What Students Pay

for College

Changes in Net Price of

College Attendance Between

1992–93 and 1999–2000

Postsecondary Education

Descriptive Analysis Reports

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational

Research and Improvement

NCES 2002–174

National Center for

Education Statistics
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS 

Statistical Analysis Report September 2002

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

What Students Pay for College:

Changes in Net Price of College Attendance 

Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

Laura Horn 

Christina Chang Wei 

Ali Berker 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for Education Statistics 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2002–174 
U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige 

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics 

Gary W. Phillips 

Deputy Commissioner 

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

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

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

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

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

review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

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

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

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

practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

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

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

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

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

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20006 

September 2002 

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

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

Suggested Citation 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. What Students Pay for College: 

Changes in the Net Price of College Between 1992–93 to 1999–2000, NCES 2002–174, by Laura Horn, 

Christina Chang Wei, and Ali Berker. Project Officer: Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 2002. 

For information on how to order this report, call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or go to the Internet: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/ordering.jsp 

Content Contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502–7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov 
iii 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

Average tuition adjusted for inflation more 

than doubled between 1981 and 2000 at public 

and private not-for-profit 4-year colleges and 

universities (The College Board 2001a). During 

the same period, median family income grew 27 

percent, and financial aid per full-time-equivalent 

student grew 82 percent. Responding to increasing 

public concern over the affordability of higher 

education, Congress established the National 

Commission on the Cost of Higher Education to 

examine the causes for rising costs. The Cost 

Commission subsequently issued a report called 

Straight Talk About College Costs and Prices

(1998), which distinguished price from cost and 

defined these terms differently. Cost is the amount 

it takes an institution to educate a student (i.e., the 

production cost per student), whereas price is the 

amount students and their families pay to attend. 

The price that students and families pay after 

subtracting financial aid awards is referred to as 

net price. The report concluded that while net 

price did not increase as substantially as did the 

“sticker price” charged by institutions, it 

nevertheless grew at a faster rate than did median 

income and disposable per capita income during 

the late 1980s and early 1990s at all three types of 

colleges and universities studied (public 4-year, 

private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year 

institutions). 

This study examines the most recent trends in 

net price. The two major goals of this study are 1) 

to analyze changes in net price between 1992–93 

and 1999–2000 and 2) to examine, within each 

type of institution, changes in net price over time 

for students with various levels of income and 

financial need. The study is a follow-up to a recent 

congressionally mandated National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) study (Cunningham 

et al. 2001a) (hereafter referred to as “The Cost 

Study”), which examined trends in college costs 

and how costs relate to prices for specific types of 

institutions. 

Changes in Financial Aid Awards 

Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

This study uses data from the 1992–93 and 

1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000). These two 

NPSAS surveys represent periods before and after 

major changes in federal financial aid policy went 

into effect under the 1992 reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act (HEA-92). The most 

significant change affected the federal (Stafford) 

loan eligibility of dependent students (students 

who are considered financially dependent on their 

parents for purposes of financial aid eligibility). 

Their eligibility for need-based subsidized loans 

increased, and for the first time they became 

eligible for unsubsidized student loans. In addition 

to changes in federal financial aid policy, there 

were changes in state and institutional grant aid 

that must be taken into account. 

The students included in this study were fulltime undergraduates at public 4-year, private notfor-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions. 
Executive Summary

iv 

For these students, the major changes in financial 

aid awards between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 were 

as follows: 

• Reflecting in part expanded eligibility for 

federal loans as well as a response to 

increased tuition and fees, undergraduate 

borrowing increased significantly. The 

percentage of full-time undergraduates who 

relied on federal student loans to help pay 

for their college education increased from 

30 to 43 percent overall. After adjusting for 

inflation, the average amount of a federal 

student loan also increased, from about 

$3,900 to $4,800. No increase in the 

percentage of students borrowing was 

detected for undergraduates in the lowest 

income quartile—roughly half borrowed in 

both survey years—but the likelihood of 

borrowing increased for both middleincome undergraduates (from 32 to 45 

percent) and high-income undergraduates 

(from 15 to 31 percent). 

• There was a relatively small increase in the 

percentage of full-time undergraduates who 

were awarded state grants (from 17 to 22 

percent overall). The average amount 

awarded increased from about $1,800 to 

$2,000. 

• Undergraduates were much more likely to 

receive institutional grant aid in 1999–2000 

than in 1992–93. The percentage of fulltime undergraduates who were awarded 

institutional grant aid increased from 23 to 

31 percent overall, and the average amount 

of aid that students received increased from 

about $4,200 to $4,700. 

An important component of this study is to 

determine how these changes in financial aid 

awards—especially the significant increase in 

borrowing—are reflected in changes in net price 

over the same period. 

Data Analyzed in This Study 

Data from NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000 are 

used to compare changes in net tuition and net 

price over time, after adjusting for inflation. As 

with The Cost Study, the current study separated 

public from private not-for-profit colleges and 

universities and then further separated the public 

and private 4-year sectors into two aggregated 

Carnegie classifications: 1) research and doctoral 

institutions and 2) comprehensive and 

baccalaureate institutions. The study also analyzed 

net price changes for public 2-year institutions 

(also known as community colleges). The analysis 

excluded students who attended for-profit 

institutions and other less-than-4-year institutions, 

as well as those who attended more than one 

institution. Sample sizes for the excluded 

institutions in the NPSAS surveys were relatively 

small and would have yielded few meaningful 

comparisons. Also, in order to ensure that the 

amount of tuition1 paid and the amount of 

financial aid awarded were comparable between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000, only full-time 

undergraduates attending for the full academic 

year (i.e., at least 9 months) were included in the 

analysis. (These students are referred to as “fulltime students” throughout the report.) The 

percentage of students who attended full time, full 

year ranged from about 50 to 60 percent at 4-year 

institutions, depending on the institution sector 

and the NPSAS year, and from 14 to 19 percent at 

public 2-year colleges. 

Measures of Net Tuition and Net Price 

To determine the actual tuition amounts 

students paid, as opposed to the published sticker 

price, two measures of net tuition were defined: 

 

1Use of the term “tuition” as opposed to “fees” is arbitrary. 

The terms can be interchangeable to a large extent. Some 

institutions only charge tuition, some only fees, and some 

both. 
 Executive Summary 

v 

• net tuition 1: total tuition minus federal 

grants 

• net tuition 2: total tuition minus all grants 

The first net tuition measure takes into account 

federal grants (primarily Pell), which are awarded 

to the lowest income students. Changes in net 

tuition 1 show how much federal grants alone 

would reduce tuition (mostly for low-income 

students) if other financial aid sources were not 

available. The second net tuition measure takes 

into account all grants—federal, state, 

institutional, and other.2

Tuition is only part of what a college education 

costs students and families. The total price of 

attendance, which is estimated by colleges in 

student budgets, is based on the average tuition as 

well as living expenses for different types of 

students. It includes books and supplies, rent, 

food, and other living expenses in addition to 

tuition. Typically, nontuition expenses represent 

about two-thirds of the total price at public 4-year 

institutions and somewhat less than half of the 

total price at private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions. This study analyzed changes for three 

measures of net total price of attendance: 

• net price 1: total price minus federal and 

state grants3

• net price 2: total price minus all grants 

• net price 3: total price minus all grants and 

loans4

 

2Grants from “other sources” include employer tuition 

reimbursements, National Merit Scholarships, and grants from 

private sources such as religious, community, or professional 

organizations. 

3Net price 1 is not meant to be analogous to net tuition 1. Net 

tuition 1 (tuition minus federal grants) is a measure typically 

used to show the purchasing power of Pell Grants. Net price 1 

(price minus federal and state grants) is the amount 

institutions typically take into account in determining whether 

and how much institutional aid will be awarded. 

Net price 1, the price students would pay after 

subtracting federal and state grants from total 

price, is the price before the institution commits 

its own funds to institutional aid and before the 

student commits to a student loan. Net price 2, the 

price of attendance after subtracting all grants, is 

the amount students would pay without taking out 

a student loan. Net price 3 is the amount students 

and their families pay out of pocket after taking 

into account all sources of financial aid, including 

loans (both subsidized and unsubsidized).5

Changes in Net Tuition and Net Price 

After adjusting for inflation, the average total 

tuition increased between 1992–93 and 1999–

2000 across all institution types examined. When 

federal grants were subtracted from total tuition 

(net tuition 1), the average net tuition also 

increased over time except at public 2-year 

colleges (figure A). However, when all grants 

were subtracted from tuition (net tuition 2), no 

changes in average net tuition were detected for 

any institution type. These findings suggest that 

total grant aid increased enough to help students 

and families meet the average increase in total 

tuition between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. 

Consistent with the findings for college tuition, 

after taking inflation into account, the average 

total price of college attendance increased across 

all institution types, as did net price after 

subtracting federal and state grants (net price 1). 

After all grants were subtracted (net price 2), the 

price of attendance still increased for many 

 

4Work-study, which is awarded to about 5 percent of 

undergraduates, is not included in the net price calculations. 

Although work-study is officially financial aid, in practice 

work-study earnings are no different from the earnings 

received from any other job held while enrolled. 

5Does not include federal loans taken out by undergraduates’ 

parents, which are available only to dependent students’ 

parents, among whom about 6 percent took out such loans 

(Berkner 2002). 
Executive Summary

vi 

Figure A.—Overall changes in net tuition and net price for full-time, full-year undergraduates between 1992–93 and

Figure A.—1999–2000, by institution type

Net tuition 1 Net tuition 2 Net price 1 Net price 2 Net price 3 

(price minus (price minus 

(tuition minus (tuition minus federal and (price minus all grants 

federal grants) all grants) state grants) all grants) and loans) 

Public 4-year

 Research and doctoral + ns + + – 

 Comprehensive and baccalaureate + ns + ns – 

Private not-for-profit

 Research and doctoral + ns + + ns 

 Comprehensive and baccalaureate + ns + ns – 

Public 2-year ns ns + + ns 

+ Increase (p<0.05).

– Decrease (p<0.05).

ns No significant change detected.

NOTE: Comparisons were made after adjustments for inflation.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Net tuition Net price

undergraduates. Although the increase in total 

grants was enough to cover the increase in tuition 

for undergraduates at all institution types, it did 

not cover the increase in price (which includes 

living expenses) for undergraduates attending 

research and doctoral institutions (both public and 

private not-for-profit) and public 2-year colleges. 

Not until loans were also subtracted from price 

(net price 3) was no increase observed between 

the average amount students paid in 1992–93 and 

what they paid in 1999–2000 across all institution 

types. At public 4-year institutions and private 

not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions, net price 3 (total price minus all 

grants and loans) actually declined between 1992–

93 and 1999–2000. The decline in net price 3 is 

consistent with the observed increase in borrowing 

over the same time frame. In other words, 

compared with their peers in 1992–93, full-time 

students at public 4-year institutions and private 

not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions in 1999–2000 paid less out of pocket 

and increased their debt. 

Not all students were affected equally by 

changes in net price between 1992–93 and 1999–

2000. When all grants were taken into 

consideration (net price 2), students in the lowest 

income quartile experienced no significant change 

in net price for any institution type (i.e., no change 

in net price 2 was detected). In contrast, in nearly 

all cases, middle- and high-income students did 

experience an increase in price after all grants 

were subtracted (net price 2). In other words, 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, the increase in 

combined federal, state, institutional, and other 

grant aid awarded was sufficient to offset 

increases in the price of attendance for lowincome students, but not for middle- or highincome students.6 

The following discussion describes tuition and 

price changes for each institution type analyzed in 

the study. 

 

6The analysis could not take into account tax credits enacted 

in the 1990s to assist middle-income students, which may 

have reduced the burden of the increase in price for certain 

middle-income students and their families. 
 Executive Summary 

vii 

Public 4-Year Colleges and Universities 

Tuition changes. Adjusting for inflation, 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 the average total 

tuition at public research and doctoral institutions 

increased from about $4,000 to $4,800 (figure B). 

After subtracting federal grants (net tuition 1), 

net tuition rose from about $3,500 to $4,200. 

However, when all grants were subtracted from 

tuition (net tuition 2), no increase was detected in 

net tuition amounts (about $3,000). Similar 

patterns were observed for public comprehensive 

Figure B.—Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions, average total tuition and net

Figure B.—tuition in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars

*1992–93 and 1999–2000 amounts significantly different (p<0.05).

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public research and doctoral

4,000 3,500 3,000 3,200 4,200* 4,800*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Average total tuition Net tuition 1

minus federal grants

Net tuition 2

minus all grants

Amount

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate

2,900 2,300 1,900 2,100 2,700* 3,400*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Average total tuition Net tuition 1

minus federal grants

Net tuition 2

minus all grants

Amount

1992–93 1999–2000
Executive Summary

viii 

and baccalaureate institutions: total tuition 

increased from about $2,900 to $3,400; net tuition 

1 increased from about $2,300 to $2,700; but no 

difference was detected in net tuition 2 after all 

grants were subtracted (about $2,000). 

Price changes at public research and doctoral 

institutions. Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, 

the average total price of attendance at public 

research and doctoral institutions increased from 

about $12,200 to $13,600 (figure C). After 

Figure C.—Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions, average total price of

Figure C.—attendance and various net prices in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars

*1992–93 and 1999–2000 amounts significantly different (p<0.05).

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public research and doctoral

12,200 11,500 10,900

9,700 8,900*

13,600*

12,500*

11,300*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Average total price Net price 1

minus federal and state

grants

Net price 2

minus all grants

Net price 3

minus grants and loans

Amount

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate

8,900

7,700

9,300

10,300

9,300

6,900*

9,900*

11,200*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Average total price Net price 1

minus federal and state grants

Net price 2

minus all grants

Net price 3

minus grants and loans

Amount

1992–93 1999–2000
 Executive Summary 

ix 

subtracting federal and state grants (net price 1) or 

all grants (net price 2), net price still increased. 

However, when all grants and loans were 

subtracted from total price, the average amount 

that undergraduates paid out of pocket was 

actually less in 1999–2000 ($8,900) than in 1992–

93 ($9,700). 

Price changes at public comprehensive and 

baccalaureate institutions. At public 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, the 

total price of attendance increased for full-time 

undergraduates (from $10,300 to $11,200), as did 

net price 1 (price minus federal and state grants) 

(from $9,300 to $9,900). When all grants were 

subtracted (net price 2), however, no increase was 

detected in the average net price. As at public 

research and doctoral institutions, the net price of 

attendance declined between 1992–93 and 1999–

2000 (from $7,700 to $6,900) after subtracting all 

grants and loans from the total price of attendance 

(net price 3). 

Price changes by student income level. Both 

the average total price and net price 1 (price minus 

federal and state grants) increased across all 

income levels for students attending public 

research and doctoral institutions and for middleand high-income students attending public 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions. 

However, when all grants were subtracted (net 

price 2), no increase was detected for low-income 

students at either type of public 4-year institution. 

Increases, on the other hand, were observed for 

middle- and high-income students for net price 2 

(figure D). When loans and grants were subtracted 

(net price 3), no increases were detected for any 

income group at either type of institution, and 

declines in price due to increased borrowing were 

detected for low- and middle-income students. 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Colleges 

and Universities 

Tuition changes. After adjusting for inflation, 

average total tuition at private not-for-profit 

research and doctoral institutions increased from 

about $16,300 in 1992–93 to about $19,700 in 

1999–2000 (figure E). Tuition levels still 

increased between the two periods after federal 

grants were subtracted (net tuition 1). However, 

after all grants were subtracted (net tuition 2), no 

change was detected in average net tuition levels 

(about $12,000). Tuition amounts for private notfor-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions followed a similar pattern: average 

total tuition increased from about $12,300 to 

$14,000; net tuition increased from $11,500 to 

$13,200 after federal grants were subtracted; and 

no difference was detected in net tuition after all 

grants were subtracted (about $8,000). 

Price changes at private not-for-profit 

research and doctoral institutions. The total price 

of attending private not-for-profit research and 

doctoral institutions increased from about $25,200 

to $29,300 (figure F). The net price after 

subtracting federal and state grants (net price 1) 

also increased, as did the net price after 

subtracting all grants combined (net price 2). 

However, when loans and grants were subtracted 

from total price (net price 3), undergraduates paid 

roughly $18,000 in both 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

to attend private not-for-profit research and 

doctoral institutions. 

Price changes at private not-for-profit 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions. 

At private not-for-profit comprehensive and 

baccalaureate institutions, the average total price 

of attendance increased from about $19,600 to 
Executive Summary

x 

Figure D.—Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions, the net price after 

Figure D.—subtracting all grants (net price 2) in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartiles

*1992–93 and 1999–2000 amounts significantly different (p<0.05).

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public research and doctoral

9,100

10,800

12,000

9,100

12,800*

11,700*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Low-income

quartile

Middle-income

quartiles

High-income 

quartile

Amount

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate

7,500

9,200 10,100

7,500

10,800*

9,800*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Low-income

quartile

Middle-income

quartiles

High-income 

quartile

Amount

1992–93 1999–2000
 Executive Summary 

xi 

Figure E.—Among full-time, full-year undergraduates, attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, average

Figure E.—total tuition and net tuition in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars

*1992–93 and 1999–2000 amounts significantly different (p<0.05).

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral

16,300 15,800

11,700 12,500

19,700* 19,100*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Average total tuition Net tuition 1

minus federal grants

Net tuition 2

minus all grants

Amount

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate

12,300 11,500

8,100 7,800

13,200* 14,000*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Average total tuition Net tuition 1

minus federal grants

Net tuition 2

minus all grants

Amount

1992–93 1999–2000
Executive Summary

xii 

Figure F.—Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, average

Figure F.—total price of attendance and various net prices in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars

*1992–93 and 1999–2000 amounts significantly different (p<0.05).

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral

18,100 18,000

20,400

24,300 25,200

21,700*

28,100* 29,300*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Average total price Net price 1

minus federal and state

grants

Net price 2

minus all grants

Net price 3

minus grants

and loans

Amount

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate

19,600 18,100

15,100

12,900 11,600*

15,700

20,600* 22,200*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Average total price Net price 1

minus federal and state

grants

Net price 2

minus all grants

Net price 3

minus grants

and loans

Amount

1992–93 1999–2000
 Executive Summary 

xiii 

$22,200. The net price after subtracting federal 

and state grants (net price 1) was also higher in 

1999–2000 than in 1992–93. However, after all 

grants were subtracted from total price (net price 

2), no difference was detected in average net 

price. When loans and grants were subtracted 

from total price (net price 3), undergraduates paid 

less out of pocket to attend private not-for-profit 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions in 

1999–2000 ($11,600) than they did in 1992–93 

($12,900). 

Price changes by student income level.

Examining price changes by income level revealed 

that total price and net price 1 (minus federal and 

state grants) increased across all income levels for 

students attending private not-for-profit research 

and doctoral institutions. Total price and net price 

1 increased for middle- and high-income students 

attending comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions. When all grants were subtracted (net 

price 2), both middle- and high-income students at 

private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

institutions still faced an increase in price, while 

only middle-income students faced such an 

increase at private not-for-profit comprehensive 

and baccalaureate institutions (figure G). In other 

words, at private not-for-profit comprehensive and 

baccalaureate institutions, neither low-income nor 

high-income students faced a higher attendance 

price after all grants were subtracted, while at 

research and doctoral institutions, this was the 

case only for low-income students. After loans and 

grants were subtracted from total price (net price 

3), only high-income students attending research 

and doctoral institutions paid a higher price of 

attendance. 

Public 2-Year Colleges 

Tuition changes. Like colleges and universities 

in the 4-year sector, community colleges saw an 

increase in the average total tuition for full-time 

students between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, from 

about $1,400 to $1,600 after adjusting for inflation 

(figure H). However, unlike the pattern for 4-year 

institutions, when federal grants were subtracted 

from net tuition (net tuition 1), no change in 

tuition could be detected for community colleges. 

It appears, then, that federal grants increased 

enough to cover the increase in tuition between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000 for full-time students at 

community colleges. When all grants were 

subtracted (net tuition 2), net tuition at community 

colleges was roughly $900 for both years. 

Price changes. The average total price of 

attending community colleges for full-time 

students increased from about $8,000 to $9,100 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. Increases in 

price were also observed after federal and state 

grants were subtracted (net price 1), as well as 

after all grants were subtracted (net price 2). 

However, no difference was detected between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000 in the net price that 

community college students paid after loans and 

grants were subtracted from the total price (net 

price 3); full-time community college students 

paid roughly $7,000 in both 1992–93 and 1999–

2000. 

Price changes by student income level. When 

examining price changes by income levels, no 

change in net price was detected for low-income 

students for any net price measure. Middle-income 

students faced increases in net price 1 (minus 

federal and state grants) and net price 2 (minus all 

grants). No change was detected in net price 3 

(minus all grants and loans) for either low- or 

middle-income students. Only high-income 

students attending community colleges paid a 

higher net price after loans and grants were 

subtracted from total price (net price 3). 
Executive Summary

xiv 

Figure G.—Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, the net 

Figure G.—price after subtracting all grants (net price 2) in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by

Figure G.—income quartiles

*1992–93 and 1999–2000 amounts significantly different (p<0.05).

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral

15,400

18,200

23,400

16,000

26,000*

20,200*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Low-income

quartile

Middle-income

quartiles

High-income 

quartile

Amount

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate

11,300

13,800

18,800

11,500

19,500

15,600*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Low-income

quartile

Middle-income

quartiles

High-income 

quartile

Amount

1992–93 1999–2000
 Executive Summary 

xv 

Figure H.—Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year colleges, average total tuition, net

Figure H.—tuition, total price, and various net prices in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars

*1992–93 and 1999–2000 amounts significantly different (p<0.05).

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

8,000 7,300 7,100 6,800 7,000

7,900* 7,700*

9,100*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Average total price Net price 1

minus federal and state

grants

Net price 2

minus all grants

Net price 3

minus grants

and loans

Price measures

Amount

1992–93 1999–2000

Public 2-year

1,400 1,000 1,100 900 900 1,600*

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Average total tuition Net tuition 1

minus federal grants

Net tuition 2

minus all grants

Amount Tuition measures
Executive Summary

xvi 

Conclusions 

The results of this study indicate a measurable 

increase in the average total tuition and average 

total price of college attendance between 1992–93 

and 1999–2000 (after adjusting for inflation) 

across all included institution types. However, 

when all grants were subtracted from tuition (net 

tuition 2), no change could be detected in the 

average amount that full-time undergraduates paid 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. The same was 

not found for the net price of attendance. As 

reflected in net price 2, when living expenses and 

other nontuition costs were taken into account, all 

grants combined were not sufficient to offset the 

increase in price for those attending public or 

private not-for-profit 4-year research and doctoral 

institutions or public 2-year colleges. However, 

not all students were affected equally by the 

changes in price. The increase in all grants 

(combined federal, state, institutional, and other 

grant aid) appeared to be sufficient to offset 

increases in total price for those undergraduates 

who could least afford to pay an increase—lowincome students. This finding was consistent 

across all institution types included in the study. 

After loans and grants were subtracted from 

total price (net price 3), with two exceptions, no 

increases in net price were observed for any 

income group attending any institution type. The 

only students who paid a higher net price in 1999–

2000 than in 1992–93, once borrowing was taken 

into account, were undergraduates in the highest 

income quartile who attended either private notfor-profit 4-year research and doctoral institutions 

or public 2-year colleges. However, increased 

borrowing by low- and middle-income students at 

public 4-year institutions reduced the average net 

price they paid. These students paid less out of 

pocket in 1999–2000 than in 1992–93, but 

increased their loan debt. 
xvii 

Foreword 

This report uses data from the 1992–93 and 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS) to compare changes in net price over time, after adjusting for inflation. Both 

surveys are part of a series of NPSAS studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. 

NPSAS surveys include nationally representative samples of students from all backgrounds and 

types of postsecondary institutions. The surveys provide information on student expenses, 

tuition, financial aid, and academic and demographic characteristics. The NPSAS:2000 survey 

was selected for this study because it contains the most recent data available. NPSAS:93 was 

chosen because it is the earliest survey with data that are strictly comparable to the data in 

NPSAS:2000. 

The report describes changes in net tuition and net price between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

for five types of institutions: public 4-year research and doctoral institutions; public 4-year 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions; private not-for-profit 4-year research and doctoral 

institutions; private not-for-profit 4-year comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions; and 

public 2-year institutions. 

 
xviii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to acknowledge invaluable contributions to this report by C. Dennis 

Carroll, the NCES Project Monitor, who helped define the measures of net tuition and net price 

and Lutz Berkner of MPR Associates, who constructed the variables and reviewed the report at 

various stages. 

Paula Knepper at NCES provided a comprehensive methodological review of the draft 

report. Others also reviewed early drafts and provided thoughtful comments, including Carol 

Fuller (National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities), Daniel Goldenberg (ED 

Planning and Evaluation Service), Jacqueline King (American Council on Education), and Kent 

Phillippe (American Association of Community Colleges). 

The final report was reviewed again by Daniel Goldenberg and Jacqueline King. In 

addition, David Bergeron (Office of Postsecondary Education–OPE), Ilona Berkovits (NCES), 

Bernard Greene (NCES), and Ricardo Hernandez (Office of Vocational and Adult Education–

OVAE) also reviewed the final draft. Marilyn Seastrom (NCES) chaired the adjudication panel 

and provided the final methodological and substantive review. The authors are indebted to all of 

the reviewers, whose valuable comments and criticism strengthened and clarified the report. 
xix 

Table of Contents 

Page 

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

Foreword................................................................................................................................... xvii 

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... xviii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xxi 

List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xxv

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

Changes in Financial Aid Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 ............................................. 2 

Research on Net Price .......................................................................................................... 8 

Data and Definitions of Key Variables................................................................................... 13

Analysis Sample................................................................................................................... 13 

Adjustments for Inflation ..................................................................................................... 16 

Measures of Net Tuition, Net Price, and Other Key Variables ............................................ 16 

Changes in Net Tuition ............................................................................................................ 21

Public 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions ............................................................... 21 

Public 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions ............................................ 23 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions....................................... 24 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions.................... 26 

Public 2-Year Colleges......................................................................................................... 28 

Changes in Net Price ................................................................................................................ 31

Public 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions ............................................................... 31 

Public 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions ............................................ 33 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions....................................... 35 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions.................... 36 

Public 2-Year Colleges......................................................................................................... 38 

Summary and Conclusions...................................................................................................... 41

References................................................................................................................................. 45
Table of Contents 

xx 

Page 

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 49

Appendix B—Technical Notes................................................................................................. 57

Appendix C—Supplementary Tables...................................................................................... 65 
xxi 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1-A Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 

attending public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions 

who received federal grant and federal loan aid, and among aid recipients, the 

average amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartile and 

dependency status............................................................................................................ 4

1-B Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 

attending public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions 

who received federal grant and federal loan aid, and among aid recipients, the 

average amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartile, dependency 

status, and institution type............................................................................................... 5 

2-A Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 

attending public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions 

who received state grant aid, and among state grant aid recipients, the average 

amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartile and dependency 

status................................................................................................................................ 6 

2-B Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 

attending public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions 

who received state grant aid, and among state grant aid recipients, the average 

amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartile, dependency status, 

and institution type .......................................................................................................... 7 

3-A Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 

attending public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions 

who received institutional grant aid and institutional merit aid, and among 

institutional aid recipients, the average amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, 

by income quartile and dependency status ...................................................................... 9 

3-B Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 

attending public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions 

who received institutional grant aid and institutional merit aid, and among 

institutional aid recipients, the average amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, 

by income quartile and dependency status, by institution type ....................................... 10 
List of Tables 

xxii 

Table Page 

4-A Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and 

doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and 

dependency status............................................................................................................ 22 

4-B Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive 

and baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–

93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles 

and dependency status ..................................................................................................... 24 

5-A Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

research and doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 

1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need 

quartiles and dependency status ...................................................................................... 25 

5-B Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition 

amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and 

financial need quartiles and dependency status............................................................... 27 

6 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, 

average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 

1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and dependency status................. 28 

7-A Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and 

doctoral institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 

and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles 

and dependency status ..................................................................................................... 32 

7-B Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive 

and baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 

1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need 

quartiles and dependency status ...................................................................................... 34 

8-A Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

research and doctoral institutions, average total price and various measures of net 

price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial 

need quartiles and dependency status.............................................................................. 35 

8-B Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various 

measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by 

income and financial need quartiles and dependency status ........................................... 37 
List of Tables 

xxiii 

Table Page 

9 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, 

average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, 

in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and dependency 

status................................................................................................................................ 39 

Appendix Tables 

B-1 Standard errors for table 4-A: Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending 

public 4-year research and doctoral institutions, average total tuition, and net tuition 

amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and 

financial need quartiles and dependency status............................................................... 59 

C-1 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and 

doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity ............................... 65 

C-2 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive 

and baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–

93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity.................... 66 

C-3 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

research and doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 

1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity.......... 67 

C-4 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition 

amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and 

race/ethnicity ................................................................................................................... 68 

C-5 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, 

average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 

1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity...................................................................... 69 

C-6 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and 

doctoral institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 

and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity......................... 70 

C-7 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive 

and baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 

1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity.......... 71 
List of Tables 

xxiv 

Table Page 

C-8 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

research and doctoral institutions, average total price and various measures of net 

price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and 

race/ethnicity ................................................................................................................... 72 

C-9 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various 

measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender 

and race/ethnicity ............................................................................................................ 73 

C-10 Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, 

average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in 

constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity........................................................ 74 
xxv 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary Figures 

A Overall changes in net tuition and net price for full-time, full-year undergraduates 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, by institution type.................................................... vi 

B Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions, 

average total tuition and net tuition in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 

dollars.............................................................................................................................. vii 

C Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions, 

average total price of attendance and various net prices in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in 

constant 1999 dollars....................................................................................................... viii 

D Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions, the net 

price after subtracting all grants (net price 2) in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 

1999 dollars, by income quartiles.................................................................................... x 

E Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions, average total tuition and net tuition in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in 

constant 1999 dollars....................................................................................................... xi

F Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions, average total price of attendance and various net prices in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars............................................................................... xii 

G Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions, the net price after subtracting all grants (net price 2) in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartiles ............................................. xiv 

H Among full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year colleges, average 

total tuition, net tuition, total price, and various net prices in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, 

in constant 1999 dollars................................................................................................... xv 
List of Figures 

xxvi 

Figure Page 

Text Figures 

1 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in college full time for a full year in 1992–93 

and 1999–2000, by income quartiles and institution type............................................... 15 

2 Overall changes in tuition and price for full-time, full-year undergraduates between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000, by institution type, income, and need .................................... 42 
1 

Introduction 

Over the last two decades, college tuition in the United States has increased at a faster rate 

than both the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and median household income (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 1996, 1998; The College Board 2001a). According to the U.S. General 

Accounting Office (2000), in the early to mid-1990s, the percentage rate of growth in tuition 

costs at public institutions was higher than it was at private not-for-profit institutions (although 

the actual average dollar increase was lower). Between 1995–96 and 1999–2000, tuition and fees 

at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions continued to increase, while they stabilized at public 

2- and 4-year institutions. However, the most recent data indicate that public colleges raised 

tuition an average of 7.7 percent (compared with 5.5 percent for private colleges) between 2001 

and 2002 in response to the economic downturn (The College Board 2001a). In addition, room 

and board costs increased 6.6 percent at public colleges and 4.7 percent at private not-for-profit 

colleges. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) grew less than 3 percent. To 

address this problem, a Blue Ribbon Financial Aid Panel, made up of leaders from business, 

colleges, and nonprofit foundations, was formed (Brownstein 2001). The panel is holding forums 

nationwide and will submit a report to Congress in December 2002. 

While it has been well established that published tuition amounts, or tuition “sticker 

prices,” have gone up considerably over the last two decades, most students do not pay the 

sticker price but get financial aid subsidies from the federal and state governments and from the 

colleges they attend. Students receive financial aid in the form of loans, grants, or both to help 

them meet their college costs. This report, therefore, is concerned with what students actually pay 

to attend college and how the price of attendance has changed over time. The report analyzes 

changes in the net price of college attendance, after various forms of financial aid and inflation 

have been taken into consideration. By examining changes in net price, it is possible to determine 

to what extent the contribution of federal, state, and institutional aid has offset increases in 

college sticker prices. 

The goals of this study are 1) to analyze changes in net price from 1992–93 to 1999–2000 

and 2) to examine, within each type of institution, changes in net prices over time for students 

with various levels of income and financial need.1 The study is a follow-up to a recent 

 

1Also, tables presented in appendix C show net tuition and price measures by gender and race/ethnicity. However, price 

differences among these student characteristics primarily result from differential changes in income or financial need. 
Introduction 

2 

congressionally mandated NCES report by Cunningham et al. (2001a and 2001b), which 

examined trends in college costs and how costs relate to prices for specific types of institutions 

(hereafter referred to as “The Cost Study”). It is important to note the difference between what is 

meant by college cost and college price. The National Commission on the Cost of Higher 

Education (1998) formally distinguished between cost, defined as the amount it takes an 

institution to educate a student (i.e., the production cost per student), and price, what a student 

and his or her family actually pay to attend. Cost is only indirectly related to price because 

institutions have multiple sources of revenue, among which tuition (price) is one source. 

Changes in Financial Aid Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

The two NPSAS surveys used to examine changes in net price represent periods before and 

after major changes in federal financial aid awards were implemented as a result of the 1992 

Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA-92).2 The most significant change that 

resulted from this reauthorization was that dependent students became eligible for unsubsidized 

student loans. Reauthorization also took place in 1998, but policy changes in aid eligibility were 

relatively minor. Because changes in financial aid awards (federal, state, and institutional) are 

reflected in net price changes between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, it is important to understand 

how the distribution of these types of aid changed during the period under study. 

Federal Student Aid

Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, the HEA-92 mandated several changes that affected the 

amounts and types of federal aid that students were eligible to receive. Modifications in the 

federal need analysis for calculating the expected family contribution (EFC)3 led to a lower 

average EFC for most dependent students, particularly for those in middle- and high-income 

families. In particular, because home equity was no longer considered an asset, more middle- and 

high-income families qualified for need-based aid. In addition, parents with $50,000 or less 

 

2Every 5 to 6 years, Congress revises the provisions in the Higher Education Act that establish federal financial aid programs 

(e.g., the Pell Grant program and the Stafford loan programs) and policies (e.g., federal need analysis methodology). This is 

commonly known as “Reauthorization.” Generally, program and policy changes are implemented in the academic year 

immediately following Reauthorization. By 1999–2000, all changes prescribed by the 1992 Reauthorization had gone into effect. 

Reauthorization in 1998 resulted in more minor modifications to the Higher Education Act, such as reducing student loan interest 

rates. These changes would have been in effect in the 1999–2000 academic year. 

3The EFC measures a student’s or family’s ability to pay for a postsecondary education. The EFC is calculated from information 

provided by students (and their parents, if they are dependent) on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which 

is required of all students applying for federal need-based aid. “Need analysis” is the process by which the EFC is calculated.

Separate formulas for calculating the EFC are applied to dependent students, independent students without dependents, and 

independent students with dependents. Need analysis takes into account income, assets, family size, and the number of family 

members concurrently enrolled in college. Students may qualify for need-based aid if their EFC (i.e., ability to pay) is lower than 

their student budget. 
Introduction 

3 

annual income or those who filed a short federal income tax form were not required to report 

assets. The minimum contribution from dependent students was eliminated, and the amount 

expected from student earnings was reduced. All of these changes resulted in more dependent 

students from middle- and high-income families qualifying for federally subsidized loans. 

The HEA-92 also replaced the Supplemental Loans to Students (SLS) program with 

unsubsidized (Stafford) loan programs, allowing more dependent and independent students 

access to unsubsidized loans. HEA-92 also increased the borrowing limits for the Stafford loan 

program. The HEA-92 merged two need analysis formulas—one for Pell Grants and one for the 

other federal student financial aid programs—into one used for all the federal student financial 

aid programs. Finally, the HEA-92 resulted in two changes for independent students’ EFC 

calculation: the elimination of the $1,200 minimum EFC requirement for single independent 

students with no children and the reclassification of married independent students with no 

children into the same category as single independent students with no children. This 

reclassification resulted in a higher average EFC for married independent students without 

children and a lower EFC for single independent students without children. 

Federal Grant Aid 

The federal Pell Grant program is the major federal grant aid program that offers aid to 

students and families with demonstrated financial need. The HEA-92 eliminated the limit on the 

Pell Grant award for eligible students (before 1992, the maximum Pell Grant could not exceed 60 

percent of the student’s total price of attendance). However, the change had little effect on Pell 

award amounts because only a very small percentage of students receive Pell amounts that 

exceed 60 percent of the total price of attendance. Other changes in Pell Grant program 

requirements resulted in single independent students without dependents receiving fewer Pell 

Grants.4 Despite these changes, there was virtually no change in either the percentage of 

undergraduates receiving a grant or the amount received in the time period under study (The 

College Board 2000). Among the undergraduates included in this study—full-time, full-year 

students attending public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, or public 2-year institutions—no 

change was detected in the percentage who received a federal grant between 1992–93 and 1999–

2000 (28 percent and 29 percent, respectively), but a slight increase was observed in the average 

amount awarded (from $2,400 to $2,500) (tables 1-A and 1-B).

 

4Before the 1992 Reauthorization, the Pell Grant was awarded to students based on a Pell Grant index (an index that was 

separate and different from the EFC). The Pell Grant index was more favorable to independent students than other students. After 

the 1992 Reauthorization, the separate Pell Grant index was eliminated and Pell Grant eligibility was based on the EFC. As a 

result, independent students have been treated the same as all other students in the awarding of Pell Grants since the 1992–93 

academic year. 
Introduction 

4 

Table 1-A.—Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 attending public 

Table 1-A.—4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions who received federal grant 

Table 1-A.—and federal loan aid, and among aid recipients, the average amount received, in constant 1999 

Table 1-A.—dollars, by income quartile and dependency status

1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 

 Total 27.8 29.4 $2,392 $2,539 30.0 42.7 $3,887 $4,750 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 69.9 71.6 2,641 2,785 47.5 48.2 3,806 5,094 

 Middle quartiles 19.7 18.9 1,864 2,021 31.6 45.3 3,928 4,626 

 Top quartile 1.7 0.9 1,674 1,640 14.7 30.9 4,020 4,487 

Dependency status

 Dependent 19.9 22.6 2,236 2,430 26.3 42.1 3,535 4,189 

 Independent 52.5 50.3 2,562 2,690 41.7 44.6 4,572 6,378 

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

federal loan federal loan

Percent received

federal grant

Average federal Percent received Average federal

grant amount

Federal Loans 

Reflecting in part the changes made by HEA-92 in loan eligibility and the increased loan 

limits, both the percentage of undergraduates who borrowed and the amounts borrowed increased 

markedly over the time frame studied (tables 1-A and 1-B). The percentage of full-time 

undergraduates who relied on federal student loans to help pay for their college education 

increased from 30 to 43 percent overall. Borrowing increased from 31 to 47 percent at public 4-

year institutions and from 44 to 58 percent at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. After 

adjusting for inflation, the average amount borrowed increased from $3,900 to $4,800 overall. 

No change in the percentage borrowing was detected for students in the lowest income quartile—

roughly half borrowed in both survey years—but the likelihood of borrowing increased for both 

middle-income undergraduates (from 32 to 45 percent) and high-income undergraduates (from 

15 to 31 percent). The average amount borrowed increased for undergraduates in each income 

quartile. 
Introduction 

5 

1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 

 Total 27.2 28.9 $2,342 $2,482 30.8 47.4 $3,695 $4,737 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 69.4 72.4 2,583 2,736 52.4 58.3 3,705 5,150 

 Middle quartiles 18.7 17.8 1,783 1,890 32.9 49.9 3,681 4,546 

 Top quartile 1.6 0.6 1,881 (#) 10.3 29.8 3,710 4,430 

Dependency status

 Dependent 20.1 22.0 2,115 2,350 25.5 44.3 3,246 4,069 

 Independent 53.0 53.5 2,644 2,676 49.7 58.4 4,507 6,536 

 Total 27.0 27.5 $2,772 $2,723 44.0 58.2 $4,385 $5,135 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 73.4 76.8 3,077 3,097 65.1 62.6 4,285 5,582 

 Middle quartiles 23.5 18.8 2,143 1,971 55.8 65.3 4,492 5,086 

 Top quartile 1.5 1.2 1,859 (#) 23.9 43.5 4,336 4,731 

Dependency status

 Dependent 21.3 23.0 2,692 2,662 41.3 59.1 3,991 4,625 

 Independent 52.3 47.6 2,911 2,856 56.7 54.4 5,695 7,623 

 Total 30.3 32.4 $2,098 $2,481 11.4 16.2 $2,851 $3,361 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 67.6 66.0 2,298 2,595 19.0 18.2 2,782 3,431 

 Middle quartiles 18.6 21.3 1,741 2,278 9.5 17.1 2,984 3,386 

 Top quartile 2.9 1.1 (#) (#) 5.9 9.9 (#) (#) 

Dependency status

 Dependent 17.4 23.5 1,782 2,314 5.3 12.9 2,188 2,528 

 Independent 51.9 47.7 2,241 2,624 21.7 22.0 3,092 4,209 

#Too small to report.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public 2-year

Table 1-B.—Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 attending public 

Public 4-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Table 1-B.—4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions who received federal grant 

Table 1-B.—and federal loan aid, and among aid recipients, the average amount received, in constant 1999 

Table 1-B.—dollars, by income quartile, dependency status, and institution type

Percent received Average federal Percent received Average federal

federal grant grant amount federal loan federal loan
Introduction 

6 

State Financial Aid 

States may use either a student’s and his or her family’s ability to pay (need-based) or a 

student’s achievement (merit-based) as eligibility criteria for state aid. A shift in state financial 

aid programs from need- to merit-based aid occurred in the 1990s, when Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Carolina 

implemented merit-based financial aid programs (Salingo 2001). As a result of these new 

programs, the cumulative percentage increase in state merit-based aid awards more than tripled 

between 1992 and 1998, while there was only a slight percentage increase in state need-based aid 

(The College Board 2001b, figure 9). 

Among the students included in this study, the percentage of undergraduates receiving state 

grants rose from 17 to 22 percent (tables 2-A and 2-B), and the amount they received increased 

slightly from $1,800 to $2,000. While higher percentages of middle-income students (15 to 22 

percent) and high-income students (4 to 7 percent) received state aid, no change was detected for 

low-income students, among whom 33 percent received state aid in 1992–93 and 36 percent did 

so in 1999–2000.

Table 2-A.—Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 attending public 

Table 2-A.—4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions who received state grant aid,

Table 2-A.—and among state grant aid recipients, the average amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, by

Table 2-A.—income quartile and dependency status

1993 2000 1993 2000 

 Total 16.7 22.4 $1,768 $1,975 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 32.7 36.4 1,865 2,052 

 Middle quartiles 15.4 21.7 1,662 1,948 

 Top quartile 4.4 7.4 1,716 1,695 

Dependency status

 Dependent 14.4 21.2 1,887 2,089 

 Independent 24.0 26.1 1,545 1,690 

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Percent received Average state

state grant grant amount
Introduction 

7 

Table 2-B.—Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 attending public 

Table 2-B.—4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions who received state grant aid,

Table 2-B.—and among state grant aid recipients, the average amount received, in constant 1999 dollars, by

Table 2-B.—income quartile, dependency status, and institution type

1993 2000 1993 2000 

 Total 15.4 21.4 $1,590 $1,945 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 32.0 36.6 1,646 2,076 

 Middle quartiles 13.4 19.6 1,481 1,836 

 Top quartile 3.6 7.6 1,857 1,762 

Dependency status

 Dependent 12.8 20.4 1,669 2,015 

 Independent 24.5 25.3 1,449 1,744 

 Total 22.1 26.1 $2,386 $2,613 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 40.7 40.8 2,756 2,773 

 Middle quartiles 27.4 30.3 2,192 2,635 

 Top quartile 6.5 7.8 1,665 1,796 

Dependency status

 Dependent 20.1 25.4 2,391 2,653 

 Independent 31.5 29.5 2,367 2,457 

 Total 13.3 20.6 $1,036 $1,183 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 26.3 32.4 1,077 1,286 

 Middle quartiles 9.9 17.8 964 1,062 

 Top quartile 1.6 6.3 (#) (#) 

Dependency status

 Dependent 10.0 17.8 1,148 1,210 

 Independent 19.0 25.4 937 1,150 

#Too small to report.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public 4-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Public 2-year

Percent received Average state

state grant grant amount
Introduction 

8 

Institutional Grant Aid 

Colleges and universities typically offer institutional grant aid to incoming students based 

on their financial need, academic achievement, or both. Changes in how institutional grant aid is 

awarded with respect to need or merit have important implications for understanding how college 

affordability differs across different groups of students over time. 

Although tuition levels have continued to increase in recent years among many institutions 

in the private not-for-profit sector, increases in institutional aid may have reduced the impact of 

this trend, at least for some students (Lapovsky 2001; Redd 2000). Similarly, in the public sector, 

both institutional and other private grant aid grew at a faster rate than did either federal or state 

grant support between 1989–90 and 1999–2000 (American Association of State Colleges and 

Universities 2001). 

From the institutional standpoint, there are important reasons for offering additional grant 

aid to students: to assist those with financial need, to attract meritorious students, to achieve 

diversity among the student body, or to meet institutional enrollment goals (Lee and Clery 1998; 

Redd 2000). As a result, students attending the same institution may be charged very different 

prices (McPherson and Schapiro 2001). 

As shown in table 3-A, among all undergraduates included in this study, increases in both 

the percentage and amounts of institutional grants were found: 23 percent received an average of 

$4,200 in 1992–93, and 31 percent received an average of $4,700 in 1999–2000. As shown in 

table 3-B, the percentage of undergraduates who received institutional grant aid at private notfor-profit 4-year institutions increased from 47 to 59 percent, and the average amount received 

rose from $6,100 to $7,300. The percentage receiving merit-based institutional grant aid in these 

same institutions increased from 18 percent to 31 percent, and the likelihood of receiving such 

grants increased across all income levels: from 17 to 25 percent for the lowest income quartile, 

from 22 to 34 percent for the middle-income quartiles, and from 16 to 31 percent for the highest 

income quartile. The amount of merit aid, however, increased measurably only for high-income 

students (from $4,900 to $6,200), while no such change was detected for students in the lower 

income quartiles.

Research on Net Price 

Increases in financial aid have helped families meet the growing price of a postsecondary 

education. McPherson and Schapiro (2001) found that after adjusting for inflation, increases in 

net tuition (defined as tuition minus federal, state, and institutional grants and federal loan 

subsidies) were smaller than increases in sticker price. However, researchers have also argued 
Introduction 

9 

Table 3-A.—Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 attending public 

Table 3-A.—4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions who received institutional 

Table 3-A.—grant aid and institutional merit aid, and among institutional aid recipients, the average amount

Table 3-A.—received, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartile and dependency status

1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 

 Total 22.8 30.6 $4,237 $4,741 9.9 14.4 $3,504 $4,072 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 27.6 34.0 3,583 3,631 9.3 11.8 2,747 3,235 

 Middle quartiles 23.5 30.5 4,716 5,181 10.6 15.1 3,801 4,041 

 Top quartile 19.0 26.6 4,393 5,390 9.9 16.3 3,817 4,842 

Dependency status

 Dependent 24.7 33.3 4,588 5,230 11.5 16.7 3,640 4,276 

 Independent 17.4 22.2 2,716 2,486 5.2 7.4 2,586 2,660 

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Average

Average

institutional merit

grant amount

Percent received institutional

merit grant

 institutional

grant amount

Percent received

institutional grant

that funding for grant aid has not increased enough to counterbalance the real growth in sticker 

prices over time (McPherson and Schapiro 2001; The College Board 2001b). The National 

Commission on the Cost of Higher Education (1998) reported that while net price did not 

increase as substantially as did sticker price, it nevertheless grew at a faster rate than did median 

income and disposable per capita income during the late 1980s and early 1990s at all three types 

of colleges and universities studied (public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year 

institutions). These results depend, however, on how net price is being defined. While increases 

in grant aid may not have matched the average increases in total price, Berkner (2000) reported 

that student borrowing increased by about the same amount as did tuition between 1989–90 and 

1995–96. And for the period analyzed in the current study, borrowing increased for full-time 

students from roughly 30 percent to just over 40 percent (Berkner 2000; Berkner et al. 2002). 

Not all students have been affected equally by net price changes. Previous studies have 

found that some students, particularly those from low-income families, may not have benefited 

over time (Cunningham and O’Brien 1998), while others, particularly high-income students 

receiving institutional aid, have done so (Redd 2000). Cunningham and O’Brien found that while 

low-income students continued to pay the lowest net prices, they also experienced the highest 
Introduction 

10 

Table 3-B.—Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates in 1992–93 and in 1999–2000 attending public 

Table 3-A.—4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-year institutions who received institutional 

Table 3-A.—grant aid and institutional merit aid, and among institutional aid recipients, the average amount

Table 3-A.—received, in constant 1999 dollars, by income quartile and dependency status, by institution type

1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 1993 2000 

 Total 16.3 23.4 $2,290 $2,747 8.1 10.9 $2,741 $2,895 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 21.9 29.2 1,770 2,392 7.8 9.5 2,175 2,709 

 Middle quartiles 16.6 23.2 2,628 2,829 8.8 11.7 3,159 2,936 

 Top quartile 11.0 17.1 2,529 3,228 7.1 11.1 2,589 2,994 

Dependency status

 Dependent 16.6 23.9 2,468 2,899 8.9 12.0 2,899 3,025 

 Independent 15.4 21.4 1,624 2,143 5.2 6.9 1,800 2,094 

 Total 47.3 58.9 $6,119 $7,284 17.8 30.8 $4,716 $5,278 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 54.5 56.9 5,832 6,717 16.5 25.0 3,766 4,325 

 Middle quartiles 60.4 65.0 6,659 7,676 22.4 33.6 5,090 5,111 

 Top quartile 33.9 51.0 5,552 7,009 15.6 31.2 4,902 6,183 

Dependency status

 Dependent 49.1 63.7 6,429 7,683 19.3 33.5 4,853 5,512 

 Independent 39.6 37.6 4,413 4,253 11.7 18.8 3,694 3,406 

 Total 9.5 15.6 $1,185 $866 5.0 4.5 $1,338 $1,347 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 13.4 24.9 1,020 741 5.6 5.5 (#) (#) 

 Middle quartiles 7.6 11.7 1,448 979 4.8 4.0 (#) 1,696 

 Top quartile 8.6 9.6 (#) (#) 5.1 4.1 (#) (#) 

Dependency status

 Dependent 10.9 15.9 1,368 917 7.2 5.9 1,331 1,316 

 Independent 7.5 15.0 737 771 1.4 2.1 (#) (#) 

#Too small to report.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public 2-year

institutional

grant amount

Percent received

institutional grant

institutional

merit grant merit grant amount

Public 4-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

institutional

Average Average Percent received
Introduction 

11 

percentage increases in net price from 1989–90 to 1995–96 at most of the institutions included in 

their study. 

In light of these previous studies, this study was designed to analyze changes in net price 

within specific institution types using the most recent NPSAS data available. The net price 

measures take into account changes in grant aid as well as changes in borrowing. The years 

analyzed reflect periods before and after major changes in federal financial aid policy. Finally, 

the study analyzes different groups of students with respect to income and financial need. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
13 

Data and Definitions of Key Variables 

Data from the 1992–93 and 1999–2000 administrations of the National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS) were used in this analysis to compare changes in net price over time 

after adjusting for inflation. Conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, the NPSAS 

surveys include nationally representative samples of students from all backgrounds and types of 

postsecondary institutions. These surveys provide information about student expenses, tuition, 

financial aid, and academic and demographic characteristics. The NPSAS:2000 survey contains 

the most recent data available, and NPSAS:93 was chosen because it is the earliest survey with 

data that are strictly comparable to the data in NPSAS:2000. In NPSAS:90, for example, the 

nontuition student expenses were derived from student-reported data rather than from the 

institution-reported student budgets that were used for need analysis. Consequently, the price of 

attendance, net price, and need variables in NPSAS:90 are not comparable with those in the later 

NPSAS surveys. 

Analysis Sample 

Consistent with The Cost Study, this study analyzed changes in net prices separately for 

public and private not-for-profit 4-year colleges and universities. Public institutions generally 

have substantially lower tuition than institutions in the private sector because they receive direct 

appropriations from the states to support programs and meet operating costs. Within the public 

and private sectors, two aggregate Carnegie classifications—research and doctoral institutions, 

and comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions—were analyzed separately. However, tuition at 

any particular institution type may vary considerably from the average for that institution type. In 

addition to trends in net price for 4-year colleges and universities, this study analyzed such trends 

for public 2-year colleges. The study excluded students attending for-profit institutions and other 

less-than-4-year institutions, as well as those attending more than one institution. About 14 

percent of undergraduates in NPSAS:93 and 13 percent in NPSAS:2000 were excluded based on 

these criteria.5 The exclusions were made to maintain consistency with The Cost Study and 

because the sample sizes for the excluded categories in the NPSAS surveys are relatively small 

and would have yielded few meaningful comparisons. 

 

51992–93 and 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000), Undergraduate Data 

Analysis Systems. 
Data and Definitions of Key Variables

14 

To ensure that the amount of tuition and fees students paid and the amount of financial aid 

they were awarded were comparable, only full-time students attending for a full academic year 

(i.e., at least 9 months) were included in each year’s sample. Among undergraduates in 4-year 

institutions, roughly 50 to 60 percent attended full time for a full year, depending on the 

institution sector and NPSAS year (figure 1). However, because public 2-year colleges 

accommodate a wide range of students with differing educational goals and daily schedules, most 

attend on a part-time basis. Therefore, a relatively small percentage of public 2-year students 

were included in this analysis (14 percent in NPSAS:93 and 19 percent in NPSAS:2000 attended 

full time for a full year). While part-time students make up a large percentage of the 

undergraduate student population, particularly in public 2-year colleges, the price of attendance 

for part-time and/or part-year students varies by the number of courses taken and the number of 

months enrolled, which cannot be controlled for in the analysis. For ease of presentation, fulltime, full-year students are referred to as “full-time students” throughout the report. 

The restricted analysis sample may have certain inevitable biases. A student’s choice of 

college and whether to attend full time or part time may be based on his or her ability to pay the 

price of attendance. A student’s tolerance for debt, for example, may determine whether that 

student attends part time and works while enrolled or attends full time and borrows. Also, 

changes in financial aid eligibility over the period studied may have influenced students’ 

decisions. While the study does not directly address changes in patterns of decision making 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, figure 1 shows that a greater percentage of undergraduates 

attended full time for a full year in 1999–2000 than in 1992–93 across all selected institution 

types. For both public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, the increase in full-time 

attendance was found for students in the low- and middle-income quartiles, but not for those in 

the high-income quartile. Among those attending public 2-year institutions, full-time attendance 

increased across all income quartiles. These findings suggest that the increase in the price of 

attendance was not associated with a corresponding decline in full-time attendance. On the 

contrary, a greater percentage of low- and middle-income students attended full time in 1999–

2000 than in 1992–93. It is possible that the increase in both borrowing (particularly by middleincome students) and the amounts borrowed allowed a greater percentage of these students to 

attend on a full-time basis. 

In summary, the analysis sample includes full-time, full-year students attending one of the 

following institution types: 

• Public 4-year research and doctoral institutions; 

• Public 4-year comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions; 

• Private not-for-profit 4-year research and doctoral institutions; 
 Data and Definitions of Key Variables 

15 

Figure 1.—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in college full time for a full year in 1992–93 and

Figure 1.—1999–2000, by income quartiles and institution type

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit 4-year

57

46

54 52

66 61 58 61

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low-income

quartile

Middle-income

quartile

High-income 

quartile

Total

Percent

Public 2-year

20 14 9 14

28

19 12 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low-income

quartile

Middle-income

quartile

High-income 

quartile

Total

Percent

1992–93 1999–2000

Public 4-year

52 45 50 49

59 54 51 55

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low-income

quartile

Middle-income

quartile

High-income 

quartile

Total

Percent
Data and Definitions of Key Variables

16 

• Private not-for-profit 4-year comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions; or 

• Public 2-year institutions. 

Adjustments for Inflation 

In this report, all comparisons between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 on tuition, net tuition, total 

price of attendance, and net price of attendance were made using constant 1999 dollars based on 

the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) table provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. The average CPI was 140.3 in 1992 (for the 1992–93 academic year) and 166.6 

in 1999 (for the 1999–2000 academic year). The multiplier used to convert 1992 into 1999 

dollars was 1.188. Standard errors were adjusted for inflation in the same manner. 

Measures of Net Tuition, Net Price, and Other Key Variables 

The following section describes the key variables that were used in the report. In particular, 

it describes how and why particular net tuition and net price measures were constructed and how 

financial need levels were defined. 

Net Tuition 

Tuition, including any required fees,6 is the basic price that colleges charge all students for 

instruction and related services. These charges may be partially or completely offset by grants 

from the institution, states, the federal government, or other sources. Two measures of net tuition

are examined in this analysis: 

net tuition 1: total tuition minus federal grants. This measure shows how much federal grant 

programs (primarily Pell) alone would reduce tuition if no institutional or state grants had been 

available.7 The federal Pell and SEOG Grants target the lowest income students. For example, 

while about one-quarter of all undergraduates received a federal grant (averaging $2,100) in 

1999–2000, 60 percent of low-income dependent students received one (Berkner et al. 2002). 

Thus, changes in federal grant aid award would primarily affect the net tuition paid by lowincome students. 

net tuition 2: total tuition minus all grants. This measure shows the amount of tuition after the 

combination of all grants (from federal, state, institutional, and other sources) has been 

 

6Use of the term “tuition” as opposed to “fees” is arbitrary. The terms can be interchangeable to a large extent. Some institutions 

only charge tuition, some only fees, and some both. 

7Institutional and state grants are the major types of grant aid other than federal aid, but there are also other types of grants and 

scholarships that students receive. 
 Data and Definitions of Key Variables 

17 

subtracted. Grants from sources other than the federal or state government or the institution 

include employer tuition reimbursements, National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private 

sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations. Net tuition 2 will show 

whether, and by how much, tuition increases have been offset by increases in total grant aid. 

Net Price of Attendance 

Tuition is only part of the total price that students and their families pay for a college 

education. In addition to tuition, the total price of attendance includes books and supplies, rent, 

food, and other living expenses. These nontuition expenses may vary considerably among 

students attending the same institution depending on their living arrangements. In fact, at some 

postsecondary institutions, living expenses are higher than the price of tuition. Only about onefourth of all 4-year college undergraduates live on campus and pay room and board. Typically, 

nontuition expenses represent about two-thirds of the total price at public 4-year institutions and 

somewhat less than half of the total price at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. 

In student budgets, the total price of attendance is estimated by colleges based on average 

tuition and living expenses for different types of students. Student budgets—which include 

primarily tuition and fees, room and board, transportation, books and supplies, and personal 

expenses—are intended to inform students and their families of the average amount that they can 

expect to pay. They are also used as the basic total price in determining a student’s eligibility for 

need-based financial aid. The amount of room and board expenses varies depending on the type 

of living arrangement: on-campus, off-campus, or with parents or relatives. The price of living in 

on- or off-campus housing will be higher than that of living at home. 

The net price of attendance is based on the student budget minus various types and 

combinations of financial aid. This study examined net price at various stages, following typical 

need-based financial aid packaging models. Such models generally start with the outside funds 

first and use institutional funds last and only when student need has not been met. If the student 

is eligible for financial aid, an aid package will start with a federal Pell Grant and a state grant. 

After that, the amount and type of aid are largely discretionary. Institutional aid is offered as 

grants or loans (or both), either need- or merit-based, or a combination of both. 

Although work-study income is technically considered financial aid because work-study 

wages are heavily subsidized by the federal government, in practice earnings from work-study 

are no different from the earnings of students in any other job held while enrolled. If one were to 

include work-study, which affects a relatively small group of students,8 all types of student 

 

8About 5 percent of the 1999–2000 undergraduates received work-study (Berkner et al. 2002). 
Data and Definitions of Key Variables

18 

employment would have to be included in the analysis. Because of the wide range of work 

strategies that students use to help offset their educational expenses, work-study is not considered 

in this analysis. Taking into account all forms of financial aid except work-study suggests the 

following net price measures: 

net price 1: total price minus federal and state grants.9 This is the net price before the institution 

commits its own funds and the student commits to a student loan. It shows what the student and 

family would have to pay without any institutional aid and without borrowing. 

net price 2: total price minus all grants. This is the net price before the student has to commit to a 

student loan. It shows what must be paid out of pocket without borrowing. 

net price 3: total price minus all grants and loans (both subsidized and unsubsidized).10 This is 

the net price that must be paid out of pocket. 

Financial Need 

Though financial need and income are highly related, they are not necessarily equivalent. 

Under federal need analysis methodology, low-income students are not necessarily considered 

students with high need, nor are middle- or high-income students always considered those with 

lesser need. Need is largely dependent on the student budget (which includes living expenses as 

well as tuition and fees). Institutions usually determine a student’s need by subtracting the 

student’s EFC from the total student budget.11 Consider, for example, the case of a dependent 

student from a middle-income family who is enrolled at a public 2-year institution and commutes 

from home. Assuming that the total price of attendance (tuition plus living expenses) is lower 

than the EFC, this student would not have any financial need. However, if that same student were 

to enroll at a private not-for-profit 4-year institution and live on campus, the total price of 

attendance may then be high enough to exceed the family’s EFC. In this case, even though the 

family’s EFC was the same in both circumstances, this student would be considered to be 

financially needy at one institution, but not at the other, due to differences in the total price of 

attendance at each institution. 

 

9Net price 1 is not meant to be analogous to net tuition 1. Net tuition 1 (tuition minus federal grants) is a measure typically used 

to show the purchasing power of federal grant aid, primarily Pell Grants. Net price 1 (price minus federal and state grants) is the 

amount institutions typically take into account in determining whether and how much institutional aid will be awarded. 

10Does not include federal loans taken out by undergraduates’ parents, which are available only to dependent students’ parents, 

among whom about 6 percent took out such loans (Berkner 2002). 

11Under federal need analysis methodology, the EFC is calculated using parent and student income, assets, and family size, 

among other factors. In some cases, institutions will use a separate formula when calculating eligibility for additional 

institutionally funded financial support. 
 Data and Definitions of Key Variables 

19 

Need is defined in this report using the standard financial aid definition: the student budget 

minus the EFC.12 This definition indicates the amount of the student budget that should be met 

by financial aid if the funds are available. Those in the lowest need quartile are considered 

students with limited need, or in the case of public institutions, those with no remaining need. 

The financial need quartiles that were used in this study for each institution type were based on 

students who were enrolled full time for a full year within that institution type (see the glossary in 

appendix A for detailed definition). 

 

12This calculation results in negative need for some students. Need was recoded to zero for these students. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21 

Changes in Net Tuition 

Consistent with earlier reports, this study showed an increase in average total tuition 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 across all institution types examined after adjusting for 

inflation. In addition, when federal grants were subtracted from total tuition (net tuition 1), the 

average net tuition also increased over time at all types of institutions except public 2-year 

colleges. However, when all grants were subtracted from tuition (net tuition 2), no changes in net 

tuition were detected for any institution type. This suggests that total grant aid increased enough 

to help students and their families meet the average increase in total tuition that occurred between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000. The following sections describe changes in tuition for specific types of 

colleges and universities. 

Public 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions 

The average total tuition charged to undergraduate students enrolled full time in public 4-

year research and doctoral institutions increased from about $4,000 to $4,800 between 1992–93 

and 1999–2000 (table 4-A). Similarly, net tuition 1 (minus federal grants) increased from $3,500 

to $4,200. However, no difference was detected in net tuition 2 (minus all grants) over the same 

period. This finding suggests that, while total tuition increased between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, 

no change in college affordability, in terms of average tuition and fees, was detected for full-time 

students in public 4-year research and doctoral institutions when all grant aid was considered. 

Net Tuition Changes by Income and Financial Need 

Table 4-A also shows the average net tuition charged to full-time students across income 

and need groups for those enrolled in public 4-year research and doctoral institutions. While net 

tuition 1 (minus federal grants) increased for every income group between 1992–93 and 1999–

2000, middle-income students experienced a larger increase than did low-income students. After 

federal grants were considered, middle-income students faced a greater financial burden, in terms 

of increasing tuition over time, compared with their low-income counterparts. This finding might 

be expected since federal grants are awarded primarily to low-income students. 

While no increase in net tuition 2 (minus all grants) was detected overall, when individual 

income groups were examined separately, net tuition 2 increased for both middle- and high- 
Changes in Net Tuition

22 

Table 4-A.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and doctoral 

Table 1-A.—institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in 

Table 1-A.—constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and dependency status

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

 Total $3,997 $4,772 $3,544 $4,208 $2,973 $3,193 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 3,575 4,251 2,122 2,507 1,498 1,574 

 Middle quartiles 3,734 4,742 3,490 4,485 2,809 3,331 

 High quartile 4,441 5,284 4,413 5,273 3,982 4,408 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 5,107 5,861 3,745 4,244 2,831 2,865 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 3,452 4,322 3,126 3,954 2,595 2,990 

 No need (bottom quartile) 3,630 4,551 3,627 4,543 3,220 3,742 

Dependency status

 Dependent 4,104 4,933 3,812 4,522 3,211 3,404 

 Independent 3,473 4,053 2,258 2,805 1,824 2,249 

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Net tuition 23 Total tuition1 Net tuition 12

Public research and doctoral 

income students, but not for low-income students. Therefore, the increase in all grants combined 

appeared to offset the increases in total tuition for low-income students, while students in the 

middle- and high-income quartiles had to rely on additional sources, such as student loans, to 

compensate for the tuition increase. 

In addition to considering income, this study examined changes in college tuition between 

groups over time for students with different levels of financial need. As revealed in table 4-A, 

students with no need or moderate need faced increases in net tuition 1 (minus federal grants) 

and net tuition 2 (minus all grants), but no differences were detected for those with the highest 

need. 

In summary, for full-time students attending public research and doctoral institutions, the 

increase in federal grants alone was not sufficient for students in any income group to completely 
Changes in Net Tuition 

23 

offset the increase in tuition. All income groups experienced increases in average net tuition after 

subtracting federal grant aid. Moreover, middle-income students faced larger increases than did 

low-income students. However, federal grants offset increases in tuition for students in the 

highest need quartile (i.e., no increase in net tuition 1 was detected for the high-need group). 

When all grants were taken into consideration, the combined sources of federal, state, and 

institutional grants were still not enough to offset the increases in net tuition for middle- and 

high-income students, nor for those with no need or moderate financial need. All grants 

combined, however, did offset the increases in tuition faced by low-income and high-need 

students. 

Public 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions 

Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, full-time undergraduates enrolled at public 4-year 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions faced increases in average total tuition and net 

tuition 1 (minus federal grants). Table 4-B shows that the average total tuition was $2,900 in 

1992–93 and $3,400 in 1999–2000. Net tuition 1 increased from about $2,300 to $2,700, but no 

increase was detected for net tuition 2 (minus all grants). As with students in public research and 

doctoral institutions, increases in combined federal, state, and institutional grants overall 

appeared to offset the increases in tuition between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 for those enrolled at 

public comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions. 

Net Tuition Changes by Income and Financial Need 

Table 4-B also presents changes in average net tuition amounts by income and financial 

need quartiles between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. Despite the overall increase in net tuition 1 

(minus federal grants), when examining income quartiles separately, an increase in net tuition 1 

was detected only for students in the middle-income quartiles, but not for those in either the lowincome or high-income quartile.13 For net tuition 2 (minus all grants), no increase was detected 

for students in any income quartile. 

With respect to financial need, no difference in average net tuition was detected for those 

with the highest financial need when federal grants were subtracted (net tuition 1), but this was 

not the case for those with no need or moderate need: these two groups faced increases in net 

tuition 1. However, for net tuition 2 (minus all grants), no increase was detected for students in 

any need group. 

 

13While there appears to be an increase in net tuition 1 for high-income students, the difference was not statistically significant. 
Changes in Net Tuition

24 

Table 4-B.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive and 

Table 4-B.—baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999– 

Table 4-B.—2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and dependency status 

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

 Total $2,896 $3,362 $2,275 $2,669 $1,947 $2,076 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 2,719 3,110 1,202 1,414 914 970 

 Middle quartiles 2,861 3,370 2,527 3,014 2,105 2,336 

 High quartile 3,261 3,724 3,234 3,720 3,007 3,112 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 3,276 3,934 1,762 2,155 1,394 1,477 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 2,721 3,097 2,153 2,585 1,776 2,004 

 No need (bottom quartile) 2,884 3,308 2,878 3,307 2,649 2,775 

Dependency status

 Dependent 3,017 3,470 2,565 2,978 2,222 2,318 

 Independent 2,536 3,042 1,409 1,751 1,135 1,359 

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate 

In summary, when examining the changes in net tuition for full-time students with different 

income and need levels who attended public 4-year comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions, it was apparent that the increase in federal grants offset the increase in average 

tuition for low-income and high-need students (i.e., no difference in net tuition 1 was detected for 

these groups). Combined federal, state, and institutional grants provided enough financial aid to 

students of all income and need levels to meet the increase in average total tuition (i.e., no 

difference was detected in net tuition 2 for any income or need group). 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions 

Among full-time undergraduates enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year research and 

doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition 1 (minus federal grants) rose between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000. As shown in table 5-A, the average total tuition increased from about 
Changes in Net Tuition 

25 

$16,300 to $19,700, and net tuition 1 increased from about $15,800 to $19,100. No statistical 

change in net tuition 2 (minus all grants), however, could be detected over the same period 

($11,700 and $12,500, respectively). Therefore, for private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

colleges and universities, the overall increase in total grant aid was sufficient to help students 

meet the increase in total tuition between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. 

Table 5-A.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year research

Table 4-A.—and doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–

Table 4-A.—2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and dependency status

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

 Total $16,279 $19,689 $15,817 $19,071 $11,660 $12,519 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 15,482 18,283 13,463 15,965 7,059 7,233 

 Middle quartiles 15,894 19,499 15,559 19,168 9,436 11,016 

 High quartile 16,777 20,585 16,766 20,547 14,566 16,653 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 18,387 23,403 17,021 21,740 9,057 9,707 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 15,961 19,151 15,653 18,748 11,703 12,664 

 Low need (bottom quartile) 14,656 17,312 14,646 17,310 13,008 15,095 

Dependency status

 Dependent 16,566 20,262 16,207 19,702 11,982 12,761 

 Independent 14,013 14,693 12,725 13,577 9,092 10,411 

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

Net Tuition Changes by Income and Financial Need 

An examination of net tuition measures separately for income and financial need quartiles 

shows that, across all levels of income and need, full-time students attending private not-forprofit research and doctoral institutions faced higher average net tuition between 1992–93 and 

1999–2000 after federal grants were subtracted (net tuition 1) (table 5-A). In addition, for 
Changes in Net Tuition

26 

students with high financial need, the increase was greater than that for those with moderate 

need. On the other hand, for net tuition 2 (minus all grants), no increase could be detected for 

students in the low-income quartile, nor for those in either the moderate- or high-need quartiles. 

In other words, when all grants were considered, no difference in average net tuition could be 

detected for low-income students, nor for those students with moderate or high need, while those 

with higher income and low need did face increases. 

In summary, for full-time students attending private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

institutions, all income and financial need groups experienced increases in net tuition between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000 when only federal grants were considered (net tuition 1). Furthermore, 

those with the highest financial need faced larger average increases in net tuition 1 than those 

with moderate need. When all grants were considered (net tuition 2), the average increases in 

total grant aid offset increases in net tuition for low-income students as well as for those with 

moderate or high need, while their higher-income and lower-need counterparts needed to rely on 

additional financial resources, such as student loans, to meet the tuition increases. 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions 

At private not-for-profit 4-year comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, full-time 

undergraduate students experienced increases in average total tuition and in net tuition 1 (minus 

federal grants) between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 (table 5-B). However, no increase was detected 

for net tuition 2 (minus all grants), suggesting that increases in federal, state, and institutional 

grant aid had offset the average increases in total tuition for students attending these institutions. 

Net Tuition Changes by Income and Financial Need 

When examining changes in net tuition by income and financial need, the average net 

tuition minus federal grants (net tuition 1) increased for students in the middle- and high-income 

quartiles between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, but an increase was not detected for low-income 

students (table 5-B).14 When levels of financial need were examined separately, no difference 

was detected in net tuition 1 for the lowest need group, while those with higher need did 

experience an increase. It is not clear why students in the lowest need group, who typically 

correspond to the highest income students, experienced no measurable increase, while those with 

higher need did. No change was detected for net tuition 2 (minus all grants) for any income or 

financial need group. 

 

14Low-income students did not experience an increase in the average total tuition, so increases in net tuition 1 or 2 would not be 

expected. 
Changes in Net Tuition 

27 

Table 5-B.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

Table 5-B.—comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in

Table 5-B.—1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and

Table 5-B.—dependency status 

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

 Total $12,310 $14,001 $11,476 $13,248 $8,064 $7,820 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 10,621 11,308 8,285 8,851 4,340 4,340 

 Middle quartiles 11,825 14,266 11,272 13,930 6,862 7,578 

 High quartile 13,895 15,863 13,860 15,849 11,601 11,270 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 16,070 18,036 14,486 16,679 8,074 7,933 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 10,342 12,319 9,388 11,511 6,334 6,897 

 Low need (bottom quartile) 12,222 13,341 12,192 13,311 10,504 9,579 

Dependency status

 Dependent 13,178 14,873 12,528 14,260 8,901 8,277 

 Independent 8,937 9,757 7,396 8,326 4,751 5,595 

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate 

In summary, for full-time students attending private not-for-profit 4-year comprehensive 

and baccalaureate institutions, the average net tuition minus federal grants (net tuition 1) 

increased for middle- and high-income students between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, while no 

change was detected for low-income students. When all grants were taken into consideration (net 

tuition 2), no differences in average net tuition could be detected across all levels of income and 

financial need. Increases in federal, state, and institutional grants combined offset the increases in 

total tuition for all income and need groups among those attending private comprehensive and 

baccalaureate institutions. 
Changes in Net Tuition

28 

Public 2-Year Colleges 

At public 2-year institutions, average total tuition for full-time students rose from about 

$1,400 to $1,600 between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 (table 6). However, when federal aid was 

subtracted from tuition (net tuition 1), no increase was detected in average net tuition. Thus, 

unlike the findings for students in the 4-year sector, for full-time community college students, 

increases in federal grant aid appeared to offset increases in total tuition. No change was detected 

in net tuition 2 (minus all grants) between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. 

Net Tuition Changes by Income and Financial Need 

When taking income into consideration, no changes were detected for either net tuition 1 

(minus federal grants) or net tuition 2 (minus all grants) for any income group (table 6). 

Table 6.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, average total 

Table 6.—tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income 

Table 6.—and financial need quartiles and dependency status

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

 Total $1,391 $1,580 $1,009 $1,135 $873 $927 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 1,398 1,542 496 628 392 456 

 Middle quartiles 1,400 1,627 1,187 1,348 1,035 1,110 

 High quartile 1,425 1,512 1,400 1,501 1,249 1,311 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 1,688 1,838 769 828 673 618 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 1,307 1,556 950 1,130 792 913 

 No need (bottom quartile) 1,384 1,401 1,384 1,400 1,237 1,206 

Dependency status

 Dependent 1,367 1,629 1,163 1,298 1,021 1,066 

 Independent 1,433 1,491 732 843 605 676 

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Public 2-year 
Changes in Net Tuition 

29 

However, when examining financial need, an increase in net tuition 1 (minus federal grants) was 

detected for students with moderate financial need, but no differences were detected for those 

with no need or high need. For net tuition 2, no change was detected for any financial need 

group. 

In summary, in contrast to the findings for 4-year colleges and universities, for full-time 

students enrolled in public 2-year colleges, federal grants increased enough to cover the increase 

in total tuition. This was found to be the case for students at all income levels, with the exception 

of students with moderate financial need, who did experience an increase in total tuition and net 

tuition 1. Taking into account grants from all sources (net tuition 2), no change in net tuition was 

detected for any income or financial need group. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
31 

Changes in Net Price 

Paralleling the patterns for college tuition, the total price of college attendance increased 

across all institution types, as did net price after subtracting federal and state grants (net price 1). 

However, when all grants were subtracted from total price (net price 2), full-time students faced 

an increase in net price between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 in research and doctoral institutions 

(both public and private not-for-profit) and in public 2-year colleges. No such increase was 

detected for students attending comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions (either in the public 

or private not-for profit sector), however. Thus, while the increase in total grants between 1992–

93 and 1999–2000 was sufficient to cover the increase in tuition at all institution types, for many 

undergraduates—those attending research and doctoral universities and 2-year colleges—all 

grants combined did not cover student living expenses when added to the total amount students 

pay to attend college. Not until loans were factored into price (net price 3) was no difference 

detected in the net price students paid to attend college in 1999–2000, compared with the net 

price paid in 1992–93, after adjusting for inflation. Not only was no increase detected in net price 

after including loans, in some cases, the net price measure declined between the two periods, 

indicating a substantial increase in borrowing. The following discussion analyzes price changes 

for each institution type. 

Public 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions 

The changes in different price measures between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 are shown in 

table 7-A for full-time students attending public 4-year research and doctoral institutions. Total 

price for these students increased from $12,200 to $13,600, net price 1 (minus federal and state 

grants) increased from $11,500 to $12,500, and net price 2 (minus all grants) increased from 

$10,900 to $11,300. However, when all grants and loans were subtracted from total price (net 

price 3), full-time students actually paid less, on average, in 1999–2000 than in 1992–93. These 

findings suggest that all grants combined were not sufficient to offset increases in the total price 

of attendance and that student loans contributed to a reduction in net price over the period 

studied. 
Changes in Net Price

32 

Table 7-A.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and doctoral 

Table 7-A.—institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000,

Table 7-A.—in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and dependency status

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

 Total $12,247 $13,581 $11,491 $12,500 $10,876 $11,344 $9,684 $8,874 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 11,992 13,257 9,765 10,392 9,108 9,095 6,831 5,655 

 Middle quartiles 12,024 13,535 11,548 12,868 10,811 11,662 9,507 9,105 

 High quartile 12,592 13,933 12,483 13,770 12,012 12,819 11,588 11,345 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 14,143 15,966 12,036 13,318 11,114 11,452 8,450 7,321 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 11,568 12,742 10,989 11,900 10,409 10,929 9,152 8,493 

 No need (bottom quartile) 11,506 12,909 11,425 12,718 10,945 11,864 10,870 10,678 

Dependency status

 Dependent 12,203 13,503 11,666 12,606 11,010 11,374 10,117 9,314 

 Independent 12,436 13,938 10,639 12,020 10,208 11,209 7,588 6,878 

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public research and doctoral 

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34

Net Price Changes by Income and Financial Need 

For full-time students at public research and doctoral institutions, net price 1 (minus federal 

and state grants) increased for all income and need groups. However, middle-income students 

experienced larger average increases than did low-income students (table 7-A). There was also 

growth in net price 2 (minus all grants) for students in middle- and high-income quartiles, but no 

such increase was detected for students in the low-income quartile. Similarly, no measurable 

change was detected in net price 2 for the highest need students, while those with no need or 

moderate need experienced increases. This finding suggests that the increase in all grants was 

sufficient for both low-income students and those with high need to meet the increase in total 

price of attendance between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. 
Changes in Net Price 

33 

When all forms of financial aid, including student loans, were factored into price (net price 

3), declines in average price between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 were detected for students in lowand middle-income quartiles, but not for those in the high-income quartile. Similarly, students 

with high or moderate need experienced reductions in net price 3, while this pattern did not apply 

to those with no need. 

In summary, after federal and state grants were subtracted from the total price of attendance 

(net price 1), the average price of attendance increased for full-time students in public research 

and doctoral institutions in all income and need groups. In addition, middle-income students 

faced larger increases than did low-income students. When all grants were considered (net price 

2), middle- and high-income students still faced an increase in average net price, while none was 

detected for low-income students. Similarly, only students with either no need or moderate need 

experienced increases in net price 2, while no increase was detected for those with high need. 

Finally, when loans were factored into price (net price 3), reductions in the average price of 

attendance were observed for low- and middle-income students, as well as for those with 

moderate and high need, but similar reductions in price were not detected for either high-income 

students or those without need. The findings indicate that all grants helped offset increases in the 

price of attendance for low-income and high-need students and that student loans were required 

to meet the increase in total price of attendance for both middle- and high-income students. 

Public 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions 

For full-time students enrolled at public 4-year comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions, the total average price of attendance increased from $10,300 to $11,200 between 

1992–93 and 1999–2000, and net price 1 (minus federal and state grants) increased from $9,300 

to $9,900 (table 7-B). However, during the same period, increases in all grants (net price 2) 

helped students meet the increases in average total price (i.e., no statistical change was detected 

for net price 2). Furthermore, the increase in student borrowing, combined with the increases in 

all grants (net price 3), contributed to a decline in what students paid for a college education 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000—i.e., total price minus all grants and student loans (net price 

3) decreased from $7,700 to $6,900 over the time frame studied. 

Net Price Changes by Income and Financial Need 

When considering the effect of federal and state grants alone, or all grants combined, on the 

net price of attendance, no change in either net price 1 (minus federal and state grants) or net 

price 2 (minus all grants) was detected for low-income students between 1992–93 and 1999–

2000. However, among students in the middle- and high-income quartiles, there were increases 
Changes in Net Price

34 

in both net price measures over time. When financial need was examined, students in both the 

low- and high-need quartiles experienced an increase in net price 1, while no such increase was 

detected for those with moderate need; for net price 2, students with no need faced increases, 

while no change was detected for those with moderate or high need. 

When student loans were factored into the net price of attendance (net price 3), no increase 

in average price was detected for students in any income or financial need group. Furthermore, 

reductions in net price 3 were experienced by low- and middle-income students, as well as for 

those with moderate or high need. 

In summary, among full-time students attending public comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions, federal and state grants were sufficient to offset average increases in total price 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 for low-income students and for students with moderate need. 

Table 7-B.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive and

Table 7-B.—baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93

Table 7-B.—and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and 

Table 7-B.—dependency status

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate

 Total $10,255 $11,176 $9,258 $9,938 $8,914 $9,287 $7,704 $6,851 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 10,265 10,884 7,899 8,097 7,521 7,528 5,709 4,546 

 Middle quartiles 10,191 11,177 9,623 10,441 9,238 9,754 7,995 7,283 

 High quartile 10,416 11,600 10,335 11,485 10,081 10,797 9,572 9,275 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 12,016 13,138 9,757 10,368 9,322 9,430 6,913 5,390 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 9,722 10,342 8,752 9,268 8,394 8,750 7,081 6,500 

 No need (bottom quartile) 9,529 10,882 9,476 10,750 9,207 10,124 9,127 8,858 

Dependency status

 Dependent 9,923 10,974 9,182 9,987 8,831 9,283 7,930 7,295 

 Independent 11,207 11,802 9,445 9,791 9,126 9,297 6,999 5,524 

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34
Changes in Net Price 

35 

Likewise, when all grants were considered (net price 2), no increase in average price was 

detected for either low-income or high-need students, but the remaining students did face 

increases in price. Finally, when loans were factored into price (net price 3), no increases were 

observed for students in any income or need group, and reductions in average price were found 

for low- and middle-income students as well as for moderate- and high-need students. 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Research and Doctoral Institutions 

As illustrated in table 8-A, the average total price of attendance, net price 1 (minus federal 

and state grants), and net price 2 (minus all grants) all increased over time for full-time students 

in private not-for-profit 4-year research and doctoral institutions. Between 1992–93 and 1999– 

Table 8-A.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year research 

Table 2-B.—and doctoral institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 

Table 4-B.—1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles and dependency 

Table 4-B.—status

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

 Total $25,222 $29,274 $24,342 $28,083 $20,351 $21,713 $18,121 $18,039 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 24,239 28,106 20,904 24,489 15,436 15,984 11,597 10,853 

 Middle quartiles 24,996 29,016 24,129 27,955 18,170 20,249 15,275 15,934 

 High quartile 25,739 30,096 25,696 29,975 23,385 25,953 21,977 23,620 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 28,287 33,694 26,021 30,768 18,531 19,100 14,611 13,777 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 24,711 28,518 24,018 27,589 20,233 21,791 17,674 17,842 

 Low need (bottom quartile) 23,058 26,467 22,975 26,436 21,247 24,099 20,726 22,569 

Dependency status

 Dependent 25,423 29,796 24,677 28,683 20,607 21,912 18,596 18,301 

 Independent 23,608 24,514 21,624 22,622 18,269 19,899 14,257 15,662 

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34
Changes in Net Price

36 

2000, the total price of attendance increased from $25,200 to $29,300; net price 1 (minus federal 

and state grants) increased from $24,300 to $28,100; and net price 2 (minus all grants) increased 

from $20,400 to $21,700. These increases suggest that students were dependent on additional 

resources such as student loans to pay for their college education. The examination of net price 3 

(price minus all grants and loans) indicates that students borrowed enough to compensate for the 

average increase in the price of attendance (i.e., no changes could be detected in net price 3 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000). 

Net Price Changes by Income and Financial Need 

The examination of differences within income and need quartiles revealed that net price 1 

(minus federal and state grants) increased for students in all income and financial need groups. 

Net price 2 (minus all grants) increased for middle- and high-income students and for students 

with low and moderate need, but no change was detected for either low-income or high-need 

students. 

When student loans were factored into net price (net price 3), only high-income students 

faced an increase in price, while no change was detected for students in low- or middle-income 

quartiles or for students in any need group. 

In summary, for full-time students attending private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

institutions, federal and state grants did not offset increases in the price of attendance (net price 

1) for any income or need group. When all grants were taken into consideration (net price 2), no 

change in average price was detected for either low-income students or those with high need. 

Finally, when loans were factored into price (net price 3), only high-income students paid a 

higher average price of attendance, while no such change in price was observed for middle- or 

low-income students or for students in any financial need group. 

Private Not-for-Profit 4-Year Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions 

Table 8-B shows comparisons between different average price measures in 1992–93 and 

1999–2000 for full-time students attending private not-for-profit 4-year comprehensive and 

baccalaureate institutions. The average total price of attendance increased from $19,600 to 

$22,200, and net price 1 (minus federal and state grants) increased from $18,100 to $20,600. 

However, when all grants were considered (net price 2), no change in price was detected overall. 

This finding suggests that the increase in total grant aid helped students meet the increase in total 

price of attendance from 1992–93 to 1999–2000. Furthermore, when loans were taken into 
Changes in Net Price 

37 

Table 8-B.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

Table 5-B.—comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various measures of net 

Table 5-B.—price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need

Table 5-B.—quartiles and dependency status

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

 Total $19,587 $22,240 $18,119 $20,599 $15,098 $15,675 $12,924 $11,606 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 17,913 18,946 14,323 15,028 11,261 11,450 8,326 7,320 

 Middle quartiles 19,045 22,652 17,816 21,349 13,792 15,574 11,063 11,077 

 High quartile 21,247 24,290 21,049 24,082 18,834 19,508 17,605 16,253 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 23,917 27,376 21,215 24,520 15,634 16,629 12,298 11,227 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 17,552 20,133 15,896 18,475 13,260 14,412 10,679 10,292 

 Low need (bottom quartile) 19,073 21,256 18,911 20,919 17,197 17,273 16,592 14,671 

Dependency status

 Dependent 20,108 22,935 18,890 21,480 15,600 15,986 13,752 12,131 

 Independent 17,561 18,731 15,119 16,269 13,084 14,146 9,596 9,024 

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34

consideration (net price 3), students paid less on average in 1999–2000 ($11,600) than they did in 

1992–93 ($12,900). 

Net Price Changes by Income and Financial Need 

When examining the trends by income and financial need quartiles among students 

attending private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, net price 1 (minus 

federal and state grants) increased for both middle- and high-income students, but not for lowincome students.15 With respect to financial need, net price 1 increased across all need quartiles.

 

15The average total price of attendance did not increase significantly for low-income students in private not-for-profit 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions. 
Changes in Net Price

38 

When all grants were taken into consideration (net price 2), no increase in price was detected for 

any income or need group except for those in the middle-income quartiles. 

When student loans were factored into price (net price 3), borrowing offset the increase in 

average total price of attendance for all students, regardless of income or need. That is, no 

increase in price was detected for any income or need quartile, and students with the lowest need 

experienced a reduction in price.

In summary, among full-time undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, both middle- and high-income students faced 

increases in price after government grants and after all grants were subtracted. These students had 

to rely on loans to help them meet the increase in the price of attendance. No increase in price 

was detected for any income or need group after loans were subtracted from price, and those with 

low need experienced a reduction in price. 

Public 2-Year Colleges 

For full-time students enrolled in public 2-year institutions, the changes in different price 

measures between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 are shown in table 9. Average price increases were 

detected for the total price of attendance, net price 1 (minus federal and state grants), and net 

price 2 (minus all grants). However, no change in price was detected for net price 3 (minus all 

grants and loans), indicating that students attending public 2-year colleges relied on loans to meet 

the increase in total price of attendance. 

Net Price Changes by Income and Financial Need 

Increases in both net price 1 (minus federal and state grants) and net price 2 (minus all 

grants) were detected for middle- and high-income students, as well as for students with no need. 

However, no increase in either net price 1 or net price 2 was detected for low-income students 

and those with moderate or high need. When student loans were factored into price (net price 3), 

only high-income students and students with no need paid more in 1999–2000 than in 1992–93. 

In summary, among full-time students attending public 2-year institutions, the increase in 

federal and state grants between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 was sufficient to offset the increases in 

total price over the same period for low-income students and for those with moderate or high 

financial need. When student loans were taken into account, middle-income students were able to 

meet the increase in price of attendance. Only high-income students and students with no need 

still faced an increase in price. 
Changes in Net Price 

39 

Table 9.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, average total 

Table 3.—price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by

Table 3.—income and financial need quartiles and dependency status 

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

 Total $8,048 $9,081 $7,272 $7,949 $7,072 $7,673 $6,758 $7,030 

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 8,253 8,958 6,416 6,699 6,238 6,391 5,712 5,674 

 Middle quartiles 8,037 9,146 7,609 8,415 7,397 8,151 7,130 7,481 

 High quartile 7,973 9,122 7,934 9,036 7,704 8,786 7,562 8,370 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 9,798 10,992 7,994 8,538 7,846 8,207 7,133 6,774 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 7,585 8,405 6,864 7,285 6,626 6,999 6,336 6,467 

 No need (bottom quartile) 7,405 8,541 7,359 8,439 7,172 8,223 7,136 8,074 

Dependency status

 Dependent 7,633 8,557 7,217 7,723 7,019 7,437 6,905 7,097 

 Independent 8,769 10,068 7,373 8,357 7,164 8,099 6,502 6,910 

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public 2-year

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41 

Summary and Conclusions 

This report examined several measures of net tuition and net price to determine what 

students paid to attend college once financial aid was taken into consideration and how the 

amount they paid changed over time between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. As was found in earlier 

studies, both average total tuition and average total price of attendance increased markedly 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 for undergraduates attending full time for a full year after 

adjusting for inflation. When considering various measures of net tuition and net price, the 

increases in financial aid grants from all sources (including federal, state, and institution) offset 

the increases in tuition and price for many groups of students and generally did so in favor of 

those who could least afford to pay the increases—low-income students and those with the 

highest financial need. For example, as shown in figure 2, once all grants, including federal, 

state, and institutional grants, were subtracted from tuition (net tuition 2), no difference in net 

tuition overall could be detected for any institution type. When examining separate income and 

need levels, however, among those attending research and doctoral institutions (both public and 

private not-for-profit), middle-income and high-income students and those with the lowest need 

did face increases. 

When examining the price of attending college, which includes students’ living expenses in 

addition to tuition and fees, after subtracting federal and state grants from the total price (net 

price 1), students still faced a higher average price of attendance in 1999–2000 than they did in 

1992–93. This was found for all institution types analyzed in the study. However, when 

examining income quartiles separately, among undergraduates attending either comprehensive 

and baccalaureate institutions (public and private not-for-profit) or public 2-year colleges, no 

differences in net price 1 were detected for low-income students. In other words, once federal and 

state grants were taken into consideration, grant aid packages for low-income students attending 

comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions and low-income students enrolled in public 2-year 

colleges matched the increase in total price. 

When institutional and other grants were subtracted from the total price (net price 2), no 

change overall was detected in average net price for students in comprehensive and baccalaureate 

institutions (public and private not-for-profit). Across all institution types, no increases in net 

price were detected for students in the lowest income quartile or for those students with the 

highest need. In other words, the increase in combined federal, state, and institutional total grant 
Summary and Conclusions

42 

Figure 2.—Overall changes in tuition and price for full-time, full-year undergraduates between 1992–93 and 

Table 10.—1999–2000, by institution type, income, and need

Net tuition 1 Net tuition 2 Net price 1 Net price 2 Net price 3

(tuition minus (tuition (price minus (price (price minus

Total federal minus Total federal and minus grants

tuition grants) all grants) price state grants) all grants) and loans)

Public 4-year

 Research and doctoral + + ns + + + –

Income

 Low + + ns + + ns –

 Middle + + ++ + + –

 High + + + + + + ns

Need

 High + ns ns + + + ns

 Moderate + + + + + + –

 Low + + + + + ns –

 Comprehensive and baccalaureate + + ns + + ns –

Income

 Low + ns ns + ns ns –

 Middle + + ns + + + –

 High ns ns ns + + + ns

Need

 High + ns ns + + ns ns

 Moderate + + ns + ns ns –

 Low + ns ns + + + –

Private not-for-profit 4-year

 Research and doctoral + + ns + + + ns

Income

 Low + + ns + + ns ns

 Middle + + + + + + ns

 High + + ++ + + +

Need

 High + + ns + + + ns

 Moderate + + ns + + + ns

 Low + + + + + ns ns

 Comprehensive and baccalaureate + + ns + + ns –

Income

 Low ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

 Middle + + ns + + + ns

 High + + ns + + ns ns

Need

 High + + ns + + ns ns

 Moderate + + ns + + ns ns

 Low ns ns ns + + ns –

See footnotes at end of table.

Net tuition Net price
Summary and Conclusions 

43 

Figure 2.—Overall changes in tuition and price for full-time, full-year undergraduates between 1992–93 and 

Table 10.—1999–2000, by institution type, income, and need—Continued

Net tuition 1 Net tuition 2 Net price 1 Net price 2 Net price 3

(tuition minus (tuition (price minus (price (price minus

Total federal minus Total federal and minus grants

tuition grants) all grants) price state grants) all grants) and loans)

Public 2-year + ns ns + + + ns

Income

 Low ns ns ns + ns ns ns

 Middle + ns ns + + + ns

 High ns ns ns + + + +

Need

 High ns ns ns + ns ns ns

 Moderate + + ns + ns ns ns

 Low ns ns ns + + + +

+ Increase (p<0.05).

– Decrease (p<0.05).

ns No significant change detected.

NOTE: Comparisons were made after adjustments for inflation.

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

(NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Net tuition Net price

aid appeared to be sufficient to offset increases in net price between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 for 

low-income students and those with the highest need. 

With a few exceptions, once loans and grants were subtracted from total price (net price 3), 

no increases in net price could be detected for any income or need group across all institutions, 

with some experiencing reductions in price. Students attending any public 4-year institution and 

those attending private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions borrowed 

enough to reduce the average price of attendance between 1992–93 and 1999–2000. Those 

attending private not-for-profit research and doctoral institutions or public 2-year colleges 

borrowed enough to offset the increase in the total price over the same period (i.e., no change 

was detected in net price after subtracting all grants and loans). Looking within income levels, 

however, high-income students attending private not-for-profit research and doctoral institutions 

or public 2-year colleges paid more on average in 1999–2000 than undergraduates did in 1992–

93. In other words, once all financial aid, including loans, was subtracted from the total price of 

attendance, high-income students attending private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

institutions and high-income and no-need students attending public 2-year colleges were the only 

full-time undergraduates who paid more to attend college in 1999–2000 than did those with 

comparable income and need in 1992–93. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
45 

References 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State 

Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (2001). Student Charges and Financial Aid: 2000–

2001. Washington, DC: Author. 

Berkner, L. (2000). Trends in Undergraduate Borrowing: Federal Student Loans in 1989–90, 

1992–93, and 1995–96 (NCES 2000–151). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Berkner, L., Berker, A., Rooney, K., and Peter, K. (2002). Student Financing of Undergraduate 

Education: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002–167). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Brownstein, A. (2001, November 2). Tuitions Rise Sharply, and This Time Public Colleges Lead 

the Way. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A52–A54. 

The College Board. (2000). Trends in College Pricing: 2000. Washington, DC: The College 

Entrance Examination Board. 

The College Board. (2001a). Trends in College Pricing: 2001. Washington, DC: The College 

Entrance Examination Board. 

The College Board. (2001b). Trends in Student Aid: 2001. Washington, DC: The College 

Entrance Examination Board. 

Cunningham, A.F., and O’Brien, C. (1998). Do Grants Matter? Student Grants and College 

Affordability. Boston: The Education Resources Institute. 

Cunningham, A.F., Wellman, J.V., Clinedinst, M.E., and Merisotis, J.P. (2001a). Study of 

College Costs and Prices, 1988–89 to 1997–98 (NCES 2002–157) (Vol. 1). U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Cunningham, A.F., Wellman, J.V., Clinedinst, M.E., and Merisotis, J.P. (2001b). Study of 

College Costs and Prices, 1988–89 to 1997–98 (Vol. 2: Commissioned Papers) (NCES 
References

46 

2002–158). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Lapovsky, L. (2001). Institutional Financial Health: Tuition Discounting and Enrollment 

Management. In A.F. Cunningham, J.V. Wellman, M.E. Clinedinst, and J.P. Merisotis (Eds.), 

Study of College Costs and Prices, 1988–89 to 1997–98 (NCES 2002–158) (Vol. 2). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Lee, J.B. (2001). Undergraduates Enrolled With Higher Sticker Prices (NCES 2001–171). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Lee, J.B., and Clery, S. (1998). Institutional Aid: 1992–93 (NCES 98–094). U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

McPherson, M., and Schapiro, M.O. (2001). Issues of Cost and Price in Higher Education: 

Observations on Needed Data and Research. In A.F. Cunningham, J.V. Wellman, M.E. 

Clinedinst, and J.P. Merisotis (Eds.), Study of College Costs and Prices, 1988–89 to 1997–98

(NCES 2002–158) (Vol. 2). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. (1998). Straight Talk About College 

Costs and Prices. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. 

Redd, K. (2000). Discounting Toward Disaster: Tuition Discounting, College Finances, and 

Enrollments of Low-Income Undergraduates. USA Group Foundation, New Agenda Series 

2(2). 

Salingo, J. (2001, January 19). Questioning the Merit of Merit Scholarships. The Chronicle of 

Higher Education, p. A20. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). Higher Education: Tuition Increasing Faster Than 

Household Income and Public Colleges’ Costs (GAO/HEHS-96-154). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Higher Education: Tuition Increases and Colleges’ 

Efforts to Contain Costs (GAO/HEHS-98-227). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 
References 

47 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000). College Tuition and Fees: Changes in the 1995–96 to 

1999–2000 Period Compared With Median Household Income (GAO/HEHS-00-198R). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
49 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The items were taken directly from the NCES NPSAS:93 

and NPSAS:2000 undergraduate Data Analysis Systems (DAS), software applications that generate tables from the 

survey data (see appendix B for a description). The variables listed in the index below are organized by sections in 

the order they appear in the report. If the variable names are different in the two surveys, both variable names are 

listed. The glossary is in alphabetical order by descriptive label (i.e., “income quartiles”). 

Glossary Index 

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Income quartiles................................ PCTALL (1993) 

........................................................ PCTALL2 (2000) 

Dependency status .....................................DEPEND4 

Citizenship ................................... CTZNSHP2 (1993) 

........................................................CITIZEN2 (2000) 

Gender .........................................................GENDER 

Race/ethnicity ......................................RACE1 (1993) 

..........................................................RACE2R (2000) 

FINANCIAL AID AND FINANCIAL NEED

Federal grants.............................................TFEDGRT 

Federal loans (excl. PLUS)............ TFEDLNR (1993) 

..........................................................TFEDLN (2000) 

State grants................................................STGTAMT 

Institutional grants ..................................INGRTAMT 

Institutional merit-only grants......INSTNOND (1993) 

...................................................... INSMERIT (2000) 

Financial need quartiles ................SNEED3R2 (1993) 

........................................................FTNEED1 (2000) 

ATTENDANCE AND INSTITUTION

Attendance status (full-time, full-year) ... ATTNSTAT 

Carnegie code ..........................................CARNEGIE 

Institution control......................................CONTROL 

TUITION AND PRICE

Total tuition and fees ................................ TUITION2 

Net tuition 1 ....................................NETCST8 (1993) 

......................................................NETCST10 (2000) 

Net tuition 2 ................................. NETCST7R (1993) 

........................................................NETCST9 (2000) 

Total price of attendance............ BUDGETAR (1993) 

.................................................... BUDGETFT (2000) 

Net price 1 ................................................NETCST16 

Net price 2 ................................... NETCST3X (1993) 

........................................................NETCST7 (2000) 

Net price 3 ................................................NETCST17
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

50 

Attendance pattern ATTNSTAT 

Combined attendance intensity and persistence. Intensity refers to the student’s full- or part-time attendance while 

enrolled. Persistence refers to the number of months a student was enrolled during the year. Students were 

considered to have been enrolled for a full year if they were enrolled at least nine months between July and the 

following June of the survey year. Months did not have to be contiguous or at the same institution, and students did 

not have to be enrolled for a full month in order to be considered enrolled for that month. Includes enrollment at all 

institutions. 

Full-time, full-year Student was enrolled full time for at least nine months during survey 

years. Additional months enrolled could be part time. 

Full-time, part-year Student was enrolled full time for less than nine months during survey 

years and attending full time in all of these months. 

Part-time, full-year Student was enrolled nine or more months during survey years, and 

some of these months were part time. 

Part-time, part-year Student was enrolled less than nine months during survey years, and 

some of these months were part time. 

Carnegie code CARNEGIE 

The 1994 CARNEGIE Classification code for the NPSAS sample institution was used for both survey years. The 

1994 Carnegie Classification includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree-granting and 

accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. For the analysis, research I and II and 

doctoral I and II were combined into one category called “research and doctoral”; and masters or comprehensive and 

baccalaureate I and II were combined into one category called “comprehensive and baccalaureate.” 

Research Universities I These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are 

committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high 

priority to research. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. 

In addition, they receive annually $40 million or more in federal 

support. 

Research Universities II These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are 

committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high 

priority to research. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. 

In addition, they receive annually between $15.5 million and $40 

million in federal support. 

Doctoral Universities I These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are 

committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at 

least 40 doctoral degrees annually in five or more disciplines. 

Doctoral Universities II These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are 

committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award 

annually at least 10 doctoral degrees—in three or more disciplines—or 

20 or more doctoral degrees in one or more disciplines. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

51 

Carnegie code (continued) CARNEGIE 

Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges I These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are 

committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They 

award 40 or more master’s degrees annually in three or more 

disciplines. 

Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges II These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are 

committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They 

award 20 or more master’s degrees annually in one or more disciplines. 

Baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) Colleges I These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major 

emphasis on baccalaureate degree programs. They award 40 percent or 

more of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields and are 

restrictive in admissions. 

Baccalaureate Colleges II These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major 

emphasis on baccalaureate degree programs. They award less than 40 

percent of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields or are less 

restrictive in admissions. 

In the analysis, Research Universities I and II were combined with Doctoral Universities I and II and were called 

Research and Doctoral Institutions. Similarly, Master’s Colleges I and II were combined with Baccalaureate 

Colleges I and II and were called Comprehensive and Baccalaureate Institutions. 

Citizenship CTZNSHP2 (1993); CITIZEN2 (2000)

Indicates a student’s citizenship status and financial aid eligibility. Variable was constructed from data reported on 

Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). If the student did not apply for aid, citizenship was obtained 

from the student or institution. 

U.S. citizen Student was a U.S. citizen. 

Permanent resident Student was not a U.S. citizen but was eligible for financial aid. 

Foreign/international student Student was not a U.S. citizen and was not eligible for financial aid. 

In the analysis, foreign students who are not eligible for financial aid were excluded from the sample. 

Dependency status DEPEND4 

Student dependency status for financial aid including marital status. Combines student dependency status, marital 

status, and whether they have dependents. Married but separated students are classified as married. Students were 

considered to be independent if they met any of the following criteria: 

1) Student was 24 years old or older as of 12/31 as of 1992 (for NPSAS:93) or 1999 (for NPSAS:2000); 

2) Student was a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces; 

3) Student was enrolled in a graduate or professional program (beyond a bachelor’s degree); 

4) Student was married; 

5) Student was an orphan or ward of the court; or 

6) Student had legal dependents other than spouse. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

52 

Dependency status (continued) DEPEND4 

Dependent 

Independent, no dependents, unmarried 

Independent, no dependents, married 

Independent with dependents 

In the analysis, all independent students were combined. 

Federal grants TFEDGRT 

Total amount of federal grants received by a student. Includes Pell Grants, SEOG grants, and a small number of 

Robert Byrd Scholarships. Does not include federal veteran’s benefits or military education aid. The 1993 amount 

was converted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. 

Federal loans (excluding PLUS) TFEDLNR (1993); TFEDLN (2000) 

Indicates the total amount of federal loans, excluding PLUS loans to parents. Includes Perkins, Stafford, and federal 

loans through the Public Health Service received. The 1993 amount was converted to 1999 dollars using the 

Consumer Price Index. 

Financial need quartiles

Financial need is equal to the full-time, full-year student budget minus the federal expected family contribution 

(EFC). Negative values were recoded to zero. Need groups were aggregated into approximate quartiles within each 

type of institution for each survey year. In public institutions, the lowest need group was made up of students with no 

remaining need (i.e., need less than $100), which was sometimes greater than 25 percent, ranging from about 26 

percent (for public comprehensive and baccalaureate) to about 30 percent (for public 2-year and public research and 

doctoral institutions). The high need group was always the top 25 percent. In the tables, high need is presented first 

and low need last to be consistent with the income groupings. The amounts shown below for NPSAS:93 are in real 

dollars. 

NPSAS:93 SNEED3R2

Public research and doctoral 

Low quartile (no need) 

Middle quartiles (need less than $7,500) 

High quartile (need $7,500 or more) 

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate 

Low quartile (no need) 

Middle quartiles (need less than $6,900) 

High quartile (need $6,900 or more) 

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

Low quartile (need less than $5,600) 

Middle quartiles (need $5,600 to $17,599) 

High quartile (need $17,600 or more) 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate 

Low quartile (need less than $5,300) 

Middle quartiles (need $5,300 to $13,599) 

High quartile (need $13,600 or more) 

Public 2-year 

Low quartile (no need) 

Middle quartiles (need less than $6,000) 

High quartile (need $6,000 or more) 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

53 

Financial need quartiles (continued) 

NPSAS:2000 FTNEED1

Public research and doctoral 

Low quartile (no need) 

Middle quartiles (need less than $11,000) 

High quartile (need $11,000 or more) 

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate 

Low quartile (no need) 

Middle quartiles (need less than $9,500) 

High quartile (need $9,500 or more) 

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral 

Low quartile (need less than $8,100) 

Middle quartiles (need $8,100–$26,999) 

High quartile (need $27,000 or more) 

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate 

Low quartile (need less than $7,300) 

Middle quartiles ($7,300–$19,799) 

High quartile ($19,800 or more) 

Public 2-year 

Low quartile (no need) 

Middle quartiles (need less than $8,000) 

High quartile ($8,000 or more) 

Income quartiles 

Quartiles were aggregated from income percentiles for all undergraduates enrolled in U.S. postsecondary institutions. 

Percentiles were calculated separately for dependent and independent students and then combined into one variable. 

Each ranking compares the student only to other students of the same dependency status. Parents’ income is used if 

student is dependent and student’s own income is used if student is independent. Total income in 1991 was used for 

NPSAS:93 and income in 1998 was used for NPSAS:2000. The income from these years is what was reported on the 

financial aid applications and used for federal need analysis. The amounts shown for NPSAS:93 are in real dollars. 

Income quartiles for NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000 are as follows: 

NPSAS:93 PCTALL

Dependent students 

Low quartile (Less than $24,000) 

Middle quartiles ($24,000 to $69,999) 

High quartile ($70,000 or more) 

Independent students 

Low quartile (Less than $8,000) 

Middle quartiles ($8,000 to $34,999) 

High quartile ($35,000 or more) 

NPSAS:2000 PCTALL2

Dependent students 

Low quartile (Less than $30,000) 

Middle quartiles ($30,000 to $81,999) 

High quartile ($82,000 or more) 

Independent students 

Low quartile (Less than $12,000) 

Middle quartiles ($12,000 to $48,999) 

High quartile ($49,000 or more) 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

54 

Institution control CONTROL 

Indicates the control of the NPSAS institution where the student was sampled. Private for-profit institutions were 

excluded from the analysis. 

Public A postsecondary education institution, which is supported primarily by 

public funds and operated by publicly elected or appointed officials 

who control the programs and activities. 

Private not-for-profit A postsecondary education institution that is controlled by an 

independent governing board and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) 

of the Internal Revenue Code. 

Gender GENDER

Male 

Female 

Institutional grants INGRTAMT 

Indicates the total grant aid from institutional funds received. Includes all institutional grants, scholarships, and 

tuition waivers received during the NPSAS year. Includes need-based and merit-only awards. At public institutions 

in some states the distinction between state and institutional grant funds is not always clear because grants are funded 

by the state but are allocated by the institutions. The California Community College Board of Governor’s Grants, 

California State University Grants, and Educational Opportunity Grants are classified as institutional grants. The 

1993 amount was converted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. 

Institutional merit-only grants INSTNOND (1993); INSMERIT (2000)

Institutional merit-only grants and scholarships. Includes all athletic scholarships. Merit-only scholarships are not 

based on need, but they may be awarded to students who also qualify for need-based aid. The 1993 amount was 

converted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

Net price 1 NETCST16 

Net price for full-time, full-year students after federal and state grants were subtracted from the student budget (total 

price). Negative values were recoded to zero. The 1993 amount was adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer 

Price Index. 

Net price 2 NETCST3X (1993); NETCST7 (2000) 

Net price for full-time, full-year students after all grants were subtracted from the student budget (total price). 

Negative values were recoded to zero. The 1993 amount was adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price 

Index.
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

55 

Net price 3 NETCST17 

Net price for full-time, full-year students after all grants and loans were subtracted from the student budget (total 

price). Negative values were recoded to zero. The 1993 amount was adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer 

Price Index. 

Net tuition 1 NETCST8 (1993); NETCST10 (2000) 

Net tuition for full-time, full-year students after federal grants were subtracted from total tuition. Negative values 

were recoded to zero. The 1993 amount was adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. 

Net tuition 2 NETCST9 

Net tuition for full-time, full-year students after all grants were subtracted from total tuition. Negative values were 

recoded to zero. The 1993 amount was adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. 

Race/ethnicity RACE1 (1993); RACE2R (2000) 

Student’s race/ethnicity. 

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North 

Africa, or the Middle East. 

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. 

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, 

or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. 

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East, Southeast 

Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This includes 

people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, India, 

Vietnam, Hawaii, and Samoa. 

American Indian/Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America 

and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or 

community recognition. 

In NPSAS:2000, students could chose more than one race. Those who did were asked, for historical purposes, what 

single race they would choose if choosing more than one race was not an option. 

State grants STGTAMT

Total amount of state grants and scholarships (including the federal portion of LEAP funds to states) received by the 

student. At public institutions in some states the distinction between state and institutional grant funds is not always 

clear because grants are funded by the state but are allocated by the institutions. The 1993 amount was converted to 

1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

56 

Total price of attendance BUDGETAR (1993); BUDGETFT (2000)

Indicates total student budget for full-time, full-year students at the NPSAS institution. Students attending more than 

one institution were not included. The student budget includes tuition and fees and the total non-tuition expense 

allowances. Non-tuition expenses include books and supplies, room and board (or housing and food allowances), 

transportation and personal expenses. The 1993 amount was adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price 

Index. 

Total tuition and fees TUITION2 

Tuition and fees charged full-time, full-year students at the sampled NPSAS institution for students who attended 

only one institution during the two survey years. The 1993 amount was adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer 

Price Index.
57 

Appendix B—Technical Notes 

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide 

study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education.16 It also 

describes demographic and other characteristics of students enrolled. The NPSAS study is based 

on a nationally representative sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions, 

including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. Information is collected from 

institutions, student interviews, and government data files. For this study, only data for 

undergraduates from two administrations of the NPSAS survey were analyzed, NPSAS:93 and 

NPSAS:2000. Both surveys represent more than 16 million undergraduates who were enrolled at 

some time between July 1 and June 30 of the survey years. The NPSAS:2000 survey was selected 

for this study because it contains the most recent data available. NPSAS:93 was chosen because 

it is the earliest survey with data that is strictly comparable to the data in NPSAS:2000. In 

NPSAS:90 the non-tuition student expenses were derived from student-reported data rather than 

from the institution-reported student budgets that were used for need analysis. Consequently, the 

price of attendance, net price and need variables in NPSAS:90 are not comparable to those in the 

later NPSAS surveys. 

For NPSAS:93, the institutional weighted response rate was 88.2 percent and the overall 

effective response rate for student interviews was 71.4 percent.17 For NPSAS:2000, the 

institutional response rate was 97 percent and the weighted overall student interview response 

rate was 65.6 percent.18 Because the student telephone interview response rate for NPSAS:2000 

was less than 70 percent in some institutional sectors, an analysis was conducted to determine if 

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) estimates were significantly biased due to CATI 

nonresponse. Considerable information was known for CATI nonrespondents and these data 

 

16For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult the methodology reports for either survey: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics, Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1992–93 

(NCES 95–211) (Washington, DC: 1995), and National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000), 

Methodology Report (NCES 2002–152) (Washington, DC: 2002). Additional information is also available at the NPSAS website 

http://nces.ed.gov/npsas.

17U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1992–93.

18 U.S. Department of Education, NCES, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000), Methodology 

Report. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes

58 

were used to analyze and reduce the bias. The distributions of several variables using the designbased, adjusted weights for study respondents (study weights) were found to be biased before 

CATI nonresponse adjustments. The CATI nonresponse and poststratification procedures, 

however, reduced the bias for these variables; and the remaining relative bias ranged from 0 to 

0.35 percent.19 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and non-sampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are made only on samples of populations rather than entire populations. Nonsampling errors occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire 

populations. Non-sampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain 

complete information about all sample members (e.g., some students refused to participate, or 

students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences in 

interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in 

recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and imputing 

missing data. In addition, some items may be subject to more variation over time. 

Adjustments for Inflation 

All comparisons between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 of tuition, net tuition, total price of 

attendance, and net price of attendance were made using constant 1999 dollars based on the 

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) table provided by the U.S. Department 

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average Consumer Price Index was 140.3 in 1992 (for 

the 1992–93 academic year) and 166.6 in 1999 (for the 1999–2000 academic year). The 

multiplier used to convert 1992 into 1999 dollars was 1.188. Standard errors also were adjusted 

for inflation in the same manner. 

Data Analysis System 

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

NPSAS:2000 undergraduate Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible 

for users to specify and generate their own tables. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand 

 

19For nonresponse bias analysis, see U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000), CATI Nonresponse Bias Analysis Report (NCES 2002–03) 

(Washington, DC: 2002), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=200203
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

59 

upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates 

proper standard errors20 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B-1 

contains standard errors that correspond to estimates in table 4-A in the report. If the number of 

valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), the DAS prints the 

message “low-N” instead of the estimate. 

Table B-1.—Standard errors for table 4-A: Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public

Table B-1.—4-year research and doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 

Table B-1.—1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by income and financial need quartiles

Table B-1.— and dependency status

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

 Total $127.3 $58.8 $130.9 $63.2 $125.8 $58.7

Income quartiles

 Bottom quartile 75.9 81.3 76.3 87.9 60.2 80.8 

 Middle quartiles 78.5 72.9 78.8 75.7 68.4 73.6 

 High quartile 139.5 108.7 139.1 108.9 142.6 110.8 

Financial need quartiles

 High need (high quartile) 178.9 131.1 196.8 143.2 155.1 126.4 

 Moderate need (middle quartiles) 61.1 72.1 66.5 81.8 68.3 81.2 

 No need (bottom quartile) 103.1 93.2 103.2 93.3 104.7 90.3 

Dependency status

 Dependent 149.0 68.6 150.6 70.8 144.9 68.5 

 Independent 80.8 87.3 85.8 104.9 77.8 101.0 

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

Study, 1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Net tuition 23 Total tuition1 Net tuition 12

Public research and doctoral 

 

20The NPSAS:2000 samples are not simple random samples, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating 

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and 

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves 

approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor 

series method. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes

60 

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to 

be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the 

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally 

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors 

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the stratified sampling method used 

in the NPSAS surveys. 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS. For more information 

about the NPSAS Data Analysis System, contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

Postsecondary Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006–5652 

(202) 502–7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov 

Statistical Procedures 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,21 or 

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values 

for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

 

21A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

61 

E -E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2 (2) 

where r is the correlation between the two variables.22 The denominator in this formula will be at 

its maximum when the two estimates are perfectly negatively correlated, that is, when r = –1. 

This means that a conservative dependent test may be conducted by using –1 for the correlation 

in this formula as follows: 

1 2

2

2

2

1 2

(se1 ) (se ) 2se se

E E

t

+ +

− = . (3) 

The estimates and standard errors are obtained from the DAS. If the comparison is between the 

mean of a subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

se se 2p se

E E

+ −

− (4) 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.23 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of respondents would produce a large t statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making 

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making 

paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these 

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more 

than one difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for 

statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of 

those comparisons taken together. 

 

22U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 

23Ibid. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes

62 

Comparisons were made in this report only when p < .05/k for a particular pairwise 

comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that 

the individual comparison would have p < .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of 

possible comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p < .05.24

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of males and females who attend research 

and doctoral public institutions, only one comparison is possible (males versus females). In this 

family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the significance level. When 

respondents are divided into three income groups and all possible comparisons are made, then 

k=3 and the significance level of each test must be p< .05/3, or p< .017. The formula for 

calculating family size (k) is as follows: 

2

( −1) = j j k (5) 

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of income, there are 

three groups (low quartile, middle two quartiles combined, and high quartile), so substituting 3 

for j in equation 5, 

3

2

3(3 1) = − k =

Interaction Effects 

The overall descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using Student’s t statistic 

(comparing tuition and price measures between the two time periods). However, determining 

differential changes in net price across years for particular groups of students involved a test of 

interaction effects. These interaction effects were tested with a two-way Analysis of Variance 

(ANOVA). For example, in comparing the change in net price between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

by income level, a test was conducted on the interaction between income level and a variable 

representing year. An interaction effect significant at the 0.05 level indicated that the amount of 

change in net price between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 was different for students from different 

income levels. 

In creating the two-way Analysis of Variance, the squares of the Taylorized standard errors, 

the variance between the means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to partition total 

 

24The standard that p≤ .05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the 

comparisons should sum to p≤ .05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p≤ .05/k for a particular family size 

and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical 

Association 56 (1961): 52–64. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

63 

sums of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. These were used to create 

mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their corresponding F 

statistics. The F statistics were then compared with F values associated with a significance level 

of 0.05. Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the interaction term 

were required as evidence of a relationship between year and the row variable of interest. Means 

and Taylorized standard errors were calculated by the DAS. Unweighted sample sizes are not 

available from the DAS and were provided by NCES. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
65 

Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

Supplementary tables provide the various net tuition and net price measures by gender and 

race/ethnicity. These tables correspond to tables 4-A to 9 in the text. Differential changes by 

race/ethnicity or gender reflect differences in income levels and financial aid eligibility. 

Table C-1.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and doctoral

Table C-1.—institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant

Table C-1.—1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

Gender

 Male $3,970 $4,736 $3,523 $4,217 $2,964 $3,219

 Female 4,024 4,804 3,566 4,201 2,983 3,170 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 4,018 4,901 3,651 4,508 3,131 3,518 

 Black, non-Hispanic 3,925 4,526 2,938 3,051 1,918 1,897 

 Hispanic 3,153 3,866 2,352 2,971 1,681 2,002 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 4,403 4,668 3,685 3,762 3,080 2,605 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 3,282 4,441 2,547 3,264 1,596 2,027 

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Net tuition 23 Total tuition1 Net tuition 12

Public research and doctoral 
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables

66 

Table C-2.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive and 

Table C-2.—baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–

Table C-2.—2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity 

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

Gender

 Male $2,926 $3,345 $2,315 $2,709 $1,990 $2,146

 Female 2,870 3,375 2,242 2,638 1,912 2,024 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 2,967 3,542 2,461 3,027 2,133 2,372 

 Black, non-Hispanic 3,052 3,394 1,993 2,115 1,581 1,503 

 Hispanic 2,018 2,374 1,152 1,460 967 1,155 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2,678 2,940 1,961 2,043 1,768 1,749 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 2,583 (#) 1,290 (#) 830 (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate 
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

67 

Table C-3.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year research 

Table C-3.—and doctoral institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–

Table C-3.—2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity 

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

Gender

 Male $16,638 $19,683 $16,187 $19,075 $11,957 $12,899

 Female 15,896 19,695 15,424 19,068 11,344 12,205 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 16,236 19,790 15,958 19,373 12,208 13,456 

 Black, non-Hispanic 14,765 17,459 13,549 16,039 7,105 7,508 

 Hispanic 16,526 18,800 15,389 17,675 9,108 9,629 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 17,619 21,280 16,847 20,280 12,097 12,282 

 American Indian/Alaska Native (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral 
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables

68 

Table C-4.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

Table C-4.—comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total tuition and net tuition amounts in 

Table C-4.—1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

Gender

 Male $12,511 $14,014 $11,732 $13,277 $8,339 $8,178

 Female 12,149 13,991 11,270 13,229 7,846 7,572 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 13,153 14,984 12,555 14,487 8,914 8,593 

 Black, non-Hispanic 8,381 11,395 6,670 9,888 4,570 5,622 

 Hispanic 10,388 8,356 8,776 6,463 5,324 3,805 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 15,177 16,039 14,457 14,841 9,992 7,897 

 American Indian/Alaska Native (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate 
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

69 

Table C-5.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, average total 

Table C-5.—tuition and net tuition amounts in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender 

Table C-5.—and race/ethnicity

1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 1992–93 1999–2000 

Gender

 Male $1,391 $1,696 $1,064 $1,312 $933 $1,086

 Female 1,394 1,496 958 1,007 818 811 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 1,503 1,717 1,135 1,360 976 1,113 

 Black, non-Hispanic 1,263 1,558 746 682 670 546 

 Hispanic 831 1,111 451 564 429 425 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 812 1,275 563 915 505 810 

 American Indian/Alaska Native (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Includes all tuition and fees charged during the academic year.

2

Tuition and fees minus all federal grants such as the Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid.

3

Tuition and fees minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Total tuition1 Net tuition 12 Net tuition 23

Public 2-year 
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables

70 

Table C-6.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year research and doctoral 

Table C-6.—institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, 

Table C-6.—in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999–

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000

Gender

 Male $12,194 $13,557 $11,452 $12,586 $10,841 $11,388 $9,6865 $8,977

 Female 12,302 13,601 11,533 12,425 10,913 11,306 9,6865 8,783

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 12,186 13,618 11,575 12,843 11,023 11,770 9,903 9,460

 Black, non-Hispanic 12,436 13,895 10,920 11,552 9,684 9,828 7,918 5,853

 Hispanic 11,946 12,805 10,527 10,957 9,709 9,654 8,000 6,816

 Asian/Pacific Islander 12,989 13,568 11,763 11,678 11,153 10,492 10,142 8,308

 American Indian/Alaska Native 11,997 13,337 10,431 11,563 9,586 9,029 7,807 6,117

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

5

The amounts for both males and females are both slightly higher than the corresponding total on table 7a ($9,684) because there are

a few cases with missing gender. Therefore, the averages are based on a slighly smaller base sample.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public research and doctoral 

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

71 

Table C-7.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 4-year comprehensive and 

Table 2-B.—baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 

Table 2-B.—and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

Gender

 Male $10,237 $11,195 $9,284 $10,065 $8,942 $9,419 $7,785 $7,085

 Female 10,274 11,162 9,242 9,842 8,893 9,186 7,650 6,674 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 10,095 11,341 9,306 10,389 8,985 9,722 7,811 7,311 

 Black, non-Hispanic 11,189 11,305 9,630 9,225 9,087 8,484 7,444 5,051 

 Hispanic 9,791 9,991 8,079 8,264 7,885 7,822 7,098 6,234 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 11,107 11,086 9,730 9,551 9,578 9,074 8,591 7,096 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 10,424 (#) 8,224 (#) 7,097 (#) 5,572 (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public comprehensive and baccalaureate

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables

72 

Table C-8.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year research 

Table C-8.—and doctoral institutions, average total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 

Table C-8.—1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

Gender

 Male $25,421 $29,263 $24,629 $28,195 $20,533 $22,110 $18,271 $18,550

 Female 25,009 29,283 24,035 27,991 20,156 21,387 17,961 17,621 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 25,035 29,296 24,460 28,524 20,869 22,612 18,813 19,453 

 Black, non-Hispanic 25,075 27,442 22,816 25,020 15,568 16,784 11,945 11,253 

 Hispanic 25,692 29,062 23,359 26,950 18,043 19,150 15,101 12,682 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 26,362 30,685 25,106 28,249 20,671 21,475 18,354 17,888 

 American Indian/Alaska Native (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which include 

room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit research and doctoral

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

73 

Table C-9.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year 

Table C-9.—comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions, average total price and various measures of net 

Table C-9.—price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

Gender

 Male $19,793 $22,131 $18,448 $20,608 $15,372 $15,956 $13,242 $12,182

 Female 19,419 22,316 17,850 20,592 14,879 15,481 12,668 11,209 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 20,331 23,328 19,154 21,989 15,893 16,617 13,780 12,407 

 Black, non-Hispanic 16,110 19,780 13,668 17,391 11,915 13,418 9,446 8,724 

 Hispanic 17,796 15,270 15,196 12,497 12,292 10,264 10,186 7,713 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 22,610 25,338 21,003 23,013 17,205 16,694 15,077 12,555 

 American Indian/Alaska Native (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which 

include room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements,

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Private not-for-profit comprehensive and baccalaureate

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables

74 

Table C-10.—Among all full-time, full-year undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions, average 

Table C-10.—total price and various measures of net price in 1992–93 and 1999–2000, in constant 1999 

Table C-10.—dollars, by gender and race/ethnicity

1999– 1999– 1999– 1999– 

1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 1992–93 2000 

Gender

 Male $8,071 $9,192 $7,449 $8,316 $7,206 $8,063 $6,954 $7,458

 Female 8,024 8,998 7,105 7,683 6,945 7,390 6,577 6,719 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 7,991 9,179 7,265 8,295 7,053 7,993 6,736 7,306 

 Black, non-Hispanic 8,442 8,734 7,425 6,801 7,156 6,632 6,845 5,668 

 Hispanic 8,361 8,816 7,472 7,323 7,358 7,108 7,025 6,707 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 8,202 9,113 7,521 7,798 7,443 7,473 7,312 7,264 

 American Indian/Alaska Native (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) 

#Too small to report.

1

Total price of attendance, which is an estimate of the total amount of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and living expenses (which 

include room and board, transportation, and personal expenses) incurred by a student during the academic year.

2

Total price of attendance minus all federal grants (Pell Grant, SEOG, and other federally funded grant aid) and state-funded grants. 3

Total price of attendance minus all federal, state, institutional, and other grants. “Other grants” include employer reimbursements, 

National Merit Scholarships, and grants from private sources such as religious, community, or professional organizations.

4

Total price of attendance minus all grants and all loans.

NOTE: All estimates for the 1992–93 academic year were converted from 1992 to 1999 dollars using the average annual Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published in the CPI-U table by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

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

1992–93 (NPSAS:93) and 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000).

Public 2-year

Total price1 Net price 12 Net price 23 Net price 34