Skip to main content

Looking at Student Loan Default Rates

Student Loan defaults make a lot of news, but there is not a lot of understanding about what a default actually is, and there is not good, easily accessible data on default rates, nor a lot of good contextual analysis.  But this may help a little.

First, the source of the data is here.  You should read it, especially  the part about small numbers of students entering payment, or small percentages of students taking loans at a college skewing default rates.  You should also know that the definition of a default is being at least 270 days behind on a payment.

This is not the easiest data to work with.  For one thing, the file layout descriptions don't match the file; Financial Aid uses a different ID than IPEDS, and the crosswalk tables that might help you figure out the IPEDS ID (to get a richer view of context) use a different format than this table does. In addition the "Region" doesn't roll up the states in any way I've seen before, and the "Program Type" also puts colleges in categories that don't always make sense.  For most four-year institutions, try "Traditional" first in the selector box.

But here it is.

If you want to eliminate the small schools that skew things, you can use the "Borrowers Entering Repayment 2009--11" filter.  You can just type the ranges in the boxes and hit enter, or use the sliders.  You can also limit to states or region, in any combination.

A reminder that outputs are sometimes actually inputs.  If you enroll high ability, wealthy students, and are very selective in admissions, your default rates are going to be lower than other institutions that take more chances on students who come from low-income or less-prepared backgrounds.  It would be great if there were a way to recognize the institutions with lower default rates who took more risks.

What jumps out at you?



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs

Yes, your yield rate is still falling, v 2020

I started doing this post on a regular basis several years ago, in response (if I recall) to a colleague talking about their Board of Trustees Chair insisting that "all we need to do" to bring enrollment back to its former level is to get the yield rate up.   That's the equivalent of saying all you need to do is straighten your drives and cut ten putts from each round, and you'll be a great golfer.  Moreover, it's based on the assumption that a falling yield rate is based on something you're doing or not doing.  The challenge is much larger, and a lot harder to address.  It's not a switch you flip. So we've got this: A look at applications, admits, and enrolls over the last twenty years, and three key ratios that are based on those numbers: Admit rate, or the percentage of applicants offered admission; yield rate, or the percentage of those offered admission who enroll; and the lesser-known draw rate, which is calculated by dividing the yield rate by t