NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS 

Statistical Analysis Report February 1998

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports 

Postsecondary Financing Strategies: 

How Undergraduates Combine 

Work, Borrowing, and Attendance 

Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin 

Susan P. Choy 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Data Series: NPSAS93, BPS:90/94 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-088 
U.S. Department of Education 

Richard W. Riley 

Secretary 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

Ricky T. Takai 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr. 

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 20208–5574 

February 1998 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is 

http://nces.ed.gov 

Suggested Citation 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Postsecondary Financing 

Strategies: How Undergraduates Combine Work, Borrowing, and Attendance, NCES 98088, by Stephanie 

Cuccaro-Alamin and Susan P. Choy. Project Officer, C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 1998. 

Contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

202-219-1356 
HIGHLIGHTS 

Although undergraduate tuition, room, and board have been rising rapidly, the opportunity 

costs associated with not receiving postsecondary training have also increased. Despite the increasing cost of attending, high school graduates are enrolling in postsecondary education at record rates. Faced with the challenge of financing their enrollment, students have increasingly 

opted to work, borrow, or attend part-time. This analysis describes how undergraduates combine 

work, borrowing, and attendance, and examines the relationship between these strategies and 

students’ persistence in postsecondary education. 

• The majority of undergraduates work while enrolled. In 1992–93, 72 percent of the 

undergraduates in this analysis worked while enrolled, and they worked intensively—

an average of 31 hours per week and 88 percent of the months they were enrolled (table 2). Compared with students at other types of institutions, students enrolled at public 2-year institutions were the most likely to work; worked the most hours per week, 

on average; and worked over the greatest percentage of their months of enrollment. 

• In 1992–93, 18 percent of the undergraduates borrowed through student loan programs 

to help pay for their education (table 3). Students at private, not-for-profit 4-year and 

private, for-profit institutions were more likely to borrow (34 and 42 percent, respectively) than those at public 4-year or 2-year institutions (23 percent and 5 percent, respectively). 

• Forty-one percent of the undergraduates enrolled exclusively full time during the 

1992–93 academic year, 43 percent enrolled exclusively part time, and 16 percent had 

mixed full- and part-time enrollment (table 4). Students in 2-year public institutions 

were much more likely than those in other types of institutions to enroll exclusively 

part time (65 percent compared to 20 to 26 percent). 

• Among students who worked while enrolled in 1992–93, there was a negative association between average hours worked per week and full-time attendance. However, 

within each category of hours worked per week (no work, 1–14 hours, 15–33 hours, 

and 34 or more hours), students who borrowed were more likely than those who did 

not borrow to attend exclusively full time (table 7). 

• How students combined work, borrowing, and attendance varied by institution type. 

Among students who attended exclusively full time, between 25 and 29 percent at each 

type of institution neither worked nor borrowed (table 8). At public 2-year institutions, 

another approximately 65 percent relied on work without borrowing. At public 4-year 

institutions, 27 percent worked 15-33 hours and did not borrow (more than any other 

iii 
HIGHLIGHTS

strategy except not working and not borrowing). Exclusively full-time students at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions were more likely than their counterparts at public 4-year institutions to borrow and work (at each level of work). 

• Among students who began their postsecondary education in 1989–90, there was a 

strong, positive association between attendance intensity and persistence as of spring 

1994. Students who attended exclusively or partly full time were far more likely than 

those who attended exclusively part time to have earned a degree or be still enrolled 

(73 percent compared with 25 percent) (table 10). 

• Students who worked, but less than 15 hours per week, had the same persistence rate 

regardless of whether or not they borrowed (about 80 percent). In contrast, among 

those who worked more hours, borrowers had higher persistence rates than nonborrowers (77 versus 61 percent among those who worked 15-33 hours, and 48 versus 25 

percent among those who worked 34 hours or more). 

• After controlling for work, borrowing, attendance status, and other factors considered 

to be related to persistence (such as gender, age, race–ethnicity, dependency status, local residence, socioeconomic status, cumulative grade point average, and type of institution attended), working 34 or more hours per week and attending part time were 

negatively associated with persistence, and borrowing was positively associated. High 

grades were also positively associated with persistence. 

iv 
FOREWORD 

This report examines the postsecondary financing strategies of undergraduates. Specifically, it describes how undergraduates combine work, borrowing, and attendance to support their 

postsecondary enrollment, and examines the relationship between various financing strategies 

and students’ persistence in postsecondary education. 

The report uses data from the 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:93) and the Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94). 

NPSAS:93 represents students of all ages and backgrounds at all types of postsecondary institutions (from less-than-2-year institutions that provide short-term vocational training to 4-year colleges and universities) who were enrolled during the 1992–93 academic year. BPS:90/94 

represents students who began postsecondary education for the first time in 1989–90. This group 

was followed up in 1992 and 1994 and thus can be used to study persistence. 

The percentages and means presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:93 

and BPS:90/94 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS is a microcomputer application that allows users to specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS and BPS data. It produces 

the design-adjusted standard errors that are necessary for testing the statistical significance of 

differences shown in the tables. For more information about the DAS and directions for obtaining access through the Internet, see appendix C. 

v 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to this report. At MPR Associates, 

Laura Horn and Lutz Berkner reviewed the analysis at various stages and provided many helpful 

comments. Thanks also go to Barbara Kridl, who supervised the production of the report; Andrea 

Livingston and Karyn Madden, who edited it; Leslie Retallick, who prepared the graphics; Mary 

Sukkestad, who formatted the tables, and Francesca Tussing, who assembled the final report. 

We would also like to acknowledge the careful review and thoughtful comments of the following reviewers: Dennis Carroll, Robert Burton, and Shelley Burns at NCES; Ellen Bradburn 

from the Education Statistics Services Institute; Jennifer Kron from the Office of Postsecondary 

Education; and Beth Felsen from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA). 

vi 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing a Strategy to Finance Postsecondary Education.................................................... 1 

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

Work, Borrowing, and Attendance Patterns........................................................................... 9

Work ...................................................................................................................................... 9 

Borrowing .............................................................................................................................. 13 

Attendance Patterns ............................................................................................................... 15 

Summary by Institution Type ............................................................................................... 20 

Relationship Between Work, Borrowing, and Attendance ................................................... 21 

Work and Borrowing Patterns of Full- and Part-Time Students .......................................... 25 

Financing Strategies and Persistence....................................................................................... 29

Persistence and Attendance Status......................................................................................... 31 

Persistence, Borrowing, and Work ........................................................................................ 31 

Other Factors Associated With Persistence........................................................................... 34 

Multivariate Analysis of the Relationship Between Persistence and Work, Borrowing 

and Attendance ................................................................................................................... 37 

Summary and Conclusion......................................................................................................... 41

Appendix A—Glossary.............................................................................................................. 43 

Appendix B—Notes on the Definition of the Analysis Sample .............................................. 55

Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology................................................................... 59

vii 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students 

according to cumulative work status through 1994, by work status in 1989–90............. 5 

2 Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled and, for those who worked, 

selected employment characteristics, by selected student and institutional 

characteristics: 1992–93 .................................................................................................. 10

3 Percentage of undergraduates who borrowed and, for those who borrowed, the 

average amount borrowed according to the type of institution, by selected 

demographic and institutional characteristics: 1992–93.................................................. 16 

4 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status by selected 

demographic and institutional characteristics: 1992–93.................................................. 18 

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to number of months enrolled in 

1992–93, by attendance status in 1992–93 ...................................................................... 20 

6 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to work, borrowing, attendance 

status, and institution type, by work, borrowing, attendance status, and 

institution type: 1992–93 ................................................................................................. 22

7 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status by 

borrowing and working status, by institution type: 1992–93 .......................................... 24 

8 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to borrowing and working 

status, by institution type and attendance status: 1992–93.............................................. 26 

9 Percentage distribution of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 samples according to working 

and borrowing status........................................................................................................ 30

10 Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who had attained 

a degree or were still enrolled as of spring 1994 according to type of first institution, 

by work, borrowing, and attendance status: 1989–94 ..................................................... 32 

viii 
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 

11 Percentage distribution of first-time beginning postsecondary students according to 

work, borrowing, and attendance status, by measures of academic ability and 

potential: 1989–94 ........................................................................................................... 36 

12 Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attained 

a degree or were still enrolled as of spring 1994, and the adjusted percentage after 

taking into account the covariation among row variables ............................................... 38 

B1 Percentage of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 undergraduates meeting criteria for sample 

exclusion .......................................................................................................................... 55 

B2 Percentage distribution of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 students according to study 

inclusion status, by selected characteristics..................................................................... 56 

B3 Percentage distribution of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 students according to 

attendance status by selected demographic characteristics ............................................. 58 

C1 Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distribution of undergraduates according 

to attendance status, by selected demographic and institutional 

characteristics: 1992–93 ................................................................................................. 62 

ix 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1 Percentage of undergraduates who worked and for those who worked, the average 

hours worked per week while enrolled, by institution type: 1992–93............................. 12 

2 Percentage of undergraduates who borrowed to finance their postsecondary education 

and for those who borrowed, the average amount borrowed, by institution 

type: 1992–93 .................................................................................................................. 15 

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status, by 

institution type: 1992–93 ................................................................................................. 19 

4 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status, by number 

of hours worked while enrolled and borrowing status: 1992–93..................................... 23 

5 Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attained a 

degree or were still enrolled as of spring 1994, by attendance status and type of first 

institution ......................................................................................................................... 33 

6 Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attained a 

degree or were still enrolled as of spring 1994, according to hours worked while 

enrolled and borrowing status.......................................................................................... 34 

7 Among 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attended 

exclusively or partly full time, percentage who attained a degree or were still 

enrolled as of spring 1994, by institution type, hours worked while enrolled, and 

borrowing status............................................................................................................... 35 

x 
INTRODUCTION 

What undergraduates must pay for tuition, room, and board has increased rapidly in recent 

years. Between 1980 and 1995, average undergraduate tuition, room, and board rose 48 percent 

(in constant 1996 dollars) at public institutions and 76 percent at private institutions.1 Increases 

in family income did not keep pace. While the average undergraduate tuition, room, and board at 

a public institution was equal to 11 percent of the median family income in 1980, it was 15 percent by 1995. The corresponding increase at private institutions was from 25 to 42 percent of 

median family income.

2 

Although the costs of postsecondary education have risen, the opportunity costs associated 

with not receiving postsecondary training have also increased. In 1995, male bachelor’s degree 

recipients aged 25–34 had annual earnings that were 52 percent more, and female bachelor’s degree recipients had annual earnings that were 91 percent more, than their counterparts with no 

more than a high school diploma.3 Despite the rising cost of postsecondary education, record 

numbers of high school graduates are enrolling in postsecondary education. In 1995, 62 percent 

of high school graduates aged 16–24 were enrolled in college the October following their high 

school graduation, up from 54 percent in 1981.4 

CHOOSING A STRATEGY TO FINANCE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Students and their families have primary responsibility for paying for college, although financially needy students can receive help through grant, loan, and work study programs sponsored by the federal government, state governments, the institutions they attend, and a variety of 

other public and private organizations.5 When contributions from family and friends, savings, 

and grants are not enough, students typically work, borrow, or do both. They may also take steps 

to reduce costs by attending part time rather than full time or by attending a less expensive insti-

 

1U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 1997 (Washington, D.C.: 

1997), 70. 

2The Condition of Education 1997, 70. 

3The Condition of Education 1997, 120. 

4The Condition of Education 1997, 62. 

5The Higher Education Amendments of 1992 authorized unsubsidized Stafford loans for students not meeting the need criteria 

for subsidized loans. Thus, Stafford loans are no longer limited to financially needy students. However, in 1992–93, all Stafford 

loans were subsidized and available only to students with demonstrated financial need. 

1 
INTRODUCTION

tution. By attending part time, students can reduce the amount of tuition they have to pay and 

also free up more of their time to work. 

While students usually have considerable latitude in selecting a strategy, they face constraints as well. For instance, some institutions do not permit part-time attendance; class schedules may preclude the option of working a large number of hours; suitable jobs may not be 

available or accessible; loan programs set borrowing limits; and federal financial aid programs 

have eligibility requirements. Students’ choices of strategies reflect these constraints and also 

various aspects of their personal circumstances, such as their willingness to borrow, commitment 

to completing a degree program, confidence in their academic abilities, work and family responsibilities, and financial obligations unrelated to the cost of attending. 

Since 1970, borrowing, working, and part-time attendance have all increased, in some

cases dramatically. For example, while loans made up about 39 percent of federal financial aid 

(grants, loans, and work study) in 1970–71, they made up 65 percent of federal aid in 1990–91.6

The percentage of college students aged 16–24 working while enrolled increased from 34 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 1995 for full-time students (although it stayed the same for parttime students: 83 percent).7 And, finally, between 1970 and 1994, the part-time fall enrollment in 

higher education more than doubled, from 2.8 million to 6.1 million, while the number enrolled 

full time rose 40 percent (5.8 million to 8.1 million).8

Many students use combinations of work, borrowing, and part-time attendance to cover 

their postsecondary education costs. While the tradeoffs they make may be the best possible fit 

between their educational goals and their personal and financial circumstances, some choices 

may be detrimental to their chances for degree attainment. Specifically, evidence suggests that 

full-time/off-campus work9 and part-time attendance may negatively affect postsecondary persistence and attainment.10 In order to assist students in making the best possible choices, it is im-

 

6L.G. Knapp, Borrowing for College in 1989–90 (Washington, D.C.: The College Board, 1992), 1. 

7The Condition of Education 1997, 304–305. 

8U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 1996 (Washington, D.C.: 1996), 176. 

9A. Astin, Financial Aid and Student Persistence (HERI Research Report. No. 75-2) (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research 

Institution, 1975); A. Austin, Preventing Students from Dropping Out (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975); and R. Ehrenberg and 

D. Sherman, “Employment While in College: Academic Achievement and Post-College Outcomes: A Summary of Results,” 

Journal of Human Resources 22 (1) (1975): 1–23. 

10W. B. Fetters, National Longitudinal Study: Withdrawal From Institutions of Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1977); A. Astin, Four Critical Years (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1977); R.B. Twedale, The Non-Returning Students: Why They Leave and Will They Return? (Allendale, MI: Grand Valley

State Colleges, 1978); C.D. Carroll, College Persistence and Degree Attainment for 1980 High School Graduates: Hazards for 

Transfers, Stopouts and Part-Timers (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

1989); J. Tuma, S. Geis, and C.D. Carroll, High School and Beyond: 1992 Descriptive Summary of 1980 High School Sophomore’s 12 Years Later (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1994); and A. McCormick, S. Geis, and 

2 
 INTRODUCTION

portant to understand which, if any, particular strategies/combinations are related to lower persistence rates and whether these relationships differ according to the type of institution a student 

attends. 

To address these issues, this analysis examines how students combine work, borrowing, 

and attendance to finance their postsecondary education. The report begins by describing the different working, borrowing, and attendance strategies and how they vary with students’ demographic characteristics and by institutional type. It then examines how these three strategies are 

used in combination and identifies which strategies are most commonly used at different types of 

institutions. Finally, it discusses the relationship between these strategies and students’ postsecondary outcomes. To measure the independent effects of work, borrowing, and attendance on 

persistence, a multivariate analysis was conducted to control for covariation. 

DATA AND VARIABLE DEFINITIONS

The primary source of data for the analysis was the 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), a nationally representative sample of students enrolled in all types 

of postsecondary institutions, ranging from less-than-2-year vocational institutions to 4-year colleges and universities. The NPSAS:93 survey offers comprehensive data on postsecondary financing, including data reported by institutions, students, and parents. 

Data from the 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Longitudinal Study Second Follow-up 

(BPS:90/94) were used to examine whether different postsecondary outcomes were associated 

with different postsecondary financing strategies. BPS:90/94 is the longitudinal component of 

the NPSAS:90 survey, and includes students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the 

first time during the 1989–90 academic year. The BPS cohort was followed up in 1992 and 1994, 

with the latter follow-up offering a wide range of information regarding the students’ persistence 

and degree attainment five years after they initially enrolled in postsecondary education. 

The data from the two surveys complement each other. The NPSAS:93 data provide information on a cross-section of students of all ages at various stages of their postsecondary careers, 

while the BPS:90/94 data focus on a more limited group of students (only those who enrolled for 

the first time in 1989–90), but provide information over a longer time period.

The analysis focuses on the interrelationship of three variables: work, borrowing, and attendance. A composite variable was created that combined students’ status with respect to bor-

 R. Vergun, Profile of Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education: 1989–90 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995). 

3 
INTRODUCTION

rowing and working. The various combinations of working and borrowing were then examined 

in conjunction with students’ attendance status. 

Work and Borrowing 

The composite variable used to classify students according to their work and borrowing 

status was created for both the NPSAS:93 and the BPS:90/94 populations. First, students were 

divided into two categories representing their borrowing status: borrowed and did not borrow.11

Then, within each of these categories, students were placed in one of four possible working categories based on the average number of hours they worked per week while enrolled: did not work, 

worked 1–14 hours, worked 15–33 hours, and worked 34 or more hours.12 Working during the 

summer, vacation periods, or other times in which the student was not enrolled was not included. 

Students with missing employment information (19 percent) were given missing values for this 

variable. 

For the NPSAS:93 sample, data for the 1992–93 academic year were used to determine 

students’ borrowing status and the average number of hours worked while enrolled. For the 

BPS:90/94 sample, the period used to determine borrowing and working status depended on students’ degree completion status. For degree completers, the period covered the time between 

their first enrollment in postsecondary education (1989–90) and their degree attainment. For students who did not complete a degree, the period ended with their last enrollment. For students 

who were still enrolled in the spring of 1994, the period extended to spring 1994. Students who 

completed a degree (an associate’s degree, for example) then transferred were classified only up 

to their first attainment. While borrowing status has two possible values (borrowed or did not 

borrow) for both NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 students, the period covered for BPS students was 

longer. The composite variable contains the following eight categories: 

Borrowed, did not work while enrolled 

Borrowed, worked 1–14 hours/week while enrolled 

Borrowed, worked 15–33 hours/week while enrolled 

Borrowed, worked 34 or more hours/week while enrolled 

Did not borrow, did not work while enrolled 

Did not borrow, worked 1–14 hours/week while enrolled 

Did not borrow, worked 15–33 hours/week while enrolled 

 

11Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, or institutional sources. 

12Work includes jobs for pay, including work-study. 

4 
 INTRODUCTION

Did not borrow, worked 34 or more hours/week while enrolled 

One concern in developing a cumulative measure of work status for the BPS:90/94 students 

was that students’ working status might change over time. For example, a student who worked 

an average of 32 hours a week while enrolled one year and not at all the next year would have 

the same cumulative average as someone who worked 16 hours per week for two years, but these 

two situations might not have the same consequences for persistence. Generally, however, students’ working status remained reasonably stable. Seventy percent of students who worked less 

than 15 hours in their first year and 61 percent of students working 15–33 hours in 1989–90 had 

the same status for their cumulative variable (table 1). Among students who initially worked 34 

hours per week or more, 41 percent had the same status for their cumulative variable. Another 49 

percent reduced their work week to average 15–33 hours. Relatively few students showed a major difference in their work pattern cumulatively compared with their first year. For example, 

only 1 percent of the students who worked an average of less than 15 hours per week in 1989–90 

and 4 percent of those who worked 15–33 hours had a cumulative average of 34 hours or more. 

It should also be kept in mind that a shift in category could actually represent a small shift in actual average hours worked (from 14 to 15, for example). 

Table 1—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students according to cumulative 

Table 1—work status through 1994, by work status in 1989–90

 Worked Worked Worked

 No 1–14 15–33 34 or more

 work hours hours hours

 

 Total 10.4 31.7 43.3 14.6 

Working status 1989–90

 No work 48.6 40.7 10.7 0.0 

 Worked 1–14 hours (*) 70.4 28.3 1.3 

 Worked 15–33 hours (*) 34.4 61.3 4.3 

 Worked 34 or more hours (*) 10.4 49.0 40.7 

*Not applicable.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending

private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates

reported using BPS:90/94.

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

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

A related concern centered on students who started in a 2-year institution (and therefore 

would be categorized as attending a 2-year institution) but later transferred to a 4-year institution 

without earning an associate’s degree. Because working full time is much more common in the 

5 
INTRODUCTION

2-year than in the 4-year sector (47 percent versus 27 percent),13 such students might have 

worked a large number of hours while at the 2-year institution and a substantially reduced number at the 4-year institution. Students in this situation would have fewer cumulative average 

hours worked than the typical 2-year student. Among the BPS students, 3 out of 10 who began 

their education in public 2-year institutions ever transferred, and of those who transferred, 24 

percent completed a degree before doing so, which means that their measure of cumulative average hours worked would be based only on their experience while enrolled at the 2-year institution.14

Attendance Status 

Attendance status measures the intensity of students’ enrollment while they were enrolled.15 Students were classified as either exclusively full time, exclusively part time, or mixed. 

The measure was based upon the percentage of enrolled months the student attended full time 

(based on their institutions’ definition of full time). Students with no months’ full time were classified as exclusively part time, those with any months’ full time up to 99 percent were classified 

as having mixed attendance, and those with 100 percent of months full time were classified as 

exclusively full time. 

Persistence 

BPS:90/94 data were used to examine whether postsecondary financing strategies were associated with persistence. Students who began postsecondary education for the first time in 

1989–90 were considered to have persisted if they attained a degree or were still enrolled in 

postsecondary education in spring 1994, five years after their initial enrollment. Because 57 percent of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients took more than four years to attain their degree,16

still being enrolled in 1994 was considered persisting. 

 

13L.J. Horn and M.D. Premo, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996). 

14U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System. 

15Intensity does not indicate the duration of enrollment; students could be defined as exclusively full-time even if they were 

enrolled for only 2 months during the academic year. 

16A. McCormick and L. Horn, A Descriptive Summary of 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 1 Year Later: With An Essay 

on Time to Degree (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996). 

6 
 INTRODUCTION

Institution Type 

Students were categorized according to the first type of institution attended. The analysis 

looked separately at students in the following types of institutions: public 2-year; public 4-year; 

private, not-for-profit 4-year; and private, for-profit. It excluded students enrolled in public lessthan-2-year institutions and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions, because these 

groups were too small for analysis. Also excluded were students not seeking a degree or certificate, because persistence is not relevant for this group. 

In total, about 26 percent of the NPSAS:93 and 14 percent of the BPS:90/94 students were 

excluded because they were missing employment information, were not seeking a degree, or attended one of the excluded types of institutions. Table B2 compares the characteristics of the included and excluded students. 

7 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS 

Students make decisions about work, borrowing, and attendance status that reflect their aspirations, preferences, financial situations, and personal circumstances. Those with sufficient financial resources may be able simply to choose their attendance status and not have to borrow or 

work (although some may choose to work for nonfinancial reasons). Students with more limited 

financial resources may decide to attend full time and then use work, borrowing, or a combination of both to help finance their education. If students in this group cannot survive financially 

with work and borrowing, they may switch to part-time attendance. Still other students may decide to work full time, attend part time, and minimize or avoid borrowing. This last group is a 

varied one and will include, among others, students established in a career who want additional 

education while holding onto their jobs; older students with family responsibilities who may not 

have the time, interest, or financial resources to attend full time; students not sure about their 

commitment to postsecondary education or their academic qualifications who want the security 

of a job when they first enroll; and students who want to avoid debt. 

This section first examines who works, who borrows, and who attends full and part time, 

and then looks at how work, borrowing, and attendance status are used in combination. It is important to keep in mind that while students can trade off among work, borrowing, and attendance 

pattern to a certain extent, there are constraints associated with each approach. These constraints 

are discussed as well. 

WORK

The majority of undergraduates work while enrolled, not just during the summer or vacation breaks. In 1992–93, nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of undergraduates in this analysis 

worked while enrolled, and they worked intensively—an average of 31 hours per week and 88 

percent of the months they were enrolled (table 2). Most students (91 percent) worked off campus in their principal job (the one they worked at the longest). This practice, as indicated earlier, 

may be detrimental to persistence. 

9 
WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Table 2—Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled and, for those who worked, selected 

Table 2—employment characteristics, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992–93

 Percent

 Worked months Job location

 while Average working On Off

 enrolled hours while enrolled campus campus

 Total 72.3 30.5 88.3 8.6 91.4

Type of institution

 Public 2-year 78.7 33.8 91.0 3.4 96.6

 Public 4-year 68.6 26.3 85.3 13.1 86.9

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 67.4 26.6 86.7 17.8 82.2

 Private, for-profit 56.5 31.8 84.0 2.4 97.6

Gender

 Male 74.0 31.7 88.0 8.3 91.7

 Female 71.0 29.4 88.7 8.9 91.1

Age as of 12/31/92

 Less than 24 69.7 25.1 83.7 11.3 88.7

 24–29 78.7 35.3 92.2 5.1 94.9

 30 or older 73.9 37.7 94.3 5.3 94.7

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 73.9 30.5 88.4 8.3 91.7

 Black, non-Hispanic 67.1 31.2 88.0 9.3 90.7

 Hispanic 72.8 31.6 88.8 7.7 92.3

 Asian/Pacific Islander 58.8 24.7 86.0 16.4 83.6

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 70.8 32.6 91.4 7.4 92.6

Marital status

 Not married 71.5 27.8 86.1 10.2 89.8

 Married 75.2 37.1 93.9 4.5 95.5

 Separated 62.8 32.8 88.7 6.7 93.3

Local residence

 On campus 51.1 17.5 75.3 23.6 76.4

 Off campus 74.1 33.9 90.7 7.5 92.5

 With parents or relatives 78.9 27.9 87.8 4.2 95.8

Dependency status for financial aid

 Dependent 69.9 24.4 83.5 11.7 88.3

 Single independent 78.3 34.5 91.1 6.8 93.3

 Independent with dependents 72.7 36.8 93.4 4.9 95.1

10 
 WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Table 2—Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled and, for those who worked, selected 

Table 2—employment characteristics, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992–93—Continued

 Percent

 Worked months Job location

 while Average working On Off

 enrolled hours while enrolled campus campus

Income quartile, dependents

 Lower quartile 71.1 25.1 83.5 12.6 87.4

 Middle quartiles 73.6 25.1 84.7 10.9 89.1

 Upper quartile 61.9 22.1 80.9 12.6 87.4

Income quartile, independents

 Lower quartile 61.2 26.9 85.3 10.2 89.8

 Middle quartiles 77.6 36.8 93.1 5.0 95.0

 Upper quartile 79.1 39.5 95.3 3.6 96.4

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending

private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported

using NPSAS:93.

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

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

Undergraduates’ work patterns varied according to type of institution (figure 1). Compared 

with students at other types of institutions, those enrolled in 2-year public institutions were the 

most likely to work, worked the most hours, and worked over the greatest percentage of their 

enrollment. Seventy-nine percent of students at public 2-year institutions worked while enrolled, 

and they worked an average of 34 hours per week for 91 percent of the months they were enrolled (table 2). Students at public 4-year institutions had a work pattern similar to that of students at 4-year private, not-for-profit institutions, with about two-thirds working while enrolled, 

and working an average of about 26–27 hours per week for about 85–87 percent of their months 

enrolled. 

The differences in the work patterns students exhibit reflect, at least in part, the feasibility 

of combining work and enrollment at the institutions they attend. Some 4-year institutions require full-time attendance or schedule most of their classes during the day, which makes working 

a large number of hours difficult. Public 2-year institutions, in contrast, typically offer evening 

classes and flexible programs, which make it much easier for students to work full time while 

attending. Least likely to work while enrolled were students attending private, for-profit institutions (57 percent worked), where the short-term, intensive nature of most programs leaves little 

time for work. 

11 
WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Figure 1—Percentage of undergraduates who worked and for those who worked, the average hours worked per week

Figure 1—while enrolled, by institution type: 1992–93

NOTE: Figure excludes students with missing employment information, students not working toward a degree, and students at public

less-than-2-year and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.

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

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

72

79

69

67

57

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Private, for-profit

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Total 31

34

26

27

32

Average hours worked 

by those who worked

Percent

Work patterns vary with student characteristics as well. Generally, characteristics associated with traditional-age college students were also associated with less working. For example, 

dependent students, students under 24 years (who are almost all dependent), unmarried students, 

and students who lived on campus were less likely to work than their independent, older, married 

or separated, or off-campus counterparts. In addition to being less likely to work, when younger, 

dependent, or single undergraduates did work while enrolled, they worked fewer hours on average, worked during a smaller percentage of their months enrolled, and were more likely to work 

on campus. For example, students aged 24–29 worked an average of 35 hours per week, while 

students under age 24 worked an average of 25 hours. 

Working while enrolled also varied with income levels and dependency status. Among dependent students, those from families in the lower and middle income quartiles were more likely 

than those in the highest income quartile to work and, when they worked, to work more hours 

12 
 WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

per week on average. Among independent students, the reverse was true. Those in the lowest income quartile were less likely than those in the middle and higher income quartiles to work and, 

when they worked, to work fewer hours per week on average. A major reason for the difference 

between dependent and independent students is that dependent student income refers to the student’s parents’ income, while independent student income refers to the student’s own income. 

Thus, independent students who are in the lower income quartile are there at least in part because 

they do not work as much as students in the higher income quartiles. 

Work patterns vary with both institutional and student characteristics, and these two sets of

characteristics are themselves interrelated. That is, students with characteristics associated with 

working less are more likely than other students to attend the types of institutions associated with 

less work. For example, younger students and students at 4-year institutions are less likely to 

work than older students and students at 2-year public institutions. However, younger students 

are also more likely than older students to attend 4-year institutions.17

BORROWING

Borrowing has become an increasingly common way for students to help pay for their undergraduate education. However, it was not an option for all students in 1992–93. To participate 

in federal loan programs in 1992–93, students had to be U.S. citizens or eligible noncitizens 

(such as permanent residents), academically qualified, enrolled in an eligible program at least 

half time, and making satisfactory academic progress.18 They also had to have financial need, 

meaning that cost of attending the institution they selected was greater than their expected family 

contribution (which is based primarily on income). While students had some choice between 

borrowing and work, the maximum they could borrow under the Stafford loan program in 1992–

93 was $2,625 per year in their first two years and $4,000 in their third year or later, and a total 

of $17,250 for their undergraduate study.19

Even if eligible to participate in a student loan program, students do not always borrow. 

Their decisions are based on factors such as the standard of living they want to maintain, how 

much debt they are willing to assume, alternative sources of funds available to them, and other 

 

17Horn and Premo, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions, 59. 

18Many institutions and some states have their own loan programs with their own eligibility criteria, but most student borrowing 

takes place through federal loan programs. The major federal loan programs for undergraduates in 1992–93 were the Stafford, 

Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS), and Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) programs. 

19Office of Student Financial Assistance, The Federal Student Financial Aid Handbook, 1992–93 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education, 1992). As a result of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, borrowing limits have increased substantially and unsubsidized Stafford loans have been introduced for students not meeting the need criteria for subsidized student 

loans. 

13 
WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

aspects of their financial circumstances. Students’ decisions also depend on how much they can 

and want to work given job demands, time availability, and their programs and class schedules. 

Eighteen percent of the undergraduates included in this study borrowed to help pay for 

their postsecondary education in 1992–93, borrowing an average of $3,300 (figure 2 and table 

3). Both the percentage who borrowed and the average amount borrowed varied according to the 

type of institution attended (which is closely related to cost of attending) and family income. 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions and private, for-profit institutions typically have 

higher tuition and fees than public 4-year and public 2-year institutions.20 This difference in 

costs may explain why students at the former types of institutions were more likely than those at 

the latter to borrow (34 and 42 percent versus 23 and 5 percent), and to borrow more, on average 

($3,800 and $3,600 versus $3,000 and $2,500). Among students attending public institutions, 

those attending 4-year institutions were more likely than those in 2-year institutions to borrow 

(23 versus 5 percent), and to borrow more, on average ($3,000 versus $2,500). The lower rate of 

borrowing at 2-year institutions reflects their lower cost, but also reflects their large population 

of less-than-half-time students (38 percent)21 which makes them ineligible for federal loan programs. 

Reflecting differences in financial need, the percentage who borrowed as well as the average amount borrowed varied with family income. As family income increased from the lowest to 

the highest quartile, the percentage who borrowed decreased (32 percent to 8 percent). 

Borrowing varies with student demographic characteristics as well, but by law, gender, 

age, and race–ethnicity are not considered in the award of federal aid. Thus, for the most part, 

variation in borrowing reflects differences in characteristics that are related to the regulations for 

awarding financial aid, which are primarily income, dependency status, attendance status, and 

cost of attending (which, in turn, is related to institution type). Some part of the differences may, 

however, reflect variation in willingness to borrow or work or parents’ willingness to contribute 

financially to their children’s education. 

 

20As reported in J. Tuma and S. Geis, Student Financing of Undergraduate Education, 1992–93 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995), the total annual costs (sum of tuition and nontuition 

costs) for full-time, full-year students at public 4-year institutions were $11,115; at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, 

$19,549; at public 2-year institutions, $9,437; and at private, for-profit institutions, $15,021. 

21U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.

14 
 WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Figure 2—Percentage of undergraduates who borrowed to finance their postsecondary education and for those who

Figure 3—borrowed, the average amount borrowed, by institution type: 1992–93

 

NOTE: Figure excludes students with missing employment information, students not working toward a degree, and students at public 

less-than-2-year and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.

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

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

42

34

23

5

18

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Private, for-profit

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Total

$3,800

$2,500

$3,600

$3,000

$3,300

5

18

Percent

Average amount 

borrowed by borrowers

ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Postsecondary institutions offer students a range of possibilities for full- and part-time attendance, although not all institutions offer all options. For example, some 4-year colleges and 

universities do not offer a part-time alternative, while most 2-year institutions do. Private, forprofit institutions frequently have short-term, intensive programs that require full-time attendance. Also, students at 4-year private, not-for-profit institutions have a strong incentive to finish 

a bachelor’s degree in four years because of the relatively high tuition at this type of institution. 

Usually students can finish in four years only if they attend full-time throughout most of their 

time enrolled. 

In 1992–93, 41 percent of undergraduates enrolled exclusively full time; 43 percent enrolled exclusively part time; and 16 percent had mixed enrollment—that is, they enrolled full 

time for part of the year and part time for part of the year (figure 3 and table 4). The types of institutions students attended and their attendance patterns were related. Students attending 

15 
Table 3—Percentage of undergraduates who borrowed* and for those who borrowed, the average amount borrowed according to the type of institution, by

Table 3—selected demographic and institutional characteristics: 1992–93 Total Public 2-year Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit 4-year Private, for-profit

Average Average Average Average Average

Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount

 Total 17.7 $3,274 5.4 $2,531 22.9 $3,042 34.4 $3,794 42.4 $3,634Gender Male 16.9 3,396 4.4 2,534 22.1 3,083 34.4 3,891 43.6 4,137 Female 18.4 3,182 6.1 2,529 23.6 3,007 34.3 3,718 41.6 3,323Age as of 12/31/92 Less than 24 21.4 3,068 5.9 2,286 23.8 2,832 40.4 3,562 48.5 3,291 24–29 16.9 3,731 5.3 2,524 26.6 3,614 30.3 4,791 41.2 4,024 30 or older 10.7 3,682 4.8 2,905 15.9 3,558 19.3 4,406 33.5 4,086Race–ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 17.2 3,341 5.5 2,613 22.0 3,092 32.6 3,874 46.8 3,830 Black, non-Hispanic 25.2 3,003 6.1 2,345 33.7 2,840 50.2 3,453 36.7 2,998 Hispanic 15.3 3,133 3.4 — 22.4 2,881 36.8 3,532 37.6 3,572 Asian/Pacific Islander 14.9 3,329 5.8 — 16.9 2,950 27.1 4,183 33.7 3,670 American Indian/Alaskan Native 17.1 3,230 8.3 — 25.4 3,416 39.3 — 34.3 —Marital status Not married 20.0 3,203 5.5 2,430 24.1 2,965 38.2 3,681 44.2 3,563 Married 11.6 3,634 5.0 2,795 17.4 3,518 19.9 4,568 37.7 3,969 Separated 19.0 2,926 7.5 — 24.2 3,408 36.4 4,324 46.2 2,790Local residence On campus 36.6 3,127 17.1 2,461 31.6 2,701 45.8 3,513 71.5 3,997 Off campus 16.2 3,491 5.8 2,739 23.1 3,328 26.5 4,336 41.0 3,774 With parents or relatives 11.9 2,902 3.8 2,008 14.2 2,606 30.9 3,476 42.4 3,341
Table 3—Percentage of undergraduates who borrowed* and for those who borrowed, the average amount borrowed according to the type of institution, by

Table 3—selected demographic and institutional characteristics: 1992–93—Continued Total Public 2-year Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit 4-year Private, for-profit

Average Average Average Average Average

Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount Percent amount

Dependency status for financial aid Dependent 19.8 3,027 5.0 2,303 21.8 2,758 39.7 3,495 43.0 3,267 Single independent 19.1 3,683 4.8 2,373 29.8 3,453 31.7 4,605 48.9 4,162 Independent with dependents 13.9 3,503 6.0 2,756 20.7 3,496 22.7 4,445 39.0 3,600

Income quartiles Lower quartile 32.4 $3,125 11.2 $2,440 42.4 $3,061 57.0 $3,653 52.0 $3,178 Middle quartiles 16.8 3,297 4.9 2,601 22.1 2,995 40.7 3,791 40.0 3,888 Upper quartile 8.3 3,628 2.2 2,542 8.1 3,194 17.6 4,014 29.5 4,303

— Too few cases for a reliable estimate.*Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources in 1992–93.NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported using NPSAS:93.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.
WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Table 4—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status* by selected demographic 

Table 4—and institutional characteristics: 1992–93

 Exclusively Exclusively

 full-time Mixed part-time 

 Total 41.1 15.9 43.0

Type of institution

 Public 2-year 20.3 14.7 65.0

 Public 4-year 55.7 20.5 23.8

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 60.7 13.3 26.0

 Private, for-profit 72.3 7.4 20.3

Gender

 Male 43.8 16.3 39.9

 Female 38.9 15.6 45.6

Age as of 12/31/92

 Less than 24 56.9 19.2 23.9

 24–29 26.9 15.2 57.9

 30 or older 17.6 9.7 72.7

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 41.2 15.9 42.9

 Black, non-Hispanic 43.4 13.4 43.2

 Hispanic 35.9 16.4 47.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 42.8 21.5 35.7

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 42.5 13.8 43.7

Marital status

 Not married 49.4 17.7 32.9

 Married 19.5 11.1 69.4

 Separated 35.6 15.2 49.2

Local residence

 On campus 79.8 13.4 6.8 

 Off campus 31.7 14.4 53.9

 With parents or relatives 41.6 20.0 38.4

Dependency status for financial aid

 Dependent 57.9 19.2 22.9

 Single independent 29.6 15.2 55.2

 Independent with dependents 22.3 11.5 66.2 

Income quartiles

 Lower quartile 51.7 19.0 29.3

 Middle quartiles 38.7 16.0 45.3

 Upper quartile 37.5 13.4 49.1

*Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months

full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and 

students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as exclusively full-time.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending

private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported

using NPSAS:93.

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

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

18 
 WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Figure 3—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status, by institution type: 1992–93

NOTE: Figure excludes students with missing employment information, students not working toward a degree, and students at public 

less-than-2-year and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.

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

(NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.

20

56 61

72

15

21 13

7

65

24 26 20

41

16

43

Total Public

2-year

Public

4-year

Private,

not-forprofit 4-

year

Private,

forprofit

Exclusively full-time Mixed Exclusively part-time

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

0

Public 2-year Private, not-forprofit 4-yearPrivate,

for-profit

public 2-year institutions were the most likely to attend exclusively part time (65 percent versus 

20 to 26 percent of students in other types of institutions), and the least likely to attend exclusively full time (20 percent versus 56 to 72 percent) (table 4). Students in private, for-profit institutions were the most likely to attend exclusively full time (72 versus 20 to 61 percent of 

students in other types of institutions). Students attending public 4-year institutions were more 

likely than those in all other types of institutions to have mixed attendance patterns (21 percent 

versus 15 percent or less).

Attendance patterns also varied according to students’ demographic characteristics. Exclusively part-time attendance was most common among students with demographic characteristics 

similar to the student population at public 2-year institutions: students who were over age 24, 

independent (with or without dependents), married or separated, or lived off campus or with their 

parents were more likely than their counterparts who were younger, dependent, unmarried, or 

living on campus to attend exclusively part time. 

19 
WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Compared with males, female undergraduates were more likely to attend exclusively part 

time (46 versus 40 percent), and less likely to attend full time (39 versus 44 percent). These gender differences may be at least partly related to age, since female students are more likely to be 

older.22 As age increased, the likelihood of attending exclusively part time increased from 24 

percent for students less than 24 years old to 73 percent for those 30 years or older. 

In addition to the intensity of enrollment, the duration of enrollment may be a component 

of students’ postsecondary strategies. That is, some students may choose to attend for only part 

of the academic year in order to save money or to work. Students who attended less than 8 

months are considered part-year students, while those who attended 8 or more months are considered full year. Nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of students who attended exclusively full 

time attended for the full year (table 5). (Exclusively full-time students who attended less than 8 

months would include full-time students who were in short-term programs as well as students 

who did not enroll each term.) In contrast, exclusively part-time students were considerably less 

likely than students with mixed or exclusively full-time attendance to attend for the full academic year. 

Table 5—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to number of months enrolled in 1992–93,

Table 5—by attendance status* in 1992–93

 Less than 8 months 8 or more months

 Total 40.3 59.7

Attendance status

 Exclusively part-time 60.2 39.8

 Mixed 13.9 86.1

 Exclusively full-time 29.0 71.0

*Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months

full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and 

students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as exclusively full-time.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending

private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported

using NPSAS:93.

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

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

SUMMARY BY INSTITUTION TYPE

Students in different types of institutions work, borrow, and attend differently. As suggested above, this variation reflects differences in institutions’ program offerings and in the char-

 

22Horn and Premo, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions. Thirty-two percent of female undergraduates 

were age 30 or older compared to 23 percent of male undergraduates. 

20 
 WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

acteristics and needs of their student populations, which are interrelated. In 1992–93, among students at public 2-year institutions, 79 percent worked while enrolled (table 2); almost half (46 

percent) worked 34 or more hours per week; 65 percent attended exclusively part-time; and 5 

percent borrowed (table 6). In 4-year institutions, about 67–69 percent worked while enrolled 

(table 2), with 21 to 26 percent working 34 or more hours per week (table 6). The majority attended exclusively full time (56 percent in public institutions and 61 percent in private, not-forprofit institutions). Borrowing was more common in private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions 

than in public ones (34 percent compared with 23 percent), but in both types of 4-year institutions borrowing was much more common than in public 2-year institutions. Among students at 

private, for-profit institutions, 44 percent did not work while enrolled, 72 percent attended exclusively full time, and 42 percent borrowed. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE

While the previous section described patterns of work, borrowing, and attendance separately, this section examines how students combine the three and how the patterns differ across 

types of institutions. The focus of the discussion is on patterns that were associated with increased full-time attendance, since full-time attendance has been shown to be associated with 

increased persistence and attainment. 

First, among students who work, there is a negative association between hours worked per 

week while enrolled and full-time attendance. The more students work, the less likely they are to 

attend full time. However, controlling for hours worked, borrowing was associated with a larger 

percentage attending full time. 

Among both borrowers and nonborrowers who worked, as the number of hours they 

worked increased, the less likely they were to enroll exclusively full time (figure 4 and table 7).23

However, within each category of hours worked while enrolled (including those who did not 

work at all), students who borrowed were more likely than those who did not borrow to attend 

exclusively full time. The difference was particularly large among students who worked 34 or 

more hours per week: 52 percent of those who borrowed attended exclusively full time compared 

with 14 percent of those who did not borrow. 

Table 7 also shows the work, borrowing, and attendance patterns by type of institution. For 

students at both public and private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, there was an association

 

23Those who did not work at all are not included in this trend. 

21 
Table 6—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to work, borrowing, attendance status, and institution type, by work, borrowing, attendance

Table 6—status, and institution type: 1992–93 Average hours working while enrolled Attendance status1 Borrowing status2 Type of institution

 Worked Private,

 Worked Worked 34 or Exclu- Exclu- Did not-for-  Not 1–14 15–33 more sively sively not Public Public profit Private, working hours hours hours part-time Mixed full-time borrow Borrowed 2-year 4-year 4-year for-profit

 Total 27.7 8.9 29.8 33.6 43.0 15.9 41.1 82.3 17.7 46.4 32.6 14.4 6.6 Average hours working while  enrolled Not working 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 16.5 55.8 79.2 20.9 35.7 37.0 17.0 10.4  Worked 1–14 hours 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 15.5 63.6 70.6 29.4 30.2 39.9 26.9 3.0  Worked 15–33 hours 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 29.6 22.3 48.1 78.1 21.9 42.7 39.9 12.2 5.3  Worked 34 or more hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 73.3 9.9 16.8 91.7 8.3 62.8 20.7 10.9 5.6 Attendance status Exclusively part-time 17.9 4.4 20.5 57.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 94.7 5.3 70.0 18.1 8.7 3.1  Mixed 28.7 8.8 41.7 20.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 78.7 21.3 42.9 42.0 12.1 3.1  Exclusively full-time 37.6 13.9 34.8 13.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 70.6 29.4 22.8 44.3 21.3 11.6 Borrowing status Did not borrow 26.6 7.7 28.2 37.5 49.5 15.2 35.3 100.0 0.0 53.3 30.6 11.5 4.6  Borrowed 32.6 14.9 36.9 15.7 12.7 19.1 68.2 0.0 100.0 14.1 42.2 28.0 15.8 Type of institution Public 2-year 21.3 5.8 27.4 45.5 65.0 14.7 20.3 94.6 5.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Public 4-year 31.4 10.9 36.4 21.3 23.8 20.5 55.7 77.1 22.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0  Private, not-for-profit 4-year 32.6 16.7 25.1 25.5 26.0 13.3 60.7 65.6 34.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0  Private, for-profit 43.5 4.0 24.0 28.5 20.3 7.4 72.3 57.7 42.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

1Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. 

Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as exclusively full-time. 2Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources in 1992–93.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public

less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported using NPSAS:93.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.
 WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

Figure 4—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status, by number of hours worked

Figure 9—while enrolled and borrowing status: 1992–93

 No work 1–14 hours 15–33 hours 34 or more hours

NOTE: Figure excludes students with missing employment information, students not working toward a degree, and students at public

less-than-2-year and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.

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

(NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.

73

51

79

57

66

43

52

14

17

16

15

16

22

22

20

9

9

33 27

12

35

28

77

7

Borrowed Did not

borrow

Borrowed Did not

borrow

Borrowed Did not

borrow

Borrowed Did not

borrow

Exclusively full-time Mixed Exclusively part-time

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

 0

between the number of hours worked and full-time attendance for both borrowers and nonborrowers who worked. As the number of hours worked while enrolled increased (excluding those 

who did not work at all), their likelihood of attending full time decreased.

Among students at 4-year institutions working similar numbers of hours, borrowers were 

generally more likely than nonborrowers to attend full time.24 The effect was particularly large 

for those working 34 or more hours: at public 4-year institutions, 51 percent of borrowers who 

worked 34 or more hours attended full time, compared with 21 percent of non-

 

24At private, not-for-profit institutions, among students who worked 1–14 hours per week, the percentage of borrowers who 

attended full time (87 percent) was not significantly different from the percentage of nonborrowers who attended full time (81 

percent). 

23 
Table 7—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status1 by borrowing and working status, by institution type: 1992–93

 Total Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit 4-year Public 2-year

2 Private, for-profit

Exclu- Exclu- Exclu- Exclu- Exclu- Exclu- Exclu- Exclu- Exclu- Exclu-

 sively sively sively sively sively sively sively sively sively sively part-time Mixed full-time part-time Mixed full-time part-time Mixed full-time part-time Mixed full-time part-time Mixed full-time

 Total 43.0 15.9 41.1 23.8 20.5 55.7 26.0 13.3 60.7 65.0 14.7 20.3 20.3 7.4 72.3Borrowed3

 No work 9.3 17.4 73.3 7.4 19.2 73.4 4.8 13.7 81.5 23.9 32.2 43.9 8.5 7.2 84.3 Worked 1–14 hours 6.8 14.6 78.6 4.6 19.0 76.4 1.8 11.2 87.1 39.1 21.0 39.9 15.6 1.5 82.9 Worked 15–33 hours 11.5 22.2 66.3 7.7 25.4 67.0 7.5 18.5 74.0 35.8 31.6 32.6 8.2 7.5 84.3 Worked 34 or more hours 28.4 19.5 52.1 20.6 28.6 50.8 25.6 18.3 56.1 48.7 23.7 27.6 24.4 8.0 67.6Did not borrow No work 32.6 16.2 51.2 15.5 19.1 65.4 15.6 12.1 72.3 56.7 17.2 26.1 16.3 6.1 77.6 Worked 1–14 hours 26.8 15.9 57.3 11.8 20.8 67.5 8.9 10.3 80.8 51.4 13.7 34.9 12.8 15.9 71.3 Worked 15–33 hours 34.7 22.3 43.0 18.9 24.2 57.0 24.6 17.7 57.7 49.1 22.6 28.3 20.3 6.6 73.1 Worked 34 or more hours 77.3 9.1 13.6 65.1 13.9 21.1 74.8 9.8 15.4 83.1 7.5 9.4 45.5 9.7 44.8

1Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. 

Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as exclusively full-time. 2Due to the small number of undergraduates who borrowed, the standard errors for the estimates of the percent who borrowed at public 2-year institutions are relatively large, ranging 

from 4.06 to 9.26.

3Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources in 1992–93.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public

less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported using NPSAS:93.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.
 WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

borrowers. Similarly, 56 percent of borrowers at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions who 

worked 34 or more hours attended exclusively full time compared with 15 percent of nonborrowers.

The relationship between hours worked and full-time attendance was somewhat different 

for students at private, for-profit institutions. Among both borrowers and nonborrowers, those 

who worked 34 or more hours per week while enrolled were less likely than those who worked 

15–33 hours to attend exclusively full time. However, those who worked 1–14 hours or 15–33 

hours per week while enrolled were about equally likely to do so. 

Although a substantial proportion of students at private, for-profit institutions borrowed 

(42 percent, table 6), only among those who did not work or worked 34 or more hours per week 

did borrowing appear to be associated with full-time attendance (table 7). For example, among 

students who did not work, 84 percent of borrowers attended full time compared with 78 percent 

of nonborrowers, and among students working 34 or more hours, 68 percent of borrowers did so 

compared with 45 percent of nonborrowers.

Because so many of the students at public 2-year institutions worked 34 hours per week or 

more (46 percent) and attended exclusively part-time (65 percent), and because they rarely borrowed (5 percent, table 6), the estimates for students with other types of work, borrowing, and 

attendance patterns are based on a small number of cases. Therefore, the relationship between 

borrowing and full-time attendance could not be determined for these students. 

WORK AND BORROWING PATTERNS OF FULL- AND PART-TIME STUDENTS

Table 8 summarizes how students at various types of institutions combined work and borrowing, controlling for attendance status. In all types of institutions, between 25 and 29 percent 

of the students who attended exclusively full time neither worked nor borrowed. In other words, 

about one-quarter of the students at each type of institution supported their postsecondary education attendance with their own savings, financial support from relatives or friends, or grants. 

The strategies that the rest of the exclusively full-time students used to finance their education varied by type of institution, however. Among students at 2-year public institutions, 91 percent of the students at 2-year public institutions did not borrow, but the majority 

25 
Table 8—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to borrowing and working status, by institution type and attendance status1: 1992–93

 Borrowed2 Did not borrow

 Worked Worked Worked Worked Worked Worked No 1–14 15–33 34 or more No 1–14 15–33 34 or more work hours hours hours Total work hours hours hours Total

All students

 Total 5.8 2.6 6.5 2.8 17.7 21.9 6.3 23.3 30.9 82.3Type of institution Public 2-year 1.8 0.5 1.9 1.2 5.4 19.5 5.3 25.5 44.3 94.6 Public 4-year 7.6 3.2 9.6 2.5 22.9 23.8 7.7 26.8 18.9 77.1 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 9.7 8.5 11.8 4.5 34.4 22.9 8.3 13.4 21.1 65.6 Private, for-profit 16.4 2.1 12.3 11.6 42.4 27.1 2.0 11.7 16.9 57.7

Exclusively full-time

 Total 10.3 5.0 10.5 3.5 29.4 27.3 8.8 24.3 10.2 70.6Type of institution Public 2-year 3.8 1.0 3.1 1.6 9.5 25.3 9.2 35.5 20.5 90.5 Public 4-year 10.0 4.4 11.5 2.3 28.2 27.9 9.4 27.4 7.1 71.8 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 13.1 12.2 14.4 4.1 43.7 27.2 11.0 12.7 5.4 56.3 Private, for-profit 19.2 2.3 14.4 10.9 46.9 29.2 1.9 11.5 10.5 53.1

Mixed

 Total 6.3 2.4 9.1 3.4 21.3 22.3 6.3 32.5 17.5 78.7Type of institution Public 2-year 3.8 0.7 4.1 1.9 10.6 22.9 5.0 39.1 22.5 89.5 Public 4-year 7.1 3.0 11.9 3.5 25.5 22.2 7.9 31.7 12.8 74.5 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 10.0 7.1 16.4 6.1 39.6 20.8 6.4 17.8 15.4 60.4 Private, for-profit 15.9 0.4 12.5 12.6 41.4 22.2 4.2 10.1 22.1 58.6
Table 8—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to borrowing and working status, by institution type and attendance status1: 1992–93

Table E——Continued Borrowed2 Did not borrow

 Worked Worked Worked Worked Worked Worked No 1–14 15–33 34 or more No 1–14 15–33 34 or more work hours hours hours Total work hours hours hours Total

Exclusively part-time

 Total 1.3 0.4 1.8 1.8 5.3 16.7 3.9 18.8 55.4 94.7Type of institution Public 2-year 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.9 2.9 17.1 4.2 19.2 56.6 97.1 Public 4-year 2.4 0.6 3.1 2.1 8.2 15.5 3.8 21.2 51.3 91.8 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 1.8 0.6 3.4 4.4 10.2 13.7 2.8 12.7 60.7 89.9 Private, for-profit 6.9 1.6 5.0 14.1 27.5 21.8 1.2 11.4 38.1 72.5

1Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. 

Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as exclusively full-time.

2Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources in 1992–93.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public 

less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported using NPSAS:93.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.
WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS

worked at least 15 hours per week (36 percent worked 15–33 hours and 21 percent worked 34 

hours or more). 

At other types of institutions, exclusively full-time students used a greater variety of strategies. For example, for students at public 4-year institutions, the most common strategies were 

not working and not borrowing (28 percent), or working 15–33 hours and not borrowing (27 percent). Full-time students at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions who worked were more 

likely than their counterparts at public 4-year institutions to borrow and work (at each level of 

working). 

Among exclusively part-time students at all types of institutions except private, for-profit, 

90 percent or more did not borrow. Except at private, for-profit institutions, the strategy adopted 

by at least 50 percent of exclusively part-time students was not to borrow, but to work 34 or 

more hours per week. Almost all of the rest either worked 15–33 hours or not at all and did not 

borrow. 

28 
FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE 

As indicated earlier, a number of studies have suggested that full-time off-campus work 

has a negative effect on postsecondary persistence, while part-time work—particularly part-time 

on-campus work—tends to have positive effects. Part-time, on-campus work may facilitate social integration, while working full time or working off campus may interfere with this process 

by curtailing the time available for school.25 In addition, as also indicated earlier, part-time attendance (typically defined as fewer than 12 credit hours) has been found to be associated with 

lower rates of postsecondary persistence. Part-time attendance may also be associated with other 

circumstances that reduce a student’s likelihood of persistence, such as work, family responsibilities, limited financial resources, or a low level of commitment to completing a program.26

This section examines how postsecondary persistence is related to various combinations of 

work, borrowing, and attendance. Specifically, it describes the relationship between 1989–90 

first-time beginning students’ cumulative working and borrowing status and their persistence 

five years later in 1994.

The analysis described in this section uses data from BPS:90/94, which includes only students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1989–90. The BPS:90/94 

population contains a higher proportion of young, dependent, and single students than the 

NPSAS:93 population discussed in the previous section. Consequently, work, borrowing, and 

attendance patterns of these two groups differ. Specifically, BPS:90/94 students were much more 

likely than NPSAS:93 students to borrow (31 versus 18 percent), and, whether they borrowed or 

not, they were considerably more likely to work less than 34 hours and less likely not to work at 

all (table 9). The BPS:90/94 students were about as likely as the NPSAS:93 students to attend 

exclusively full-time (40 and 41 percent, respectively), but the BPS:90/94 students were much 

less likely than the NPSAS:93 students to attend exclusively part time (18 percent versus 43 percent, table B3).27

 

25V. Tinto, “Dropouts From Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research,” Review of Educational Research

(1975): 45; and J.P. Bean and B.S. Metzner, “A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition,” Review 

of Educational Research, 55 (4) (1985): 485–540. 

26J.P. Bean and B.S. Metzner,“A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition.” 

27It is logical that BPS students would be more likely than NPSAS:93 students to have mixed attendance because the period 

covered is longer. 

29 
Table 9—Percentage distribution of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 samples according to working and borrowing status

 Borrowed Did not borrow

 Worked Worked Worked Worked Worked Worked No 1–14 15–33 34 or more No 1–14 15–33 34 or more work hours hours hours Total work hours hours hours Total

NPSAS:93 (1992–93)1 5.8 2.6 6.5 2.8 17.7 21.9 6.3 23.3 30.9 82.3

BPS:90/94 (1989–94)2 3.1 11.6 14.1 2.4 31.2 7.4 20.1 29.2 12.1 68.8

1For NPSAS:93, average hours worked while enrolled represents the average number of hours worked for those working while enrolled during the 1992–93 academic year. Borrowing 

includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources. 

2For BPS:90/94, average hours worked while enrolled represents the average number of hours worked for those working while enrolled up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment.

Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment.NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and publicless-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported using both NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93) and 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis Systems.
 FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

Because of the relatively small sample size of BPS:90/94, the BPS:90/94 students who had 

mixed attendance patterns were combined with those attending exclusively full time for the 

analysis of persistence. The demographic characteristics of these two groups were similar and 

resembled the group of exclusively full-time students from the NPSAS:93 sample. For further 

information regarding the BPS:90/94 and NPSAS:93 samples, see appendix B. 

PERSISTENCE AND ATTENDANCE STATUS 

In spring 1994, about two-thirds (64 percent) of the 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students had completed a degree or were still enrolled (table 10). Persistence rates were higher for 

students in 4-year public and private, not-for-profit institutions (74 and 81 percent, respectively) 

than for students in public 2-year or private, for-profit institutions (52 and 61 percent, respectively). 

There was a strong, positive association between attendance intensity and persistence. Students who attended exclusively or partly full time were far more likely to persist or attain (73 

percent) than were those who attended exclusively part time (25 percent) (figure 5). This relationship held for each type of institution (table 10). 

PERSISTENCE, BORROWING, AND WORK

Among students who work, there appears to be a negative relationship between hours 

worked per week and persistence. This holds for both borrowers and nonborrowers, although the 

relationship is slightly different. For nonborrowers, the likelihood of persistence decreased with 

each increase in average hours worked, from 80 percent among those who worked 1–14 hours 

per week to 61 percent for those who worked 15–33 hours per week to 25 percent for those who 

worked 34 or more hours per week (table 10). Among borrowers, the persistence rate was about 

the same for students who worked fewer than 15 hours or 15–33 hours (81 percent and 77 percent, respectively), but dropped for students who worked 34 hours a week or more (48 percent). 

Rates of persistence were compared for borrowers and nonborrowers holding hours worked 

constant. Borrowers persisted at a higher rate than nonborrowers among students who did not 

work (65 versus 50 percent), who worked 15–33 hours per week (77 versus 61 percent), or who 

worked 34 or more hours per week (48 versus 25 percent) (figure 6). In other words, only students who worked 1–14 hours per week had the same persistence rate regardless of whether or 

not they borrowed. 

31 
FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

Table 10—Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who had attained a degree or were

Table 11—still enrolled as of spring 1994 according to type of first institution, by work, borrowing, and attendance

Table 11—status

1

: 1989–94

Attained or still enrolled as of 1994

 Private,

 Public not-for-profit Public Private,

 Total 4-year 4-year 2-year for-profit

Total

 Total 64.0 74.0 81.1 52.0 60.9

Borrowed2 74.8 79.0 82.4 67.6 64.3

 No work 64.5 — 74.1 — 59.1

 Worked 1–14 hours 80.8 80.9 86.4 — 77.4

 Worked 15–33 hours 76.7 80.8 80.8 70.1 68.4

 Worked 34 or more hours 48.4 — — — 51.4

Did not borrow 59.1 70.9 79.5 50.0 55.1

 No work 50.1 55.9 72.7 45.7 47.7

 Worked 1–14 hours 80.2 86.4 87.4 72.0 73.2

 Worked 15–33 hours 60.9 68.0 76.6 54.3 72.9

 Worked 34 or more hours 25.1 28.8 35.1 23.9 26.1

Attended exclusively or partly full time

 Total 72.5 77.2 84.0 64.3 66.7

Borrowed 77.1 80.3 83.4 69.3 67.6

 No work 68.2 — 78.5 — 60.3

 Worked 1–14 hours 81.9 82.1 84.5 — 79.5

 Worked 15–33 hours 77.8 81.6 81.5 70.1 70.5

 Worked 34 or more hours 53.9 — — — 58.2

Did not borrow 69.9 75.1 84.8 63.3 64.7

 No work 64.4 64.3 83.8 61.7 62.0

 Worked 1–14 hours 80.9 86.5 88.2 72.1 —

 Worked 15–33 hours 68.8 71.1 81.9 65.1 69.0

 Worked 34 or more hours 38.7 38.9 — 38.4 31.7

Attended exclusively part time

 Total 24.9 12.6 22.8 19.5 48.8

Borrowed 46.1 — — — 55.0

 No work 51.8 — — — 56.1

 Worked 1–14 hours — — — — —

 Worked 15–33 hours 56.3 — — — 62.0

 Worked 34 or more hours 31.6 — — — 40.8

Did not borrow 21.7 14.4 21.6 19.7 41.8

 No work 13.4 — — — 29.1

 Worked 1–14 hours — — — — —

 Worked 15–33 hours 30.0 — — 26.2 — Worked 34 or more hours 15.1 — — 14.8 —

— Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

Attendance status is defined as percent of months enrolled full time up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment. Students with

zero percent of months full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. Students with 1–100 percent of months full time (includes

both mixed and exclusively full-time students) are categorized as exclusively or partly full-time. 2

Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending

private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported

using BPS:90/94 data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989-90 Beginning Postsecondary Students, Second

Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

32 
 FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

Figure 5—Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or were still

Figure 9—enrolled as of spring 1994, by attendance status and type of first institution

Attained a degree

Attained a degree or still enrolled

NOTE: Figure excludes students with missing employment information, students not working toward a degree, and students at

public less-than-2-year and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.

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

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

73

84

64 67

25

13

23 20

49

77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Public

4-year

Private,

not-forprofit 4-

year

Public

2-year

Private,

forprofit

Exclusively or partly full-time Exclusively part-time

Percent

Figure 7 shows the relationship between working, borrowing and persistence for students 

attending exclusively or partly full time at different types of institutions. Borrowing is associated 

with persistence and attainment among public 4-year students who worked 15–33 hours (82 percent of borrowers persisted versus 71 percent of nonborrowers) and for students in private, forprofit institutions who worked 34 or more hours (58 percent of borrowers persisted versus 32 

percent of nonborrowers). Among students enrolled exclusively or partly full time in private, 

not-for-profit 4-year institutions, borrowers and nonborrowers persisted at the same rate regardless of the number of hours they worked (at least for the categories of hours worked compared 

here).

33 
FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

Figure 6—Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or were still

Figure 1—enrolled as of spring 1994, according to hours worked while enrolled and borrowing status

NOTE: Figure excludes students with missing employment information, students not working toward a degree, and students at

public less-than-2-year and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.

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

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

65

81

77

48 50

80

61

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

No work 1–14 hours 15–33 hours 34 or more hours

Borrowed Did not borrow

Percent

OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PERSISTENCE 

Despite the findings about the relationships between work, borrowing, and attendance, and 

persistence, other factors are associated with persistence not only directly but also indirectly 

through their relationships with work, borrowing and attendance patterns. For example, 1989-90 

first-time beginning students who had SAT scores below 800, or whose parents had no more 

than a high school education had lower persistence rates than their counterparts with higher SAT 

scores, and more educated parents (table 11). These characteristics were also associated with 

working 34 or more hours per week while enrolled. For example, students whose parents did not 

have a high school diploma were more likely than those with at least some college to work 34 or 

34 
 FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

Figure 7—Among 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attended exclusively or partly full time

Figure 7—percentage who attained a degree or were still enrolled as of spring 1994, by institution type, hours 

Figure 7—worked while enrolled, and borrowing status

Public 4-year

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Private, for-profit

*Too few cases for reliable estimates of borrowers at public 4-year institutions and of borrowers and nonborrowers at private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions.

NOTE: Figure excludes students with missing employment information, students not working toward a degree, and students at public 

2-year, public less-than-2-year, and private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions.

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

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

79

85 82 82

88 84

0

20

40

60

80

100

No work 1–14 hours 15–33 hours 34 or more hours*

60

79

58 62

69

32

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

No work 1–14 hours 15–33 hours 34 or more hours

82 82

64

87

71

39

0

20

40

60

80

100

No work 1–14 hours 15–33 hours 34 or more hours*

Borrowed Did not borrow Percent

Percent

Percent

35 
Table 11—Percentage distribution of first-time beginning postsecondary students according to work, borrowing, and attendance status by measures of academic ability and

Table 11—potential: 1989–94

Borrowing status1 Working status2 Attendance status3 Persistence and attainment

Exclu- Attained

 Did not No 1–14 15–33 34 or more sively More than degree or No Borrowed borrow work hours hours hours part-time part-time still enrolled degree

 Total 31.2 68.8 10.4 31.7 43.3 14.6 17.8 82.2 64.0 36.0 Educational aspirations Trade school 42.3 57.8 26.3 11.8 34.6 27.4 34.5 65.5 55.3 44.7 2-year degree 20.2 79.8 13.8 19.0 42.9 24.3 38.5 61.5 47.5 52.5 Bachelor’s degree 28.1 71.9 9.7 30.2 45.8 14.3 18.7 81.3 63.0 37.0  Advanced degree 35.0 65.0 6.4 41.2 44.0 8.4 6.8 93.2 71.7 28.3 Parents’ highest level of education No high school diploma 30.9 69.1 16.4 19.1 36.5 28.0 33.0 67.0 49.1 50.9 High school graduate 34.4 65.6 10.3 25.5 47.8 16.4 23.9 76.1 57.6 42.5 Some postsecondary 34.3 65.7 9.7 29.3 49.1 11.9 13.1 86.9 65.6 34.4  Bachelor’s degree or higher 27.5 72.5 6.6 45.4 39.4 8.6 5.8 94.2 76.7 23.3 Total SAT score4

 Less than 800 33.0 67.0 6.4 38.9 45.3 9.5 5.1 94.9 64.7 35.3  800–999 41.3 58.7 3.8 47.1 42.7 6.5 4.1 95.9 78.9 21.1  1000–1199 35.1 65.0 4.9 52.2 38.6 4.3 1.8 98.2 81.3 18.7 

 1200–1399 44.2 55.8 6.6 60.2 32.6 0.7 0.4 99.6 88.3 11.7 

 1400–1600 43.4 56.6 5.0 73.3 21.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 87.6 12.4 Grade point average Mostly A’s 26.6 73.4 10.0 34.7 42.1 13.1 23.3 76.7 80.9 19.1 A’s and B’s 35.2 64.8 6.8 42.9 45.2 5.2 9.0 91.1 89.0 11.1  Mostly B’s 33.7 66.4 5.1 37.9 45.7 11.3 10.4 89.6 79.9 20.1  B’s and C’s 34.0 66.0 5.0 34.3 49.8 10.9 12.1 87.9 69.8 30.2  Mostly C’s or below 32.4 67.6 12.9 34.0 40.5 12.7 23.6 76.4 51.2 48.8 Academic ability compared with others Above average 34.5 65.5 9.4 39.8 41.7 9.1 11.6 88.4 76.1 24.0  Average 29.9 70.1 10.7 27.1 44.6 17.6 21.1 78.9 57.7 42.4 Below average 21.5 78.5 18.5 27.7 39.4 14.5 16.2 83.9 55.7 44.3

1Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment.2For BPS:90/94, average hours worked while enrolled represents the average number of hours worked while enrolled up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment. 3Attendance status is defined as percent of months enrolled full time up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment. Students with zero percent of months full-time are categorized

as exclusively part-time. Students with 1–100 percent of months full time (includes both mixed and exclusively full-time students) are categorized as more than part-time. 4Not all students take the SAT. Thus, in some cases the estimates in the total row do not fall within the range of values in the SAT rows.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and publicless-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported using BPS:90/94.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), DataAnalysis System.
 FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

more hours, as were students with SAT scores below 800 compared with students with scores of 

1200 or more. 

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSISTENCE 

AND WORK, BORROWING, AND ATTENDANCE

The analysis described in this report showed that students who work full time and attend 

part time have lower rates of postsecondary persistence than those who work part time and attend full time. It also found that borrowing instead of working full time was related to increased 

full-time attendance and persistence. Due to the interrelationships among these variables, however, it is difficult to determine the individual effects of each. In addition, how students combine 

work, borrowing, and attendance also appears to be related to their background characteristics 

and other environmental influences that might affect their postsecondary outcomes. 

To measure the independent effects of work, borrowing, and attendance on persistence,28 a 

weighted least squares regression model was used. By examining the effects of several variables 

simultaneously and controlling for interrelationships between them, linear regression enables one 

to determine how specific variables are associated with the outcomes of interest. The dichotomous dependent variable is defined as having attained or being still enrolled or not having either 

of these characteristics. The model estimated the proportion of students who had attained a degree or were still enrolled as of spring 1994. The independent variables included work, borrowing, and attendance status, as well as other factors considered to be related to students’ 

persistence outcomes, including students’ gender, age, race–ethnicity, dependency status, local 

residence, socioeconomic status, cumulative grade point average, and the type of institution attended. The regression coefficients were used to adjust the original estimates of overall persistence and attainment by taking into account the joint effects of all independent variables.29

Table 12 shows the results of this analysis. The original (unadjusted) estimates of overall 

persistence appear in the first column, while the adjusted percentages appear in the second. Asterisks in these columns signify where proportions of students who persisted were significantly 

different from those in the comparison group for that variable. The comparison group for each 

variable is italicized. 

 

28See L. Berkner, S. Cuccaro-Alamin, and A. McCormick, Descriptive Summary of 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students: 

5 Years Later (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996) for a comprehensive discussion of persistence. 

29See appendix C for more information on the methodology used. 

37 
FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

Table 12—Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or were

Table 12—still enrolled as of spring 1994, and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation

Table 12—among row variables

 Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage percentage coefficient

1 error2

 Total 64.0 64.0 -28.0 3.6 

Gender

 Male 62.7 63.9 -0.2 1.7 

 Female 65.1 64.1 † †

Age

 Less than 24 67.4 64.1 † †

 24–29 49.0* 67.1 2.9 5.3 

 30 older 41.1* 60.3 -3.8 5.5 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 64.4 63.1 † †

 Black, non-Hispanic 55.1 60.1 -3.0 3.9 

 Hispanic 64.1 70.7 7.6 4.1 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 75.7 74.8* 11.8 4.5 

Dependency status for financial aid

 Dependent 69.5 63.8 † †

 Single independent 43.7* 62.5 -1.3 5.3 

 Independent with dependents 52.2* 67.2 3.4 4.0 

Local residence

 On campus 81.6 70.9 † †

 Off campus 49.5* 59.1* -11.8 4.1 

 With parents or relatives 60.6* 62.2* -8.7 3.5 

Socioeconomic status

 Lower quartile 46.8* 59.6 -3.1 3.2 

 Middle quartiles 60.7 62.6 † †

 Upper quartile 73.8* 67.0 4.4 2.3 

Working status 1989–903

 No work 54.3* 59.7 -5.6 3.1 

 Worked 1–14 hours 80.4* 72.1* 6.7 2.1 

 Worked 15–33 hours 66.0 65.4 † †

 34 or more hours 29.0* 45.1* -20.2 3.1 

Attendance status

4

 Part-time 24.9* 40.0* -29.2 3.4 

 More than part-time 72.5 69.2 † †

Borrowing status

5

 Borrowed 74.8* 68.0* 5.9 2.2 

 Did not borrow 59.1 62.1 † †

38 
 FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

Table 12—Percentage of 1989–90 first-time beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or were

Table 12—still enrolled as of spring 1994, and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation

Table 12—among row variables—Continued

 Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage percentage coefficient

1 error2

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 74.0* 64.4 2.1 4.0 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 81.1* 64.0 1.8 3.8 

 Public 2-year 52.0 62.3 † †

 Private, for-profit 60.9* 69.6 7.3 4.1 

Cumulative GPA

 Mostly A’s 80.9 74.2* 10.0 2.9 

 A’s and B’s 89.0* 72.8* 8.6 2.0 

 Mostly B’s 79.9 64.2 † †

 B’s and C’s 69.8* 54.0* -10.2 2.3 

 Mostly C’s or below 51.2* 37.0* -27.2 3.5 

*p ≤ .05.

†Not applicable for reference group. 1

Weighted least squares (WLS) coefficient (see appendix C) multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage. 2

 Standard error of WLS coefficient adjusted for design effect (see appendix C) multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage. 3 For BPS:90/94, average hours worked while enrolled represents the average number of hours worked while enrolled up to first

attainment (if any) or last enrollment. 4

Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months

full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and

students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as exclusively full-time. 5Borrowing includes loans from federal, state, and institutional sources up to first attainment (if any) or last enrollment.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending

private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, these estimates will vary from other estimates reported

using BPS:90/94.

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

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

When other variables in the model were considered, working full time (34 or more hours) 

and attending part time were negatively associated with persistence. By contrast, borrowing was 

positively associated with persistence. Although significant differences were found in the unadjusted means for persistence according to the type of institution attended, when other variables 

were taken into consideration, these differences were no longer found. It is likely that the unadjusted means for institution type reflects the working, borrowing, attendance, and local residence 

patterns of students who attend those institutions, all of which are independent predictors of persistence in the regression model, as well as other characteristics shown in the table. 

When the effects of other variables were controlled, the association of academic ability 

with postsecondary persistence and attainment was evident. Specifically, relative to grades that 

were mostly B’s, grades of mostly A’s or A’s and B’s were positively associated with persis39 
FINANCING STRATEGIES AND PERSISTENCE

tence and attainment, while grades of B’s and C’s or mostly C’s were negatively associated with 

persistence. Finally, although there were no differences in the unadjusted rates of persistence between white, non-Hispanic students and Asian/Pacific Islander students, when adjusted for covariation, Asian students were more likely to persist and attain than their white, non-Hispanic 

counterparts. 

40 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

The way in which students combined work and attendance was strongly associated with the 

type of institution they attended. At public 2-year institutions, most students worked full time 

and attended part time, whereas the majority of students at 4-year institutions worked part time 

and attended full time. Students in private, for-profit institutions also attended full time but most 

either did not work or worked full time. Similarly, whether or not a student borrowed was also 

related to choice of institution, with students at higher cost institutions more likely to borrow. In 

general, across all categories of hours worked, if students borrowed, their likelihood of attending 

full time increased. 

In addition to identifying the common combinations of work, borrowing, and attendance 

among students in different types of institutions, this analysis also focused on how these combinations were related to students’ persistence and attainment outcomes. For each institution type, 

part-time attendance reduced the likelihood of persisting compared with full-time attendance. In 

addition, full-time work was negatively associated with persistence and attainment, while parttime work (1–14 hours) was positively associated. Students who borrowed were also more likely 

to persist and attain than were nonborrowers. Although the results differed according to institution type, borrowing might increase students’ likelihood of persistence by reducing their need to 

work full time, thereby allowing them to attend full time at higher rates. 

When the effects of other variables were controlled, borrowing was still related to persistence and attainment. Perhaps borrowing in and of itself increases students’ commitment to degree completion; that is, they may have more incentive to finish because they will need a higher 

paying job to meet their debt burden. Alternatively, it may be that students who borrow rather 

than work are more committed or motivated to completing their postsecondary studies from the 

outset. Conversely, students who are not as committed to their schooling may choose to finance 

their education through work instead, thereby avoiding future debt if they decide not to complete 

their program. 

41 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the NCES 

NPSAS:93 undergraduate and the BPS:90/94 Data Analysis Systems (DAS), which are NCES software applications 

that generate tables from the NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 data. A description of the DAS software can be found in

appendix C. The labels are in bold, capital letters and correspond to the names of the variables in the DAS. 

The glossary is organized into two sections: variable definitions for the NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 data sets, respectively. In the index below, the variables in each section are listed in order they appear in the report; the glossary is in 

alphabetical order in each section by variable name (displayed in the right-hand column).

Glossary Index 

NPSAS:93 

Gender of student ........................................GENDER 

Age as of 12/31/92 ..............................................AGE 

Race–ethnicity .................................................. RACE 

Marital status in 1992 ............................. SMARITAL 

Housing arrangements................................LOCRES2 

Dependency status for 

 financial aid ............................................. DEPEND2 

Income percentile ranking ............................PCTALL 

Income percentile ranking (dependent

 students)......................................................PCTDEP 

Income percentile ranking (independent

 students)..................................................PCTINDEP 

Institutional level and control..................SECTOR_B 

Number of months enrolled in 1992–93.........ENLEN 

Percentage of months enrolled 

 full time 1992–93 .................................... ATTENST 

Job on or off campus.............................. JOBLOCAT 

Average number of hours worked 

 per week while enrolled in 1992–93 .....EMWKHR4 

Percent of months employed 

 and enrolled ............................................ ENREMPL 

Amount borrowed ....................................TOTLOAN 

Work and borrowing status 

 in 1992–93.......................................... WHRSBORR 

Working, borrowing, part-time 

 attendance global filter .............................. FILTER1 

BPS: 90/94 

Gender ...................................................... H_GENDR 

Age ..............................................................AGE8990 

Race–ethnicity of student ..........................BPSRACE 

Marital status..............................................MAR8990 

Local residence in 1989–90.................... LOCALRES 

Dependency for financial aid, 1989–90..... DEPEND2 

Socioeconomic status .................................SESPERC 

Educational aspirations in 1989–90............... ASPIRE 

Parental education .......................................RPARED 

Total SAT score...................................... SATTOTAL 

Cumulative GPA through 

 1989–94....................................................CUMGPA 

Academic ability compared

 to others...............................................COMPAREA 

Level and control of first 

 institution................................................ OFCO8990 

Work and borrowing status 

 1989–94.............................................WKBORCUM

Work status 1989–90............................. WKBORR89 

Intensity of enrollment..............................ATSTCUM 

Overall persistence and 

 attainment ...............................................PERACUM 

Working, borrowing, attendance 

 filter—global ............................................. FILTER6 

43 
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

NPSAS:93

Age as of 12/31/92 AGE

Less than 24 Student was 23 years old or younger as of 12/31/92. 

24–29 Student was between 24 and 29 years old as of 12/31/92. 

30 or older Student was 30 or older as of 12/31/92. 

Percentage of months enrolled full time 1992–93 ATTENST

This variable was calculated by dividing the number of months the student was enrolled full time by the total number of months that the student was enrolled. This resulting figure was then multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. 

Values are continuous to 100. 

Exclusively part-time Student attended zero percent of months full time. 

Mixed Student attended 1–99 percent of months full time. 

Exclusively full-time Student attended 100 percent of months full time. 

Dependency status for financial aid DEPEND2

This variable was based upon dependency status and number of the student’s dependents, as reported on financial aid 

forms. After synthesizing this information, students were divided into three categories: dependent, single and without

dependents of their own, and independent with dependents of their own. For purposes of this survey, spouses were 

considered dependents. 

Dependent Student was considered financially dependent for financial aid 

purposes in 1992–93. 

Single, independent Student was considered financially independent for financial

aid purposes and had no dependents in 1992–93. 

Independent with dependents Student was considered financially independent for financial

aid purposes and had dependents in 1992–93. Spouses were 

considered dependents. 

Average number of hours worked per week while enrolled in 1992–93 EMWKHR4

The average number of hours worked per week while enrolled (including work-study). Students reported whether or 

not they worked while enrolled in school, and if they were employed, the average number of hours they worked per 

week. This variable represents only the average hours a student worked while 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. Values are continuous. For this analysis, students 

were divided into four categories based on the average number of hours they worked while enrolled. 

44 
 APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

No work Student did not work while enrolled. 

Worked 1–14 hours Student worked 1–14 hours per week while enrolled. 

Worked 15–33 hours Student worked 15–33 hours per week while enrolled. 

Worked 34 or more hours Student worked 34 or more hours per week while enrolled. 

Number of months enrolled in 1992–93 ENLEN 

Number of months (not necessarily full months) enrolled during the 12 months between July 1992 and June 1993. 

Some students were not enrolled at all during these months; for these students only, ENLEN is equal to the number 

of months they were enrolled during the two months of May and June 1992. 

Wherever possible, institution-reported data were used to determine enrollment status for each month. For any 

months for which institution data could not be used, student-reported data were substituted.

Less than 8 months Student was enrolled for less than 8 months during 1992–93. 

8 or more months Student was enrolled for 8 months or more during 1992–93. 

Percent of months employed and enrolled ENREMPL

This variable was calculated by dividing the number of months during the school year that the student was employed and enrolled by the number of months enrolled. This figure was then multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. Values are continuous to 100. 

Working, borrowing, part-time attendance global filter FILTER1

This variable filters students who were not working toward a degree, had missing employment information, or were 

enrolled at a public less-than-2-year institution or a private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institution and classifies 

them as “no.” Students with none of these criteria are classified as “yes.” 

 Yes 

 No 

Gender of student GENDER

Male Student was male. 

Female Student was female. 

Job on or off campus JOBLOCAT

For students who worked while enrolled, indicates whether the student worked on or off campus during 1992–93 

for the student’s principal job (the one held the longest). 

45 
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

On campus Student’s job was located on campus. 

Off campus Student’s job was located off campus. 

Housing arrangements LOCRES2

Indicates if student resided in school-owned housing, off campus, or with family. 

On campus Institution-owned living quarters for students. These are typically institution-owned dormitories, residence halls, or other 

facilities. 

Off campus Student lived off campus in noninstitution-owned housing but 

not with his or her parents or other relatives. 

With parents or relatives Student lived at home with parents or other relatives. 

Income percentile ranking PCTALL, PCTDEP, PCTINDEP

Equal to the proportion of the sample that had an income lower than that recorded for the student in question. For 

PCTDEP, only dependent students are included, and for PCTINDEP, only independent students. For PCTALL, all

students are included, but the ranking was calculated separately for dependent and independent students. Thus, each 

ranking compares the student only with other students of the same dependency status. Uses parents’ income if student is dependent, and student’s own income (including spouse’s income if married) if student is independent. 

Lowest quartile Income falls at or below the lowest 25th percentile of undergraduates’ income distribution. 

Middle quartiles Income falls between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile 

of undergraduates’ income distribution. 

Highest quartile Income falls at or above the 75th percentile of undergraduates’ income distribution. 

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 peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or Pacific Islands. 

46 
 APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

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. 

Institutional level and control SECTOR_B

Institution type by level and control. Institution level concerns the institution’s highest offering (duration of program and type of certificate, degree, or award), and control concerns the source of revenue and control of operations. Note that students in public less-than-2-year and private, not-for-profit, 2- to 3-year and less-than-2-year 

institutions were not included.

Public 2-year Public 2- to-3-year institution.

Public 4-year Public 4-year institution.

Private, not-for-profit 4-year Private, independent 4-year institutions. 

Private, for-profit Private, for-profit less-than-2-year and 2-year or more institutions. 

Marital status in 1992 SMARITAL

A student’s marital status as of the NPSAS interview date. In the case of this variable, institution-reported data were 

preferred over student-reported data for two reasons: first, the student-reported data were collected at a later date; 

thus, the institution-reported data more accurately reflect the student’s status at the time of the financial aid award. 

Second, the primary concern of the NPSAS data set is student aid, and it was on the basis of the information from

the student applications that aid was awarded. 

Not married Student was not married. 

Married Student was married. 

Separated Student was separated. 

Amount borrowed TOTLOAN

Total amount of all loans: federal, state, and institutional. This variable does not include PLUS loans. The data were 

primarily institution-reported, although students’ accounts were used, if institution data were not available. This 

variable was also used as a percent positive to indicate borrowing.

Work and borrowing status in 1992–93 WHRSBORR

This variable represents students’ combined work and borrowing status during the 1992–93 academic year. In constructing the variable, students were first divided into two categories based on their borrowing status (TOTLOAN). 

47 
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

These two categories were then disaggregated according to the average number of hours the student reported working per week while enrolled (EMWKHR4). 

Borrowed and working unknown (excluded from this analysis) 

Borrowed and did not work 

Borrowed and worked 1–14 hours 

Borrowed and worked 15–33 hours per week 

Borrowed and worked 34 or more hours per week 

Did not borrow and working unknown (excluded from this analysis) 

Did not borrow and did not work 

Did not borrow and worked 1–14 hours 

Did not borrow and worked 15–33 hours per week 

Did not borrow and worked 34 or more hours per week 

48 
 APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

BPS: 90/94

Age AGE8990 

The student’s age when began at 1989–90 referent institution. 

Less than 24 Student was 23 years old or younger. 

24–29 Student was between 24 and 29 years old. 

30 or older Student was 30 years or older. 

Educational aspirations in 1989–90 ASPIRE

Highest level of education that the student expected to complete. Recoded from the student’s reported educational

aspirations in the NPSAS survey. 

Trade school Student expected to earn a vocational certificate or license, or 

to attend college, but not to earn a bachelor’s degree. 

2-year degree Student expected to earn less than a bachelor’s degree, but 

planned to attend at least 2 years. (Includes those who aspired 

to earn an associate’s degree.) 

Bachelor’s degree Student expected to earn a bachelor’s degree, but not an advanced degree. 

Advanced degree Student expected to earn a master’s, doctoral, or firstprofessional degree. 

Intensity of enrollment ATSTCUM

Calculated as the percentage of months enrolled full time during the period of analysis. For nondegree attainers, this

variable represents the percent of months attended full time throughout postsecondary education; for those who did 

attain a degree, it represents the percent of months attended full time until the first degree was attained.

Exclusively part-time Student attended zero percent of months full time. 

More than part-time Student attended 1–100 percent of months full time. 

Race–ethnicity of student BPSRACE

 

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. 

49 
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

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. 

Academic ability compared to others COMPAREA

Students were asked to compare themselves academically with the average person of their age. 

Above average Student considered himself/herself to have above average academic ability. 

Average Student considered himself/herself to have average academic 

ability. 

Below average Student considered himself/herself to have below average academic ability.

Cumulative GPA through 1989–94 CUMGPA 

Overall grades in postsecondary education through 1994. 

Mostly A’s Student’s grade point average fell at or above 3.75. 

Mostly A’s and B’s Student’s grade point average fell between 3.25 and 3.75. 

Mostly B’s Student’s grade point average fell between 2.75 and 3.25. 

Mostly B’s and C’s Student’s grade point average fell between 2.25 and 2.75. 

Mostly C’s or below Student’s grade point average fell at or below 2.25. 

Dependency for financial aid, 1989–90 DEPEND2

Categorizes independent students into two groups: those with and without dependents. These are categories that

determine the type of need analysis formula used in determining financial aid eligibility. Based on dependency 

status, marital status, and family size. 

Dependent Student was a dependent. 

Independent without dependents Student reported not being a dependent, and there was 

only one person reported in her or his family. 

50 
 APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

Independent with dependents Student reported not being a dependent, and student was married, or there were two or more people in the student’s family. 

Working, borrowing, attendance filter—global FILTER6

The variable identifies and filters students from 1989–94 who were enrolled at some time in postsecondary education but were 1) not working toward a degree, 2) missing employment information, or 3) enrolled at a public lessthan-2-year institution or a private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institution.

No 

Yes

Gender H_GENDR

Male Student was male. 

Female Student was female. 

Local residence in 1989–90 LOCALRES 

The student’s residence in school-owned housing, off campus, or with parents during the 1989–90 academic year. 

Residence was based on sampled term only.

On campus Student lived in institution-owned living quarters. These are 

typically on-campus dormitories, residence halls, or other facilities. 

Off campus Student lived off campus in noninstitution-owned housing, but 

not with parents or other relatives. 

With parents or relatives Student lived at home with parents or other relatives. 

Marital status MAR8990

Marital status during month when first enrolled.

Never married Student was never married. 

Married Student was married. 

Separated, widowed, divorced Student was either married, but separated from his or her 

spouse, widowed, or divorced. 

Level and control of first institution OFCO8990

 

Level and control of the NPSAS institution in academic year 1989–90. Note that this variable does not include students enrolled in public less-than-2-year or private, not-for-profit less-than-2-year or 2- to 3-year institutions. 

Public 4-year Public 4-year institution.

51 
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

Private, not-for-profit 4-year Private, not-for-profit 4-year institution.

Public 2-year Public 2- to 3-year institution.

Private, for-profit Private, for-profit institution.

Overall persistence and attainment PERACUM 

Aggregated version of overall persistence and attainment variable. The overall persistence and attainment outcomes 

were derived by categorizing the students’ persistence paths from initial enrollment until follow-up in 1994. Two 

categories were used: 

Attained or still enrolled Student had attained a degree or was still enrolled as of spring

of 1994. 

No degree, not enrolled Student had not attained a degree and was no longer enrolled 

as of spring 1994. 

Parental education RPARED

Highest level of education completed by either parent.

Less than high school Neither parent graduated from high school or received a GED 

(General Educational Development) certificate. 

High school graduate One or both parents graduated from high school or received a 

GED certificate. 

Some postsecondary One or both parents had some postsecondary education, but

less than a bachelor’s degree, including an associate’s degree. 

Bachelor’s degree or higher One or both parents earned a bachelor’s degree, or an advanced degree such as a master’s degree, Ph.D., MD., and so 

on. 

Total SAT score SATTOTAL

Represents combined verbal and quantitative SAT scores. 

Less than 800 Student scored less than 800 on verbal and quantitative tests, 

cumulatively. 

800–999 Student scored 800–999 on the verbal and quantitative SAT. 

1000–1199 Student scored 1000–1199 on the verbal and quantitative 

SAT. 

1200–1399 Student scored 1200–1399 on the verbal and quantitative 

SAT. 

52 
 APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

1400–1600 Student scored 1400–1600 on the verbal and quantitative 

SAT. 

Socioeconomic status SESPERC

Composite variable combining parent’s education and occupation, dependent student’s family income, and the existence of a series of material possessions in respondent’s home. Applies only to first-year freshmen. 

Lowest quartile Socioeconomic status fell at or below the lowest 25th percentile. 

Middle quartiles Socioeconomic status fell between the 25th percentile and the 

75th percentile. 

Highest quartile Socioeconomic status fell at or above the 75th percentile. 

Work and borrowing status 1989–94 WKBORCUM

For degree attainers, this variable represents the student’s combined working and borrowing status through the first

degree and was derived from the number of hours worked per week while enrolled through the first degree and 

whether they received a nonfamily loan through the first degree. 

 

For students who did not attain a degree, the variable represents their combined working and borrowing status 

through last enrollment and was derived using the average number of hours worked per week while enrolled and 

whether they received a nonfamily loan while enrolled. 

Both groups of students were classified as either borrowers or nonborrowers, and then were divided into categories 

based on the number of hours they worked while enrolled. 

Borrowed and working unknown (excluded from this analysis) 

Borrowed and did not work 

Borrowed and worked, 1–14 hours 

Borrowed and worked, 15–33 hours per week 

Borrowed and worked, 34 or more hours per week 

Did not borrow and working unknown (excluded from this analysis) 

Did not borrow and did not work 

Did not borrow and worked, 1–14 hours 

Did not borrow and worked, 15–33 hours per week 

Did not borrow and worked, 34 or more hours per week 

Work status 1989–1990 WKBORR89 

Work and borrowing status AY 1989–90. The variable represents a student’s combined borrowing and working 

status using average number of hours worked while enrolled during the 1989–90 academic year. Students were 

grouped according to borrowing status using the variable NFLOAN89 which indicates whether the student ever 

received a nonfamily loan at any postsecondary institution they attended during the 1989–90 academic year. Students were then classified according to working status using the variable HRS8990 which indicates the average 

number of hours worked while enrolled during the 1989–90 academic year. For this analysis, students who were 

missing on HRS8990 were classified as working unknown. The others were categorized into the following four 

groups:

53 
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

No work 

Worked, 1–14 hours 

Worked, 15–33 hours 

Worked, 34 or more hours

54 
APPENDIX B—NOTES ON THE DEFINITION OF THE 

ANALYSIS SAMPLE 

In this analysis, data from the 1992–93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:93) and the 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94) were 

used to examine the relationship between working, borrowing, and attendance status. Students 

who did not have sufficient employment information had to be excluded from the analysis. Also 

excluded were students not seeking a degree (for whom persistence is not a meaningful concept) 

and students enrolled in either public less-than-2-year or private, not-for-profit less than 4-year 

institutions (because of the small enrollments in these types of institutions). 

Table B1 shows the percentages of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 students included and excluded according to selected student characteristics. In total, 26 percent of the NPSAS:93 and 14 

percent of the BPS:90/94 students were excluded. In NPSAS:93, the majority of exclusions were 

due to missing employment information. Generally, the included students in both the NPSAS:93 

and BPS:90/94 data sets represented the more “traditional” postsecondary populations (table 

B2). 

Table B1—Percentage of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 undergraduates meeting criteria for sample exclusion

NPSAS:93 BPS:90/94

Exclusion characteristics VARIABLE Percent VARIABLE Percent

 Total FILTER1 = 0 25.7 FILTER6=0 13.5

Employment information EMWKHR4 lt 0 19.7 WKBORayyy=1 or 6 *

Not working toward a degree PROGRAM=4 4.5 GOALayyy=0 *

Public less-than-2-year institution SECTOR_B=1 1.5 OFCOayyy=5 *

Private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institution SECTOR_B=5 1.6 OFCOayyy=7 or 8 *

*Weighted percentage cannot be calculated using the Data Analysis System.

NOTE: Details do not sum to total because individuals could have more than one characteristic that would exclude them from the

analysis.

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

Study (NPSAS:93) and 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data

Analysis Systems.

55 
APPENDIX B—NOTES ON THE DEFINITION OF THE ANALYSIS SAMPLE

Table B2—Percentage distribution of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 students according to study inclusion status, by

Table B2—selected characteristics

NPSAS:93 BPS:90/94

 Excluded Included Excluded Included

 Total 25.7 74.3 13.5 86.6 

Type of first institution

 Public 4-year 21.3 78.7 8.4 91.6 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 21.8 78.2 7.6 92.4 

 Public 2-year 25.0 75.0 12.5 87.5 

 Private, for-profit 36.5 63.5 5.6 94.4 

Gender

 Male 24.1 75.9 13.5 86.5 

 Female 26.0 74.0 13.4 86.6 

Age

 Younger than 24 24.4 75.6 12.2 87.8 

 24–29 28.7 71.3 21.4 78.6 

 30 or older 26.0 74.0 18.7 81.3 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 25.5 74.5 14.0 86.0 

 Black, non-Hispanic 25.2 74.8 10.6 89.4 

 Hispanic 14.4 85.6 15.2 84.8 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 8.9 91.1 6.6 93.4 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 16.1 83.9 3.5 96.6 

Marital status

 Not married (NPSAS) or

 Never married (BPS) 22.9 77.1 12.2 87.8 

 Married 17.7 82.3 16.7 83.3 

 Separated (NPSAS) or

 Separated, widowed, divorced (BPS) 33.1 66.9 12.5 87.5 

Local residence

 On campus 21.2 78.8 9.3 90.7 

 Off campus 27.9 72.1 17.2 82.9 

 With parents or relatives 23.1 76.9 13.8 86.2 

Dependency status

 Dependent 23.7 76.4 12.1 87.9 

 Single independent 37.0 63.0 19.7 80.3 

 Independent with dependents 21.4 78.6 15.5 84.6 

Income quartiles/socioeconomic status*

 Lowest quartile 31.3 68.7 13.0 87.0 

 Middle quartiles 23.8 76.2 15.4 84.6 

 Highest quartile 12.9 87.1 11.4 88.6 

*The NPSAS:93 variable represents students’ income percentile rank in quartiles. The BPS:90/94 variable represents students’ 

socioeconomic status rank in quartiles.

NOTE: Some of the row percentages do not include the total percentage within their range (e.g., race–ethnicity in the excluded NPSAS:93

column) because there is a greater proportion missing for the row variables than for the total.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94)

Data Analysis Systems.

56 
 APPENDIX B—NOTES ON THE DEFINITION OF THE ANALYSIS SAMPLE

57 

NPSAS:93 

Students from private, for-profit institutions were more likely to be excluded than were students from any other institution type. White and black students were more likely to be excluded 

than were Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander students. Generally, excluded students tended to be 

older rather than younger, independent without dependents rather than dependent, or living off 

rather than on campus. Finally, students from the lowest income categories were most likely to 

be excluded. 

BPS:90/94 

In the BPS:90/94 sample, students in public 2-year institutions were more likely than students in any other type of institution to be excluded. This may reflect the large proportion of 

nondegree-seeking students who attend community colleges. Unlike students in the NPSAS:93 

sample, BPS:90/94 students did not differ in their sample inclusion status on the basis of their 

age. Similar to those in the NPSAS:93 sample, single independent students were more likely to 

be excluded than dependent students. Likewise, students who lived off campus or with their parents were more likely than students who lived on campus to be excluded. Finally, students from 

the middle income categories were more likely to be excluded than students from the highest income group. 

COMPARISON OF ATTENDANCE STATUS

Table B3 presents the distribution of attendance status for the NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 

samples. For both the NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 samples, exclusively part-time attendance was 

more likely among students age 24 and over than students under age 24, independent students 

compared with dependent students, married students compared with students who were not married (NPSAS) or never married (BPS),30 and students who lived off campus or with their parents 

compared to students who lived on campus. 

The 1989–90 first-time beginning students were as likely to have mixed attendance patterns as they were to attend exclusively full time (43 percent versus 40 percent), and the demographic characteristics of these groups resembled the group of exclusively full-time students 

from the NPSAS:93 sample. Specifically, like their NPSAS:93 counterparts who attended exclu-

 

30Among NPSAS students, married students were more likely than separated students to attend exclusively part-time, but among 

BPS students, married students attended exclusively part time in about the same proportion as separated, divorced, or widowed 

students. 
APPENDIX B—NOTES ON THE DEFINITION OF THE ANALYSIS SAMPLE

sively full-time, both first-time beginning students with mixed and exclusively full-time attendance were more likely to be under age 24 rather than over age 24, dependent than independent, 

not married rather than married, and more likely to live on campus than off campus. For analysis 

purposes, therefore, both mixed and full-time attendance were combined for the BPS:90/94 sample and identified as attending exclusively or partly full time. 

Table B3—Percentage distribution of NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 students according to attendance status* by selected

Table b.4—demographic characteristics

NPSAS:93 BPS:90/94

 Exclusively Exclusively Exclusively Exclusively

 part-time Mixed full-time part-time Mixed full-time

 

 Total 43.0 15.9 41.1 17.8 42.7 39.5

Age as of 12/31/92

 Less than 24 23.9 19.2 56.9 12.1 46.7 41.2

 24–29 57.9 15.2 26.9 47.1 18.1 34.8

 30 or older 72.7 9.7 17.6 53.4 20.3 26.4

Dependency status

 Dependent 22.9 19.2 57.9 9.2 48.3 42.5

 Single independent 55.2 15.2 29.6 42.6 32.5 25.0

 Independent with dependents 66.2 11.5 22.3 45.2 20.4 34.5

Marital status

 Not married (NPSAS) or

 Never married (BPS) 32.9 17.7 49.4 12.4 46.3 41.3

 Married 69.4 11.1 19.5 48.6 22.6 28.8

 Separated (NPSAS) or

 Separated, widowed, or divorced (BPS) 49.2 15.2 35.6 45.1 21.0 34.0

Local residence

 On campus 6.8 13.4 79.8 2.0 47.6 50.4

 Off campus 53.9 14.4 31.7 36.8 29.9 33.3

 With parents or relatives 38.4 20.0 41.6 16.8 47.7 35.6

*Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months

full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and

students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as exclusively full-time.

NOTE: Due to the exclusion of students with missing employment information, students not seeking a degree, and students attending

private, not-for-profit less-than 4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, all estimates will vary from prior estimates reported

using NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94.

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

Aid Study (NPSAS:93), and 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94),

Data Analysis Systems.

58 
APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND 

METHODOLOGY 

THE 1992–93 NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY

The need for a nationally representative database on postsecondary student financial aid 

prompted the U.S. Department of Education to initiate the National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS), a cross-sectional survey conducted every 3 years starting in 1987. The NPSAS 

sample was designed to include students enrolled in all types of postsecondary education. However, service academies were not included in the institution sample because of their unique funding and tuition base, and certain other institutions were also excluded.31 In addition to a 

computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) of students and parents, the NPSAS surveys collect students’ registrarial and financial aid information directly from the sampled institutions. To 

provide the full range of information on financing postsecondary education, NPSAS samples 

both aided and nonaided students. 

NPSAS:93 included a stratified sample of approximately 66,000 eligible students (about 

52,000 of whom were undergraduates) from about 1,100 institutions. Students were included in 

the sample if they attended a NPSAS-eligible institution; were enrolled between July 1, 1992 and 

June 30, 1993; and were enrolled in one or more courses or programs including courses for 

credit, a degree or formal award program of at least 3 months’ duration, or an occupationally or 

vocationally specific program of at least 3 months’ duration. Regardless of their postsecondary 

status, however, students who were also enrolled in high school were excluded. 

The 1992–93 NPSAS survey sample, while representative and statistically accurate, was 

not a simple random sample. Instead, the survey sample was selected using a more complex 

three-step procedure with stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection at each 

level. First, postsecondary institutions were initially selected within geographical strata. Once 

institutions were organized by zip code and state, they were further stratified by control (i.e., 

public; private, not-for-profit; or private, for-profit) and offering (less-than-2-year, 2- to 3-year, 

 

31Other excluded institutions were those offering only avocational, recreational, or remedial courses; those offering only inhouse business courses; those offering only programs of less than 3 months’ duration; and those offering only correspondence 

courses.

59 
APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

4-year nondoctorate-granting, and 4-year doctorate-granting). Sampling rates for students enrolled at different institutions and levels (undergraduate or other) varied, resulting in better data 

for policy purposes, but at a cost to statistical efficiency. 

For each student in the NPSAS sample, there were up to three sources of data. First, institution registration and financial aid records were extracted. Second, a Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) was conducted with each student. Finally, a CATI designed for the 

parents or guardians of a subsample of students was conducted. Data from these three sources 

were synthesized into a single system with an overall response rate of about 85 percent. 

For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult Methodology Report for the 1993 National Postsecondary Student Aid (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics, NCES 95-211). 

BEGINNING POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS LONGITUDINAL STUDY 

The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94) followed students 

from the NPSAS:90 sample who were identified as first-time beginning (FTB) students in academic year 1989–90. A CATI was conducted 2 and 4 years after the base year that collected information concerning enrollment, program completion, education financing, employment, and 

family formation; graduate school access and enrollment; and civic participation. The data derived from this survey permit a variety of analyses concerning postsecondary persistence and 

completion, entry into the work force, and civic participation. 

Unlike other NCES longitudinal surveys based on grade-specific cohorts (such as High 

School and Beyond), the BPS design allows for the increasing numbers of “nontraditional” postsecondary students, such as those who have delayed their education due to financial needs or 

family responsibilities. Students who began their postsecondary studies before 1989–90, stopped 

out, and then returned to their studies in 1989–90 were not included, nor were students who were 

still enrolled in high school. 

The BPS survey sample, while representative and statistically accurate, is also not a simple 

random sample. Instead, the samples are selected using a more complex three-step procedure 

with stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection at each level. The same threestage procedure described for NPSAS applies to BPS. 

60 
 APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

For more information on BPS:90/94, consult Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94) Final Technical Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 96-153). 

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 Undergraduate 

and BPS:90/94 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to 

specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS and BPS 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 errors32 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table C1 contains standard errors that correspond to table 4 in the text, and was generated 

by the NPSAS:93 DAS. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate 

(fewer than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate. 

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to be 

used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally 

 

32The NPSAS and BPS samples are not simple random samples and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating 

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor 

series method. 

61 
APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

Table C1—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to attendance status,* 

Table C1—by selected demographic and institutional characteristics: 1992–93

 Exclusively Exclusively

 part-time Mixed full-time 

 Total 1.0 0.4 0.9

Type of institution

 Public, 2-year 1.2 0.7 1.0

 Public, 4-year 1.1 0.6 1.1

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year 1.4 0.9 1.8

 Private-for-profit 3.0 0.9 72.3

Gender

 Male 1.2 0.6 1.1

 Female 1.1 0.5 1.0

Age as of 12/31/92

 Less than 24 0.9 0.6 1.0

 24–29 years old 1.2 0.7 1.1

 30 years or older 1.1 0.5 0.9

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 1.1 0.5 1.0

 Black, non-Hispanic 2.2 0.9 2.2

 Hispanic 2.0 1.3 1.6

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.2 1.4 1.9

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 5.3 2.5 5.8

Marital status

 Not married 1.0 0.5 1.0

 Married 1.1 0.6 0.9

 Separated 3.5 2.3 3.1

Local residence

 On campus 0.6 0.9 1.1

 Off campus 1.1 0.5 0.9

 With parents or relatives 1.1 0.7 1.0

Dependency status for financial aid

 Dependent 0.9 0.6 1.0

 Single independent 1.3 0.7 1.1

 Independent with dependents 1.1 0.5 0.9 

Income quartiles

 Lower quartile 1.1 0.6 1.1

 Middle quartiles 1.1 0.6 1.0

 Upper quartile 1.5 0.5 1.4

*Attendance status is defined in terms of the percentage of months enrolled in 1992–93 that were full time. Students with zero months

full time are categorized as exclusively part-time. Students with 1–99 percent of their months full time are categorized as mixed, and

students with 100 percent of their months full time are categorized as eclusively full-time.

NOTE: Due to exclusion of students with missing employment and information, students not working toward a degree, and students

attending private not-for-profit less-than-4-year and public less-than-2-year institutions, all estimates will vary from prior estimates

reported using NPSAS:93.

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

(NPSAS:93), Data Analysis System.

62 
 APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors 

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the NPSAS stratified sampling 

method. (See discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the adjustment procedure.) 

The DASs can be accessed electronically at www.PEDAR-DAS.org. For more information 

about the NPSAS:93 and BPS:90/94 Data Analysis Systems, contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

NCES Postsecondary and Educational Outcomes Longitudinal Studies 

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652 

(202) 219-1365 

Internet address: Aurora_D’Amico@ed.gov 

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

Two types of statistical procedures were employed in this report: testing differences between means, and adjustment of means after controlling for covariation among a group of variables. Each procedure is described below. 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error, or significance level. 

The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the differences 

between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the following formula: 

t =

E - E

se +se

1 2

1

2

2

2

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. Note that this formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the estimates 

were not independent (for example, when comparing a total percentage with that for a subgroup 

that is included in the total), a covariance term was added to the denominator of the t-test formula.

63 
APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading, since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making 

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making 

paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these 

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more 

than one difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those 

comparisons taken together. 

Comparisons were made in this report only when p ≤ .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the 

individual comparison would have p ≤ .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible 

comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p ≤.05.33

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of males and females who enrolled exclusively part time in postsecondary education only one comparison is possible (males versus females). In this family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the 

significance level. When students are divided into five racial–ethnic groups and all possible 

comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance level of each test must be p ≤.05/10, or p 

≤ .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows: 

k = j(j -1)

2

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race–ethnicity, 

there are five racial–ethnic groups (American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, black non-Hispanic, 

Hispanic, and white non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 2, 

k = 5(5 -1)

2

=10

 

33The 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 de64 
 APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

Adjustment of Means to Control for Background Variation 

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional factors 

that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example, when examining the percentages of those who completed a degree or were still enrolled in postsecondary education five years after their initial enrollment, it is impossible to know to what extent the 

observed variation is due to socioeconomic status (SES) differences and to what extent it is due 

to differences in other factors related to SES, such as type of institution attended, intensity of enrollment, and so on. However, if a nested table were produced showing SES within type of institution attended, within enrollment intensity, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the 

patterns. When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level of variation, one must use other methods to take such variation into account. 

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that were 

adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables. Adjusted means for subgroups were 

obtained by regressing the dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as gender, 

race–ethnicity, SES, etc. Substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup characteristic(s) of interest 

and the mean proportions for the other variables results in an estimate of the adjusted proportion 

for the specified subgroup, holding all other variables constant. For example, consider a hypothetical case in which two variables, age and gender, are used to describe an outcome, Y (such as 

attaining a degree). The variables age and gender are recoded into a dummy variable representing age, A, and a dummy variable representing gender, G: 

Age A

24 years or older 1 

Under 24 years old 0 

and 

Gender G

 Female 1 

 Male 0 

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output from the 

DAS: 

ˆ Y a b1A b2G

 grees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association

56 (1961): 52–64. 

65 
APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and 

the mean for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose Y

represents attainment, and is being described by age (A) and gender (G), coded as shown above, 

with means as follows: 

 Variable Mean

 A 0.355 

 G 0.521 

Next, suppose the regression equation results in: 

ˆ Y 0.15 0.17A 0.01G

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter 

estimates and variable values into equation 3. 

 Variable Parameter Value

 a 0.15 — 

 A 0.17 1.000 

 G 0.01 0.521 

This results in: 

ˆ Y 0.15 (0.17)(1) (0.01)(0.521) 0.325

In this case the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 and represents the expected outcome for older students who look like the average student across the other variables (in this example, gender). In other words, the adjusted percentage who attained after controlling for age 

and gender is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for conversion to a percentage). 

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using the DAS, since one of

the DAS output options is a correlation matrix, computed using pair-wise missing values.34 This 

matrix can be used by most statistical software packages as the input data for least-squares regression. That is the approach used for this report, with an additional adjustment to incorporate 

the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular presentation, parameter estimates and standard errors were multiplied 

by 100 to match the scale used for reporting unadjusted and adjusted percentages. 

 

34Although 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 (which are the most appropriate for models 

with categorical dependent variables) can apply for a restricted data license from NCES. See John H. Aldrich and Forrest D. 

Nelson, Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models (Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, Vol. 45) (Beverly Hills, CA: 

Sage University Press, 1984). 

66 
 APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for the BPS 

surveys, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to multiply each standard error by the design effect associated with the independent variable (DEFT),35

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. 

 

35The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith, eds., Analysis of Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989). 

67