版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领
文档简介
FinanceandEconomicsDiscussionSeries
FederalReserveBoard,Washington,D.C.
ISSN1936-2854(Print)
ISSN2767-3898(Online)
NavigatingHigherEducationInsurance:AnExperimentalStudyonDemandandAdverseSelection
SidhyaBalakrishnan,EricBettinger,MichaelS.Kofoed,DubravkaRitter,DouglasA.Webber,EgeAksu,andJonathanS.Hartley
2024-024
Pleasecitethispaperas:
Balakrishnan,Sidhya,EricBettinger,MichaelS.Kofoed,DubravkaRitter,DouglasA.Web-ber,EgeAksu,andJonathanS.Hartley(2024).“NavigatingHigherEducationInsurance:AnExperimentalStudyonDemandandAdverseSelection,”FinanceandEconomicsDis-cussionSeries2024-024.Washington:BoardofGovernorsoftheFederalReserveSystem,
/10.17016/FEDS.2024.024
.
NOTE:StafworkingpapersintheFinanceandEconomicsDiscussionSeries(FEDS)arepreliminarymaterialscirculatedtostimulatediscussionandcriticalcomment.TheanalysisandconclusionssetfortharethoseoftheauthorsanddonotindicateconcurrencebyothermembersoftheresearchstafortheBoardofGovernors.ReferencesinpublicationstotheFinanceandEconomicsDiscussionSeries(otherthanacknowledgement)shouldbeclearedwiththeauthor(s)toprotectthetentativecharacterofthesepapers.
NavigatingHigherEducationInsurance:AnExperimental
StudyonDemandandAdverseSelection*
SidhyaBalakrishnan†
,EricBettinger‡
,MichaelS.
Kofoed§
,DubravkaRitter¶
DouglasA.Webber|,|EgeAksu*,
*a
ndJonathanS.Hartley††
February21,2024
Abstract
Weconductasurvey-basedexperimentwith2,776studentsatanon-profituniversitytoanalyzein-comeinsurancedemandineducationfinancing.Weofferedstudentsahypotheticalchoice:eitherafederalloanwithincome-drivenrepaymentoranincome-shareagreement(ISA),withrandomizedfram-ingofdownsideprotections.EmphasizingincomeinsuranceincreasedISAuptakeby43%.Weobservethatstudentsareresponsivetochangesincontracttermsandpossiblestudentloancancellation,whichisevidenceofpreferenceadjustmentoradverseselection.Ourresultsindicatethatframingspecifictermscanincreasedemandforhighereducationinsurancetopotentiallyaddressriskforstudentswithvaryingoutcomes.
*TheauthorsappreciatethehelpfulcommentsandfeedbackofNeilBhutta,JuliaCheney,BarryCynamon,AndrewHertzberg,JeromeHodges,CarolineHoxby,RajeevDarolia,RobertHunt,JeffLarrimore,JosephMarchand,LoisMiller,KevinMumford,MarshallSteinbaum,andJoshuaPrice.WearealsogratefulforparticipantsatseminarandconferencepresentationsincludingtheAmericanEconomicAssociation,AppalachianStateUniversity,AssociationforEducationFinanceandPolicy,AssociationforPolicyAnalysisandManagement,BrighamYoungUniversity,NationalBureauofEconomicResearch(EconomicsofEducation),ProvidenceCollege,SouthernEconomicAssociation,UnitedStatesAirForceAcademy,andUniversityofTennessee,Knoxville.
†SidhyaBalakrishnanisthedirectorofresearchattheJainFamilyInstitute,email:sidhya.balakrishnan@
‡EricBettingeristheConleyDeAngelisFamilyProfessorofEducationatStanfordUniversityandaresearchassociateatNBER,email:ebettinger@.
§MichaelS.KofoedisanassistantprofessorofeconomicsattheUniversityofTennessee,KnoxvilleandResearchFellowatIZA,andcorrespondingauthor:mkofoed1@
¶DubravkaRitterisasenioradvisorandresearchfellowattheConsumerFinanceInstitute,FederalReserveBankofPhiladelphia,email:dubravka.ritter@.ThisPhiladelphiaFedworkingpaperrepresentspreliminaryresearchthatisbeingcirculatedfordiscussionpurposes.TheviewsexpressedinthesepapersaresolelythoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheFederalReserveBankofPhiladelphiaortheFederalReserveSystem.Anyerrorsoromissionsaretheresponsibilityoftheauthors.
NotelssiBoardofGovernorsoftheFederalReserve,email:douglas.a.webber@.
TheanalysisandconclusionsinthispaperarethoseoftheauthorandshouldnotbeinterpretedasreflectingtheviewsoftheBoardofGovernorsortheFederalReserveSystem.
**EgeAksuisaPhDcandidateatCUNYGraduateCenterandfellowattheJainFamilyInstitute,email:ege.aksu@
††JonathanS.HartleyisaPhDcandidateatStanfordUniversity,email:hartleyj@
2
1Introduction
Insuranceproductsareimportanttoolsemployedbyindividualstohedgerisksintheirfinanciallives.Insur-ancemarketsallowindividualstopoolriskagainstunexpected,negativeoutcomesandarewelldevelopedinmanycontexts,likehealthcareorrealestate.
1
However,risk-hedgingopportunitiesarenotreadilyavailableinpost-secondaryeducation,eventhoughcollegeisanincreasinglyuncertaininvestment(Webber,
2022)
madeonlyonceinalifetime.Whilereturnstocollegearepositiveonaverage(LovenheimandSmith,
2022
),theirdistributionismorenuanced(Webber,
2016
,BroadyandHershbein,
2020)
.Financialout-comesforstudents,forexample,varyacrossinstitutiontypes(e.g.selectivevs.non-selective;four-yearvs.two-year),fieldsofstudy(e.g.educationvs.engineeringvs.economics),andmacroeconomicconditionsupongraduation(Rothstein,
2023
).Perhapsmoreimportantly,returnsvarywithineachofthesesegmentsgivenunobservablestudentskill–whichispotentiallydifficultforthestudentand/ortheinstitutiontoiden-tify–anduncertainlabormarketconditions.Particularlyforyoungerstudentsandthoseenteringlongerdegreeprograms,thereisuncertaintybothintheexpectedlevelofincomeandinitsvariability.
Students,educationalinstitutions,andgovernmententitiesunderstandandbeartheseriskstodifferentdegrees.Forexample,workbyStange(
2012
)showsthatmanystudentstreatattendingtheirfirstyearofcollegeakintopurchasinganoptionscontract—completinganinitialyearsoastodevelopabettersenseoftheirlikelyreturns,afterwhichtheydecidewhethertoexercisetheoptionforasecondyear.Policymakersandadvocatesoftenworktotransfertheriskinessofthereturntotaxpayers,e.g.viathefreecollegemovement,financialaidpolicy(bothgrantsandloans),ortheCovid-19studentloanrepaymentpausefor
loansguaranteedbythefederalgovernment.
Interestingly,individualeducationalinsurancepolicieswherestudentspayapremiumtoprotectthem-selvesfromincomeriskareeithernotwelldevelopedorarenon-existent.
2
Onereasonforthelowpreva-lenceofeducationalinsuranceinpost-secondarymarketsmaybelowdemand.Thereisevidencethatstu-dentscanbeover-optimisticaboutfutureearnings(e.g.Bakeretal.(
2018
)),failingtoadequatelyconsiderinsuranceriskatthetimeofenrollmentandfinancingbecauseofdifficultyinpredictingfutureincomesac-cordingtomajor(Arcidiaconoetal.,
2012
;Bakeretal.,
2018
;Conlon,
2021
).Onthesupplyside,anotherexplanationcouldbethepresenceofadverseselection(Einavetal.(
2023
))andmoralhazard(ZweifelandManning,
2000
)ininsurancemarkets.
1Closesttooursetting,individualspurchaseinsurancetomitigatefinanciallosses(e.g.Arrow,1963),bufferagainstincomeshocks(e.g.ChettyandSzeidl
(2007)),andforavarietyofotherreasons.GuisoandPaiella
(2008)documenttheincreasingpropensity
ofhouseholdstohedgeagainstlaborincomeriskinparticular,indicatingarisingawarenessofemployment/incomeuncertainties.Inthecaseoffinancialmarkets,diversification,includingtheuseofderivativeinstrumentslikefuturesandoptions,remainsaprimarystrategyforriskmanagementinthefaceofuncertaineconomicoutcomes(e.g.Bodie
(1994);GoyalandWelch
(2007))
.
2Throughoutthispaper,wewillassumethattheprimaryformofinsuranceinpost-secondaryeducationisagainsttheriskofloworuncertainincome,andwillrefertothisas"lowincomeinsurance"or"educationalinsurance."
3
Ourpapermakesauniquecontributiontoourunderstandingofstudentdemandforeducationalinsur-anceandthepotentialrelevanceofadverseselectionintheviabilityoflow-incomeinsuranceineducationmarkets.Studentswhoareunsureabouttheirprospectsmaydemandinsurancetoprotectthemselvesagainstdownsidelabormarketrisks.Adverseselectionisrelatedbutdifferent:theinsureduseinformationthattheycaneasilyconcealfromtheinsurancecompanytotakeadvantageoftheinsurance’sdownsideprotections.Ourmajorcontributionisaframingexperimentusedtoteaseoutinsurancedemand;oursurveyallowsustoseeconcealedinformationunavailabletothehypotheticalinsurertotestforadverseselection.Usingtheexperimentcoupledwiththesurvey,wecantesthowframingaffectsastudent’sdemandforeducationinsuranceandseeifstudentsuseconcealedinformationtotakeuptheprotectionsatdifferentrates.
Wepartneredwithalarge,non-profituniversity(hereafter,TheUniversity)thattypicallyservesnon-traditionallyagedstudentswhoareoftenworkingadults.Weconductedarandomizedsurveylabexperi-
mentwith2,776studentstounderstandtheirpreferencesoverdifferenteducationalfinancingchoices.
Inthesurvey,studentswereaskedtochoosebetweenahypotheticalfederalstudentloanwiththeoptionofanincome-drivenrepayment(IDR)planandahypotheticalincome-shareagreement(ISA).Bothoptionsprovidedinformationonmonthlyloanpaymentsthatarewaivedforverylowincomesandotherwisearecappedtoafixedshareofanindividual’sincome,withmarkedlydifferentimplementationandpathsforsatisfyingtheloanobligation.
Intheexperiment,studentswererandomizedintotwoequalgroupsand,similartoAbrahametal.
(2020),thepresentedhypotheticaloptionsdifferedintermsoflevelofdetailprovidedforeachofthe
choices.ThefirstgroupwasshowndescriptionsofthestudentloanwithoptionofIDRandtheISAwitharisk-neutralframingthatexplainedthedifferencesinmonthlypayments,generalstructureoftheloan,thebaselinepaymentterms,andthesourceoffunding.ThetermsofthestudentloanwithIDRandtheISAweresettobeactuariallyequivalent.Weexposedthesecondgroup–ourtreatmentgroup–tothesamedescriptionsofthestudentloanwithoptionofIDRandtheISA,butwithanadditionalemphasisontheinsurancefeatures(natureoftheincomecontingencyandmaximumrepaymentterm)ofthetwofinancingoptions.
TherearemanydifferencesbetweenfederalstudentloanswithIDRandISAs,andmanyreasonswhydifferentborrowersmightpreferoneovertheother.Withfederalstudentloans,borrowerswhodowellinthelabormarketwillpaylessintotalbypayingfixedmonthlypaymentsfortheminimumnumberofyears(120payments,or10yearswithnogapsinpayment).Sincethereisnoprepaymentpenaltyforfederalstudentloans,theycanalsobepaidofffasterthanscheduledandmaybeparticularlyattractivetostudentswhoexpectconsistentlyhighearningsaftercollege.Toaccesstheincomecontingency,borrowersmustfollowaseriesofadministrativehurdlesinordertoqualifyforreducedmonthlypaymentscappedata
4
certainpercentageoftheirincome,payingnothingiftheirincomefallsbelowasetthreshold,butpotentiallyextendingtheirtermupto20yearscomparedwiththestandardrepaymentplan
.3
WithanISA,borrowers’monthlypaymentsaresetasapre-agreedshareofincomebydesign,andtherepaymenttermistypicallyextendedtoalesserdegreethanIDRduetomonthsofnon-payment,makinganISAapotentiallyattractivepropositionforborrowerswithpersistentlyloworvariableearnings.Ontheotherhand,thereisnowayto“refinance”outofanISAandborrowerswhoendupearninghighincomeswillpayuptoamultipleoftheoriginalloanamount,describedinourexperiment.Finally,borrowersmayhavepreferencesoverborrowingfromthegovernmentversusaprivatelender.
Wefindthatstudentshaveasignificantpreferenceforthebuilt-inincomeinsuranceintheISAandthatourinsuranceframinggreatlyincreasesthedemandforthehypotheticalISA–byabout10percentagepoints,or43percent.Importantly,thereislimitedheterogeneityintreatmenttobefoundalongdemo-graphic,academic,orfinanciallinesforstudentsinoursample.
4
Theinsuranceframinghas,byfar,thelargesteffectontake-up.Ourresultssuggestthatstudentsarenotnecessarilythinkingaboutincomeriskoraboutthepotentialbenefitsofeducationalinsurancewhentheychoosehowtofinancetheirstudies,butthateducationalandloanproviderscanhelpmakethepotentialneedforeducationalinsurancesalientforborrowersbythoroughlyexplainingthecostsandbenefitsofsuchinsurance.
Oursurveyandfollow-upquestionsalsoallowustocharacterizehowadverseselectionmayentertheeducationalinsurancemarket(HerbstandHendren,
2021)
.5
ThesurveyallowsustosolicitinformationfromthestudentthatisunavailabletotheISAoriginator.Studentsmaybeconfidentabouttheirincomepotentialbutcaneasilyconcealthisinformationfromfinancingproviderswhodonothavetheabilitytopricediscriminate(i.e.mustchargethesameinterestrateorincomesharetoall).Insuchanenvironment,studentsexpectinglowincomeswillsortintotheISAwhilestudentsexpectinghighincomeswilloptforatraditionalloan.EducationalinsurancethatlooksmorelikeanISAwillnotbeasustainablepolicychoiceifstudentswhoachievesignificantreturnstocollegesystematicallychoosestudentloans.Overall,thereislessevidencesuggestiveofadverseselectionacrossavarietyofvariablesthanwesupposedexante.Employmentuncertainty,forexample,doesnotappeartoinfluencetake-up.However,wedofindstrong
suggestiveevidenceofadverseselectionbasedonlikelihoodoffutureincomesbeinglow.
Tofurthertestforadverseselection,weaskseveralfollow-upquestionstoinvestigatehowstudents
3RecentpolicychangesaroundtheSavingonaValuableEducation(SAVE)IDRplansimplifysomeoftheseprocessesforfederalstudentloans,buttheincomeprotectionisstillfarfrombuiltin.AlthoughsomecurrentlyavailableIDRplansofferedbytheDepartmentofEducationextendtherepaymenttermtoupto25years,wewantedtokeepthecomparisonsimpleforborrowersandchosethe(modal)maximumtermof20years.
4Thepreregisteredbaselinevariablesforheterogeneoustreatmenteffectsincludedrace/ethnicity(Black,Hispanic,white),gender(indicatorforfemalerespondent/recipient),householdsize,age(mediansplit),maritalstatus,riskaversion.
5Sincewecannotfollowstudentsafterthesurvey,wecannotshedlightonpotentialmoralhazardfromtheavailabilityofinsuranceforstudentsinthetreatmentgroup.
5
mightchangetheiranswersiftheoffertermsweremodestlydifferent.AftertheirinitialchoicebetweenastudentloanandanISA,weofferedstudentswhooriginallyselectedastudentloanwithIDRanactuarially-equivalentalternativeISAwithalowerincomeshareandalongerterm.Ifastudentmaintainedtheiroriginalchoiceofstudentloaninthesecondroundaswell,wethenofferedthemanotheralternativeISAinthethirdround–thistimewithahigherincomeshareandashortertermthantheoriginalISA.TostudentswhooriginallyselectedthehypotheticalISA,weseparatelyofferedbothalternativeISAsatthesametime.WefindthatbothoriginalISAchoosersandoriginalstudentloanchooserswereequallylikelytoswitchtothelongertermISA,with18%ofrespondentsselectingthelongertermISAovertheiroriginalchoice.Interestingly,respondentswhooriginallychosetheISAwereconsiderablymorelikely(61%)tochoosetheshortertermISAcomparedwiththerespondentswhochosethestudentloanwithIDRinboththefirstand
secondrounds(17%).
Wefurtherfindthattreatedstudentswhooriginallychosethestudentloanwere5.1percentagepoints(17%)morelikelytochoosetheISAoptionwithalowershareandlongerterm.ThetreatmenteffectforthoseofferedthealternativeISAwithshortertermandhighershareisnotstatisticallysignificant.ForstudentswhochosetheoriginalISAinourbaseexperiment,treatedstudentswere8.6percentagepoints(15%)morelikelytochoosethealternativeISAoptionwithahighershareandshorterterm.WefindnosignificanttreatmenteffectsonswitchingtowardthelowershareandlongertermISAforstudentswhooriginallychosetheISAoverthestudentloanwithIDR.Overall,ourresultssuggestthattheinsuranceframinghelpedreinforcestudentpreferencesovershortermaximumrepaymentterm(12yearsforISAv.20yearsforstudentloan),andthatstudentsselectedalternativeISAcontractsinourfollow-upquestionsinawaythatreflectedtheirstatedpreferencebetweentheinitialchoice.
Separately,weaskedallstudentswhethertheywouldselectastudentloaniftherewerea20%chancethatthe$10,000loantheyborrowedwouldbeforgiven.WefindthatstudentswhoswitchedfromaloantoanISAinthesecondroundwere6.4percentagepointsmorelikelytoswitchbacktoaloanwhenof-feredthechanceofstudentloanforgiveness.Conversely,whenstudentswhopickedtheoriginalISAwereofferedaloanwithachanceoffuturedebtforgiveness,theprospectoffuturebalancereductiondecreasedthewillingness/likelihoodofswitchingbacktothefederalstudentloan.ThestudentswhoswitchedtoanISAinthesecondroundaremarginallyattachedtotheISAandmaybeeasilyinducedtoswitchbetweenthetwofinancingchoicesgivenrelativelysmallchangestoterms,whiletheoriginalISAchoosersappeartobemoresetintheirISApreference.Takentogetherwithourresultsonstudentpreferencesoveralterna-tiveISAvariationscomparedwithastudentloanwithIDR,ourstudycontributestotheunderstandingofoptimaldesignofloanproductswithincomeinsurancefeatureswithregardtobothupsideprotections(likemaximumtermortotalpaymentamount)anddownsideprotections(likeincomeshare).
6
Thoughfocusedoneducationalinsurancemarkets,ourpapercontributestootherlinesofresearch,
includingtheliteratureonfinancialaid,educationfinance,andstudentdebt.Asthecostofhighereducationhasrisenandthepurchasingpowerofpublicsubsidieshavefallenalongwithpublicfinancialsupporttouniversities(Webber,
2017
),familieshavehadtoincurdebtorforegoconsumptiontoaffordpost-secondaryeducation.Recentresearchhasemphasizedtheburdenthatstudentloansplaceonstudents(Chakrabartietal.,
2020
)-includingontheirotherconsumerspending(e.g.MezzaandSommer,
2015
),"lifemilestones"(Mezzaetal.,
2020),andeducationaloutcomes(e.g.Blacketal.,
Forthcoming
,DenningandJones,
2021)
.Becausethemonthlypaymentisproportionaltoincome,educationinsurancesuchasIDRandISAscanhedgeagainsttheadverseeffectsofstudentloans.Assuch,take-upofsuchproducts,particularlyamongpopulationswherestudentloanshavehadadverseeffects(e.g.studentsattechnicalorpublicregionalcollegeswithhighervarianceincollegeoutcomes),isimportant.
Manyfamiliesdonotapplyforaid–meaningtheydonotcompletetherequiredfinancialaidforms–becauseofalackofinformationoruncertaintyofeligibility(e.g.Kofoed(
2017
),Bettingeretal.(
2012
)).Evenforfamiliesthatapplyforaid,theprotectionofsomeassetswithinthePelleligibilityformulaleadstolessfinancialaideligibilityforstudentsfromdisadvantagedfamilies(LevineandRitter,
2023
)resultinginhigherstudentloanburdensanddecreasedaccesstoselectiveinstitutions.Formsofbuilt-ineducationalinsurancearepotentiallymoreattractivetothesestudents,astheyautomaticallyreallocatesomeoftheriskfromthestudenttotheproviderandmayreduceuncertaintyaroundfinancialaideligibility.
Additionally,ourresearchcontributestothebehavioralliteratureonstudenttake-upoffinancialaidprogramsundervariedframing.
6
Abrahametal.(
2020
)andMarxandTurner(
2019
)demonstratethatframingmattersforgovernment-sponsoredIDRplansandtraditionalstudentloantake-up,respectively.Inthisliterature,researchersmanipulatethestudents’norms,theterms,risk,andthecostscommunicatedtostudentswithrespecttospecificfinancialinstruments.Ourpapercontributestothisdiscussionbyshowingthatstudentspreferincomecontingentfinancingwhenweemphasizethebuilt-ineducationalinsuranceoftheISA,withtreatmenteffectsfortheinsuranceframingcomparableinmagnitudetoAbrahametal.(
2020)
.Thelessonsfromourstudyareapplicabletothedesignofanyincome-contingenteducationfinancingproductandareparticularlysalienttoongoingpolicydiscussionsaroundtheDepartmentofEducation’s
income-drivenrepaymentplansforfederalstudentloans.
Ourpaperisorganizedasfollows.Section
2
reviewsstudents’collegefinancingandtheprospectforeducationinsuranceinfinancingeducation.Section
3
detailstheexperimentaldesignofourresearchquestions.Section
4
laysoutourempiricalstrategyandelaboratesonthedatacollection.Section
5
provides
6Coxetal.
(2020)examinewhystudentsdon’tchooseIDRwhentheyareworriedaboutfutureincomeexpectations.They
conductalaboratoryexperimentwheretheyprovideinformationaboutIDRanddefaultstudentsintotheplan.Theyfindthatextrainformationandcorrectdefaultingdoesincreaseenrollment.
7
empiricalresults.Section
6
offersconcludingremarksandpolicyconsiderations.
2CollegeFinancingandEducationalInsurance
Thissectiondescribesborrowerlabormarketexpectationsandavailable(studentloanwithIDR)andrel-
ativelynovel(ISAs)highereducationfinancingoptionswithincomeinsurancethatmotivatedourexper-iment.InSection
2.1
,wedescribeborrowers’income/employmenttrajectoriesandpotentialrisksanddisruptionstofutureincomeandemployment.WethenproceedtoexplainthemechanicsofanIDRoptionforatraditionalstudentloaninSection
2.2
andthetypicalISAinSection
2.3.
InSection
2.4
,wediscusshowthefeaturesofthetwofinancingoptionsmightinfluencechoicesbetweenthemandwhichtypesofborrowersmightrespondtowhichincentives.Finally,Section
2.5
discussesthemotivationbehindourexperimentandthecomparisonweofferedtostudentsinourstudy.
2.1Students’EducationalRisks,EarningsTrajectories,andRepaymentShocks
Untilrecently,studentsandparentstypicallyrepaidgovernmentstudentloansinfixedmonthlypaymentsoveragivenrepaymentperiod,akintoatraditionalmortgageloan(Karamchevaetal.,
2020
).Thispaymentremainedconstantregardlessofage,income,employmentstatus,orfamilysituation.Mostnon-governmentlendershaveofferedprivateloanswithastandard,mortgage-stylepaymentschedule,thoughselectlendersarebeginningtoofferorcontemplatealternativeoptions.Some95%ofoutstandingstudentdebtisguaran-teedbythefederalgovernment,sorepaymentplansdesignedandofferedbytheDepartmentofEducation
dominatethesetofchoicesavailabletostudents.
Itisimportanttoconsiderrisktothereturnstocollegeattendance(includingborrowingforthatatten-dance)whenthinkingaboutfutureincomeandemploymentprospectsforstudents(Webber,
2016
;Balakr-ishnanandCynamon,
2018
;HendricksandLeukhina,
2018
;Akers,
2021
).Perhapsthelargestriskfactortotherepaymentofeducationaldebtthatstudentsfaceinvolvestheriskofnon-completion.Historically,6-yearcompletionrateshavehoveredaround60%,andareevenlowerfornontraditionalcollegestudentsandnon-selectiveinstitutions(Bowenetal.,
2009
).Financialcircumstances,lackofacademicprepared-ness,andahostofacademicallyorientatedchallengesmayputstudents’financialinvestmentincollegeatrisk.Additionally,thereare“life”risksthatstudentsface,includingemergenciesarisingfromphysicaltoemotionalhealthtofamilycircumstances.Adultlearners,inparticular,reportthatchild-careemergencies,children’shealth,andeventransportationemergenciescanderailtheireducationalcareers(Markle,
2015)
.Evenforcompleters,riskstoincomeandemploymentaremany.Theaveragefinancialreturnforthe
mediangraduateofa4-yearcollegeoruniversityislarge,andhandilyoutweighstheimplicitandexplicit
8
costsofattendingcollege,whichiswhyenrollmentinapostsecondaryprogramofstudymakessensefor
moststudentsex-ante.Butex-post,returnsareheterogeneousacrossmanydimensionsincludingmajor,institutiontype,andinstitutionprestige.Sincestudentpopulationsparticularlyatriskoflowornegativereturnstocollegeenrollmenttendtoskewtowardvulnerablegroups,addressingtheriskinessofcollegeattendancewithproduct/programdesignandeffectivepublicpolicyisimperative.
Borrowersalsofaceavarietyofincomeshocksduringrepayment,suchthatrepaymentburdenscanvary
widelyforindividualswithvariableoruncertainincomeand/oremployment(ChapmanandLounkaew,
2015
;ChapmanandDearden,
2017
).Borrowersmayfacetemporaryrepaymentchallenges(e.g.duetoperiodsofunemploymentorunderemployment)orchronicrepaymentstrugglesduetolowincomes(e.g.becauseofdegreenon-completion,ordegree/majorwithpoorfinancialreturnoninvestment).
Fixedpaymentsovera10-yearperiodforborrowerswhorecentlycompletedordroppedoutofapro-gramofstudymaynotbeoptimalgiventypicalearningstrajectories,either.Formostborrowers,studentloandebtserviceratios(i.e.,scheduledpaymentsasashareofaborrower’sincome)aretypicallygreaterearlyintherepaymentterm,whenaborrower’sincomeislower.Thisisparticularlytrueforstudentloanborrowerswithlittleworkexperienceuponenteringrepayment,forborrowerswhotypicallybeginrepay-mentinlowerpaidearly-careerpositionsbutultimatelyearnsubstantialamounts(e.g.,medicaldoctors),andforborrowerswithdegreesinmajorsthattraditionallyhavesteepearningstrajectories(e.g.,biology).Consideringallofthesefactors,standard
温馨提示
- 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
- 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
- 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
- 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
- 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
最新文档
- 高考语文一轮复习 专项对点练(9)理解散文词句含意赏析艺术技巧-人教版高三语文试题
- S省旅游发展基金方案
- 专科学校同学申诉处理暂行方法
- 公司电力市场建设及信息发布管理办法
- 2016年下半年江苏省房地产经纪人《制度与政策》:物业服务合同的性质和类型模拟试题
- 江苏省宿迁市2021年中考语文试题(解析版)
- 高中政治课时作业7世界是永恒发展的部编版必修4
- 汽车智能钥匙扣市场:按产品类型、技术、用途- 2024-2030 年预测
- 甲氨蝶呤相关行业投资方案范本
- 山东省邹平2024届中考语文最后冲刺模拟试卷含解析
- 2023年新疆初中学业水平考试生物试卷真题(含答案)
- AIGC人工智能项目安全保障方案
- 2022年山东大数据局所属事业单位考试真题及答案
- 冀教版五年级下册英语课件Lesson 23
- 人教版高中数学A版必修1课后习题及答案(全)
- 商务英语听说知到章节答案智慧树2023年对外经济贸易大学
- 油漆涂装工初级、中级、高级、技师,高级技师试题库
- 教练技术CP理论
- 台球俱乐部助教制度及待遇参考分享
- 贵州电网公司电费抄核收管理办法(试行)和供应商调查管理制度
- 2023年03月杭州钱塘智慧城管理委员会度公开招考3名编外用工人员笔试参考题库答案解析
评论
0/150
提交评论