80 F Street, N.W., Suite 413, Washington, D.C. 20202-7582 · Tel: 202/219-2099 · Fax: 202/219-3032 

 

 An independent committee created by Congress to advise on higher education and student aid policy 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

 COMMITTEE MEMBERS

 Dr. Juliet V. García 

 Chairperson and 

 President, University of Texas 

 at Brownsville 

 Dr. Charles Terrell 

 Vice Chairman and Vice President, 

 Division of Community and 

 Minority Programs 

 Association of American Medical 

 Colleges 

 Mr. Don R. Bouc 

 President and CEO 

 National Education Loan Network 

 Ms. Judith Flink 

 Director of Student Financial 

 Services 

 University of Illinois at Chicago 

 Ms. Norine Fuller 

 Executive Director 

 The Fashion Institute of Design and 

 Merchandising 

 Dr. Henry Givens, Jr. 

 President 

 Harris-Stowe State College 

 Dr. Robert C. Khayat 

 Chancellor 

 University of Mississippi 

 Mr. Lawrence W. O’Toole 

 President and CEO 

 America’s Charter School Finance 

 Corporation 

 Ms. Sandra L. Tarbox 

 Doctoral Student 

 Center for the Study of Higher 

 and Postsecondary Education 

 University of Michigan 

 Mr. Donald R. Vickers 

 President 

 Vermont Student Assistance 

 Corporation 

 Dr. Thomas R. Wolanin 

 Senior Associate 

 The Institute for Higher Education 

 Policy 

 

June 26, 2002 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Chairman 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

315 Senate Russell Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Kennedy: 

I am pleased to provide you with the Advisory Committee’s most recent report 

entitled, Empty Promises, The Myth of College Access in America. The report 

finds that record-high financial barriers keep hundreds of thousands of 

college-qualified high school students out of colleges this year alone and 

millions of such students over the decade. The report suggests a set of federal 

policy priorities for addressing the problem. 

The Advisory Committee was created by Congress to advise the Secretary of 

Education and Congress on higher education and student aid policy, and to 

make recommendations that improve access. Over the last four years, the 

Committee has dedicated its research efforts to articulating the current state of 

access by developing a report on the condition of access. The report, Access 

Denied, Restoring the Nation’s Commitment to Equal Educational 

Opportunity, released last spring, confronted policymakers with the primacy of

the federal goal of equal access and the critical importance of need-based 

student aid. The Committee expanded its research efforts this year to include 

more recent analyses of the significant effects of high unmet need on the 

college-going behavior of college-qualified, low- and moderate-income high 

school graduates by issuing this follow-on report. 

In the Committee’s research, we found that our nation invests in student aid in 

order to ensure that the opportunity to attend college and attain a bachelor’s 

degree does not depend on family income alone. Nevertheless, the financial 

barriers to a college education have risen sharply due to shifts in policies and 

priorities at the federal, state, and institutional levels, resulting in a shortage of 

student aid, and, in particular, need-based grant aid, as well as rising college 

tuition. As a result, students from low- and moderate-income families who 

graduate from high school fully prepared to attend a four-year college confront 

overwhelming financial barriers which block their access to college. 
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

June 26, 2002 

Page 2 

As school reform and early intervention efforts expand the number of college-qualified high school 

graduates over the next decade, scarce grant aid will be stretched even further and work and loan burden 

will increase. This will produce an even larger national loss of college-qualified high school graduates and 

wider income-related gaps in college participation and degree completion. To prevent a national access 

crisis, a long-term commitment must be made to strengthen student aid programs and increase grant aid by 

the federal government, states, and institutions. Taking steps to develop a comprehensive strategy to 

address the access problem of this decade could bring about immediate and long-lasting improvement in 

educational and economic opportunity for all college-qualified, low- and moderate-income Americans. 

As always, the Advisory Committee members and staff would be pleased to discuss this report and the 

recommendations with you or answer any questions. Please contact our staff director, Dr. Brian Fitzgerald, 

if we can be of assistance. We look forward to a continuing dialogue as we pursue the mutual goal of 

making access to college a reality for all Americans, especially for low- and moderate-income families. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Juliet V. GarcRa 

Chairperson 

Enclosure 

cc: The Honorable John A. Boehner (Identical original letter sent) 

 The Honorable Roderick R. Paige (Identical original letter sent) 

 Members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

Members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Members of the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 
 EMPTY PROMISES EMPTY PROMISES 

THE MYTH OF COLLEGE ACCESS IN AMERICA 

A Report of the Advisory Committee 

on Student Financial Assistance 

Washington, D.C. 

June 2002 

EMPTY PROMISES 

THE MYTH OF COLLEGE ACCESS IN AMERICA 

A Report of the Advisory Committee 

on Student Financial Assistance 

Washington, D.C. 

June 2002 
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance 

80 F Street, N.W., Suite 413 

Washington, DC 20202-7582 

Telephone: 202-219-2099 

Fax: 202-219-3032 

Email Address: adv_comsfa@ed.gov 

Website: www.ed.gov/ACSFA
"[The Higher Education Act of 1965] means that a high school senior 

anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any university 

in any of the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor."

President Lyndon B. Johnson 

Upon signing the Higher Education Act, 1965 

“No qualified student who wants to go to college should be barred by lack of money. 

That has long been a great American goal; I propose that we achieve it now.”

President Richard M. Nixon 

Special Message to the Congress on Higher Education, 1970 

 v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Most Americans believe that all students have the opportunity to earn a college degree through 

hard work in high school and college. Yet, this year alone due to record-high financial barriers, 

nearly one-half of all college-qualified, low- and moderate-income high school graduates—over 

400,000 students fully prepared to attend a four-year college—will be unable to do so, and 

170,000 of these students will attend no college at all. Over this decade, 4.4 million of these 

high school graduates will not attend four-year colleges and 2 million will attend no college at 

all. For these students, the promise of a college education is an empty one. For the nation, the 

loss of human capital will exact a serious economic and social toll for much of this century. 

Our nation invests in student aid in order to ensure that the opportunity to attend college and 

attain a bachelor’s degree does not depend on family income alone. Nevertheless, the financial 

barriers to a college education have risen sharply due to shifts in policies and priorities at the 

federal, state, and institutional levels, resulting in a shortage of student aid, and, in particular, 

need-based grant aid, as well as rising college tuition. As a result, students from low- and 

moderate-income families who graduate from high school fully prepared to attend a four-year 

college confront daunting financial barriers with major implications for these students and the 

nation. 

• Financial Barriers. Families of low-income, college-qualified high school graduates 

face annual unmet need of $3,800, college expenses not covered by student aid, including 

work-study and student loans. And the shortage in grant aid requires these families to 

cover $7,500—two-thirds of college expenses at public four-year colleges and one-third 

of family income—through work and borrowing. Their peers from moderate-income 

families face similar barriers. 

• Impact on Students. These financial barriers prevent 48 percent of college-qualified, 

low-income high school graduates from attending a four-year college, and 22 percent 

from attending any college at all, within two years of graduation. Their peers from 

moderate-income families are hardly better off—43 percent are unable to attend a fouryear college, and 16 percent attend no college at all. 

• National Consequences. Shocking annual losses at the national level—this year over 

400,000 college-qualified students will be unable to attend a four-year college and nearly 

170,000 will attend no college at all—will produce staggering cumulative losses of 4.4 

million college-qualified students unable to enroll in a four-year college, and 2 million 

who are denied access to any college at all by the end of this decade. 

But these losses represent only the tip of the iceberg. Many students, even those high school 

graduates not meeting the admissions requirements of four-year colleges, who could pursue a 

bachelor’s degree today by first enrolling at a community college, are blocked from doing so by 

prohibitive financial barriers. Moreover, many students who gain access to a four-year or a 

community college find it increasingly difficult each year to stay in college as a result of these 

barriers. Indeed, the work that they undertake to bridge the unmet need gap can actually reduce 

grant aid in subsequent years, raising financial barriers even higher. 
 vi

Throughout the decade, as school reform and early intervention efforts expand the number of 

college-qualified high school graduates, scarce grant aid will be stretched even further and work 

and loan burden will rise above current levels. This will produce even larger national losses of 

college-qualified high school graduates, as well as wider income-related gaps in college 

participation and degree completion for the foreseeable future. Without significant increases in 

need-based grant aid, this chain of events is irreversible. 

Reversing these trends will require a long-term commitment to increase grant aid at the federal, 

state, and institutional levels, strengthen the student aid programs, and, at the state and 

institutional levels, control college cost. The upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965 represents an opportunity to enact a comprehensive federal access strategy, 

strengthen early intervention and student support programs at the state and campus levels, and 

reinvigorate the federal, state and institutional access partnerships, especially in the areas of 

grant aid. 
 vii

FOREWORD 

Created by the Higher Education Amendments of 1986, the Advisory Committee on Student 

Financial Assistance is an independent source of advice and counsel to Congress and the 

Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. The Advisory Committee’s most 

important legislative charge is to make recommendations that maintain and enhance access to 

postsecondary education. In fulfilling that charge, the Advisory Committee encourages a strong 

focus on access in federal, state, and institutional student aid policy, thereby protecting the best 

interests of at-risk students against competing priorities. 

Since its creation, the Advisory Committee has identified improving access as its primary focus. 

As early as 1990, the Advisory Committee published a set of strategies to promote access to 

postsecondary education. In 1992, through its deliberations, the Advisory Committee found that 

little progress had been made in narrowing the gap in college participation rates between lowincome students and their middle- and upper-income peers and that a renewed commitment to atrisk students was crucial to ensuring access to postsecondary education. In 1997, the Advisory 

Committee forwarded to Congress and the Secretary of Education a set of Higher Education Act 

reauthorization recommendations that were well received and supported by the higher education 

community. 

Since the last reauthorization, the Advisory Committee has continued to play an active role in 

ensuring a comprehensive dialogue about the current condition of access. Over the last three 

years, the Advisory Committee has held public discussions devoted to the access issue at the 

University of Mississippi, Boston University, the University of Vermont, the Harvard Graduate 

School of Education, and the University of Texas, Brownsville. In those discussions, the 

Advisory Committee heard testimony on access from students, college administrators, and 

researchers. 

Last year the Advisory Committee released a report on the condition of access entitled, Access 

Denied: Restoring the Nation's Commitment to Equal Educational Opportunity. The findings of 

Access Denied are summarized in the introduction of this report. Access Denied and other 

access resources are available at www.ed.gov/ACSFA. 

Over the next year, the Advisory Committee will consult broadly with parties involved in the 

policymaking process to create a consensus on the importance of access that will give impetus to 

the formulation of a new federal, state, and institutional commitment to ensure access in the 

future. This consensus will underpin the Advisory Committee’s approach to the upcoming 

Higher Education Act reauthorization. In addition, a meeting will be conducted in the fall of 

2002 to refine the Advisory Committee’s approach to ensuring access in general and to begin 

developing reauthorization recommendations. 

As reauthorization approaches, the Advisory Committee will stress the importance of increasing 

need-based grant aid, strengthening early intervention programs, and rebuilding federal-stateinstitutional partnerships to improve access. 

 ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Advisory Committee is indebted to countless individuals for their invaluable 

guidance and unwavering support of equal access to postsecondary education for lowincome, at-risk, and minority youth. In particular, the following scholars, panelists, and 

editors helped us design and shape this report. 

For their insights on the current and future state of access, we would like to thank 

Dr. David W. Breneman, Dr. Anthony P. Carnevale, Dr. Donald E. Heller, Dr. Donald 

Hossler, Dr. John B. Lee, Dr. Michael S. McPherson, Dr. Morton O. Schapiro, and 

Dr. Edward P. St. John. 

For their participation as panelists at the Advisory Committee’s meeting at the University 

of Texas at Brownsville in March 2002, we would like to thank Ms. Ellynne Bannon, 

Mr. Chris Carter, Dr. Ann S. Coles, Ms. Doris F. Constantine, Dr. Marshall C. Grigsby, 

Mr. Raul H. Lerma, and Ms. Susan O’Flaherty. Without their feedback and guidance, 

this report would not have been possible. 

For their contribution as editors of this report, we are indebted to Ms. Ellen Ficklen and 

Dr. Jeneva E. Stone. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary..................................................................................v 

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

Acknowledgements...................................................................................ix 

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

Financial Barriers.....................................................................................9 

Impact on Students...................................................................................15 

National Consequences.............................................................................25 

Implications for Federal Policy.....................................................................31 

Endnotes..............................................................................................39 

References............................................................................................43 

Appendices...........................................................................................47 
1

INTRODUCTION

Americans hold a deeply rooted belief that hard work will be rewarded. 

Students strive to achieve in high school for the opportunity to attend 

college—with good reason. Hard work in college holds out the promise of 

a degree and a good sala ry upon graduation. The recent transition to a 

knowledge-based economy has increased the demand for college-educated 

workers and the returns to those workers with a college education have hit 

an all-time high. Today the economic returns from higher education to an 

individual are greater than ever: workers with a bachelor’s degree earn 75 

percent more than workers with only a high school diploma.1 Yet for 

millions of students from low- and moderate-income families2 during this 

decade, caught between a crushing shortfall in student financial aid and 

rising college costs, the promise of a college education and high salaries 

after graduation will be an empty one—even for some of the most highly 

prepared among them. The resulting loss of human capital, our most 

precious resource, will take a serious toll on the nation's economic and 

social future for decades to come.

The United States invests in higher education—in human capital—because 

the potential economic benefits, increased productivity, a flexible

workforce able to respond to a changing economy, and an increased

standard of living for workers, are important both for the nation and its 

citizens. This investment also produces an educated electorate and "a 

more informed democracy."3 These returns have motivated a very large 

federal investment in student aid since 1965, designed to ensure that 

students who otherwise could not afford to attend college have the

financial resources to enroll and persist through degree completion. 4 This 

investment, while essential to all students, is most critical for low- and 

moderate-income high school graduates who are academically prepared—

that is, qualified to attend a four-year college based on curriculum, grades, 

class rank, and test scores—and for whom a shortage of family financial 

resources constitutes the most important barrier to college. This is the 

rationale for the creation of the federal student aid programs.

The Federal Pell Grant program (Pell Grant), now the nation’s largest 

need-based grant program, was designed in 1972 to ensure that students 

enjoyed both access to two-year and four-year public colleges and a

modicum of choice between four-year public and private institutions.5 

Access and choice were to be guaranteed by the purchasing power of the 

maximum Pell Grant. Today, with the requested 2003 budget, the federal 

investment in student aid has grown to nearly $60 billion a year, including 

almost $12 billion in critical grant programs, which, augmented by needbased grant aid from states and institutions, lowers the cost of college for 

needy students.6 Grant aid is especially important to low- and moderateincome student enrollment because these students and families are deeply 

The recent transition 

to a knowledge-based 

economy has increased 

the demand for 

college-educated 

workers.

The United States 

invests in higher 

education—in human 

capital—because the 

potential economic 

benefits are important 

both for the nation and 

its citizens.

Today, with the 

requested 2003 budget, 

the federal investment 

in student aid has 

grown to nearly $60 

billion a year, 

including almost $12 

billion in critical grant 

programs.
2

affected by a high degree of sensitivity to the cost of college after grant aid 

is awarded.7 For example, enrollments dropped by more than 200,000 in 

California during the early 1990s when tuition increased and student aid 

declined.8

Grant aid is not only important for today's students, but for tomorrow's as 

well. A promise of sufficient grant aid can also bolster the power of 

intervention efforts designed to prepare younger students for enrollment in 

college and ensure persistence. For example, the Indiana Twenty-first 

Century Scholars program, which combines academic, personal, and

financial features, guarantees state grants to young participants upon

program completion. This program is remarkably successful; participants 

are over four times more likely to enroll in a public four-year college and 

more than one and a half times more likely to persist during freshman 

year.9 Most recently, in recognition of the power of grant aid on college 

persistence, Congress altered one of the TRIO programs, the Student 

Support Services program, to include completion grants designed to

ensure that students can afford to stay in college and attain a bachelor's 

degree.

Despite recognition of the importance of adequate grant aid, a shift in 

policy priorities has occurred, particularly at the federal and state levels, 

that has fueled a shortfall in need-based grant aid. The erosion in the 

purchasing power of the Pell Grant maximum over two decades, from a 

high of 84 percent of public college tuition in the mid-1970s to a low of 34 

percent in the mid-1990s,10 has resulted in work-study and loans

constituting an ever larger percentage of the federal commitment to

student aid. At the state level, appropriations to public institutions have 

decreased as other priorities absorb increasing percentages of state

budgets, and have declined most sharply in times of recession. In

addition, while need-based grant aid remains the largest source of state aid 

funds, politically popular merit-based programs, which fund many

students who would have enrolled in college without such aid, have been 

enacted in many states in the 1990s at the expense of increases in needbased programs. Similarly, grant dollars have shifted to merit-based 

programs at the institutional level.

The current recession has caused budget shortfalls in at least 41 states, and 

promises to curtail state spending next year as well. The resulting

reductions in state appropriations to institutions have caused substantial 

increases in public-sector tuition, as high as 21 percent in some states and 

7.7 percent nationwide—nearly triple the rate of inflation—even in states 

that had reduced tuition in the 1990s.11 Most recently, as a result of state 

revenue shortfalls, many state programs have been frozen or reduced. The 

result is lower state grants or suspended awards, which deny aid to eligible 

students.12 

A promise of sufficient 

grant aid can also 

bolster the power of 

intervention efforts 

designed to prepare 

younger students for 

enrollment in college 

and ensure persistence.

The erosion in the 

purchasing power of 

the Pell Grant 

maximum has resulted 

in work-study and 

loans constituting an 

ever larger percentage 

of the federal 

commitment to student 

aid.

Reductions in state 

appropriations to 

institutions have 

caused substantial 

increases in publicsector tuition.
3

As this report will show, these policies and recent events have created a 

shortfall in grant aid that prevents large numbers of low- and moderateincome high school graduates from attending four-year colleges. Today, 

this shortfall requires staggering levels of work and loans, which

undermine enrollment. It also forces those who do enroll to attend on a 

less-than-full-time basis and to work excessive numbers of hours, which 

decreases the amount of grant aid that students can be awarded in

subsequent years and their chances of obtaining a college degree. 

However, in response to these high levels of work and loan burden that 

prevent some of the neediest students from enrolling, public institutions 

increasingly have adopted strategies associated with private institutions. 

Some public institutions have resorted to using tuition revenue and other 

resources to create large institutional need-based grant programs to

minimize the work and loan burden of such students, without which

enrollment would not be possible. The University of California system, 

for example, provides $160 million a year—the equivalent of one-third of 

tuition revenue—in institutional need-based grant funds to bridge a gap of 

nearly $5,000 after federal and state aid is awarded. Some public

historically black colleges and universities use large percentages of tuition 

revenue—as much as 45 percent—for grants to reduce the financial barrier 

for their students.13

Exacerbating these current problems, powerful demographic forces will 

cause the number of high school graduates to swell to unprecedented 

levels over the course of the current decade as the children of the baby 

boom generation flood high schools and colleges. This demographic trend 

will peak in 2008, when the largest number of students in the history of 

our nation will graduate from high school.14 This record number of

students will place even greater strains on our higher education financing 

system than today, since a higher percentage of these students will be from 

low-income, minority families. Demographics show these students will be 

disproportionately dependent on student aid, and increasingly qualified to 

attend college. 

These students will graduate high school at a time when they will be 

desperately needed as replacement workers in our nation’s economy, as 

aging, college-educated baby boomers retire in increasing numbers in

various sectors during the decade.15 The nation will have to increase the 

enrollment and degree completion rates of low- and moderate-income 

students or bring in highly skilled foreign workers to meet the demand.

Only financial barriers will stand in the way of students who already make 

extraordinary efforts to enroll in higher education and to attain a degree. 

Ensuring access to college for high school graduates today and tomorrow 

is the central issue for the impending reauthorization of the Higher

Today, this shortfall 

requires staggering 

levels of work 

and loans, which 

undermine enrollment.

Some public 

institutions have 

resorted to using 

tuition revenue and 

other resources to 

create large 

institutional needbased grant programs 

without which 

enrollment would not 

be possible.

These students will be 

desperately needed as 

replacement workers in 

our nation’s economy, 

as aging, collegeeducated baby boomers 

retire in increasing 

numbers in various 

sectors over the 

decade.
4

Education Act of 1965 (HEA), which will determine the course of higher 

education policy for the remainder of the decade and beyond, and, by 

extension, the vibrancy of our democracy and our knowledge-based 

economy.

Purpose of the Report

This report builds on the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Student 

Financial Assistance (Advisory Committee) and its February 2001 report, 

Access Denied: Restoring the Nation's Commitment to Equal Educational 

Opportunity, by more thoroughly examining the plight of high school

graduates from both low- and moderate-income families. The report 

addresses two fundamental policy questions:

• is college access provided today for those students who graduate 

from high school, especially those who are college-qualified?

• will access be assured for the increasing numbers of collegequalified high school graduates during the current decade?

To provide answers to these two questions, this report examines the 

financial barriers that confront high school graduates from low- and 

moderate-income families—particularly those graduates who are collegequalified. Fully recognizing, as did Access Denied, the importance of 

academic preparation in college-going behavior, the report uses the index 

of college qualification designed by the U.S. Department of Education’s 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which is the prevailing 

view. 16 The report also examines the role of parents' education and

information about college costs and financial aid.

Clearly, the nation faces other challenges as well. For example, too many 

students drop out of high school, and some high school graduates are not 

fully prepared for college. However, state and local school reform efforts, 

as well as the recently enacted No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are 

designed to address these problems. Federal higher education policy, 

which focuses primarily on access to college, is about something

different—first, ensuring that needy, college-qualified students can afford 

to attend college, and, second, guaranteeing adequate financial aid for the 

large numbers of other students who would be unable to attend without it.

Major Findings of Access Denied

Access Denied represented the first comprehensive review of the state of 

college access for low-income students in many years. It examined who 

goes to college—and where—and who does not. It found that substituting 

middle-income affordability and merit for access as policy goals caused 

Ensuring access to 

college for high school 

graduates today and 

tomorrow is the central 

issue for the 

impending 

reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act 

of 1965.

Is college access 

provided today for 

those students who 

graduate from high 

school, especially those 

who are collegequalified?

Will access be assured 

for the increasing 

numbers of collegequalified high school 

graduates during the 

current decade?
5

unmet need—the portion of college expenses not covered by the expected 

family contribution (EFC) and student aid, including work-study and 

loans—to reach unprecedented levels. On average, annual unmet need for 

low-income families has reached $3,200 at two-year public colleges, 

$3,800 at four-year public colleges, and $6,200 at four-year private

colleges, which strongly discourages many high school graduates from 

enrolling and persisting to degree completion (Figure 1). 

The most important message of Access Denied was that, today, lowincome high school graduates are forced by high levels of unmet need to 

abandon plans of full-time, on-campus attendance at four-year colleges. 

In particular, those who do attend often live at home and work long hours 

to make access possible. For example:

• 50 percent of all low-income college students are living at home 

with their parents to reduce living expenses;

• 65 percent work while enrolled, on average 24 hours a week; and

• 70 percent of students live at home, and 80 percent work an 

average of 27 hours a week while enrolled at two-year public 

colleges.17

In addition, these students are forced into financing options, such as

borrowing under multiple programs, which interfere with persistence and 

lead to unmanageable debt levels exceeding industry guidelines. Although 

motivated by rational financial considerations, high school graduates are 

forced by high unmet need to make educational choices that lower the 

probability of degree completion considerably. For low-income students, 

these decisions are less a choice and more an inevitable response to high 

levels of unmet need.

Access Denied stressed that excessive levels of unmet need exert a

powerfully negative effect on the college-going behavior of high school 

graduates—even those who are academically prepared.18 The report noted 

that the lowest achieving, highest socioeconomic status (SES) students 

attend college at about the same rate (77 percent) as the highest achieving, 

lowest SES students (78 percent). And, even among those high school 

graduates who are highly and very highly qualified, those with low unmet 

need attend a four-year college at a rate 43 percent higher than their 

counterparts with high unmet need—67 percent versus 47 percent 

(Figure 2).

The most important 

message of Access 

Denied was that, today, 

low-income high 

school graduates are 

forced by high levels of 

unmet need to 

abandon plans of fulltime, on-campus 

attendance at four-year 

colleges.

High school graduates 

are forced by high 

unmet need to make 

educational choices 

that lower the 

probability of degree 

completion 

considerably.

Access Denied stressed 

that excessive levels of 

unmet need exert a 

powerfully negative 

effect on the collegegoing behavior of high 

school graduates—

even those who are 

academically prepared.
6

FIGURE 2: IMPACT OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND FAMILY INCOME 

ON THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 

97% 

 67% 

47% 

78%

Highest Achievement Quartile Highly and Very Highly Qualified

Socioeconomic status and family income continue to influence who goes to 

college and where — even for the most highly qualified high school graduates.

Source: Lee (1999) and U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

Attending Any College

by SES

Attending Four-Year College

by Family Income

Highest SES

Quartile

High

Income Low

Income

Lowest SES

Quartile

Low Unmet Need

High Unmet Need

FIGURE 1: AVERAGE ANNUAL UNMET NEED FACING HIGH SCHOOL 

GRADUATES BY FAMILY INCOME AND TYPE OF COLLEGE

Full-Time, Dependent Students

$100 

$600 

$2,700 

$3,200 

$400 

$1,500 

$3,000 

$3,800 

$3,000 

$4,500 

$4,900 

$6,200 

0 - $24,999 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - above

By the mid-1990s, a reversal in access policy over three decades had pushed the 

level of unmet need facing low-income high school graduates to historic highs. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1999)

Public Two-Year

Public Four-Year

Private Four-Year

Low-Income Moderate-Income
7

Finally, Access Denied stressed the critical importance of reinstating the 

nation’s traditional access goal. Low-income high school graduates must 

have the same opportunity as their high-income peers to pursue and 

complete a bachelor's degree if they choose to do so, without excessive 

work or borrowing. That must be the nation’s access benchmark. The 

report also found that reinstating the access goal would require refocusing 

policy on indicators that illuminate future effects of unmet need on student 

behavior. In particular, Access Denied called for a careful assessment of 

the consequences of existing levels of unmet need for educational

opportunity, income equality, and the nation’s productivity and growth. 

Major federal student aid policy decisions cannot be made without

confronting these issues. 

Structure of the Report 

This report extends the analyses and findings of Access Denied in three 

important ways by:

• examining unmet need as a financial barrier from the perspective 

of low-income students and families using the latest available data;

• assessing the impact of high unmet need on the education behavior 

of high school graduates—especially those who are collegequalified—throughout the access process; and

• estimating how many high school graduates who have high unmet 

need and who are college-qualified were unable to enroll in a fouryear college—or any college—in 2001-2002, and how many 

cumulatively will be unable to enroll in college during this decade. 

These estimates include high school graduates from both low- and 

moderate-income families. 

Finally, the report identifies the implications of these findings for federal 

higher education policy

.

Low-income high 

school graduates must 

have the opportunity to 

complete a bachelor's 

degree without 

excessive work or 

borrowing.

9

FINANCIAL BARRIERS

High annual levels of unmet need for low-income students, up to $3,800, 

represent a shortfall in financial resources to pay for public four-year 

colleges. Because grants comprise a relatively small portion of the overall 

student aid awarded to most students, the work-study and loan portions of 

a student’s aid package can be substantial, at least $1,000 in work-study 

and $2,625 in loans for freshmen, and often much higher. For low-income 

families, these levels of work and borrowing combine with high levels of 

unmet need, which translates into a total work and loan burden of well 

over $8,000 a year, or nearly one-third of the family's income. In the face 

of this existing work and borrowing expectation, the shortfall in student 

aid, unmet need, cannot easily be reduced by additional off-campus work 

and loans. Consequently, unmet need and the total work and loan burden 

represent a substantial financial barrier to low-income families and have 

an important impact on enrollment and persistence to degree completion.

Purchasing Power of the Pell Grant

The Pell Grant program is of central importance to low-income families 

because it is designed to play a pivotal role in access to college nationally. 

In most states and at the majority of colleges, Pell Grants represent the 

single largest source of grant funds with which to make enrollment a 

reality. While the value of the Pell Grant maximum award in constant 

dollars fell from 1992-93 through 1997-98, it increased by about $300 

over the next two academic years, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reversing the 

trend. In the past two years, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, because of record 

increases in appropriations, the Pell Grant maximum award increased an 

additional $500 in constant dollars to stand at over $3,700. However, 

even this substantial increase left the constant dollar value of the

maximum Pell Grant below its value at the end of the 1970s. Today, the 

shortfall between the Pell Grant maximum award of $3,750 and the total 

college cost at many public four-year universities can easily exceed

$8,000 annually, which represents an onerous financial barrier for students 

from low-income families. 

Throughout the past quarter century, expenses remaining for low-income 

students who receive the maximum Pell Grant award have doubled in 

constant dollars at public four-year colleges. In the 1990s, remaining 

expenses were relatively constant at historically high levels. They rose 

slightly between 1992 and 1995, before returning to comparable 1992 

expenses in 1999, reaching $7,759 a year at public four-year colleges 

(Figure 3). 

From a family and student perspective, the declining purchasing power of 

the Pell Grant has meant that the program can no longer guarantee access 

Unmet need and the 

total work and loan 

burden represent a 

substantial financial 

barrier to low-income 

families and have an 

important impact on 

enrollment and 

persistence to degree 

completion.

The shortfall between 

the Pell Grant 

maximum award of 

$3,750 and the total 

college cost at many 

public four-year 

universities can easily 

exceed $8,000 

annually.

Throughout the past

quarter century, 

expenses remaining for 

low-income students 

who receive the 

maximum Pell Grant 

award have doubled in 

constant dollars at 

public four-year 

colleges.
10

FIGURE 4: AVERAGE ANNUAL WORK AND LOAN BURDEN FACING FAMILIES 

OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES WITH HIGH UNMET NEED IN 1992 AND 1999 

(Constant 1999 Dollars) 

$6,238 $6,391

$7,521 $7,528

$11,261 $11,450

1992 1999

The families of low-income high school graduates with high unmet need faced 

record levels of work and loan burden even at public colleges from 1992 to 1999. 

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2002)

Public Two-Year College

Public Four-Year Comprehensive 

and Baccalaureate College

Private Four-Year Comprehensive 

and Baccalaureate College

FIGURE 3: AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENSES REMAINING FOR HIGH SCHOOL 

GRADUATES WITH HIGH UNMET NEED AFTER THE MAXIMUM PELL GRANT 

(Constant 1999 Dollars)

$5,853 $6,022 $5,833

$7,865 $8,032 $7,759

$15,513 $15,887 $15,821

1992 1995 1999

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2002)

For low-income high school graduates throughout the 1990s, expenses remaining after the 

maximum Pell Grant were at record levels despite large appropriations in 1998 and 1999. 

Public Two-Year College

Public Four-Year Comprehensive 

and Baccalaureate College

Private Four-Year Comprehensive 

and Baccalaureate College
11

to public colleges, much less choice between public and private colleges. 

Given the severe underfunding of the Pell Grant program over the past two 

decades, it is not at all surprising that the program has been unable to 

fulfill its original promise of equalizing access to college for low-income 

students. 

Work and Loan Burden in the 1990s

Most low-income families are able to contribute only a small portion of 

college expenses, if any at all. For such families with high unmet need, 

the effective price of college, the real financial barrier, is total college 

expenses minus all grant aid—federal, state, and institutional. This

constitutes the burden the family must cover through work and loans. 

Work and loan burden constitutes the true net price of college and the 

barrier that must be overcome before college can become a reality. 

The manner in which high unmet need translates into a very high work 

and loan burden is best illustrated by describing the world that faced lowincome high school seniors early in the decade, in 1992, and at the end of 

the decade, in 1999. In 1992 low-income families with high school

graduates faced a work and loan burden of $6,238 at public two-year 

colleges, $7,521 at public four-year colleges, and $11,261 at private fouryear colleges (Figure 4). By 1999, there was little overall change in the 

levels of work and loan burden. Accordingly, families of high school 

graduates with high unmet need faced record levels of work and loan 

burden even at public colleges throughout the decade. 

A generation ago, many students were able to achieve access to higher 

education by working their way through college. Unfortunately, it is 

simply not possible today to work enough to cover college expenses 

without taking a heavy toll on student academic performance. In addition, 

excessive student work can actually reduce eligibility for grant aid and 

increase unmet need in subsequent years, forcing students to drop out 

before graduating from college. 

Since low-income high school graduates and their families have to

produce a balance of at least $7,500 a year from current income, savings, 

work, or borrowing to enroll at public four-year colleges, annual

borrowing has increased steadily for this group throughout the 1990s 

(Figure 5). At four-year public colleges, annual borrowing rose 65

percent, from approximately $1,800 to $3,000 over the period. And, as a 

result, cumulative debt increased dramatically for students from lowincome families completing a bachelor’s degree at either a public or 

private college, by 50 percent from approximately $10,000 to $15,000.

The real financial 

barrier is total college 

expenses minus all 

federal, state, and 

institutional grant aid. 

This constitutes the 

burden the family must 

cover through work 

and loans. 

In 1992, low-income 

families with high 

school graduates faced 

a work and loan 

burden of $7,521 at 

public four-year 

colleges. By 1999, 

there was little overall 

change.

At four-year public 

colleges, annual 

borrowing rose

65 percent, from 

approximately $1,800 

to $3,000 over the 

period.
12

FIGURE 5: AVERAGE ANNUAL BORROWING BY LOW-INCOME, DEPENDENT 

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WITH HIGH UNMET NEED, 1992 TO 1999 

(Constant 1999 Dollars)

$526 $717

$1,812

$2,935 $2,982

$4,130

1992 1999

From 1992 to 1999, average annual borrowing by low-income, dependent undergraduate 

students increased from $1,812 to $2,982 — by 65 percent — at public four-year colleges. 

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2002)

Public Two-Year College

Public Four-Year Comprehensive 

and Baccalaureate College

Private Four-Year Comprehensive 

and Baccalaureate College

FIGURE 6: WORK AND LOAN BURDEN FACING LOW-INCOME FAMILIES 

WITH HIGH UNMET NEED AT A TYPICAL FOUR-YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGE 

Today, family work and loan burden — expenses after all grants — constitutes 68 percent

of total expenses for low-income high school graduates at public four-year colleges. 

Total Annual College Expenses

Total Grant Aid

 Federal & State Grants

 Institutional & Other Grants

Family Work and Loan Burden

 College Work Study

 Stafford Loan

 Expected Family Contribution

 Unmet Need

 $12,000

$3,825

$3,325

$500

$8,175

$1,000

$2,625

$750

$3,800

Total 

Grant Aid

$3,825

(32%)

Family Work and 

Loan Burden

$8,175

(68%)
13

In the face of such high levels of borrowing, students often have sound 

reasons for refusing to take on crippling debt. Students from low-income 

families are often unable to support loans after graduation since they

exceed the industry recommendations for debt burden. 19 For parents who 

are willing to take out loans, it is not always possible to find available 

capital since loans require a sound credit history. Just as students can 

work themselves out of future grant aid, families can quickly acquire debt 

that exceeds their ability to meet the required monthly repayments. The 

risk associated with loans for these families is both immediate and long 

term. However, without access to this much-needed capital, it becomes 

almost impossible for a student from a low-income family to gain access 

to or persist in college.

Unmet Need Today

Unmet need levels and the associated work and loan burden are still as 

high today as they were in the mid 1990s. For low-income families with 

an EFC of less than $1,000 annually, the work and loan burden constitute 

nearly $8,200, more than two-thirds of total expenses at four-year public 

colleges (Figure 6). Never before has the financial challenge been greater, 

nor threatened to increase faster due to increases in college expenses and 

shortfall in grant aid. Not surprisingly, these financial barriers undermine 

enrollment and degree completion for students from low-income families.

Students from lowincome families are 

often unable to support 

loans after graduation.

These financial 

barriers undermine 

enrollment and degree 

completion for students 

from low-income 

families.

15

IMPACT ON STUDENTS

Unmet financial need, and the work and loan burden that it represents, is a 

key factor in determining whether high school graduates, especially those 

who are college-qualified, have access to a four-year public institution. 

Assessing the impact of high unmet need on the college-going behavior of 

high school graduates is pivotal to formulating sound federal higher

education and student aid policy. While the major purpose of the federal 

student aid programs, and the main interest of the Advisory Committee, is 

eliminating financial barriers for all low-income students, this report’s 

findings also focus intensively on high school graduates who are collegequalified. Focusing on these students provides the opportunity to isolate 

the effects of unmet need from those of academic preparation and other 

factors on college-going behavior. While the primary purpose of this 

analysis is to inform federal student aid policy in the upcoming

reauthorization of the HEA, these findings are also designed to improve 

future policy research about student aid.

The Access Pipeline

Gaining access to and persisting in college is a complex and sequential 

process that involves both academic and financial components. The

academic portion of the process is often referred to as an education

pipeline and consists of five commonly agreed upon stages:

• having educational expectations in middle school or earlier;

• making college plans in high school;

• taking steps toward college admission, for example, testing and 

applying;

• enrolling in college; and

• persisting to degree completion. 

The underlying factors used most often to examine differences among

students across the education pipeline are income, academic preparation, 

and level of parents’ education. The concept of an education pipeline is 

supported by a considerable body of research and experience gathered 

from federal programs such as TRIO and Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), and many state and 

privately funded programs. However, the traditional education pipeline 

cannot fully account for major differences in enrollment and persistence 

by family income, even when academic preparation and parents’ education 

are taken into full consideration.

Assessing the impact of 

high unmet need on 

high school graduates 

is pivotal to 

formulating sound 

student aid policy. 

Gaining access to and 

persisting in college 

involves both academic 

and financial 

components.

The traditional 

education pipeline 

cannot fully account 

for major differences 

in enrollment and 

persistence by family 

income, even when 

academic preparation 

and parents’ education 

are taken into full 

consideration. 
16

For example, differences in enrollment between college-qualified high

school graduates from low-income families with high unmet need and 

graduates from high-income families with low unmet need cannot be 

explained by the level of parents’ education. While parents’ education—

specifically having a college degree—along with family income is

positively related to student academic preparation, there is no evidence 

that it has an effect on college enrollment independent of the effect of 

family income and financial aid for college-qualified high school

graduates. In fact, if financial aid is adequate, low-income high school 

graduates who are college-qualified will enroll in a four-year college at 

extremely high rates regardless of the level of parents’ education. 

Conversely, if financial aid is inadequate, the same students will be unable 

to enroll in large numbers regardless of the level of parents’ education. 20

Since the traditional education pipeline cannot fully account for

differences in student behavior throughout the access process, even when 

academic preparation and parents’ education are given full consideration, 

a more comprehensive measure of access—an alternative behavioral

model consistent with decades of economic research—is needed. It begins 

with the traditional education pipeline as a foundation and incorporates 

key financial factors, in particular, college costs, financial aid, and their 

difference, which is unmet need. The Access Pipeline incorporates these 

features and, accordingly, is capable of describing and explaining

differences observed between low-income students with high unmet need 

and high-income students with low unmet need. Most important from a 

policy perspective, the Access Pipeline can address fundamental questions 

about access, persistence, and federal student aid that the traditional

education pipeline simply cannot.

Using the Access Pipeline. Longitudinal data used in conjunction with 

the concept of the Access Pipeline describe the college-enrollment 

patterns of high school graduates within two years after graduation from 

high school. In addition, this analysis is supplemented with information 

on college costs and financial aid for a comparable group of students.21 

NCES first presented and analyzed these data in a 1997 special report 

designed to assess the effect of college costs and financial aid on lowincome students’ access to college. The data permit an examination of 

those high school graduates who are college-qualified—that is, those

having adequate academic course preparation, grades, and aptitude test 

scores to meet the minimal entrance requirements of most four-year 

colleges—at each stage of the access process, beginning in middle school. 

When recent longitudinal data are arranged in the Access Pipeline, and a 

comparison is performed between low-income and high-income students, 

it becomes apparent that unmet need has a substantial effect on

educational expectations and plans, steps toward admission, as well as 

If financial aid is 

adequate, low-income 

high school graduates 

who are collegequalified will enroll in 

a four-year college 

regardless of the level 

of parents’ education. 

The Access Pipeline 

can address 

fundamental questions 

about access, 

persistence, and 

federal student aid that

the traditional 

education pipeline 

simply cannot.

The data permit an 

examination of those 

high school graduates 

who are collegequalified.
17

enrollment and persistence to degree completion. It also shows how many 

low-income high school graduates with high unmet need are currently left 

behind, and that an exceedingly large number will be left behind during 

the current decade. 

For the sake of simplicity, this analysis only shows a comparison between 

high school graduates from high-income families (with income over

$75,000) and those from low-income families (with income below

$25,000). This, in effect, compares high school graduates with very low 

and very high unmet need.22 The Access Pipeline is used first to

demonstrate the impact of unmet need on the education behavior of all 

high school graduates. Then, it is focused on only those high school 

graduates who are college-qualified as defined by NCES.23

Impact on All High School Graduates 

For more than three decades, federal student aid policy has recognized that 

most high school graduates aspire to attend college, more than 94 percent 

of them. Consequently, assessing the impact of high unmet need on all 

high school graduates is critically important to formulating sound student 

aid policy. The rate at which such students are able to attend some college 

full-time immediately following high school graduation without excessive 

work and loan burden is an important measure of access. This measure 

will become ever more important as academic preparation improves and a 

higher percentage of students from low-income families with high unmet 

need become qualified to attend and graduate from a four-year college. 

Expectations, Plans, and Enrollment. High school graduates from lowincome families are far less likely in 8th grade to expect to finish college 

than their high-income peers (Figure 7). While they are about as likely in 

12th grade to plan to attend some postsecondary education, they are far less 

likely to plan to attend immediately. Those who do plan to attend some 

type of college immediately following high school frequently find their 

plans frustrated. Even two years after high school graduation, students 

from low-income families facing high unmet need are far less likely than 

their peers from high-income families to be enrolled in any college.

Pattern of Enrollment. These unmistakable effects of high unmet need on 

expectations, plans, and timing affect the pattern of enrollment as well. 

Low-income high school graduates with high unmet need are far less 

likely to attend a four-year college. They are far more likely to attend a 

public or private two-year college, trade school, or other less than twoyear institution, or far more likely not to attend college at all (Figure 8). 

Since all high school graduates are included in this group of students, both 

academic preparation and finances affect their enrollment behavior.

In the Access Pipeline 

unmet need has a 

substantial effect on 

educational 

expectations and plans 

as well as enrollment 

and persistence to 

degree completion.

Assessing the impact of 

high unmet need on all 

high school graduates 

is critically important 

to formulating sound 

student aid policy.

Low-income high 

school graduates with 

high unmet need are 

far less likely to attend 

a four-year college and 

far more likely not to 

attend college at all.
18

FIGURE 8: IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON ALL HIGH SCHOOL

GRADUATES' COLLEGE ENROLLMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS 

77%

14%

2%

7%

33%

25%

6%

37%

Attended Any Four-Year

College

Attended Public TwoYear CollegeAttended "Other" Less

Than Four-Year 

Did Not Attend Any

College 

Among low-income high school graduates with high unmet need, 67 percent do not attend a 

four-year college within two years of graduation, and 37 percent do not attend any college at all. 

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

High-income (unmet need = $400)

Low-income (unmet need = $3,800)

FIGURE 7: IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON ALL HIGH SCHOOL 

GRADUATES' EXPECTATIONS, PLANS, AND ENROLLMENT 

92%

99%

92% 87% 93%

59%

94%

70%

53%

64%

Expected in 8th

Grade to Finish

College

Planned to Attend

Postsecondary

Education

Planned to Attend

Immediately After

High School

Enrolled

Immediately After

High School

Enrolled in

Postsecondary

Education by 1994

Only 59 percent of low-income high school graduates with high unmet need expect to 

finish college, and only 53 percent enroll in any college immediately after high school.

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

High-income (unmet need = $400)

Low-income (unmet need = $3,800)
19

Impact on College-Qualified High School Graduates

The most effective means of assessing how unmet need affects student 

behavior is to focus on those students who graduate from high school 

prepared for college. Consequently, all of these students: 

• were college-qualified according to NCES;

• planned to attend a four-year college immediately after graduation; 

and

• were well informed about college costs and financial aid.

Since parents’ education primarily affects the likelihood of being

academically prepared, not the likelihood of attending college once

prepared,24 focusing on these students effectively controls for academic

preparation, college aspirations, financial aid information, and parents’ 

education. Accordingly, observed differences in expectations, plans, and 

enrollment are largely attributable to the fact that the students are from 

low-income families who face high unmet need and extraordinary work 

and loan burden.

Expectations and Plans. As early as the 8th grade, the expectation of 

finishing college is heavily affected by family-income (Figure 9). 

College-qualified high school graduates from low-income families are far 

less likely to expect to finish college than their high-income peers. In 

addition, these students are far more likely to plan not to attend college 

immediately after high school (or to be unsure of their plans) and far more 

likely to plan to attend a two-year college. 

Concerns about Finances. An important reason underlying these

differences is that students from low-income families and their parents are 

far more likely to be extremely concerned about college costs, financial 

aid, and their difference—unmet need—than their high-income peers 

(Figure 10). Parents with low income are almost five times more likely to 

be very concerned about college costs and financial aid than parents with 

high income. Likewise, low-income students are three and a half times 

more likely to be very concerned about finances than their peers from 

high-income families. However, these concerns do not arise from a lack 

of information about ways to pay for college, as low-income students 

facing high unmet need have as much information from as many sources 

as do their peers.25

Testing and Applying. Low-income high school seniors with high unmet 

need are very concerned about finances and approach testing for and 

applying to a four-year college in a different manner than their low unmet

The most effective 

means of assessing 

how unmet need 

impacts student 

behavior is to focus on 

those students who 

graduate from high 

school fully prepared 

for college. 

College-qualified high 

school graduates from 

low-income families 

are far less likely to 

expect to finish college 

than their high-income 

peers.

Parents with low 

income are almost five 

times more likely to be 

very concerned about 

college costs and 

financial aid than 

parents with high 

income. 
20

FIGURE 10: IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON INFORMATION AND 

CONCERNS ABOUT COLLEGE EXPENSES AND FINANCIAL AID

College-Qualified

34%

48%

16% 20%

49%

57%

79%

69%

Parents Students Parents Students

College-qualified low-income high school graduates with high unmet need and their parents 

are as informed about finances as their peers with low unmet need but far more concerned.

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

Talked to College Rep about Finances

Very Concerned about Finances

High-income (unmet need = $400)

Low-income (unmet need = $3,800)

FIGURE 9: IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON HIGH

SCHOOL GRADUATES' EXPECTATIONS AND PLANS 

College-Qualified 

95%

88%

8% 4%

70%

63%

20% 20%

Expected in 8th Grade to

Finish College

Planned in 12th Grade to

Attend a Four-Year

College

Planned in 12th Grade to

Attend a Two-Year

College

Planned Not to Attend

Immediately or Not Sure

Among college-qualified low-income high school graduates with high unmet need, only 

70 percent expect to finish college, and only 63 percent plan to attend a four-year college. 

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

High-income (unmet need = $400)

Low-income (unmet need = $3,800)
21

need peers. Because many find it financially impossible to plan to attend a 

four-year college or to attend college immediately following graduation, 

they do not test for and apply to a four-year college nearly as often as 

students from high-income families with low unmet need. Specifically, 

low-income students with high unmet need:

• test but do not apply three times as often; and 

• neither test nor apply six times as often as their high–income peers 

who are not in a high unmet need situation.

This behavior is a rational response to a high level of unmet need as 

students judge four-year colleges to be out of their reach. While 91 percent 

of their peers from high-income families test for and apply to a four-year 

college, only 62 percent of college-qualified high school seniors from lowincome families do so.

Enrollment within Two Years. Given the unmistakable affect of unmet 

need on pre-enrollment behavior, described previously, it is not surprising 

that the actual pattern of enrollment is also affected by unmet need (Figure 

11). College-qualified, high school graduates from low-income families 

with high unmet need are:

• far less likely than students from high-income families to be 

enrolled in a four-year college;

• far more likely to be enrolled in a trade or proprietary school; and

• far less likely than students from high-income families to be 

enrolled in any postsecondary institution two years after high 

school.

Among these high school graduates from low-income families, 48 percent 

do not attend a four-year college within two years of graduation and 22 

percent attend no college at all.

The Full Access Pipeline. High levels of unmet need have seriously 

negative effects on college-qualified, low-income high school graduates 

throughout the access process. These effects are captured by steady losses 

in the full Access Pipeline (Figure 12). This demonstrates clearly that 

high unmet need not only discourages college-qualified high school

graduates from enrolling in a four-year college, but also substantially 

undermines the degree completion rates of those who do enroll.26

While 91 percent of 

their peers from highincome families test for 

and apply to a fouryear college, only 62 

percent of collegequalified high school 

seniors from lowincome families do so. 

Among these high 

school graduates from 

low-income families, 

48 percent do not 

attend a four-year 

college within two 

years of graduation 

and 22 percent attend 

no college at all.

High levels of unmet 

need have seriously 

negative effects on 

college-qualified, lowincome high school 

graduates throughout 

the access process.
22

FIGURE 11: IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON HIGH SCHOOL 

GRADUATES' COLLEGE ENROLLMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS 

College-Qualified

83%

12%

1% 4%

52%

21%

4%

22%

Enrolled in a Four-Year

College 

Enrolled in a Two-Year

College 

Enrolled in "Other" Less

Than Four-Year College 

Did Not Enroll in Any

College 

Among college-qualified high school graduates with high unmet need, 48 percent are unable to 

enroll in a four-year college within two-years, and 22 percent unable to enroll in any college at all.

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

High-income (unmet need = $400)

Low-income (unmet need = $3,800)

FIGURE 12: THE FULL ACCESS PIPELINE 

College-Qualified High School Graduates 

95%

88% 91%

83%

4%

70%

63% 62%

52%

22%

62%

21%

Expect in 8th

Grade to Finish

College

Plan in 12th

Grade to Attend

a Four-Year

College

Take Entrance

Exam and Apply

Enroll in a FourYear CollegeDo Not Enroll in

Any College

Complete a

Bachelor's

Degree

High unmet need has a significant sequential and cumulative impact on collegequalified low-income high school graduates throughout the Access Pipeline.

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997) and (2002)

High-income (unmet need = $400)

Low-income (unmet need = $3,800)
23

Overall, beginning in middle school, low-income students who face high 

unmet need and the associated work and loan burden, as compared to their 

high-income peers who are relatively unconstrained by finances, are

substantially less likely to: 

• expect to finish college; 

• plan to attend a four-year college after high school graduation;

• test for and apply to a four-year college;

• enroll in a four-year college; and

• persist to degree completion.

The impact of unmet need on the behavior of college-qualified high school 

graduates is as dramatic as its impact on all high school graduates. Thus, 

academic preparation does not inoculate high school graduates against the 

debilitating effects of high unmet need.

Academic preparation 

does not inoculate high 

school graduates 

against the debilitating 

effects of high unmet 

need.

25

NATIONAL CONSEQUENCES

The attrition of low-income, college-qualified high school graduates

facing high unmet need from the Access Pipeline is an important signal of 

the failure of federal, state, and institutional student aid policy to jointly 

ensure access to postsecondary education. In particular, two effects of 

high unmet need and the associated excessive burdens of work and loan 

are especially relevant from a federal policy perspective: 

• the extent to which a very high percentage of college-qualified 

high school graduates are prevented from attending a four-year 

college within two years of graduation; and

• the extent to which a high percentage of them are prevented from 

attending any college at all.

It is essential to examine the national implications of these two outcomes 

both today and cumulatively over the decade. 

In order to perform such an examination, the total pool of collegequalified high school graduates facing high unmet need must be estimated. 

Just as high school graduates from low-income families (income below 

$25,000 per year) face very high unmet need, work and loan burden, even 

at public colleges, so also do moderate-income families (income between 

$25,000 and $49,999). They, too, are faced with very high expenses after 

all grant aid is awarded at two-year and four-year public colleges, even 

after taking into account EFC. For example, students from moderateincome families face a work and loan burden of $5,641 a year at public 

four-year colleges, only $1,137 less than the work and loan burden of their 

low-income peers colleges (Figure 13).

As in the case of low-income high school graduates, the financial barriers 

confronting those with moderate-income have a substantial and

comparable impact on their expectations, plans, and enrollment behavior 

(Figure 14). In particular, 

• 43 percent do not enroll in a four-year college within two years of 

graduation; and 

• 16 percent do not attend any college at all. 

Assessing the total national impact of high unmet need on high school 

graduates requires that both low-income and moderate-income high school 

graduates be included. This assessment also requires an accounting of 

impending demographic forces.

A very high percentage 

of college-qualified 

high school graduates 

are prevented from 

attending a four-year 

college and prevented 

from attending any 

college at all.

Forty-three percent do 

not enroll in a fouryear college within two 

years of graduation 

and 16 percent do not 

attend any college at 

all.

Assessing the total 

national impact of 

high unmet need 

requires that both lowincome and moderateincome high school 

graduates be included.
26

FIGURE 13: COMPARISON OF EXPENSES FACING LOW- AND MODERATE -

INCOME HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES AT PUBLIC FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES*

$8,097

$9,269

$7,528

$8,641

$6,778

$5,641

Low Income: 0 - $24,999 Moderate Income: $25,000 - $49,999

Expenses after Federal and State Grant Aid

Expenses after All Grant Aid: Family Work and Loan Burden

Expenses after All Grant Aid and EFC**: Student Work and Loan Burden

* Public four-year comprehensive and baccalaureate colleges 

** EFC = $750 for low-income family; $3,000 for moderate-income family

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1999) and (2002)

High school graduates from low- and moderate-income families faced similar levels of student 

work and loan burden — $6,778 vs. $5,641 — at public colleges at the end of the 1990s. 

(Unmet Need: $3,800) (Unmet Need: $3,000)

FIGURE 14: COMPARISON OF THE IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON THE 

BEHAVIOR OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

College-Qualified

78%

68% 68%

57%

16%

70%

63% 62%

52%

22%

Expect in 8th Grade

to Finish College

Plan in 12th Grade

to Attend a FourYear College

Take Entrance Exam

and Apply

Enroll in a FourYear CollegeDo Not Enroll in Any

College

High unmet need, averaging $3,000 or more at public four-year colleges, undermines the 

expectations, plans, and enrollment of both low- and moderate-income high school graduates. 

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

Moderate-Income (Unmet Need = $3,000)

Low-Income (Unmet Need = $3,800)
27

National Impact of Unmet Need

The impact of unmet need, work, and loan burden on low- and moderateincome families holds critical implications for the nation today and

tomorrow. The substantial proportion of college-qualified, low- and 

moderate-income high school graduates who are unable to enroll in a fouryear college—or any college at all—within two years of graduation

suggests that large numbers of Americans were denied access to college in 

2001-2002. 

Compounding the current problems associated with students from lowand moderate-income families throughout the Access Pipeline are

powerful demographic forces that will dramatically increase the

enrollment of 18-to-24-year-olds in higher education. In fact, the class of 

2008 will be the largest high school graduating class in the nation’s 

history. This large group of college-qualified high school graduates who 

are denied access today portends very substantial losses over the course of 

this decade. 

• This year, 406,000 college-qualified high school graduates from 

low- and moderate-income families will be prevented from 

enrolling in a four-year college, and 168,000 of them will be 

unable to enroll in any college at all (Figure 15).

• Over the first decade of the 21st century, 4.4 million collegequalified high school graduates from low- and moderate-income 

families will not attend a four-year college within two years, and 

2 million students will not attend any college at all (Figure 16). 

The economic and social consequences, both public and private, of this 

loss of access are considerable and will affect the nation over the course of 

a generation.27

Exacerbating Factors 

These estimates reflect conservative assumptions and, thus, likely

understate the number of college-qualified students who will be denied 

access to college over the decade. Specifically, this analysis assumes that:

• neither the growth in the number of students, nor increasing 

college costs as compared to available grant aid will lead to a net 

increase in the current levels of unmet need and work and loan 

burden; and

• the proportion of college-qualified high school graduates will not 

increase over the decade.

This year, 406,000 

college-qualified high 

school graduates from 

low- and moderateincome families will be 

prevented from 

enrolling in a fouryear college, and 

168,000 of them will be 

unable to enroll in any 

college at all.

Over the decade, 4.4 

million collegequalified high school 

graduates from lowand moderate-income 

families will not attend 

a four-year college 

within two years, and

2 million students will 

not attend any college 

at all.

These estimates likely 

understate the number 

of college-qualified 

students who will be 

denied access to 

college over the 

decade.
28

FIGURE 16: CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON LOW- AND 

MODERATE-INCOME HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES FROM 2001 TO 2010 

College-Qualified 

(in millions) 

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.7

2.1

2.6

3.0

3.5

3.9

4.4

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Not Attending a Four-Year College Within Two Years

Total Not Attending Any College Within Two Years

Between 2001 and 2010, high unmet need will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates 

from attending a four-year college, and 2 million of them from attending any college at all. 

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997) and (2001)

FIGURE 15: TOTAL IMPACT OF HIGH UNMET NEED ON LOW- AND 

MODERATE-INCOME HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES IN 2001 - 2002

College-Qualified 

415,000

482,000

897,000

199,000 207,000

406,000

91,000 77,000

168,000

Income: 0- $24,999 Income: $25,000 - $49,999 Total: $0 - $49,999

College-Qualified High School Graduates

Did Not Attend a Four-Year College

Did Not Attend Any College

In 2001-2002, high unmet need prevented 406,000 college-qualified high school graduates 

from enrolling in a four-year college, and 168,000 of them from attending any college at all. 

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997) and (2001)
29

However, since students from low-income families will represent an everincreasing proportion of high school students over the decade, each

successive graduating class will increase the demand for grant funds in 

order to make access to college and pursuit of a baccalaureate degree a 

reality. In addition, it is highly likely that widespread school reform and 

early intervention efforts will dramatically increase the proportion of

college-qualified high school graduates. Thus, the real loss to the nation 

may be substantially higher than estimated. 

31

IMPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL POLICY

For nearly forty years, federal higher education policy has focused on 

ensuring that students who aspire to attend college can gain access to 

college regardless of family income. Despite some progress toward

expanding access to college, the most vexing question for federal

policymakers remains: can students today, especially those who aspire 

early, plan and take the right courses, and graduate from high school

prepared—essentially the students who have done everything right—gain 

access to even the most reasonably priced four-year colleges? The answer 

is troublesome.

• For more than a decade, families of low-income high school 

graduates who are college-qualified have faced, on an annual basis, 

very high financial barriers: $3,800 in unmet need and over $7,500 

in work and loan burden at public colleges. Their peers with 

moderate incomes face similarly daunting burdens. 

• These financial barriers prevent 48 percent of college-qualified, 

low-income high school graduates from attending a four-year 

college, and 22 percent from attending any college at all within 

two years of high school graduation. Their peers from moderateincome families are hardly better off. 

• Shocking annual losses at the national level—this year over 

400,000 college-qualified students will be unable to attend a fouryear college and nearly 170,000 will attend no college at all—will 

produce staggering cumulative losses of 4.4 million collegequalified students not enrolled in a four-year college, and 2 million 

who are denied access to any college at all by the end of this 

decade. 

Moreover, as school reform and early-intervention efforts expand the 

number of college-qualified high school graduates during the decade as 

expected, scarce grant aid will be stretched even further, and work and 

loan burden will rise above current levels. This will trigger even larger 

national losses of college-qualified high school graduates, and wider

income-related gaps in college participation and degree completion for the 

foreseeable future. Without substantial increases in need-based grant aid, 

this chain of events is irreversible. 

These findings have major implications for federal access to college and 

persistence policies in five areas: 

• Defining the Problem. The primary cause of today’s college 

access and persistence problem is the excessive level of unmet 

For more than a 

decade, families of 

low-income high 

school graduates have 

faced very high 

financial barriers.

These financial 

barriers prevent 

college-qualified, 

low-income high 

school graduates from 

attending a four-year 

college. 

Cumulative losses of 

4.4 million collegequalified students not 

enrolled in a four-year 

college and 2 million 

who are denied access 

to any college at all by 

the end of this decade. 
32

financial need and associated work and loan burden for low- and 

moderate-income high school graduates. Federal efforts to 

improve access to college and persistence must focus on the real 

problem, ensuring that students do not face financial barriers that 

require strategies that themselves reduce enrollment and 

persistence.

 

• Refining the Strategy. Academic preparation alone cannot ensure 

access and persistence—and currently does not do so—for over 

half of high school graduates from low- and moderate-income 

families who are already college-qualified. Federal strategies must 

focus on reducing real unmet need.

• Closing the Unmet Need Gap. Progress in improving access and 

persistence will require closing the unmet need gap and reducing 

work and loan burden by increasing grant aid. More work and 

loans will exacerbate current access and persistence problems.

• Strengthening Early Intervention. Financial barriers today 

strongly affect access to college tomorrow by undermining the 

expectations and plans of families with children in middle school. 

To make progress in the long term, early intervention must include 

an access to college guarantee for low- and moderate-income 

families.

• Rebuilding Partnerships. To ensure that total grant aid increases 

faster than college expenses, the federal government must take the 

lead in reinvigorating the traditional federal-state-institutional 

access to college and persistence partnership. 

It is essential to factor each of these implications into a new, long-term 

federal strategy to improve access to and persistence in college.

Defining the Problem 

As demonstrated by considerable research conducted in the 1970s, there is 

a well-documented link between college expenses after grant aid and 

student behavior. This research suggests that large remaining expenses 

after grant aid, which produce excessive work and loan burden, deter 

college-qualified, low- and moderate-income high school graduates from 

enrolling in college and persisting to degree completion. 

The Title IV programs have been successful in enabling millions to attend 

and persist in college who could not have done so otherwise. However, 

these programs have not eliminated income-related gaps in participation 

and completion rates over time because their level of funding has never 

Progress in improving 

access and persistence 

will require closing the 

unmet need gap by 

increasing grant aid.

To make progress in

the long term, early 

intervention must 

include an access to 

college guarantee.

Large remaining 

expenses after grant 

aid deter collegequalified, low- and 

moderate-income high 

school graduates from 

enrolling in college 

and persisting to 

degree completion.
33

permitted a reduction in real, out-of pocket expenses—work and loan

burden—for low- and moderate-income families. Put another way, the 

effective price of attending a four-year college, the net of all federal, state, 

and institutional need-based grant aid, has risen relentlessly for low- and 

moderate-income high school graduates and their families over the past 

quarter century to current record levels. Even the recent dramatic

increases in Pell Grants have served only to stem the overall decline in 

their purchasing power. 

Indeed, the considerable upward trend in unmet need, work and loan

burden, as well as the declining purchasing power of Pell Grants, has 

robbed the federal grant programs, including early intervention programs 

such as TRIO and GEAR UP, of their power to improve access and 

persistence for low- and moderate-income students. The inability of grant 

and other programs to increase access and persistence, especially in the 

1990s, is directly attributable to the failure to provide funding levels that 

would reduce unmet need and the associated work and loan burden.

Without such reductions, no improvements in access and persistence can 

be expected today or in the future.

Refining the Strategy

The federal strategy for stemming these large losses of human capital over 

the decade must focus squarely on lowering unmet need and the

debilitating work and loan burden that confront low- and moderate-income

families today. Additional efforts to increase academic preparation or 

enhance information about college and financial aid cannot overcome 

these daunting financial barriers, especially for the more than 400,000

low- and moderate-income high school graduates who are collegequalified but denied access to four-year colleges today and in increasing 

numbers in the future. Certainly, many more students must be encouraged 

to remain in high school and graduate prepared to attend college, and early 

information about academic requirements and financial aid is essential in 

improving access to college. Neither of these will solve the financial 

problem facing high school graduates already prepared for college. The 

challenge that they confront is inadequate grant aid. 

Indeed, the majority of low- and moderate-income high school graduates 

are college-qualified and have adequate information. And as school

reform and early intervention efforts gain momentum, the number of those 

who are prepared and informed will increase steadily. For these students, 

the shortage of grant aid will be the problem—not academic preparation or 

information. 

While a focus on college-qualified high school graduates is essential in 

assessing the true nature of the access and persistence problem, and is an 

The effective price of 

attending a four-year 

college, the net of all 

federal, state, and 

institutional needbased grant aid, has 

risen relentlessly over 

the past quarter 

century.

The inability of grant 

and other programs to 

increase access and 

persistence is directly 

attributable to the 

failure to provide 

funding levels that 

would reduce unmet 

need and the 

associated work and 

loan burden.

Additional efforts to 

increase academic 

preparation or 

enhance information 

about college and 

financial aid cannot 

overcome these 

daunting financial 

barriers.
34

essential litmus test for federal access policy, it cannot be the sole criterion 

for designing and implementing a solution. More than 40 percent of lowand moderate-income high school graduates are not fully prepared to 

attend a four-year college, but turn to the community college system for 

access. Policies that would expand grant funding only to fully qualified 

students, at the expense of those not fully qualified, would shortchange 

those students and the nation’s future just as elementary and secondary 

school reform begins to succeed. 

The new federal access and persistence strategy must focus on the critical 

impact of unmet need and work and loan burden on the behavior of high 

school graduates who are college-qualified, as well as on those who are 

only marginally qualified. For the former, additional academic

preparation and information are not the answer. For both, need-based 

grant aid is essential.

Closing the Unmet Need Gap 

An unmet need gap of at least $3,000 at public four-year colleges

decreases the enrollment of low- and moderate-income high school

graduates who are college-qualified as compared to their peers with high 

income (Figure 17). Consequently, an increase in total grant aid of that 

amount to each student, each year would equalize unmet need and narrow 

the gap in enrollment behavior substantially. Such an increase in existing 

grant programs would decrease the work and loan burden of low-income 

high school graduates to more manageable levels (Figure 18) and increase 

the likelihood that those who have prepared for college would enroll. 

Experience at the institutional level demonstrates the effectiveness of this 

approach. At a minimum, this should be the goal of federal policy.

Most importantly, increasing student work in order to narrow the unmet 

need gap is counterproductive because it can often lead to decreases in 

grant aid and increases in work and loan burden in subsequent years, 

decreasing the likelihood of persistence. Similarly, increasing borrowing 

is impractical for low- and moderate-income students, due to current high 

levels of annual borrowing and debt burden. The bottom line is that 

increasing work and loan burden beyond current record levels will further 

undermine access to college and persistence and cause loss estimates to 

increase.

The Role of Grants

Increasing grant aid, especially the maximum Pell Grant, must be the 

central feature of the new federal access to college strategy. Substantial 

increases in the maximum Pell Grant in recent years successfully reversed

The new federal access 

and persistence 

strategy must focus on 

the critical impact of 

unmet need, work, and 

loan burden. 

An increase in total 

grant aid would 

equalize unmet need 

and narrow the gap in 

enrollment behavior 

substantially.

Increasing grant aid, 

especially the 

maximum Pell Grant, 

must be the central 

feature of the new 

federal access to 

college strategy.
35

 

FIGURE 18: IMPACT OF $3,000 INCREASE IN GRANT AID ON WORK AND 

LOAN BURDEN FACING LOW-INCOME HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 

$5,641

$6,778

$10,700

$2,641

$3,778

$7,700

Public 2-Year College Public 4-Year Comprehensive and

Baccalaureate

Private 4-Year Comprehensive and

Baccalaureate

Current Student Work-Loan Burden

Student Work-Loan Burden After $3,000 Grant Increase

An increase in grant aid of $3,000 would lower the work and loan burden of low-income high 

school graduates to $3,778 at a public four-year comprehensive and baccalaureate college.

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

FIGURE 17: EQUALIZING AVERAGE UNMET NEED AT 

FOUR-YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES BY FAMILY INCOME

College-Qualified High School Graduates

Unmet Need = $400 

Unmet Need = $100 

Unmet Need = $3,400 

Unmet Need = $3,000 

Public Two-Year College Public Four-Year College

Income = $75,000 - above

(Unmet Need = $400)

Income = 0 - $49,999

(Unmet Need = $3,400)

Equalizing financial barriers for college-qualified high school graduates at public 

colleges requires an increase in grant aid of $3,000 for those with high unmet need.

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Department of Education, NCES (1997)

About $3,000 in additional grant aid would 

equalize unmet need at public colleges
36

the decline in the purchasing power of Pell Grants that occurred

throughout most of the 1990s. However, even these unprecedented

increases left students merely as well off as they were earlier in the 

decade. Consequently, a successful federal strategy must be more

comprehensive. A more promising approach would be to increase total 

federal, state, and institutional grant aid by $3,000 a year.

 

Strengthening Early Intervention

As part of the new access to college and persistence strategy, the federal 

government must strengthen and expand early intervention programs. 

These programs augment the early awareness and academic preparation 

efforts of state and local governments that share the primary responsibility 

for ensuring that students graduate from high school prepared for college. 

Indeed, assuring adequate academic preparation for all children was the 

central focus of the recent No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The TRIO and GEAR UP programs represent very successful federally 

supported models of information, intervention, and scholarship aid. In

addition, state models such as the Indiana Twenty-first Century Scholars 

program, which combines information and early intervention with a

guarantee of grant aid substantially increases both the likelihood of

students graduating from high school academically prepared and enrolling 

in a four-year college. Thus, early commitment to adequate aid through 

federal and state programs can support improved academic preparation as 

well as enrollment in college. The long-term goal of these state needbased grant programs should be that, at a minimum, all low- and

moderate-income students who prepare adequately for college are able to 

enroll. 

Rebuilding Partnerships

With the enactment of the HEA and its earliest reauthorizations, the

federal government assumed the role of ensuring access through

partnerships. Access Denied called upon the federal government to restore 

the federal-state-institutional access partnerships through creative links 

among existing programs. In particular, federal policy must encourage a 

far more substantial state and institutional commitment to need-based 

grant aid and controlling college costs, especially in periods of recession, 

and discourage the current trend toward merit-based aid and higher than 

average tuition increases. Examples already exist at the state and

institutional level and should serve as models for federal policy.

Information and early 

intervention with a 

guarantee of grant aid 

substantially increases 

both the likelihood of 

students graduating 

from high school 

academically prepared 

and enrolling in a 

four-year college.

The long-term goal of 

these state need-based 

grant programs should 

be that all low- and 

moderate-income 

students who prepare 

adequately for college 

are able to enroll.

Federal policy must 

encourage a far more 

substantial state and 

institutional 

commitment to needbased grant aid.
37

Three major challenges exist with state grant aid. 

• First, states increasingly have chosen to expand politically popular 

merit-based grant aid at the expense of need-based aid. The 

opportunity cost of this policy is substantial when scarce student 

aid resources are dedicated to students who would have otherwise 

enrolled.

• Second, many states underinvest in need-based aid, and two states 

have never implemented a need-based program; in others, 

programs languish at low funding levels in spite of the needs of 

their students. 

• Third, in periods of recession, state funding falls not only for 

public institutions of higher education, causing tuition to rise, but 

also for student aid programs, resulting in decreases in grant levels 

or the denial of grants to eligible students in the face of steep 

increases in tuition charges—a double shock for students and 

families already struggling under staggering levels of work and 

loan burden. 

Each of these policy actions increases unmet need and decreases access to 

college for low- and moderate-income students. A successful federal-state 

partnership must address these challenges.

In addition, the federal government must enhance persistence to degree 

completion through institutional partnerships that emphasize both

additional grants (completion grants) that will enable students to persist by 

reducing work and loan burden, and successful campus academic and 

support strategies that enhance the likelihood of persistence. Proposals 

that trade-off access for persistence, or vice versa, are shortsighted and 

ultimately shortchange the very students whom Title IV serves.

Priorities for Higher Education Act of 1965 Reauthorization

Reauthorization offers a critical opportunity to address this decade’s

college access problem by expanding and strengthening Title IV

programs. The current level and impact of unmet need suggests that in 

conjunction with annual increases in funding for the Pell Grant and other 

Title IV programs, reauthorization can put into place program

enhancements that can stem the increase in the number of students for 

whom opportunity will be nothing more than an empty promise.

In periods of recession, 

state funding falls not 

only for public 

institutions but also for 

student aid programs, 

resulting in decreases 

in grant levels or the 

denial of grants to 

eligible students a 

double shock for 

students and families 

already struggling.

Proposals that tradeoff access for 

persistence, or vice 

versa, ultimately 

shortchange the very 

students whom Title IV 

serves.

Reauthorization offers 

a critical opportunity 

to address this 

decade’s college 

access problem by 

expanding and 

strengthening Title IV 

programs.
38

Reauthorization can make considerable progress toward renewing the

nation’s commitment to access to college and the opportunity to persist. 

The resulting statute and the funding provided to the programs will

determine whether the hard work of a generation of Americans who will 

attempt to enroll in college over this decade will be rewarded or whether 

the promise of access to postsecondary education will be broken.

Other steps can be taken to eliminate financial barriers, especially those 

that, by reducing grant aid in subsequent years, penalize students for 

meeting unmet need through off-campus work. These penalties reduce 

persistence as grant aid drops and work and loan burden increase. In

addition, applying for aid can be made dramatically simpler, especially for 

low-income students, by expanding the existing simplification mechanism 

in the HEA.

Making progress on the college access problem today and in the future 

requires systematic and aggressive action at the federal level to increase 

Pell Grants annually, and cooperation on the part of all federal, state, and 

institutional policymakers committed to equal access to college. 

Commitment to increased grant aid and cooperation among the federal and 

state governments and institutions of higher education is crucial in the face 

of increasing tuition levels.

While a problem three decades in the making cannot be solved overnight, 

a renewed commitment to expanding access to college must be made. 

This requires confronting the college access problem head-on and

focusing on a long-term strategy to increase the amount of federal, state, 

and institutional need-based grant aid that low- and moderate-income high 

school graduates can count on in a financial aid package that shrinks the 

work and loan burden these students currently face.

Reauthorization can 

make considerable 

progress toward 

renewing the nation’s 

commitment to access 

to college and the 

opportunity to persist.

Commitment to 

increased grant aid is 

crucial in the face of 

increasing tuition 

levels.
39

ENDNOTES 

1

 Please see College Board (2001) for more information on the wage premium of workers with a 

college degree. 

2

 For purposes of this report, "low-income" refers to families who earn less than $25,000 per 

year. "Moderate-income" indicates a family whose annual income is between $25,000 and 

$49,999. 

3

 A more detailed discussion of the benefits of a college education for both students and society 

can be found in Institute for Higher Education Policy (2001) and Institute for Higher Education 

Policy (1998). 

4

 Federal student aid programs include: Federal Pell Grant Program, Federal Family Education 

Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, Work-Study Program, 

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Perkins Loans, Leveraging Educational 

Assistance Partnerships, TRIO, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs, High School Equivalency Program, and College Assistance Migrant Program. 

5

 Please see Gladieux, L.E., Astor, B., and Swail, W.S. (1998) and Gladieux, L. E. & Wolanin, T. 

R. (1976) for more information on the Federal Pell Grant program. 

6

 An easily accessible version of the 2003 Budget Summary is available on the internet from the 

U.S. Department of Education (2002): http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget03/Summary/index.html.

7

 Descriptive summaries of research on the price sensitivity of low- and moderate-income 

students can be found in McPherson, M. S. & Schapiro, M. O. (1998), St. John, E. P. (2002), 

Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A. F., & Bernal, E. M. (2001), & Heller, D. E. (1999). 

8

 Please see USA Today (2002) for a discussion of the loss of students in California. In addition, 

Breneman (2002) elaborates on the topic. 

9

 For more information on the Indiana Twenty-first Century Scholars program, please see 

St. John, E. P., Musoba, G. D., Simmons, A. B., & Chung, C. G. (2002). 

10 For a closer look at the maximum Pell Grant as a share of cost of attendance, please see the 

College Board (2001a). 

11 A good analysis of the interrelationship between state budget shortfalls and tuition increases 

can be found in National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2002). 

12 For examples of how state awards were lowered, please see USA Today (2002) and Newbart, 

D. (2002). 

13 This institutional data was presented at the March 7, 2002 meeting of the Advisory Committee 

on Student Financial Assistance. Please see the minutes of this meeting for more details. 
40

14 For more detail on demographic projections for high school graduates, please see U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2001). 

15 Please see Carnevale, A.P. (2002) for more information on education, demographics, and labor 

markets. 

16 The college qualification index evaluates high school seniors on cumulative academic 

coursework GPA, senior class rank, NELS test scores, SAT and ACT college entrance 

examination scores. More information about the college qualification index can be found in U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1997). 

17 Student behavior is analyzed in detail in the U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics (1997). 

18 This finding is echoed in the research of scholars such as McPherson, M.O. & Schapiro, M. 

(1999), Lee, J. B. (2001), Ellwood, D. & Kane, T. J. (2000). 

19 For more information on debt burden please see King, T. & Bannon, E. (2002) and National 

Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2002). 

20 Parents’ education is not fungible and cannot replace financial aid. Given the excessive work 

and loan burden facing low-income students and families, attributing the access problem to 

parents’ level of education is neither wise nor productive. If parents’ education has any effect at 

all on college-qualified high school graduates, it is to make the student and family more sensitive 

to, and thus exacerbate the impact of, the current financial aid shortfall. More than 80 percent of 

college-qualified low-income high school graduates are from families in which neither parent is 

a college graduate. Since sending their parents to college is not a policy option, the way to 

increase the students’ enrollment is to lower financial barriers by expanding need-based student 

aid. 

21 Longitudinal data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational 

Statistics (1997) analyzes data that addresses the enrollment patterns of high school graduates 

within two years after graduating from high school. That study used data from the National 

Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88), supplemented with information on college 

costs and financial aid for a comparable group of students in the National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study, 1992–93 (NPSAS: 93). 

22 High school graduates from moderate-income families (that is, $24,999 - $50,000) must be 

included among high unmet need students when estimating the total national impact of high 

unmet need since low- and moderate-income students face similar levels of unmet need. 

However, in illustrating the pipeline, a comparison between high school graduates from families 

with income over $75,000 and those from families with income below $25,000 is used. Since 

the vast majority of the former have no unmet need at a four-year public college and the vast 

majority of the latter have unmet need of more than $3,000, this in effect compares high 

school graduates with very low and very high unmet need, respectively. 
41

23 Since the data available on all high school graduates and those determined to be collegequalified are not identical, the specific pipelines will vary slightly. In particular, more detail was 

gathered from college-qualified students regarding concerns about finances and taking steps 

toward admission to a four-year college, permitting a more detailed Access Pipeline to be 

estimated. 

24 Speculation that parents’ education, not income and unmet need, is the cause of today’s access 

problem is fueled by analyses that fail to control properly for the effects of income and unmet 

need. There is no empirical evidence that low-income, college-qualified high school graduates 

whose parents do not have a college degree fail to attend college (or a four-year college) if 

financial aid is adequate. In fact, one of the most important findings in early intervention 

literature is that a guarantee of financial access substantially improves academic preparation, 

aspirations, and the likelihood of college attendance. 

25 College-qualified, low-income students and their parents have as much or more information 

about financial aid as do their higher income counterparts. In particular, they were as likely or 

more likely than higher income students and parents to have obtained and read information about 

financial aid from more than one source, and discussed financial aid with a high school teacher, 

guidance counselor, or college representative. 

26 For purposes of this report, preliminary degree completion rates in 2000 by SES are used to 

estimate the rates by income and unmet need for college-qualified high school graduates. By 

year 2000, only 7 percent of students who had been 8th graders in 1988 from the lowest SES 

quartile had completed a bachelor's degree. Approximately 34 percent of these 8th graders had 

graduated from high school college-qualified. Assuming that all students completing a 

bachelor's degree in 2000 had been college-qualified upon graduation from high school, 21 

percent (7 percent divided by 34 percent) of college-qualified high school graduates with high 

unmet need had completed a bachelor's degree by year 2000. On the other hand, by year 2000, 

51 percent of all of their peers from the highest SES quartile had done so. Since 82 percent of 

them had been college-qualified upon high school graduation, 62 percent (51 percent divided by 

82 percent) had completed a bachelor's degree by year 2000. 

27 These figures have been corroborated by an independent researcher at the March 7, 2002 

meeting of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. For more information, 

please see the minutes of that meeting. 
43

REFERENCES 

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. "Minutes of the March 7, 2002 Meeting," 

available from the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 80 F Street, N.W., 

Room 413, Washington, D.C. 20202-7582. June 2002. 

Breneman, D. W. (2002). "For colleges, this is not just another recession." The Chronicle of 

Higher Education. June 14, 2002. Vol. 48, No. 40. Washington, DC: The Chronicle of Higher 

Education, Inc. 

Carnevale, A.P. (2002). The economic and demographic roots of education reform. American

School Board Journal. July 2002. Vol. 189, No. 7. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards 

Association. 

College Board. (2001). Trends in college pricing 2001. Washington, DC: Author.

College Board. (2001a). Trends in student aid 2001. Washington, DC: Author. 

Ellwood, D. & Kane, T. J. (2000). "Who is getting a college education: Family background and 

the growing gap in enrollment." In S. Danziger & J. Waldfogel (Eds.). Securing the future. New 

York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Gladieux, L.E., Astor, B., and Swail, W.S. (Eds.). (1998). Memory, reason, imagination: A 

quarter century of Pell Grants. New York: The College Board. 

Gladieux, L. E. & Wolanin, T. R. (1976). Congress and the colleges: The national politics of 

higher education. Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Company. 

Heller, D. E. (1999). "The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college enrollment." 

The Review of Higher Education. Fall 1999. Vol. 23, No. 1. Association for the Study of Higher 

Education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998). Reaping the benefits: Defining the public and 

private value of going to college. The New Millennium Project on Higher Education Costs, 

Pricing, and Productivity. Washington, DC: Author. 

The Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2001). Rhetoric and reality: Effects and 

consequences of the HOPE scholarship. The New Millennium Project on Higher Education 

Costs, Pricing, and Productivity. Washington, DC: Author.

King, T. & Bannon, E. (2002 April). At what cost? The price that working students pay for a 

college education. Washington, DC: The State PIRGs' Higher Education Project. 

Lee, J. B. (1999). "How do students and families pay for college?" In J. E. King (Ed.). Financing 

a college education: How it works, how it's changing. ACE/Oryx Series on Higher Education. 

Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press. 
44

Lee, J. B. (2001). Access for low SES students. Presentation at National Governors' Association 

Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC, October, 2001. 

McPherson, M. S. & Schapiro, M. O. (1998). The student aid game: Meeting need and 

rewarding talent in American higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

McPherson, M. O. & Schapiro, M. (1999). Reinforcing stratification in American higher 

education: Some disturbing trends. Macalester Forum on Higher Education Conference. 

Diversity and Stratification in American Higher Education. Macalester College, June 1999. 

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2002). Losing ground: A national 

status report on the affordability of American higher education. San Jose, CA: Author. 

Newbart, D. (2002). "Senate fails to block college aid cutbacks." June 12, 2002. Chicago, Il: 

Chicago Sun-Times. 

Public papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965. (1966). 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. p. 1102. 

Public papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1970. (1971) Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office. p. 276. 

St. John, E. P. (2002). The access challenge: Rethinking the causes of the new inequality. Policy 

Issue Report No. 2002-01. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center. 

St. John, E. P., Musoba, G. D., Simmons, A. B., & Chung, C. G. (2002). Meeting the access 

challenge: Indiana's twenty-first century scholars program. New Agenda Series. Indianapolis, 

IN: Lumina. 

Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A. F., & Bernal, E. M. (2001). Swimming against the tide: The poor in 

American higher education. Research Report No. 2001-1. New York: The College Board. 

U.S. Congress, 107th. (2002). No child left behind act of 2001. (PL 107-110). Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Condition of 

Education, 1998. NCES 98-013. By J. Wirt, T. Synder, J. Sable, S. P. Choy, Y. Bae, J. Stennett, 

A. Gruner, & M. Perie. Washington, DC: NCES.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1997). Access to 

postsecondary education for the 1992 high school graduates. By L. Berkner & L. Chavez (MPR 

Associates). Project officer: C. D. Carroll. NCES 98-105. Washington, DC: NCES. 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Projections of 

education statistics to 2011. By D. E. Gerald & W. J. Hussar. NCES 2001-083. Washington, 

DC: NCES. 
45

U.S. Department of Education (2002). 2003 Budget summary. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Changes in the 

net price of college attendance: 1992-1993 to 1999-2000. By L. Horn, C. C. Wei, & A. Berker 

(MPR Associates). Project Officer: C. D. Carroll. Washington, DC: NCES. 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a). Coming of age 

in the 1990s: The eighth-grade class of 1988 12 years later. By S. J. Ingles & T. R. Curtin 

(Research Triangle Institute), & P. Kaufman, M. N. Alt, & X. Chen (MPR Associates). Project 

Officer: J. A. Owings. Washington, DC: NCES. 

USA Today. (2002). "College costs spiral, leaving poor families in lurch." USA Today. 

Editoral/Opinion. April 4, 2002. McLean, VA: Gannett Co. Inc. 
47

APPENDIX A 

List of Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance Members and Staff 

Current Members by Class of Appointment 

Class of 2001 

(Term expired September 30, 2001, 

continues to serve until reappointed 

or a replacement is named)

Mr. Donald R. Vickers 

President 

Vermont Student Assistance Corporation 

Winooski, Vermont 

(United States Senate appointee) 

Class of 2002 

(Term Expires September 30, 2002)

Ms. Judith Flink 

Director of Student Financial Services and 

Cashiering Operations 

University of Illinois at Chicago 

Chicago, Illinois 

(House of Representatives appointee) 

Dr. Juliet V. Garcia (Chairperson)

President 

University of Texas at Brownsville 

Brownsville, Texas 

(Secretary of Education appointee) 

Dr. Robert C. Khayat 

Chancellor 

University of Mississippi 

University, Mississippi 

(United States Senate appointee) 

Class of 2003 

(Term Expires September 30, 2003)

Dr. Henry Givens, Jr. 

President 

Harris-Stowe State College 

St. Louis, Missouri 

(House of Representatives appointee) 

Ms. Sandra L. Tarbox 

Doctoral Student 

Center for the Study of Higher and 

Postsecondary Education 

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 

(Secretary of Education appointee) 

Dr. Charles Terrell (Vice Chairman) 

Vice President 

Division of Community and Minority Programs 

Association of American Medical Colleges 

Washington, D.C. 

(United States Senate appointee) 

Dr. Thomas R. Wolanin 

Senior Associate 

The Institute for Higher Education Policy 

Washington, D.C. 

(Secretary of Education appointee) 

Class of 2004 

(Term Expires September 30, 2004)

Mr. Don R. Bouc 

President and CEO 

National Education Loan Network (NELnet) 

Lincoln, Nebraska 

(Secretary of Education appointee) 

Ms. Norine Fuller 

Executive Director 

The Fashion Institute of Design and 

Merchandising 

Washington, D.C. 

(House of Representatives appointee) 

Mr. Lawrence W. O’Toole 

President and CEO 

America’s Charter School Finance Corporation 

Braintree, Massachusetts 

(Secretary of Education appointee) 
48

Former Advisory Committee Members who Contributed to this Report 

Dr. Thomas E. Dillon 

President 

Thomas Aquinas College 

Santa Paula, California 

(House of Representatives appointee) 

Ms. Susan O'Flaherty 

Director of Financial Aid and Scholarships 

Western Michigan University 

Kalamazoo, Michigan 

(Secretary of Education appointee)

Advisory Committee Staff 

Dr. Brian K. Fitzgerald 

Staff Director 

 

Ms. Jennifer A. Delaney 

Assistant Staff Director for Research 

Dr. William J. Goggin 

Senior Staff Economist 

Ms. Hope M. Gray 

Senior Administrative Officer 

Ms. Carolyn M. Sabatino 

Former Project Director for Administrative 

Systems 

Ohio University 

Athens, Ohio 

(Secretary of Education appointee) 

Ms. Shelaine N. Jackson 

Office Automation Assistant 

Ms. Tracy D. Jones 

Administrative Assistant 

Ms. Ardena N. Leonard 

Senior Assistant Staff Director 

Mr. Justin L. Wellner 

Policy Intern 
49

APPENDIX B 

Authorizing Legislation 

The Advisory Committee was established by an act of Congress in 1986. Section 491 of the Higher 

Education Act as amended contains the Committee's Congressional mandate. A copy of this section 

as it appears in the law follows: 

SEC. 491. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.--(1) There is established in the Department an 

independent Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (hereafter in this section referred 

to as the "Advisory Committee") which shall provide advice and counsel to the Congress and to the 

Secretary on student financial aid matters. (2) The purpose of the Advisory Committee is-- (A) to 

provide extensive knowledge and understanding of the Federal, State, and institutional programs of 

postsecondary student assistance; (B) to provide technical expertise with regard to systems of needs 

analysis and application forms; and (C) to make recommendations that will result in the maintenance 

of access to post-secondary education for low- and middle-income students. 

(b) INDEPENDENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.--In the exercise of its functions, powers, and 

duties, the Advisory Committee shall be independent of the Secretary and the other offices and 

officers of the Department. Notwithstanding Department of Education policies and regulations, the 

Advisory Committee shall exert independent control of its budget allocations, expenditures and 

staffing levels, personnel decisions and processes, procurements, and other administrative and 

management functions. The Advisory Committee's administration and management shall be subject 

to the usual and customary Federal audit procedures. Reports, publications, and other documents of 

the Advisory Committee, including such reports, publications, and documents in electronic form, 

shall not be subject to review by the Secretary. The recommendations of the Committee shall not be 

subject to review or approval by any officer in the executive branch, but may be submitted to the 

Secretary for comment prior to submission to the Congress in accordance with subsection (f). The 

Secretary's authority to terminate advisory committees of the Department pursuant to section 448(b) 

of the General Education Provisions Act ceased to be effective on June 23, 1983. 

(c) MEMBERSHIP.--(1) The Advisory Committee shall have 11 members of which-- (A) 3 members 

shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate upon the recommendation of the 

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, (B) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 

House of Representatives upon the recommendation of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, 

and (C) 5 members shall be appointed by the Secretary including, but not limited to representatives 

of States, institutions of higher education, secondary schools, credit institutions, students, and 

parents. (2) Not less than 7 members of the Advisory Committee shall be individuals who have been 

appointed on the basis of technical qualifications, professional standing and demonstrated knowledge 

in the fields of higher education and student aid administration, need analysis, financing 

postsecondary education, student aid delivery, and the operations and financing of student loan 

guarantee agencies. 
50

(d) FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.--The Advisory Committee shall--(1) develop, review, and 

comment annually upon the system of needs analysis established under part F of this title; (2) 

monitor, apprise, and evaluate the effectiveness of student aid delivery and recommend 

improvements; (3) recommend data collection needs and student information requirements which 

would improve access and choice for eligible students under this title and assist the Department of 

Education in improving the delivery of student aid; (4) assess the impact of legislative and 

administrative policy proposals; (5) review and comment upon, prior to promulgation, all regulations 

affecting programs under this title, including proposed regulations; (6) recommend to the Congress 

and to the Secretary such studies, surveys, and analyses of student financial assistance programs, 

policies, and practices, including the special needs of low-income, disadvantaged, and nontraditional 

students, and the means by which the needs may be met, but nothing in this section shall authorize 

the committee to perform such studies, surveys, or analyses; (7) review and comment upon standards 

by which financial need is measured in determining eligibility for Federal student assistance 

programs; (8) appraise the adequacies and deficiencies of current student financial aid information 

resources and services and evaluate the effectiveness of current student aid information programs; 

and (9) make special efforts to advise Members of Congress and such Members' staff of the findings 

and recommendations made pursuant to this paragraph. 

(e) OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.--(1) Each member of the Advisory Committee shall be 

appointed for a term of 3 years, except that, of the members first appointed-- (A) 4 shall be appointed 

for a term of 1 year; (B) 4 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and (C) 3 shall be appointed for a 

term of 3 years, as designated at the time of appointment by the Secretary. (2) Any member 

appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term of a predecessor shall be 

appointed only for the remainder of such term. A member of the Advisory Committee shall, upon 

request, continue to serve after the expiration of a term until a successor has been appointed. A 

member of the Advisory Committee may be reappointed to successive terms on the Advisory 

Committee. (3) No officers or full-time employees of the Federal Government shall serve as 

members of the Advisory Committee. (4) The Advisory Committee shall elect a Chairman and a 

Vice Chairman from among its members. (5) Six members of the Advisory Committee shall 

constitute a quorum. (6) The Advisory Committee shall meet at the call of the Chairman or a 

majority of its members. 

(f) SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT FOR COMMENT.--The Advisory Committee may submit its 

proposed recommendations to the Department of Education for comment for a period not to exceed 

30 days in each instance. 

(g) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.--(1) Members of the Advisory Committee may each 

receive reimbursement for travel expenses incident to attending Advisory Committee meetings, 

including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States 

Code, for persons in the Government service employed intermittently. 

(h) PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES.--(1) The Advisory Committee may appoint such personnel 

as may be necessary by the Chairman without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 

governing appointments in the competitive service, and may be paid without regard to the provisions 

of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General 

Schedule pay rates, but no individual so appointed shall be paid in excess of the rate authorized for 

GS-18 of the General Schedule. The Advisory Committee may appoint not more than 1 full-time 

equivalent, nonpermanent, consultant without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code. 

The Advisory Committee shall not be required by the Secretary to reduce personnel to meet agency 
51

personnel reduction goals. (2) In carrying out its duties under the Act, the Advisory Committee shall 

consult with other Federal agencies, representatives of State and local governments, and private 

organizations to the extent feasible. (3)(A) The Advisory Committee is authorized to secure directly 

from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent 

establishment, or instrumentality information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purpose of 

this section and each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent 

establishment, or instrumentality is authorized and directed, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish 

such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Advisory Committee, upon 

request made by the Chairman. (B) The Advisory Committee may enter into contracts for the 

acquisition of information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purpose of this section. (4) 

The Advisory Committee is authorized to obtain the services of experts and consultants without 

regard to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code and to set pay in accordance with such section. 

(5) The head of each Federal agency shall, to the extent not prohibited by law, cooperate with the 

Advisory Committee in carrying out this section. (6) The Advisory Committee is authorized to 

utilize, with their consent, the services, personnel, information, and facilities of other Federal, State, 

local, and private agencies with or without reimbursement. 

(i) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.--In each fiscal year not less than $800,000, shall be available from 

the amount appropriated for each such fiscal year from salaries and expenses of the Department for 

the costs of carrying out the provisions of this section. 

(j) SPECIAL ANALYSES AND ACTIVITIES.--The Advisory Committee shall-- (1) monitor and 

evaluate the modernization of student financial aid systems and delivery processes, including the 

implementation of a performance-based organization within the Department, and report to Congress 

regarding such modernization on not less than an annual basis, including recommendations for 

improvement; (2) assess the adequacy of current methods for disseminating information about 

programs under this title and recommend improvements, as appropriate, regarding early needs 

assessment and information for first-year secondary school students; (3) assess and make 

recommendations concerning the feasibility and degree of use of appropriate technology in the 

application for, and delivery and management of, financial assistance under this title, as well as 

policies that promote use of such technology to reduce cost and enhance service and program 

integrity, including electronic application and reapplication, just-in-time delivery of funds, reporting 

of disbursements and reconciliation; (4) assess the implications of distance education on student 

eligibility and other requirements for financial assistance under this title, and make recommendations 

that will enhance access to postsecondary education through distance education while maintaining 

access, through on-campus instruction at eligible institutions, and program integrity; and (5) make 

recommendations to the Secretary regarding redundant or outdated provisions of and regulations 

under this Act, consistent with the Secretary’s requirements under section 498B. 

(k) TERM OF THE COMMITTEE--Not withstanding the sunset and charter provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I) or any other statute or regulation, the Advisory 

Committee shall be authorized until October 1, 2004.