The effect of student loan schemes on students returning to study

Abstract

In this paper populations of students returning to tertiary study in the period [1997][1998][1999][2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005] have been compared with the population of non-returning students who had the same opportunity to return. Such comparisons were conducted for students who returned after a break of 1-7 years (seven comparison groups). Students with the highest likelihood of returning were found to be: (i) students who had an outstanding student loan prior to their return that had been borrowed for previous tertiary studies; (ii) students who did not complete the qualification studied previously; (iii) degree-level university students; and (iv) students who had studied towards qualifications in health, education, society and culture rather than in management and commerce fields. The major finding reported in this paper is that a student loan debt does not discourage students from future study. The findings also suggest that policy decisions were likely to trigger short-term increases in returning behaviour and that the populations most affected were likely to be those who left tertiary education in the year in which the policy decisions were announced.

Women pay their way on income contingent student debt

“…(2002) did not find that the proportion of people studying from low socio-economic backgrounds had changed much over time. These findings support work from New Zealand (Tumen and Shulruf, 2008) and the United States (Waddell and Singell, 2011) suggesting that increased student debt is not a discouraging factor and is, indeed, an effective vehicle for access among higher need students (Yezdani, 2015). An experiment conducted recently by Bartholomae et al.…”

The nature of choice and value for services and amenities in Australian universities

“…Previous authors have explored the impact of student debt on the uptake of university study with varying results, as recently explicated by Craig and Raisanen (2014). Linsenmeier et al (2006) and Burdman (2005) found that the increased cost of student debt is a barrier to university participation and a heavy long-term burden for students, a finding that contrasts with Tumen and Shulruf (2008) and Waddell and Singell (2011), who concluded that increased debt is not a discouraging factor and is an effective vehicle for access among higher need students. Empirical results vary by region, with previous studies in Europe demonstrating a logical relationship between the level of public support for education and students' socioeconomic background in countries including England, the Netherlands and Spain, but a less clear relationship in Norway, the Czech Republic and Germany (Opheim & Schwarzenberger, 2009).…”

“…The aggregate cost of university education and the impact of student debt has previously been explored by other authors and in government reports (Australian Government, 2008;Burdman, 2005;Craig & Raisanen, 2014;DEEWR, 2012;Linsenmeier, Rosen, & Rouse, 2006;Norton & Cherastidtham, 2014;Tumen & Shulruf, 2008;Waddell & Singell, 2011). However, few authors have considered the attitudes of students towards university fees collected to provide the ancillary services and amenities that augment the experience and character of university life, but are not of an academic nature.…”

The Role of Institutional and State Aid Policies in Average Student Debt

“…For example, Minicozzi (2005) finds that graduates with higher levels of student debt upon graduation are more likely to take higher paying first jobs, but jobs with lower wage growth. Tumen and Shulruf (2008) and Monks (2001) conclude that higher levels of student indebtedness do not discourage students from pursuing additional investments in education, while Luong (2010) reports that student borrowers have lower savings rates, less assets, less net worth, and are less likely to own their own home by age 29. Rothstein and Rouse (2011), once again utilizing a natural experiment at a single private highly selective (anonymous) university, find that higher levels of debt prompt graduates to choose higher paying jobs, and those with more debt are less likely to choose “public interest” jobs.…”