# data[].attributes.headline
Survey by Student Loan Planner (financial coaching company)

# data[].attributes.subject
Survey by Student Loan Planner (financial coaching company)

# data[].attributes.body
“One in 15 student loan borrowers surveyed have considered suicide due to their student loans.”

this effectively connects high student loans to suicide and bridges two pieces of my evidence together.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ithacan: Low-income students face systemic barriers to college access

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ithacan: Low-income students face systemic barriers to college access

# data[].attributes.body
"Students from low-income backgrounds historically have had difficulties fitting into [college], excluded first by the ballooning costs of college and then by cultural differences between them and their middle- or upper-class peers."

I will use this evidence to wrap up my first body paragraph by utilizing pathos to convey the difficulties poorer students have to face to go to college.

# data[].attributes.body
Rising student debt/tuition puts pressure on students -> evidence supporting the claim that student debt/tuition puts pressure on students -> connecting negative mental health effects to suicide, drawing on concepts from body paragraph 2 -> evidence supporting the claim that suicide rates for students are directly linked to rising tuition/student debt -> evidence giving direct and more specific statistics about how student debt/tuition correlates to suicide.

# data[].attributes.body
Rising tuition = rising student debt -> student debt common -> evidence proving student debt common -> claim student debt could be linked to mental health problems -> evidence detailing how student debt could be linked to mental health problems.

# data[].attributes.headline
EBSCO -  Increases in Graduate Student Debt in the US: 2000 to 2016.

# data[].attributes.subject
EBSCO -  Increases in Graduate Student Debt in the US: 2000 to 2016.

# data[].attributes.body
"With enrollments rising in recent years, more than half of all graduate-level students in US institutions take on educational loans."

I will use this evidence to back my claim that many people take on student debt, establishing it as a real problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With enrollments rising in recent years, more than half of all graduate level students in US institutions take on educational loans. Using data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), this study examined educational debt for graduate and professional students in 2000 and 2016 and explored whether significant predictors of debt changed over time. Results show that those with undergraduate debt were more likely to take on loans for graduate school and that Black/African American students borrowed significantly more than graduate students in other racial/ethnic groups. Findings also showed that institutional reliance on tuition and being Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino were more significantly associated with borrowing in 2016 than in 2000. Consistent with notions of human capital, graduate level education may offer higher long-term salaries and higher quality of life. However, increasing graduate level debt may curtail other life choices, may discourage students from enrolling and persisting, or may motivate degree earners to pursue different program or career options due to accumulated loans.

Keywords: Graduate education; Student debt; NPSAS; Hurdle regression; Graduate school debt

With more than $40 billion in federal and private aid obtained to finance U.S. graduate education in 2016-2017, loans for graduate education have reached a record high (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center [14]; see Fig. 1). Increases in tuition have contributed to the need to borrow for all students. However, unlike their undergraduate peers, graduate and professional students face some different challenges in financing their education, including a decline in the number of teaching and research assistantships available (Jordan and Christie [46]), and fewer opportunities for federal and state grants (NCES [61]). For a variety of reasons, a growing number of today's graduate students must rely on private and federal loans. Although the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 allows students to finance the full amount of their graduate level program, decreases in government-guaranteed private loans following the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (Thies [77]) and a rise in interest rates for Grad PLUS loans make total educational costs higher.

Graph: Fig. 1 Borrowing trends for graduate education, 2000-2016. Results reported for borrowers only. Values reported in 2016 dollars. Source: NCES TrendStats for NPSAS 2000-2016

Further issues in borrowing relate to loan default's impact on students and institutions. With nearly 40% of borrowers expected to default on their student loans by 2023 (Nova [62]), Dynarksi ([24]) argues that instead of a loan crisis, U.S. higher education has a repayment crisis because student loans are to be paid when borrowers' earnings are low and most vulnerable. While Dynarski's ([24]) research primarily focused on undergraduate students, considerations of educational debt extend to graduate and professional students who may secure relatively low paying postdoctoral research positions after degree completion or who shy away from lower-paying public service jobs (Field [30]; Rothstein and Rouse [70]). In addition, undergraduate loan debt could discourage some students from enrolling in graduate education (Dwyer et al. [23]; Fox [31]; Gururaj et al. [35]; Millett [57]). Hillman ([41]) astutely pointed out that, if or when colleges and universities are dependent on federal financial aid dollars, the threat of losing access to this revenue source may impact educational opportunities for students who lose the subsidy as well as have a significant impact on the financial wellbeing, reputation, and administrative practices for many degree-granting colleges and universities. Although educational debt and default affect a larger percentage of undergraduate students and particularly those at for-profit institutions, negative consequences of educational debt can affect graduate students. Given that we know less about graduate student debt, additional research is needed. To ensure continued access to graduate education, it seems essential that institution officials consider how to utilize financial aid effectively to ensure student completion and minimize default.

Despite the growing demand for graduate degree recipients in the workforce, the increasing debt loads of graduate and professional students have not been the focus of legislation, policy, or research (Wendler et al. [83]). While government subsidized loans are more favorable than loans obtained from the private market, there are limited types of federal loans for graduate education, and all have higher interest rates than those for undergraduate education. Given that federal loans comprise approximately 50% of all graduate student aid received in 2015-2016 (NPSAS:16), a better understanding of graduate student financial aid needs can inform possible legislative action and institutional policy that make graduate education affordable and accessible to more students.

Compared to the research that exists on undergraduate student debt, few studies have examined factors that contribute to graduate student debt. Of the limited recent works available, Kelchen ([49], [50], [51]) examined the relationship between rising tuition and access to federal loans (The Bennett Hypothesis). Although he found a modest relationship between tuition federal aid for law students, overall Kelchen concluded there was little evidence for a heightened relationship between tuition and access to federal loans as hypothesized by former Secretary of Education William Bennett in law (Kelchen [49]) or in business or medical programs (Kelchen [50]). Beyond the relationship between tuition and access to federal loans, a better understanding of graduate student debt is important, particularly in a knowledge-based economy wherein the production of an educated workforce has profound implications for economic growth and progress. Along with adding to the limited literature available on graduate student debt, this study offers a longitudinal view of the change in debt levels from 2000 to 2016. Examining educational debt across the 16-year span provides enough time to stand above minor fluctuations in the economy that have occurred, and these time points frame the larger economic and educational shifts that occurred since the Great Recession. The discussion herein also offers important implications for graduate education in the future, offering informative results that can assist in program and policy considerations. Guided by theories of human capital and rational choice in educational decision making, we explore how the level of graduate student borrowing at U.S. postsecondary institutions has changed between 2000 and 2016. Specific research questions for this study include:

To what extent has the level of educational debt changed from 2000 to 2016 by degree level and graduate program?;

To what extent has graduate student debt changed from 2000 to 2016 by gender, race, or other student characteristics?;

Does past educational debt relate to graduate student borrowing?; and

Do institutional characteristics (institutional type, institutional finances, reliance on tuition for operating expenditures) relate to graduate student borrowing?

Relatively few empirical studies have specifically examined graduate student debt and the determinants of student borrowing behaviors. However, several key reports and studies aid our understanding of the current status of postsecondary educational debt (e.g., Gross et al. [34]; Hillman [38]; Perna and Hillman [64]; Price [65]). Summarizing a large body of literature on undergraduate student financial aid, Hillman ([38]), reports that educational debt has risen in recent years due to changes in federal loan eligibility that shifted from grants to loans, more of the costs being shifted to students via higher tuition, and median family incomes having fallen since 2005 making it more difficult for students to pay for college from savings or work income (p. 35). While low income students have traditionally relied on aid, moderate and even high-income families are borrowing. Hillman ([38]) further reports that even after accounting for family income, Black and Hispanic students, in general, have the greatest financial need, although Black students borrow more. To that point, Scott-Clayton ([72]) noted the disproportionate rates among undergraduate Black/African American students and Cellini and Darolia ([12]) and Huelsman ([43]) found the disproportionate burden of debt on minority and low-income undergraduate students to be especially great at for-profit institutions.

The available literature on graduate student debt also informs this study, with a number of studies noting differences in debt by individual demographics. Belasco et al. ([ 7]), Huelsman ([43]), and Rapoport ([67]) found that borrowing among graduate students increased from 2000 to 2008, and that loans are disproportionally obtained by women and some minority students. More recently, Kelchen ([47], [48]) used NPSAS:16 data to observe growth in the percentage of Black/African American graduate students with at least $100,000 of cumulative debt incurred from their undergraduate and graduate programs. He found that 30% of Black/African American students held six-figure debt burdens in 2015-16 compared to just 12% of White students, Prior studies also show that program and discipline matter; professional students incur the highest educational debt among graduate students (Webber and Burns [82]) in part because few professional degree programs offer assistantships. Educational debt differs by discipline, although some mixed findings have been noted. For example, Rapoport ([66]) found that doctoral recipients in science and engineering (S&E) fields incurred more debt from 1993 to 1996 than students in other graduate fields, but more recent data from Burns and Webber ([11]) found higher debt loads for graduate students in non-STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) compared to STEM peers.

Although the literature exploring the determinants of graduate student debt is somewhat limited, research examining the consequences of graduate borrowing is more robust. Numerous studies have identified the availability of financial resources as an important predictor of graduate degree-related outcomes. While Gururaj et al. ([35]) confirm that graduate student financial aid affects retention, Belasco et al. ([ 7]) and Kim and Otts ([52]) noted that borrowing levels have serious consequences for students' choice of major or professional program specialty area, with students possibly choosing majors based on potential lifetime earnings and debt accumulation. Although English and Umbach ([29]) found that graduate school enrollment was unrelated to undergraduate education debt, Millett ([57]) did find an association. In addition, other researchers found that graduate students who relied on their own financial resources spent more time in graduate school and were less likely to complete their degree (Bair and Haworth [ 3]; Bowen and Rudenstine [ 8]; Delisle [19]; Ehrenberg and Mavros [26]).

While individual characteristics frame our understanding of educational loans and debt, researchers have found that the type of institution matters. For example, Looney and Yannelis ([53]) reported that students at for-profit and 2-year institutions accounted for over half of student-loan borrowers and 70% of student loan defaults. Monks' ([60]) findings that colleges with lower state and institutional financial aid more often have students with high debt levels align with those from Baum and Johnson ([ 4]) who asserted that increased enrollments and lower state appropriations and subsequent institutional reliance on tuition may be related to increases in tuition and/or fees.

For public institutions, the decline in state appropriations during the Great Recession affected student aid and the institution's reliance on tuition for revenue. Jaquette and Curs ([44]) found that public institutions, especially research universities, increased nonresident freshman enrollments as a way to handle lowered state appropriations. Jaquette et al. ([45]) finding that nonresident increases led to fewer minority and lower income students is consistent with Hillman and Orosz's ([40]) position on growing inequalities in borrowing behavior. Cellini and Darolia ([12]) also noted that the diversity of issues confronting borrowers has resulted in a relative dearth of empirically-sound, evidence-based policy-making to address student loan policy problems. These authors believe that inequalities in borrowing behaviors and consequences of borrowing have implications for policymakers at the federal level.

This study is guided by the theories of human capital and rational choice. Both theories provide insight into educational decision-making, including the determinants of graduate school enrollment and borrowing behavior. Generally, human capital models posit that students invest in education to maximize their utility, and that decisions to pursue further schooling are based on expected costs and benefits (Becker [ 5]; Elwood and Kane [28]; English and Umbach [29]; Schultz [71]). Acknowledging the costs, Mincer ([58], [59]) proposes that personal human capital not only produces individual economic growth, but it also contributes to social economic growth. According to Becker ([ 6]), individuals maximize their well-being as they accumulate human capital; this is especially true for graduate level students who are strongly involved in the production of new knowledge. Although rates of return differ by race and gender (Becker [ 6]), in general, college graduates achieve higher earnings than non-college graduates due to factors such as greater ability, ambition, health, and opportunities. Related to education, students make the decision to consume (participate in the borrowing market) and how much to consume (amount of money borrowed) in their pursuit of education, and institution and student characteristics can influence these two different stages of the decision model.

In addition to direct monetary costs and foregone earnings, prospective graduate students must also account for the potential psychic costs associated with their enrollment (Cunha et al. [16]). These costs may include stress associated with allocating time to both family obligations and graduate school demands (Rice et al. [68]) or anxiety generated by the prospect of an onerous or insurmountable loan burden (Field [30]). As a result, some individuals with a spouse or child may decide against graduate education and the family-related sacrifices their attendance would likely entail, regardless of academic ability or wealth (Brus [10]). Thus, although individuals are anticipated to make rational decisions about education-related investments (Manski [55]), their decisions will vary considerably and will be dependent upon their preferences, degree aspiration, and expected earnings, as well as perceptions of socioeconomic class, cultural attitudes about borrowing, and college attendance (Dowd [22]).

In constructing a model of rational decisions, DesJardins and Toutkoushian ([21]) argue that rationalism is not exclusive to those who make investments in schooling that most observers would deem appropriate or likely to yield the most benefit. Similar to the notions of bounded rationality (Simon [73]), individuals act based on their knowledge of variables in one's environment, including an assessment of the known and unknown risks and uncertainties. DesJardins and Toutkoushian ([21]), as well as other economic scholars (e.g., Becker [ 6]; Elwood and Kane [28]), purport that such behavior is consistent with the human capital model. Rational behavior models purport that personal preferences shape how individuals perceive postsecondary education. Personal preferences include one's tolerance for risk and the amount and quality of education-related information to which a prospective student has access, both of which can vary considerably across by race (De La Rosa and Hernandez-Gravelle [18]) and gender (Alexitch [ 1]; Roszkowski and Grable [69]). As student default rates for undergraduate loans have risen in the past several years, some students may be more risk-averse and may be hesitant to incur additional debt for graduate education (U.S. Department of Education [81]). Previous literature suggests, for example, that Black/African Americans and Latinos are less likely to have adequate information about college costs and financial aid (Gonzalez et al. [32]; Perna [63]) and, as a consequence, may incur more educational debt than non-minority students (Malcom and Dowd [54]; Price [65]). Collectively, these discrepancies can act as a "double blow" that contributes to and exacerbates the gap in graduate degrees earned by majority and minority students.

Data for this study come from the 2000 and 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and the 1999-2000 and 2015-2016 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). As a comprehensive source of data on how students finance their postsecondary education, the NPSAS surveys contain nationally representative samples of undergraduate and graduate students, and as such, provide data suitable to a national analysis. Graduate respondents to NPSAS include students enrolled in master's, doctoral, and professional programs in the 1999-2000 and 2015-2016 academic years at title IV eligible U.S. institutions.[ 1] All variables from NPSAS:2000 measuring dollar values were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2016 dollars. Institution-level characteristics were obtained from IPEDS; the specific variables are described below.

Along with demographic and academic characteristics of respondents, NPSAS also includes data on the type and amount of debt students incurred during graduate education. The dependent variable used in our analyses was the total amount borrowed for graduate education (BORAMT2) for students who were enrolled in a master's, doctoral, or professional degree program in 2000 or 2016. This figure includes all federal, state, and private loans graduate students ever borrowed for their graduate education and does not include loans for undergraduate education.

Independent student-level variables drawn from NPSAS include gender, race, marital status, age, number of dependents, total income, enrollment intensity (full-time or part-time), year in school (first year or second year and higher), total amount of assistantship dollars received, undergraduate borrowing, major field of study, and graduate degree program.[ 2]

While theories on personal preferences and rational choice frame our study, previous literature (e.g., Ehrenberg et al. [25], [27]; Gross et al. [34]) reminds us that student borrowing may differ according to institutional characteristics such as private versus public institutional control, overall institutional financial health, and the institution's ability to provide graduate assistantships. Institutions with larger endowments and multiple revenue sources beyond tuition are more able to provide graduate scholarships and grants (Archibald and Feldman [ 2]; Taylor and Cantwell [76]; Slaughter and Rhoades [75]). Students pursuing graduate degrees at less profitable institutions or in programs that do not typically offer graduate assistantships (e.g., professional programs) are more likely to finance their graduate education via loans (Hoffer et al. [42]). Furthermore, the extent to which institution officials are able to subsidize graduate education may also be influenced by broader economic trends and institutional budget models. For example, performance-based budgets require each unit or division within an institution to generate funds to cover its expenses. Especially for public institutions that have experienced lower state revenues, expenditures to institution missions may be shifted to position the institution to use its limited resources for the greatest return on investment (for example, a stronger focus on research due to the likelihood of capturing more extramural funding). Such a shift in budget models may mean a reduction of funds for student financial aid, and a greater reliance on tuition and fees to fill much of the void.

Another important indicator, instructional and other academic expenditures per FTE measure the amount of funding an institution commits to student academic and instructional experiences and is an indicator of how the institution prioritizes instructional and academic initiatives. This variable is included as a control for the overall financial health and position of the institution.[ 3] Tuition reliance measures the extent to which the institution relies on student tuition and fee revenue for operating expenditures and is used here as a proxy for the institution's contribution to financial aid for students.[ 4] Institutions with a higher value for tuition reliance are more heavily dependent on tuition and fee revenues, and may therefore be less likely to offer students institutional financial aid. At these institutions, students may be more likely to borrow for graduate education. Alternatively, institutions with lower tuition reliance may have alternative sources of revenue to maintain operations; these institutions may be in a financial position to offer students additional institutional financial aid, thus lowering the students' likelihood of borrowing. Although key finance variables may differ by private versus public institutions as well as by institution mission (Toutkoushian [79]), variables such as instructional/academic expenditures and tuition reliance can also serve as general signals for an institution's overall financial health. To address these institution-level influences, we include variables from IPEDS for institution control, Carnegie classification, instructional and academic expenditures per FTE student, and tuition reliance.

Descriptive analyses for graduate students enrolled in 2000 and 2016 were completed first to examine differences across the two time points, including two-sample t-tests for significant differences. Following the descriptive analyses, a deeper examination of factors that contribute to debt was completed via regression analysis using an exponential hurdle model (Cragg [15]). Since about 53% of graduate students in 2000 and 43% of graduate students in 2016 did not borrow for graduate school, the hurdle analysis was used in Stata to account for the high proportion of students who have a zero for the dependent variable (debt) and to adjust for the non-normal distribution due to an overdispersion of zeroes. The hurdle analysis is a selection model that includes boundary points for the dependent variable and an outcome model that determines the non-bounded values of the dependent variable. Rather than treating the boundary values as a censor, the hurdle model treats them as observed, meaning that they are not the result of inability to observe the distribution above or below the boundary point. The choice of the hurdle model for this analysis is appropriate given its ability to express two important stages of the human capital and rational choice frameworks: ( 1) participation, or the decision to borrow; and ( 2) consumption, or the amount of borrowing. Thus, this approach to modeling student borrowing patterns captures the range of student and institutional characteristics that relate to borrowing in different stages of the human capital and rational choice decision-making processes.

The hurdle model is expressed by the relationship , where is the observed value of the dependent variable. The selection variable, , is 1 if the dependent variable is not bounded and 0 if it is bounded. The lower limit that bounds the dependent variable is 0, making the selection model equal to:

Graph

where is a vector of covariates, is a vector of coefficients, and is an error term. The continuous latent variable is only observed if =1. Two possible models are the linear model:

Graph

And the exponential model:

Graph

where is a vector of covariates, is a vector of coefficients, and is an error term. In the exponential model, the error term has a normal distribution. It is also possible for the regressors in and to differ based on theoretical hypotheses regarding factors contributing to a binary decision to borrow versus the continuous level of borrowing (Cragg [15]). In this analysis, we chose to maintain the same regressors in both stages of the hurdle model. Any deviations from this approach would require a theoretical basis for assuming that the determinants for the likelihood to borrow any amount (stage one) are significantly different from the determinants for the amount borrowed (stage two). The theoretical basis of this study anticipates differences in borrowing based on rational choice and human capital theories, both of which implicate the range of variables that are included in the model. Accordingly, we chose to include all variables in both stages. In addition, preliminary analyses using weighted pairwise correlations between student characteristics (e.g., gender) and institutional or academic characteristics found no significant correlations with one exception. The professional program group was overrepresented by law students, thus an interaction term between professional degree program and law majors was included in both models.

For the hurdle analysis, the lower limit of the dependent variable was specified as zero and an exponential regression model was employed. The first stage of the analysis models the decision to borrow or not borrow for graduate school as a function of a vector of covariates including age, gender, marital status, dependents, race/ethnicity, income, enrollment intensity, institutional type and control, degree program and major, prior borrowing patterns, amount of graduate assistantship, and institutional financial indicators. Once a student decides to borrow for graduate school ( = 1), the amount a student borrows is modeled as an exponential function of the aforementioned vector of covariates. All dollar values from 2000 are indexed for inflation to reflect 2016 values. Sampling weights were used and analyses included adjustments for design effects to improve the precision and efficiency of the estimates (Hahs-Vaughn [36]; Thomas and Heck [78]).[ 5] When weighted, the 2000 analytic sample of 9690 (rounded) represents approximately 2.0 million graduate students; the 2016 sample of 22,370 (rounded) represents approximately 3.3 million graduate students.

As shown in Table 1, master's level students comprise the majority of graduate students in both years (71% in 2000 compared to 75% in 2016). Compared to 2000, respondents in NPSAS:16 represented fewer male students, students who identified as white, students who were married, and students beyond their first year of graduate school. By major or discipline, the 2016 sample represented a smaller proportion of students with education and humanities majors, but a larger proportion of students in STEM fields. The mean age and proportion of students with dependents across the two samples was relatively comparable, but the mean total income of $59,420 for respondents in 2000 was higher than that of 2016 respondents (mean of $47,920). Table 1 also shows mean values and percentages for select institutional characteristics. As shown, the 2016 sample represented fewer students enrolled in public institutions and more enrolled in for-profit institutions. Instructional and academic support revenues per FTE were higher in 2016 than in 2000; however, the mean value for institutional reliance on tuition increased by 17 percentage points between 2000 and 2016.

Table 1 Student demographics and institutional characteristics, 2000 and 2016.

Table 1 Student demographics and institutional characteristics, 2000 and 2016.

Table 1 Student demographics and institutional characteristics, 2000 and 2016.

Table 1 Student demographics and institutional characteristics, 2000 and 2016.

Source: NPSAS:00; NPSAS:16 Dollar amounts in 2000 inflated to reflect 2016 dollars. N rounded to nearest 10 students. Percent column reports the weighted percentage of total graduate students in the sample †Due to small sample sizes, particularly in the 2000 sample, racial categories for American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, and more than one race were collapsed into the "other" category. Analyses using these racial groups as their own categories produce unreliable estimates ‡ Other majors include undeclared and other unspecified majors. STEM majors include life and physical sciences, engineering, computer science, math, and health-related majors **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Table 2 reports the mean amount borrowed and the percentage of graduate students who borrowed or received graduate assistantships in 2000 and 2016. Findings in Table 2 show that across all degree program levels, a higher percentage of students borrowed for graduate education and borrowed a higher mean amount in 2016 compared to 2000. As shown, 42% of master's students in 2000 borrowed an average of approximately $27,800, whereas 55% of master's students in 2016 borrowed an average of $37,270. Borrowing also increased among doctoral students: 44% of 2000 doctoral students borrowed an average of $40,590 compared to 51% of 2016 doctoral students who borrowed an average of approximately $74,700. Similar patterns are evident in the amount professional students borrowed; however, the percentage of professional students borrowing decreased from 81% in 2000 to 77% in 2016. Table 2 also shows that graduate students in 2016 borrowed higher amounts for undergraduate education (with the exception of professional students) and that the percentage of graduate students borrowing for undergraduate education increased significantly for master's students. In addition, the amount borrowed among first year students increased significantly in 2016, as did the percentage of first year students borrowing. These findings suggest that graduate students may experience a cumulative debt burden from undergraduate and graduate education as they pursue advanced degrees.

Table 2 Student borrowing and aid receipt, 2000 and 2016. Source: NPSAS:00; NPSAS:16

Dollar amounts from 2000 are inflated to 2016 dollars. Percent columns report the weighted percentage of graduate students who had values > 0 for: (a) undergraduate borrowing; (b) graduate borrowing; or (c) graduate assistantship. Mean columns reported the weighted averages of graduate students who had values > 0 for: (a) undergraduate borrowing; (b) graduate borrowing; or (c) graduate assistantship. Graduate assistantships are measured as the total amount of assistantship awarded in each year. T-values shows the difference in means for the average amount borrowed or received aid (2016 v. 2000) and percent of students who borrowed or received (2016 v. 2000). Positive t-values indicate that more students borrowed or borrowed more in 2016 than in 2000 *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

One potential mechanism for lowering loans among graduate students is the provision of graduate assistantships that provide tuition waivers and stipends for work related to teaching and/or research. As shown in the bottom portion of Table 2, average total assistantship amounts in 2016 were lower and fewer students received assistantships than in 2000. Students in professional and master's degree programs received much lower assistantships than students in doctoral programs; thus, separate analysis of these three student groups is necessary when examining total educational debt.

Following the descriptive analyses described above, we examined factors that contribute to debt using an exponential hurdle model (Cragg [15]). Models were run separately for 2000 and 2016 and included all graduate students, with dummy indicators for master's, doctoral, and professional degree programs.

For ease of interpretation, marginal effects were calculated and shown in Table 3. In interpreting the results of the hurdle model, the coefficient estimate is conditioned on the likelihood that the student borrowed greater than zero dollars for their graduate education. Thus, the marginal results presented are the average marginal effect of each independent variable on both the likelihood of borrowing and the amount borrowed. A final analysis was completed to examine the differences in regression coefficients between the mean amount borrowed (conditional on the propensity to borrow) in 2016 compared to that in 2000. This analysis follows the formula from Toutkoushian and Conley ([80]):

Table 3 Factors contributing to graduate borrowing 2000 and 2016.

Source: NPSAS:00; NPSAS:16 Reference categories include male, white, unmarried, exclusively full-time, second year and higher students, public institutions, "other" type granting institution, Master's degree programs, and business major. Standard errors in parentheses. The t-test column shows the two-sample t-values comparing the marginal effects in 2016 compared to 2000 †Due to small sample sizes, particularly in the 2000 sample, racial categories for American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, and more than one race were collapsed into the "other" category. Analyses using these racial groups as their own categories produce unreliable estimates ‡ STEM majors include life and physical sciences, engineering, computer science, math, and health-related majors ⁑ Other majors include other and unspecified majors. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Graph

where the numerator includes the coefficient for respondents in 2000 subtracted from the coefficient for 2016. The denominator is the square root of the standard error for each coefficient squared and then summed. Differences in the contribution of each variable were calculated and shown in the final column of Table 3.

Table 3 reports the results of the hurdle model for graduate students enrolled in 2000 and 2016; because the coefficient estimates of a hurdle model are not directly interpretable, the marginal effects are reported.[ 6]

Shown in Table 3, several student-level variables were significantly associated with graduate borrowing in 2000, including age, race, enrollment status, first-year status, degree program, and major. All else equal, Hispanic students in 2000 borrowed $3954 less than white peers, while international students borrowed $14,943 less.[ 7] Older students also borrowed about $174 more for graduate education for each additional year in age. Students enrolled part time and students in their first year of graduate school borrowed $13,140 and $10,112 less than full-time and second year or higher students, respectively. Compared to business majors, students with education majors borrowed $5507 less, while students with social sciences majors borrowed $8571 more in 2000. As expected, students in doctoral and professional degree programs borrowed $3694 and $25,542 more, respectively, than students in master's degree programs.

Unsurprisingly, students with higher incomes borrowed less: for each ten-percent increase in income, graduate students in 2000 borrowed about $283 less for graduate school. Both previous borrowing and receipt of graduate stipends were significantly associated with graduate borrowing in 2000.[ 8] Students borrowed $117 more for each ten-percent increase in undergraduate borrowing, but borrowed $36 less for each ten-percent increase in graduate assistantship funding.

Results suggest that some institution-level variables also had significant associations with graduate student borrowing in 2000. Compared to students in public institutions, graduate students at private non-profit institutions borrowed $10,501 more, while students enrolled at doctorate-granting institutions borrowed $4851 more than students enrolled at "other" institution types (special focus and baccalaureate-granting institutions).

Table 3 reveals similar results for students enrolled in graduate education in 2016, with some notable differences. Student-level characteristics with a significant association with borrowing included age, gender race, marital status, enrollment status, first-year status, major, and degree program. Compared to white peers, Black/African American and Hispanic students borrowed $15,227 and $4950 more, respectively, for graduate education in 2016. Married students borrowed $3309 less than unmarried students, and students enrolled part time borrowed $6321 less than full time students. In 2016, borrowing for doctoral and professional students was much higher than 2000; students enrolled in doctoral programs borrowed $15,918 and students in professional programs borrowed $45,440 more than students in master's degree programs. Compared to business majors, students majoring in the social sciences, STEM, law, and other majors borrowed $9717 more, $5639 more, $17,913 more, and $6576 more for graduate education.

Similar to results in 2000, students in 2016 borrowed $145 less for each ten-percent increase in income and $144 less for each ten-percent increase in graduate assistantship amount,[ 9] and borrowed $201 more for each ten-percent increase in the amount borrowed for undergraduate education.

Institution-level variables that were significantly associated with graduate borrowing in 2016 mirrored those in 2000: students enrolled at private for-profit and private non-profit institutions borrowed $15,609 and $10,555 more, respectively, than students at public institutions. Students at master's-level institutions borrowed $5515 less than students enrolled at "other" institution types.

Two-sample t-tests compared the strength of the associations of student and institutional covariates with borrowing patterns between 2000 and 2016. As shown in the final column of Table 3, several variables had significantly different effects on graduate borrowing between 2000 and 2016. However, since not all of these variables were significantly associated with borrowing in either year, only those with both significant effects in 2000 or 2016 and significant differences between those years are highlighted. The variables that became significantly more positively associated with borrowing in 2016 compared to 2000 included age, race (for Black/African American students), enrollment in a doctoral or professional degree program, majoring in STEM, and borrowing for undergraduate education. The variables that became significantly more negatively associated with borrowing in 2016 included international student status, first-year status, and assistantship amount. In contrast, some variables were more strongly associated with borrowing in 2000 and became less significant in 2016; enrollment in a doctorate-granting institution had a more positive association with borrowing in 2000, while higher income had a stronger negative association with borrowing in 2000.

Some limitations may affect the outcomes of this study. It is possible that data errors exist in both NPSAS and IPEDS that could affect analyses, such as inaccurate reporting among institutions and/or state systems and self-reported data from student respondents. The exclusion of students in post-baccalaureate programs could lead to a downward bias in our estimates for total borrowing, as many students in these programs are enrolled in professional-type certifications that may have a high financial cost with the expectation of a high financial benefit through improved job prospects. Students' rationales for institution choice are often based on many factors, and are to a degree, individually determined. We included variables such as Carnegie classification that may provide some insight into indirect markers of institutional prestige and thus may affect a students' choice. NPSAS data does not offer one or a combination of variables that serve as a proxy for the combination of factors that contribute to institution choice.

In addition, there are no variables included to control for unobserved variables such as student wealth or motivation to enter or complete one's degree; we acknowledge that entry and especially completion of a graduate level degree rest on a number of complex circumstances that may vary by person. Some student-level and institution-level characteristics may overlap to a high degree, such as a higher incidence of minority or low-income students at for-profit institutions. Since preliminary correlations were not significant (except for law students by professional program), interaction terms between student and institutional characteristics were not included in the hurdle models. Further, although the weighting procedures and adjustments for design effects account for non-respondents and the clustered sampling, we note that NPSAS does not oversample for underrepresented minority populations in higher education.

We also acknowledge our limitations in accounting for possible contribution of interactions between the students' background or perceptions of access to education that may contribute to findings on educational debt. Dowd ([22]) astutely argued that previous findings on the effects of borrowing and the prospects of indebtedness on college-going behavior is confounded by "dynamic interactions between the decision to borrow and the characteristics of borrowers (endogeneity), their degree and earnings expectations (self-selection bias), and cumulative effects (temporal and threshold effects)" p. 232. We acknowledge Dowd's ([22]) points that family experiences and attitudes about finances in general and borrowing in particular may contribute to one's self-efficacy and perceived barriers that may contribute to choices or limits that a student thinks s/he may have. While these factors may also affect graduate students, we believe it is more likely that knowledge and perspectives available to the student considering graduate education may rely less on the attitudes and assumptions that may be stronger for the high school student who is considering initial postsecondary education.

With the economic downturn and higher levels of unemployment that occurred around 2008 as well as changes in technology that require advanced skills, it is not surprising that more individuals pursued graduate education in the past decade. Higher education has historically been an important way for citizens to advance their knowledge, career opportunities, and subsequent long-term financial stability. Even if not at a 'crisis' point (Dynarski [24]), rising costs for postsecondary education have contributed to graduate students' need for additional educational loans. In line with notions of bounded rationality (Simon [73]) and rational choice (DesJardins and Toutkoushian [21]), it seems plausible that graduate students weigh the known costs and risks associated with graduate school attendance, including consideration of one's finances, if and how much would be borrowed, how it affects one's lifestyle, and one's ability to repay loans in a timely manner.

Indeed, graduate degree completion does increase the chances for better employment and/or career prospects (Becker [ 6]). A graduate degree may lead to a higher salary and a greater likelihood of paying back educational loans (and without default). This is a reasonable scenario as long as employment opportunities exist to ensure the higher salary, and in geographic regions where degree recipients want to live. However, in times of higher unemployment, individuals with advanced degrees might not find relevant employment or may take jobs requiring lower credentials and offering lower salaries. In this scenario, individuals with educational loans may have difficulty paying them off. Additionally, federal policies that have resulted in fewer low-interest and low-risk loans for graduate students have resulted in more individuals with greater loan burden, higher interest rates, and longer time in debt. Results from this study show that, for some groups, the mean amount borrowed as well as the percentage of graduate students who took on educational loans increased from 2000 to 2016 (see Table 2).

Addressing research question 2 and consistent with previous findings (e.g., Belasco et al. [ 7]; Kelchen [47]; Kim and Otts [52]), results show that some underrepresented minority students (including Black/African American and Hispanic students in 2016), are more likely to borrow than white peers and incur higher debt. Moreover, these graduate students have seen the largest increases in both the percentage of students borrowing and the total amount of debt between 2000 and 2016 (in comparison to Asian and white peers). Addressing research question 3, findings also indicated that higher debt from one's undergraduate education was related to the amount borrowed for graduate school and that undergraduate debt was a stronger contributor in 2016. Results showed that graduate students in 2000 borrowed $117 more for each ten-percent increase in undergraduate borrowing, while graduate students in 2016 borrowed $201 more. The strength of this association was also much stronger in 2016 than in 2000.

Consistent with comments by Goodman et al. ([33]), findings show that income plays a significant role in borrowing. These findings work against larger institution and state goals to encourage and expand access to a diverse array of students. In addition, part-time students continue to borrow less, but the additional time spent in graduate education could hinder degree completion, particularly for students who are more likely to have family and life obligations competing with their graduate studies (Rice et al. [68]).

Shown in Table 3, it is noteworthy that several variables were more significantly associated with students' borrowing patterns in 2016 than in 2000. Black/African American and Hispanic students, students with lower total income, students in their second year or higher, professional students, and those enrolled in private institutions may be especially vulnerable to higher loans in 2016 compared to 2000. The likelihood of job prospects and higher salaries may have encouraged more graduate students to major in STEM programs and the consequent rationalization for educational loans. Additional study of 2016 graduate degree completers could offer greater insight into the extent to which investment in graduate education pays off. This seems especially important for professional students who generally have the largest loans to repay after degree completion.

As an important dimension of human capital, contributions of graduate students are critical to the creation of new knowledge (Mincer [58]). In many instances, graduate students contribute substantially to faculty member research that triggers subsequent extramural funds. The symbiotic relationship between graduate students and institutionally-funded assistantships is important for both parties. However, when individuals do not receive support (primarily through assistantships), they may not see an adequate return on the investment, choosing to forego graduate education, or they may turn to loans. Indeed, education should also be seen in non-pecuniary benefits (Mincer [58]), but it seems possible that today's economic and social challenges, especially for URM and women students who generally earn lower salaries, are strong enough to prompt individuals to question the value of graduate education.

Related to research question 4, it is noteworthy that institutional reliance on tuition has increased over the 16-year period; see Table 2. This may signal further increases in tuition and fewer opportunities to offer assistantships. Institutional officials must be cautious of adding programs primarily to achieve a higher profit margin ('cash cow' programs) knowing there are few opportunities for institutional grant support. Along with higher student debts, institution officials must be mindful of default and forbearance. Monitoring degree success, graduate employment rates, and student loan default can inform policymakers and institutional leaders on the relationship between degree completion, educational loans, and successful transition into the workforce.

Because institutions could lose their ability to participate in federal student aid programs due to high default, institution officials may be tempted to encourage borrowers to put their past-due loans in forbearance to temporarily postpone payments. However, a recent GAO report (GAO 18-163) found that such action increases student costs over time as well as reducing the usefulness of the default rate as a tool to hold postsecondary institutions accountable. Although they currently exclude PLUS loans or unsubsidized Stafford Loans for graduate students (Hillman [39]), 'risk-sharing' actions such as two proposals submitted to Congress seek to create financial incentives for colleges to improve student success. Although fewer graduate students default on loans compared to undergraduate students (Dynarski [24]), it seems quite possible that congressional study of the issue may broaden to graduate student debt as lawmakers move closer to Higher Education Act Reauthorization.

We are unsure why our results showed an increase in tuition reliance between 2000 and 2016 (Table 1), yet the relationship between tuition reliance and students' borrowing became negative in 2016 (Table 3). Originally, we hypothesized that institutions that have a higher reliance on tuition would be less likely to offer graduate student aid, which would prompt students to borrow more. Our results showed just the opposite. Further consideration reminds us that there are a number of other factors at play, including the possibility that institutions with the highest tuition reliance could have overall lower attendance costs, which would decrease the amount students borrow. In addition, the data confirm that there was a higher proportion of part-time and master's level students at institutions with higher tuition reliance, both groups of students who borrow less than full-time and doctoral and professional peers, respectively.

Although public colleges and universities in general experienced small increases in state support in years after the Great Recession, it seems that the momentum toward further privatization of American higher education may continue. Aptly said by Hearn et al. ([37]), "... The evolving distribution of federal student aid apportioned as grants, loans, and tax benefits illustrates the privatization of the federal role in U.S. financial aid policy" (p. 7). The general trend in state appropriations between 2000 and 2016 is a decline not in total amount of appropriations, but in the relative share of appropriations for total institutional expenditures. As the share of state funding for higher education continues to decrease, graduate education may become even less affordable, with students contributing a larger share of institutional funds, especially Master's students and those who do not receive graduate assistantships. The combination of rising tuition and the shift of the burden to students may mean that some individuals will not consider enrollment in graduate education, particularly low-income students who may believe the debt load will exceed the payoff of the graduate degree. Future studies may wish to gather information on outcomes such as earnings to debt ratio, a finding that would further illuminate returns for graduate education enrollment. In human capital terms, students must consider if the monetary losses from tuition as well as forgone wages are worth the investment.

Because the Higher Education Act will likely be reauthorized soon, the time is right for additional discussion on educational loans. Perna and Hillman ([64]) urge federal policies that ensure students are well informed about student loans and that protect students against the risks of non-repayment. These authors believe that federal policymakers can also further increase knowledge of effective loan policy by supporting the advancement of loan-related data and research. For example, these authors cite a 2016 Department of Education call for college and university participation in an experimental study to examine the effects of higher levels of financial aid counseling. We await information on such a study and hope that more can be done to study multiple forms of providing information, including in-person and online tutorials.

Increased graduate borrowing is concerning for individual success, but rising debt levels in American graduate education could have important social consequences as well. Several studies have revealed that high debt levels reduce the probability that students pursue public interest jobs that contribute to civic society (Field [30]; Rothstein and Rouse [70]). For example, several studies examined debt and subsequent employment for medical students. While some scholars did not find a relationship between debt and career choice (i.e., Spar et al. [74]) other scholars (Woodworth et al. [85]) found that medical students with high debt are less likely to choose specialties that have a long training program or to become general practitioners in poor communities.

Along with vocational choice, student debt may also prevent individuals from civic and social activities that contribute to quality of life for themselves and their broader communities (e.g., Brint and Rotondi [ 9]). These activities have the potential to facilitate the growth of human and social capital and are often essential to the sustained economic prosperity and competitiveness of society on a global scale. In addition, graduate completers who accumulate more debt may not be as willing to apply for jobs that pay less (i.e., many public or non-profit sector jobs) (Rothstein and Rouse [70]), an outcome that is inconsistent with fundamental principles of human capital theory (Becker [ 6]; Mincer [58]). For some students, tendencies toward default and avoidance of low-paying jobs may mean fewer graduates will enter public sector employment that can assist with meeting the needs of many underserved citizens in many areas of the country. Increasing the time for repayment could allow students in public service jobs to repay in later years of employment when salaries are higher. Alternatively, Kelchen ([51]) suggests that instead of a large loan forgiveness after 10 years of public service work, a $300 monthly award up front (for up to 5 years) would help borrowers manage the loan principal, encourage work in public service, and allow federal redirection of more resources to students with less debt.

It is possible that choices regarding educational attainment and employment may affect the graduate's quality of life, including the delay of significant life events such as marriage, childbirth, or home-buying. Although Goodman et al. ([33]) point out that loans may allow students to finance non-education activities, Mezza et al. ([56]) reported that a $1000 increase in student loan debt lowers the homeownership rate by 1.8 percentage points. Moreover, if monetary costs are high and family requirements or other psycho-emotional stressors are too great, students may decide that there are few rational reasons to invest in graduate training.

Despite more frequent discussion in the past few years, considerations on whether to include graduate students in some lower-cost loan programs such as Direct Plus Loans (Clark [13]) now seem to be fading with the current Republican administration at the federal level (Delisle [20]). Without substantial changes, it seems unlikely that graduate education will become more affordable in the years ahead, particularly for professional degree programs. The results of this study suggest that future policy decisions take into account the research that explores interventions designed to assist individuals in prudent and practical decision-making about graduate education and borrowing. In 2012, only 700,000 borrowers were enrolled in income-based repayment (IBR) plans provided by the federal government, despite the fact that that over 1.6 million borrowers could have used IBR to reduce their monthly payments and overall debt (The White House [84]). On a positive note, the 2016 student default rate of 11.3% was a down from 11.8% the year prior. However, private non-profit colleges saw an increased default rate from 6.8 to 7.0% (Douglas-Gabriel [17]). Perhaps the shifts downward are due in part to proactive and sustained monitoring of loan default rates and strategic planning by institutional leaders to appropriate additional institutional funds to financial aid.

Because further institutional stratification is possible (Taylor and Cantwell [76]) and which affects URM students more than whites, senior institution leaders and state policy makers should continue to publicize the benefits of graduate education for individuals as well as the institution, while promoting the subsequent contributions to the economy. Officials should also continue to seek additional public funding, while mindful of the decline in state support for public education since 2000; thus other sources of funds must be considered as well. Because assistantships are critical as a primary form of support, institution officials can also strive to provide more institutional funding through teaching and research assistantships. Relatedly, partnerships with local businesses may offer experiential activities that offer funding or tuition and fees waiver. Following existing patterns for traditional Ph.D. students, professional programs can consider providing more numerous and generous graduate assistantships, particularly for targeted groups of students. Such assistance programs could lessen the financial burden for students and could also lessen the tendency for students to avoid lower-paying public service employment. Additional governmental incentives for debt forgiveness may also encourage more graduate degree completers to enter the public, nonprofit, or civil service sectors. Finally, institutional analyses to monitor increases in tuition and fees are particularly important for students whose assistantships may cover only partial tuition and/or fees.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References 2 Archibald, R. B, & Feldman, D. H. (2018). Drivers in the rising price of a college education. Midwestern Higher Education Compact, Minneapolis, MN, Retrieved at: https://www.mhec.org/sites/default/files/resources/mhec%5faffordability%5fseries7%5f20180730%5f2.pdf. Brus CP. Seeking balance in graduate school: A realistic expectation or dangerous dilemma?. New Directions for Student Services. 2006; 115: 31-45. 10.1002/ss.214 Burns R, Webber K. Achieving the promise of educational opportunity: Graduate student debt for STEM vs. non-STEM students. Journal of Student Financial Aid. 2019; 48; 3: 1-29 Cellini SR, Darolia R. High costs, low resources, and missing information: Explaining student borrowing in the for-profit sector. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2017; 671; 1: 92-112. 10.1177/0002716217696255 Clark, K. (2008). How to get financial aid for graduate school. US News & World Report. Retrieved at: https://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2008/03/26/how-to-get-financial-aid-for-grad-school. College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. (2017). Trends in student aid 2017. Retrieved at: https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/2017-trends-student-aid_0.pdf. Cragg JG. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica. 1971; 39: 829-844. 10.2307/1909582 Cunha F, Heckman JJ, Navarro S. Separating uncertainty from heterogeneity in life cycle earnings. Oxford Economic Papers. 2005; 7; 2: 191-261. 10.1093/oep/gpi019 Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2016). Student loan default rate dips, but 'considerable work remains, education secretary says. The Washington Post, September 28, 2016. Retrieved at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/09/28/student-loan-default-rate-dips-but-considerable-work-remains-education-secretary-says/?utm%5fterm=.e3e7993e726b. De La Rosa, M. L, & Hernandez-Gravelle, H. (2007). The strategy of debt aversion: How Hispanic students pay for college. Meeting of the American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education (AAHHE), Costa Mesa, CA. Delisle, J. (2014). The graduate student debt review. Policy Brief. Washington, DC: New America Education Policy Program. Delisle J. Private in name only: Lessons from the defunct guaranteed student loan program. 2017: Washington, DC; American Enterprise Institute DesJardins SL, Toutkoushian RKSmart JC. Are students really rational? The development of rational thought and its application to student choice. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. 2005: Netherlands; Springer: 191-240. 10.1007/1-4020-3279-X_4 Dowd A. Dynamic interactions and intersubjectivity: Challenges to causal modeling in studies of college debt. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78; 2: 232-259. 10.3102/0034654308317252 Dwyer RE, McCloud L, Hodson R. Debt and graduation from American universities. Social Forces. 2012; 90; 4: 1133-1155. 10.1093/sf/sos072 Dynarski, S. (2015). An economist's perspectives on the student loan crisis in the US. CESIFO Working Paper, #5579. Munich: Center for Economic Studies (CES) at the LMU Munich, Germany. Ehrenberg R, Rizzo M, Jakubson GStephan P, Ehrenberg R. Who bears the growing cost of science at universities?. Science and the university. 2007: Madison, WI; University of Wisconsin Press: 19-35 Ehrenberg RG, Mavros P. Do doctoral students' financial support patterns affect their times-to-degree and completion probabilities. The Journal of Human Resources. 1995; 30; 3: 581-609. 10.2307/146036 Ehrenberg RG, Rizzo MJ, Jakubson GStephan PE, Ehrenberg RG. Who bears the growing cost of science?. Science and the University. 2007: Madison, WI; University of Wisconsin Press Elwood DT, Kane TJDanziger S, Waldfogel J. Who is getting a college education? Family background and growing gaps in enrollment. Securing the future: Investing in children from birth to college. 2000: New York; Russell Sage Foundation: 283-324 English D, Umbach P. Graduate school choice: An examination of individual and institutional effects. The Review of Higher Education. 2016; 39; 2: 173-211. 10.1353/rhe.2016.0001 Field E. Educational debt burden and career choice: Evidence from a financial aid experiment at NYU Law School. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2009; 1; 1: 1-21 Fox M. Student debt and enrollment in graduate and professional school. Applied Economics. 1992; 24: 669-677. 10.1080/00036849200000035 Gonzalez KP, Stoner C, Jovel JE. Examining the role of social capital in access to college for Latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. 2003; 2; 2: 146-170. 10.1177/1538192702250620 Goodman, S, Isen, A, & Yannels, C. (2018). A day late and a dollar short: Liquidity and household formation among student borrowers. Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board. Gross JP, Osman C, Hossler D, Hillman N. What matters in student loan default: A review of the research literature. Journal of Student Financial Aid. 2009; 39; 1: 19-29 Gururaj S, Heilig J, Somers P. Graduate student persistence: Evidence from three decades. Journal of Student Financial Aid. 2010; 40; 1: 31-46 Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2006). Weighting omissions and best practices when using large-scale data in educational research. AIR Professional File, No. 101. Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research. Hearn JC, Warshaw JB, Ciarimboli EB. Privatization and accountability trends and policies in U.S. public higher education. Education and Sciences. 2016; 41; 184: 1-26 Hillman N. Borrowing and repaying student loans. Journal of Student Financial Aid. 2015; 45; 3: 35-48 Hillman, N. (2017). Designing and assessing risk-sharing models for federal student aid. Working Paper for the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education. Retrieved at: https://wiscape.wisc.edu/docs/WebDispenser/wiscapedocuments/wp018.pdf?sfvrsn=12. Hillman N, Orosz K. Introduction: Connecting student loan research and federal policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2017; 671; 1: 8-18. 10.1177/0002716217704162 Hillman NW. Cohort default rates: Predicting the probability of federal sanctions. Educational Policy. 2015; 29; 4: 559-582. 10.1177/0895904813510772 Hoffer TB, Welch V, Webber K, Williams K, Lisek B, Hess M, Lowe D, Guzman-Barron I. Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2005. 2006: Chicago; National Opinion Research Center Huelsman M. The debt divide: The racial and class bias behind the "new normal" of student borrowing. 2015: New York; Demos Jaquette O, Curs BR. Creating the out-of-state university: Do public universities increase nonresident freshman enrollment in response to declining state appropriations?. Research in Higher Education. 2015; 56; 6: 535-565. 10.1007/s11162-015-9362-2 Jaquette O, Curs B, Posselt J. Tuition rich, mission poor: Nonresident enrollment growth and the socioeconomic and racial composition of public universities. The Journal of Higher Education. 2016; 87; 5: 635-673. 10.1353/jhe.2016.0025 Jordan AM, Christie SM. The graduate student experience in the neoliberal academy. ANUAC. 2017; 6; 1: 69-75. 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2984 Kelchen, R. (2018a). Kelchen Blog Post. https://robertkelchen.com/2018/05/15/examining-trends-in-graduate-student-debt-by-race-and-ethnicity/. Kelchen, R. (2018b). Kelchen Blog Post. https://robertkelchen.com/2018/05/17/what-explains-racial-gaps-in-large-graduate-student-debt-burdens/. Kelchen R. An empirical examination of the Bennett Hypothesis in law school prices. Economics of Education Review. 2019; 73: 1-13. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101915 Kelchen R. Does the Bennett Hypothesis hold in professional education? An empirical analysis. Research in Higher Education. 2020; 61: 357-382. 10.1007/s11162-019-09557-9 Kelchen, R. (2020b). Why public service loan forgiveness should become a monthly benefit. February 3, 2020, Kelchen Blog. Retrieved at: https://robertkelchen.com/kelchen-on-education/. Kim D, Otts C. The effect of loans on time to doctorate degree: Differences by race/ethnicity, field of study, and institutional characteristics. The Journal of Higher Education. 2010; 81; 1: 1-32. 10.1080/00221546.2010.11778968 Looney, A, & Yannelis, C. (2015). A crisis in student loans? How changes in the characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to rising loan defaults. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,Fall 2015, 1-68. Malcom LE, Dowd AC. The impact of undergraduate debt on the graduate school enrollment of STEM baccalaureates. Review of Higher Education. 2012; 35; 2: 265-305. 10.1353/rhe.2012.0007 Manski CF. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies. 1993; 60; 3: 531-541. 10.2307/2298123 Mezza A, Ringo D, Sherlund S, Sommer K. Student loans and home ownership. Journal of Labor Economics. 2020; 38; 1: 215-260. 10.1086/704609 Millett CM. How undergraduate loan debt affects application and enrollment in graduate or first professional school. Journal of Higher Education. 2003; 74; 4: 386-427. 10.1353/jhe.2003.0030 Mincer J. Human capital and economic growth. Economics of Education Review. 1984; 3; 3: 195-205. 10.1016/0272-7757(84)90032-3 Mincer J. Studies in human capital. 1993: Brookfield, VT; Edward Elgar Publishing Company Monks J. The role of institutional and state policies in average student debt. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 2014; 655; 1: 123-142. 10.1177/0002716214539093 National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of education statistics, 2015. 2015: Washington, DC; NCES Nova, A. (2018). More than 1 million people default on their student loan each year. CNBC, August 13, 2018. Retrieved at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/13/twenty-two-percent-of-student-loan-borrowers-fall-into-default.html. Perna LW. Differences in the decision to attend college among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education. 2000; 71; 2: 117-141. 10.2307/2649245 Perna, L. W, & Hillman, N. (Eds.) (2017). Understanding student debt: Who borrows, the consequences of borrowing, and the implications for federal policy. Special Issue of the Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science (Vol. 671). Price DV. Education debt burden among student borrowers: An analysis of the Baccalaureate & Beyond panel, 1997 Follow-Up. Research in Higher Education. 2004; 45; 7: 701-737. 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000044228.54798.4c Rapoport, A. I. (1998). What is the debt burden of new science and engineering PhDs. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib98318.htm. Rapoport. A. I. (1999). Does the educational debt burden of science and engineering doctorates differ by race/ethnicity and sex? Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432477). Rice, R. E, Sorcinelli, M. D, & Austin, A. E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academic careers for a new generation. New pathways: Faculty careers and employment for the 21st century. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Roszkowski MJ, Grable JE. Gender differences in personal income and financial risk tolerance: How much of a connection?. Career Development Quarterly. 2010; 58; 3: 270-275. 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00192.x Rothstein J, Rouse E. Constrained after college: Student loans and early-career occupational choices. Journal of Public Economics. 2011; 95; 1-2: 149-163. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.015 Schultz TW. Investment in human capital: The role of education and research. 1971: New York; The Free Press Scott-Clayton, J. (2018). The looming student loan default crisis is worse than we thought. Brookings Institute Evidence Speaks Reports (Vol. 2. p. 34). Retrieved at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-looming-student-loan-default-crisis-is-worse-than-we-thought/. Simon HAMcGuire CB, Radner R. Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and organization. 1972: Amsterdam; North Holland Publishing Company: 161-176 Spar IL, Pryor KC, Simon W. Effect of debt level on residency preferences of graduating medical students. Academic Medicine. 1993; 68; 7: 570-572. 10.1097/00001888-199307000-00017 Slaughter S, Rhoades G. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, states, and higher education. 2004: Baltimore; The Johns Hopkins University Press Taylor BJ, Cantwell B. Unequal higher education. 2019: Brunswick, NJ; Rutgers University Press. 10.36019/9780813593531 Thies D. Rethinking legal education in hard times: The recession, practical legal education, and the new job market. Journal of Legal Education. 2010; 59; 4: 598-622 Thomas S, Heck RH. Analysis of large-scale secondary data in higher education research: Potential perils associated with complex sampling designs. Research in Higher Education. 2001; 42; 5: 517-540. 10.1023/A:1011098109834 Toutkoushian RTPaulsen M, Smart J. Trends in revenues and expenditures for public and private higher education. The finance of higher education: Research, theory, policy and practice. 2001: NY; Agathon Press: 11-38 Toutkoushian RK, Conley VM. Progress for women in academe, yet inequities persist: Evidence from NSOPF:99. Research in Higher Education. 2005; 46; 1: 1-28. 10.1007/s11162-004-6287-6 U.S. Department of Education. (2017). U.S. Department of Education releases national student loan FY 2014 cohort default rate. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-national-student-loan-fy-2014-cohort-default-rate. Webber, K. L, & Burns, R. A. (2016, October). The rising tide of graduate student debt: Trends from 2008 to 2102. Presentation at the Access Group Research Symposium, Chicago. IL. Wendler C, Bridgeman B, Markle R, Cline F, Bell N, McAllister P, Kent J. Pathways through graduate school and into careers. 2012: Princeton, NJ; Council of Graduate Schools White House. (2011). Fact sheet: Help Americans manage student loan debt. Washington, DC. Retrieved on December 15, 2012 from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/10/25/fact-sheet-help-americans-manage-student-loan-debt. Woodworth PA, Chang FC, Helmer SD, Lang NP, Klimberg VS. Debt and other influences on career choices among surgical and primary care residents in a community-based hospital system. Commentary. The American Journal of Surgery. 2000; 180; 6: 570-576. 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00543-2 Students enrolled in post-baccalaureate and post-master's certificate programs and those who were not enrolled in a degree program were excluded from this analysis. Due to small sample sizes, particularly in the 2000 sample, racial categories for American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, and more than one race were collapsed into the "other" category. Analyses using these racial groups as their own categories produce unreliable estimates. Instruction and academic expenditures per FTE were calculated from IPEDS as the sum of (instruction expenses) + (academic support expenses), divided by full time equivalent (FTE) enrollment. Tuition reliance was calculated from IPEDS values following the formula used in the Delta Cost Project data: (revenues from tuition and fees)/(total operating revenues). We ran analyses with and without institutions with a parent-child flag for financial reporting in IPEDS and found that the results did not change appreciably when these institutions were excluded. Because differences were relatively small and because omitting these institutions would result in a loss of a substantial number of respondents, we included flagged institutions in the analyses. In 2000, 14% of institutions reported data at the "parent" level; in 2016, 12% of institutions reported data at the "parent" level. The parent-child flag in IPEDS is an indicator of the financial reporting relationship among institutions with branch campuses. In parent-child cases, the institution reports information to IPEDS at the "parent" level, which means that it includes financial data for the main institution in addition to branch or satellite ("child") institutions. Combined marginal effects measure the effect of a covariate on the combined likelihood of phases 1 and 2 of the hurdle model, or the combined likelihood that a student will borrow (step 1) and how much the student is predicted to borrow (step 2). International students are not eligible for federal title IV grants, thus the amount borrowed for graduate education is necessarily lower. Income and undergraduate borrowed are both logged in the analyses to allow for easier interpretation of results. A logged independent variable means that each 100% (one-unit) change in the independent variable corresponds with a change in the dependent variable equal to the beta coefficient for that covariate. Thus, a ten percent increase corresponds with a change in the dependent variable equal to the beta coefficient divided by ten. For many graduate students in 2016, their source of income is their graduate assistantship. Thus, similar results are found for assistantship amount and income.
~~~~~~~~

By Karen L. Webber and Rachel Burns

Reported by Author; Author

Research in Higher Education is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Increases in Graduate Student Debt in the US: 2000 to 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With enrollments rising in recent years, more than half of all graduate level students in US institutions take on educational loans. Using data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), this study examined educational debt for graduate and professional students in 2000 and 2016 and explored whether significant predictors of debt changed over time.

# data[].attributes.body
Rising tuition hurts poorer people the most -> evidence that poorer people are going to college less and less -> evidence that utilizes pathos to convey the difficulty underprivileged students face in order to go to college -> evidence detailing the other ways students are already having trouble getting into colleges. commentary/transition to talking about why and how tuition prevents poorer people from going to college -> evidence proving how tuition prevents poorer people from going to college(because they can't afford high tuition.)

# data[].attributes.body
Tuition rising is bad -> proof tuition rising is bad -> thesis explaining reasons to why rising tuition is bad

# data[].attributes.body
“53% of high debt student loan borrowers have experienced depression because of their debt... Nine in 10 borrowers experienced significant anxiety due to their loan burden.”

I will use this to prove that student debt negatively affects mental health.

# data[].attributes.headline
University of Westminster in Great Britain, EBSCO ("students mentally ill due to debt'")

# data[].attributes.subject
University of Westminster in Great Britain, EBSCO ("students mentally ill due to debt'")

# data[].attributes.body
“Rising levels of debt could be responsible for mental illness in students, according to psychologists at the University of Westminster in Great Britain. Working long hours and having problems paying bills linked to worse levels of mental health.”

# data[].attributes.body
Now I will further detail WHY and HOW poorer people are affected negatively by rising tuition, as I already established that they are going to college less and less. the main idea of my body paragraph is that rising tuition is preventing poorer people from going to college, so in the next part of my paragraph I aim to convey this aspect.

# data[].attributes.body
Now I will claim that people who have large amounts of student debt are more likely to commit suicide. I will join my two pieces of evidence together by creating a straightforward train of thought, connecting poor mental health with suicide.

# data[].attributes.body
”The number of student deaths by suicide in England & Wales and in Northern Ireland in 2015 were at the highest levels in 10 years. Meanwhile, the student suicide rate in Scotland was near 10 year lows. The rise in student suicides follows increases to tuition fees in 2012, in all regions except for Scotland where there are no tuition fees for undergraduates.”

This evidence proves that suicide is linked to rising tuition, the main point I am attempting to make in this body paragraph. It nicely ties up my paragraph by conveying the main message in this section of my essay.

# data[].attributes.body
”More than 60% of borrowers say student loan debt has negatively affected their mental health, according to the CNBC + Acorns Invest In You Student Loan Survey conducted by Momentive.”

I could use this evidence to prove a point about how student debt negatively affects people’s mental health.

# data[].attributes.body
I will first establish that rising tuition = rising student debt. I will also claim that student debt is common.

# data[].attributes.body
Debt causes students to have mental health problems.

# data[].attributes.body
Explain that rising tuition and student debt puts pressure on students. Link to BP2.

# data[].attributes.body
Causes youth suicide to rise.

# data[].attributes.body
”A recent survey of high school students found that the likelihood of attending a four-year school sank nearly 20% in the last eight months — down to 53%, from 71%.

I will use this evidence to lead to my main point by first proving that people with lower economic status are increasingly less likely to attend college. I am using this as solid backing for my later claims and evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
”Would-be students may also face discrimination or a lack of access to information about college through familial and peer networks.”

I can use this evidence to aid a claim about inequality created by rising tuition.

# data[].attributes.body
I will make the claim that rising tuition hurts people of low socioeconomic status the most.

# data[].attributes.body
”Financial problems lead some students to make difficult choices, the survey found. Nearly three out of 10 students said they reduced their class load because of the money they owed, while 16 percent took a break from their college or university and 13 percent transferred to another institution.”

This evidence proves that underprivileged students are affected most heavily by rising college tuition. It not only conveys this, but also displays the extent this demographic is actually affected.

# data[].attributes.body
Prevents underprivileged students from going to college/going to the best college they can.

# data[].attributes.body
”Universities are increasing tuition by 2% to 3% this fall, with the highest tuition hikes falling between 4% to 5%.”

I can use this as a pretense to my thesis which will detail the reasons why rising tuition in the US has a negative effect on students.

# data[].attributes.body
Explain how tuition is rising/how it will in the future. Claim this is bad because it negatively affects students, build into thesis.

# data[].attributes.body
From an ethical lens, the cost of college in America has a significant negative impact on students due to the inability of lower socioeconomic status citizens to attend higher education, increasing rates of college-related suicides, and mental health issues among the youth because of crushing student debt.