1.65 1.01 0.97 0.91

Table B2—Standard errors for table 2—Continued

Other

*Total refers to public and private, not-for-profit institutions.

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

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