img:is([sizes=auto i],[sizes^="auto," i]){contain-intrinsic-size:3000px 1500px} /*# sourceURL=wp-img-auto-sizes-contain-inline-css */

91Ě˝»¨

Skip to content

91Ě˝»¨Fast Facts 2019 – Now Available!

The 2019 edition of 91Ě˝»¨Fast Facts is now available. You can find it on theĚýOPB websiteĚýunder the 91Ě˝»¨Data tab, and in the Quicklinks bar on the right. You can also access it directly atĚý.

A special thank you to OPB’s Institutional Analysis team, the Marketing & Communications team, and to our partners around the 91Ě˝»¨for their work to gather, verify, and crosscheck data; format the document; and pull it all together!

Public Profiles – New Interactive Dashboards Now Available!

In MayĚý2018, in collaboration with UW-IT’s Enterprise Information, Integration and Analytics (EIIA) unit, the Office of Planning and Budgeting (OPB) relaunched Public Profiles, which are now five interactive dashboards including:

All dashboards, except Degrees Production Trends (which is refreshed every August), are refreshed with new data every academic quarter after census day. The data is sourced from the 91Ě˝»¨â€™s Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW). The numbers presented in all dashboards have been approved by OPB and reconcile against internal institutional dashboards – (requires access to EDW).

These dashboards act as the 91Ě˝»¨â€™s “Institutional Fact Book.”Ěý Anyone with the access to the internet can view these dashboards using their preferred browser. Explore the dashboards: /opb/uw-data/uw-profiles-information/

Check back for additional dashboards and visualizations as they become available. Updates regarding these dashboards are also provided by UW-IT on their .

Please contact uwprofiles@uw.edu with any questions or for help using these dashboards.

91Ě˝»¨Fast Facts 2018 – Now Available!

The 2018 edition of 91Ě˝»¨Fast Facts is now available. You can find it on the OPB website under the 91Ě˝»¨Data tab, and in the Quick Links bar on the right.

A special thank you to OPB’s Institutional Data & Analysis team, the Marketing & Communications team and to our partners around the 91Ě˝»¨for their work to gather, verify and crosscheck data; format the document; and pull it all together.

Introducing Peer Finance Dashboards!

OPB’s Institutional Analysis team and UW-IT’s Enterprise Information, Integration & Analytics unit announce seven , available now in 91Ě˝»¨Profiles. These new dashboards join four existing peer dashboards. Peer dashboards use data publicly available through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to allow users to compare the 91Ě˝»¨to peer institutions around the country on a range of student- and finance-focused measures.

With the new finance dashboards, users can compare revenues, expenses, and endowment values at the 91Ě˝»¨and peer institutions. They can also explore the relative importance of different revenue sources and expense categories across institutions. The expenses story dashboard provides a step-by-step look at the expenses that directly or indirectly support universities’ research and instruction missions.

More information about each of the new peer finance dashboards is available through the online documentation. Please feel free to send any questions or comments to uwprofiles@uw.edu.

National 3-Year Cohort Default Rate Drops For Third Consecutive Year: 91Ě˝»¨Continues to Excel

The Department of Education recently released their detailing the 3-year cohort default rate (CDR)—a metric that measures what percentage of postsecondary students default on their loan payments within the first three years of entering repayment—and the data are encouraging: the 3-year CDR for FY 2012 is 11.8 percent, almost two percent lower than the previous year and three percent lower than FY 2010.

While reasons for the drop are uncertain, administration officials have credited the increased enrollment in income-based repayment plans as partially responsible. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has cheered the lower default rate but cautions that there is more work to do. “There’s no real reason why we can’t significantly reduce default rates even further,” he told reporters in a statement . “We’re going to keep working to hold schools accountable.”

The report also breaks down the CDR by . Below is a breakdown of the most salient statistics.

National statistics:

  • Public four year institutions saw their 3-year CDR drop to 7.6 percent, down from 8.9 percent last year.
  • Private non-profit four year institutions’ default rate also dropped, to 6.3 percent from 7 percent.
  • Private for-profit four year institutions’ CDR dropped to 14.7 percent, down from 18.6 percent last year.

State statistics:

  • Schools in Washington state have an average 3-year default rate of 10.1 percent, slightlyĚýbelow the national average.
  • The 91Ě˝»¨ performed exceptionally well by this measure: the 3-year CDR for 91Ě˝»¨dropped to 2.7 percent, almost 5 percent lower than the national average for public four year universities andĚýdown from 4.3 percent last year.

As previously stated, the declining CDR average nationwide is a hopeful sign for the future of student loan repayment. Nevertheless, loans remain a massive strain on millions of college students and graduates and more must be done to alleviate the student debt burden. The CDR itself has come under fire as a flawed metric; it only measures those students who default on payments and does not take into account the who make payments but cannot make any progress on paying down their debt or the share of students at a given institution who borrow.ĚýSome in the education policy world have called for using loan repayment rates, rather than default rates, asĚýthe primary metric for gauging an institution’s ability to prepare its students for repayment.

 

91Ě˝»¨Profiles Receives Industry’s Most Prestigious Honor

91Ě˝»¨ProfilesĚý– aĚýset of dynamic, web-based data dashboards – recently receivedĚýThe Data Warehousing Institute (TDWI)Ěý. ĚýThis awardĚýis widely considered to be the business intelligence industry’s most prestigious honor.

OPB’s Institutional Data & Analysis teamĚýdeveloped 91Ě˝»¨Profiles, in collaboration with 91Ě˝»¨IT’sĚýĚýteam, andĚýformally launched the site inĚýfall 2013. Ěý 91Ě˝»¨ProfilesĚýallowsĚýusers to explore core 91Ě˝»¨data through 21 visual dashboards that display summary, comparison and trend data.

Ěýalso honored 91Ě˝»¨Profiles, calling it “an intuitive, user-friendly portal that provides a single point of access to data and visualizations for faculty and staff.”

Congratulations to Institutional Analysis and to all those who worked hard to make 91Ě˝»¨Profiles a reality!

ED Releases New PLUS Loan Rules

It will soon be easier for students and parents with adverse credit histories to qualify for federal PLUS loans. ĚýUnder new the Education Department’s (ED’s) – which were released on Wednesday and are expected to take effect in March – ED will review only two years (rather than five) of a prospective borrower’s credit history to determine loan eligibility, and will excuse up to $2,085 in certain types of delinquent debtĚýwhen running initial credit checks.

ED agreed to revisit the rules following pressure from many colleges and families who were angered after ED tightened the PLUS loan standards in 2011. The 2011 changes resulted in thousands of sudden loan denials and, consequently, enrollment declines and revenue losses at some institutions. According to , department officials expect that the new standards will allow an additional 370,000 applicants to pass the initial credit check for PLUS loans.

Representative Chaka Fattah – Pennsylvania Democrat and co-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Education Task Force – ; however others connected with historically black colleges have for not moving quickly enough.Ěý Meanwhile, some policy analysts and consumer advocates to prevent borrowers from being saddled with unmanageable debt, and that the new rules don’t do enough to safeguard against default.

If defaulting becomes an issue as a result of the new standards, the silver lining is policymakers will at least know about it and, hopefully, be able to do something. As part of ED’s changes to the PLUS program, the department will begin calculating and publishing annual cohort default rates for institutions receiving PLUS loans.[1] That information should help illuminate whether borrowers are getting in over their heads.

Ultimately though, as points out:

“The Department must do a better job reaching out to parents and helping them understand the terms and conditions of their loans, including the ability to repay their loan as a percent of their income if they consolidate into a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan. Better counseling won’t solve all the issues with the PLUS loan program. But it’s a start until we can ensure PLUS loans are a safe product for families and we can improve access to better aid options like grants for low-income families.”


[1] ED currently only calculates cohort default rates for colleges that receive Stafford loans.

College Board also Releases “Education Pays 2013”

The College Board recently published “,” which provides data on U.S. adults’Ěýlevel of educationĚýand its impact on earnings, employment, health-related behaviors, reliance on public assistance programs, civic participation, and more. The goal of the report, the authors say, is to highlight the ways in which individuals and society benefit from increased levels of education. The authors note, “Financial benefits are easier to document than non-pecuniary benefits, but the latter may be as important to students themselves, as well as to the society in which they participate.”

Many old trends continue to hold true. Having a college education increases one’s chances of: being employed, earning a higher income, receiving health insurance and pension benefits, climbing the socioeconomic ladder, being an engaged citizen, and of leading a healthier lifestyle.Ěý These individual benefits translate to larger, societal benefits, including less government spending on public assistance programs, more tax revenue, and greater civic involvement.

A few noteworthy data points about earnings include:

  • In 2011 (the most recent year for which income data is available), the median pre-tax earnings of full-time workers with a bachelor’s degree* were $21,100 higher than those of full-time workers with only a high school diploma.
  • As workers age, earnings increase more quickly for those with higher levels of education. For instance, at ages 25-29, full-time workers with a bachelor’s degree earn 54 percent ($15,000) more than their high school graduate counterparts; but at ages 45-49, they earn 86 percent ($32,000) more.
  • During a standard 40-year full-time working career, median earnings are 65 percent higher for those with a bachelor’s degree than for those with only high school diploma.
  • “Compared to a high school graduate, the median four-year college graduate who enrolls at age 18 and graduates in four years can expect to earn enough by age 36 to compensate for being out of the labor force for four years and for borrowing the full tuition and fee amount without any grant aid.”

The report also provides some interesting facts about participation and success in higher education, such as:

  • Large gaps in enrollment rates and patterns persist, particularly with lower income students. However, gaps between the enrollment rates of black and Hispanic high school graduates and those of white high school graduates narrowed significantly between 2001 and 2011.
  • Although educational attainment rates are increasing, attainment rates and patterns vary noticeably by demographic groups. For example, the percentage of black females ages 25 to 29 who have a bachelor’s degree doubled between 1982 and 2012—going from 12 to 24 percent—whereas the percentage of black males increased from 11 to 16 percent.
  • In the U.S., public funding makes up a smaller percentage of total funding for higher education than in most other developed countries.

* “Bachelor’s degree” means a bachelor’s degree, but not a more advanced degree.

91Ě˝»¨Federal Student Loan Default Rates Remain Very Low Relative to National Rates

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released its annual update on federal student loan cohort default rates (CDRs), which measure the frequency with which student borrowers at all levels (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) default on their federal loans. Although both national and 91Ě˝»¨CDRs rose, the UW’s rates remain well below those of the nation.

As ED is in its second year of switching to the Ěýmore accurate three-year CDR measure, this year’s report includes both the FY 2011 two-year and the FY 2010 three-year CDRs. These rates represent the percentage of student borrowers who failed to make loan payments for 270 days within two or three years, respectively, of leaving school.

The Department provides breakdowns of its data by , and . Here are some key findings:

:

  • The national three-year CDR increased from 13.4 to 14.7 percent overall—public institutions increased from 11.0 to 13.0 percent, private nonprofits increased from 7.5 to 8.2 percent, but for-profits’ whopping 22.7 percent rate decreased slightly to 21.8 percent.
  • The UW’s three-year CDR increased slightly from 3.1 to 3.9 percent, but this is still nearly 11 percentage points below the national average.Ěý

:

  • The national two-year CDR increased from 9.1 to 10.0 percent overall—public institutions increased from 8.3 to 9.6 percent, for-profits increased from 12.9 to 13.6 percent, but private nonprofits held steady at 5.2 percent.
  • The UW’s two-year CDR increased from 2.1 to 3.2 percent, but this is still nearly 7 percentage points below the national average.Ěý

While this is good news, many students still struggle to afford ever-increasing tuition fees and/or to repay their student loans. The 91Ě˝»¨reaches out to our former students at risk of default on their Stafford Loans and helps identify federal repayment options that could benefit them.ĚýFormer 91Ě˝»¨students who are in default or experiencing difficulties repaying their loans can contact the Office of Student Financial Aid for assistance (osfa@uw.edu, 206-543-6101). Students can also visit to explore their repayment options.

ED Begins Negotiating New Gainful Employment Rule

On Monday, the U.S. Education Department (ED) began formal negotiations on the draft language of a . The rule, originally published in 2011, was designed to enforce a requirement of the Higher Education Act that states career education programs—non-degree programs at all colleges and most degree programs at for-profit colleges—must “prepare students for gainful employment” in order to participate in federal student aid programs. The rule was meant to discourage these programs from misusing federal aid dollars and leaving students with debt burdens they are unable to repay. However, in 2012 a federal judge rejected major provisions of the rule, requiring that ED rethink its strategy.

Here’s a summary of the changes:

  • The proposed rule applies to programs with as few as 10 students, whereas the old rule counted only career-focused programs with 30 or more students. Because of this change, ED estimates that the new rule could cover 11,359 programs at for-profit and nonprofit colleges—nearly twice as many as the old rule covered—and that 974 of those programs (9 percent) could fail to meet the proposed standards.
  • The draft regulation omits loan repayment as a criterion for federal student aid eligibility. The old rule severed federal aid to programs where too few students were repaying their loans or where graduates’ debt-to-earnings and debt-to-discretionary-income ratios were too high. The new rule removes the loan repayment standards, which the courts deemed “arbitrary and capricious,” and relies only on the latter two measures.
  • Debt-to-earnings calculations would be based only on students who receive federal aid, rather than students who complete the program. The old calculations were based on all students who completed the program, whereas the proposed calculations are based on any students who receive federal student loans and Pell Grants, regardless of whether they complete the program. As the rule is designed to ensure that federal aid is used effectively, this seems a more appropriate approach.Ěý
  • Schools would have fewer chances to improve their performance before losing federal aid eligibility. Under the previous rule, programs that failed the measures in 3 out of any 4 years would be ineligible for federal student aid. However, the new rule only lets programs fail in 2 out of any 3 years before they lose eligibility.

For details, see a prepared by the Education Department.Ěý Please continue to follow our blog as well as the for updates on this topic.