Home > Students > Are Student Loans Causing College Tuitions to Skyrocket?

Comments 2 Comments

Do student loans help students or colleges? A new paper published by the New York Federal Reserve makes a clear, and depressing assertion: Federal student loans and grants are often simply gobbled up by schools through tuition inflation, leaving the students no better off.

More dollars chasing the fewer goods cause prices to rise. That’s both a standard economics principle and an often obvious, but punishing reality. During the housing bubble years, the more banks lent potential home buyers, the more prices rose, as consumers with bigger and bigger borrowing power bid up prices. Larger loans weren’t the only factor, but they were a big one.

The new paper, called “Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition,” posed an intriguing question: Is this same phenomenon happening in college? Has a dramatic widening of college aid programs during the past decade, chiefly through loans, done more harm than good by simply fueling college tuition inflation? It’s a depressing possibility, the idea that wider availability of student loans haven’t helped students, they merely helped colleges — something called the “passthrough effect.”

“From a finance perspective, the market for postsecondary education has shared several features with the housing market in the past few decades…. resembling the twin house price and mortgage balance booms,” the authors write.

Here are the basics, according to the paper: Yearly student loan originations grew from $53 billion to $120 billion between 2001 and 2012. Meanwhile, average sticker tuition rose 46% in constant 2012 dollars between 2001 and 2012, from $6,950 to $10,200.

That’s a pretty compelling parallel, though as is often the case in economics, it’s not quite so simple. There’s the correlation/causation problem. Did more loans cause higher prices, or did the higher prices come first, or is this just a coincidence? And then there’s the macro/micro problem. Tuition sticker price hasn’t grown uniformly across public, private and community colleges, muddying the analysis. Sticker price is also a rough measure to use, as so many students use a complex mixture of aid to pay for school that sticker price can be almost meaningless.

Finally, the parallel between housing and college markets is inexact. Slots at colleges aren’t limited in supply the same way that houses are. So we’re not really talking about more dollars chasing “fewer” goods.

Still, that doesn’t mean the laws of economics are suspended, and the more money made available to college consumers, the easier it is for colleges to raise prices. And through a number-crunching formula designed to tease out these effects, the Fed comes up with this depressing conclusion: Pell Grants and subsidized loans create a passthrough effect of about 55-65 cents on the dollar. That means for every additional $100 the federal government gives or loans a student, colleges raise tuition $55-$65.

Tax dollars flowing right to colleges, funneled through (mostly) borrowing students.

“From a welfare perspective, these estimates suggest that, while one would expect a student aid expansion to benefit its recipients, the subsidized loan expansion could have been to their detriment, on net, because of the sizable and offsetting tuition effect,” the authors conclude.

The idea that aid helps colleges more than students is not new. Back in the 1980s, then-Education Secretary Bill Bennett warned about the problem, saying, “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” His statement is now known as the Bennett Hypothesis, which this paper seems to confirm.

But there are a lot of caveats in the findings. Plenty of other factors put price pressure on colleges during the time span studied. Here’s just one: When the housing bubble burst, newly unemployed workers flocked to colleges, particularly community colleges. That created “fewer goods,” and likely contributed to higher prices.

The authors tried to deal with these issues, but of course any such study will be inexact – and it’s important to note the paper does not represent the views of Federal Reserve, just the paper’s authors. The bulk of the paper explains how the authors tried to isolate the effects of tuition increases. They did so essentially by identifying which schools gained the most from increases in aid eligibility during the time studied, and looking for corresponding tuition changes at those schools. For example, the maximum subsidized federal loan amount for freshmen rose in the 2007-08 academic year from $2,625 to $3,500, which benefitted students at some schools more than others.

That led to a bit of fine-tuning in the results. Passthrough of unsubsidized students loans was only 30%, the study found. And the biggest benefactors from the passthrough effect were pricey private colleges with average academic reputations.

“We find that the passthrough of subsidized loan aid to tuition is highest among relatively expensive, mostly private, four-year institutions with relatively high-income students but with average selectivity, as measured by their admittance rates,” the authors say.

The paper makes no recommendation on what to do about this effect. Less aid wouldn’t translate into lower prices, at least not right away (prices fall much more slowly than they rise), and that would be a terrible burden to impost on today’s students. The real sad news is that increases in student aid might not help either, as colleges seem to “correct” for the greater dollars available to them very efficiently.

When student loans come due, they have a major impact on the credit scores of millions of Americans — some seeing their scores rise from consistent on-time payments, and others experiencing a major credit score dive if they can’t pay or won’t pay. You can see whether your student loan debt is hurting or helping your credit scores for free on Credit.com.

More on Student Loans:

Image: iStock

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.

  • heavyw8t

    And I step atop the soapbox I have been shouting from for 10 years. It is really time for everybody with college aged kids to evaluate the archaic notion that college is absolutely necessary. That thinking was was the 60s when the symbol of affluence included the house with the white picket fence and the financial ability to send your 2.3 children through college. Fast forward that tape to 2015 and look around again when the ride stops. Who is working these days? The Cultural Anthropology majors? The Primitive Cultures majors? Nope. Those people are working at Subway making sandwiches and the Sheetz gas station telling people “Okay to pump on 7!” The people working today are the car mechanics helping customers limp their car along for 3 more years and the plumbers and carpenters and carpet installers who are helping people get 5 more years out of their house since they can’t sell it right now. The paradigm has shifted greatly from the times when a college education guaranteed you a job right after college at a nice salary.

    I have a Bachelor’s Degree. Nobody has asked to see it. None of what I learned in the 3 years it took me to get that Bachelor’s Degree has given me a leg up toward a well paying job in the 39 years since I graduated. Of course, my degree is in music. That degree is totally worthless unless you want to take another 2 years of school to get the Master’s of Education degree and teach music. (No, thank you.)

    Kids are coming out of college with meaningless degrees and facing the hard fact that there are no jobs in their field, and not a soul giving the slightest damn that they are $150,000 in debt. That brings them back to mom’s basement while they work for minimum wage (or slightly above) in retail or fast food. Those government grants to study why panda bears get erections dried up a LONG time ago.

    It’s just a different world. What makes tuitions skyrocket is the way colleges jerk kids around by not offering classes so the students have to stay longer, spending a 5th and 6th year after “the annual fee increase”. I really don’t think anybody can finish a Bachelor’s program in 3 years like I did in 2015. Factor in the professor’s salaries going up every year (to teach the exact same curriculum they taught last year, the year before that, and the year before that) and like every other business (make no mistake, your college is a business), any increase in operating expenses will be passed along to the customers.

    So, addressing your topic sentence, student loans help the colleges. The students don’t keep that money. They give it to the college. And then pay it back over the next 25 years. Plus interest.

    Disclaimer: I went to school on the GI Bill the first time when I was 22, in 1973. The second time (for an Associate degree in computer studies – at age 40) I received a Pell Grant. I was not about to borrow $100,000 for a degree that would put me into a field where I would earn $30,000 a year at first. And give it all back in loan payments? No, gracias….

  • No More FalseFlags

    This author brings up a very good point about the colleges benefiting from student loan industry….and a lot of people are not talking about this.

    Back in 2002-2003, I went back to college as a middle age student. It was a college in central Washington state. I was very surprised at the money the college was spending on brand new Student union building (which replaced an already excellent building) and other millions of dollars spent on this and that. Unfortunately, those dollars didn’t get spent on the classrooms. An example was a computer hardware class I took, where we had to share a computer with 2 other people, which made it difficult to really get the “hands on” experience in taking computers apart, etc. Also, another class I took involved the installation of servers and all that goes with that. The professor couldn’t get the hands on part of the class to work, called in the school IT people who couldn’t either, so we ended up just reading about servers all quarter…not one bit of hands on that was promised. There are other examples too. Needless to say, I quit, it just wasn’t worth the money. But wow, the campus sure looked good with all that cash flowing into all the neat showcase aspects.

    I also was looking at a college in Iowa back in those days, which had a really nice curriculum, but they did not offer Federal student loan programs. They told me to check back in a few months as they were working on this. The Tuition was super good, I remember. When I did finally check back and they had been approved for Federal student aid, their tuition had doubled!! So, the students are the ones who are being taken advantage of by the Financial industry as well as the Colleges.

    Same principal holds for the Medical industry. Example: you used to be able to get a back massage for about $25 an hour (at least in my area). Then, suddenly massage was offered with some medical insurances, and those $25 dollar sessions are now at least $75 or more….but the clincher is, even if you do have insurance, your co-pay is often at least $25!!! Very obvious who makes out with this…

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