Home > Students > Op/Ed: Why the Brookings Institution Is Still Wrong on Student Loans

Comments 0 Comments

The Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution is back in the news.

In its continuing effort to discredit what the center describes as “the often-hysterical public debate about student loan debt,” the BCEP published a September follow-up to its April report—the one in which its researchers determined that broad-based policy actions on the part of the government are “likely to be unnecessary and wasteful given the lack of evidence of widespread financial hardship.” The update takes into effect more recent data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Survey of Consumer Finances and concludes that no meaningful change to their previous assertions is required.

Since the update doesn’t say anything about modifications to the methodologies the researchers applied in the first analysis, it’s probably safe to assume that the shortcomings that existed in the April report are also in September’s.

For example, the researchers appear to continue to base their findings on presumptive two-person households where individual incomes are combined and debt loads are halved. Doing so has the potential to significantly understate the metric when the latter is divided by the former. Nor does it appear that any attempt has been made to reconcile BCEP findings with reports of increasing student-loan payment delinquencies and defaults (17% and 7%, respectively, according to the Department of Education), and the accelerating extent to which problem loans are being restructured.

The researchers also describe lifetime income levels that “have more than kept pace with increases in debt levels between 1992 and 2010.” And although they admit that incomes fell slightly during the adjunctive 2010 to 2013 period, their original conclusions remain unchanged nonetheless.

Apart from the fact that lifetime earnings have little to do with loans that are set up to be repaid during the lower-earning segment of the average borrower’s career, what of the most recent National Center of Education Statistics data that indicates that young adults (aged 20 to 24) earned approximately $4,800 less in 2012 than they did in 1980 after adjusting for inflation? Wouldn’t that undermine the BCEP’s claim that “Americans who borrowed to finance their education are no worse off today than they were a generation ago?”

It’s also worth remembering that the study focuses only on households that are comprised of 20- to 40-year-old adults, despite the fact that according to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report, households headed by 65-year-olds and older are carrying increasingly higher levels of student debt. Some borrowers are dealing with the aftermath of late-career borrowing or, perhaps, the implications of the amount of loans they’ve cosigned for their children and grandchildren.

And what of those who are between the ages of 40 and 65? Aren’t these the same folks who are taking out PLUS loans to put their kids through school?

According to data supplied by the New York Fed, average aggregate student loan debt more than tripled for 40- to 59-year-olds in the eight years between the start of 2005 and the end of 2012. What’s more, when the Pew Charitable Trusts evaluated incomes and wealth histories for those who were born between 1965 and 1980, they found that even though three quarters of them were earning more than their parents had, “just 36 percent of Gen Xers have exceeded their parents’ family wealth, and the typical Gen Xer has $5,000 less wealth than their parents did at the same age.”

Here’s the point: A study that measures debt levels that are held by a narrow age band of borrowers, incorrectly associates this metric with lifetime earnings rather than early career compensation, ignores contradictory contemporaneous data on payment delinquencies, default rates, comparative values of income and wealth accumulation, and most important as far as I’m concerned, does not take into account relative affordability—the extent to which these debts are able to be repaid within the context of all other household financial obligations—is of dubious value.

If anything, the student loan debate deserves to become even more “hysterical.”

More on Student Loans:

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

Image: Stacey Newman

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team