undergraduate financial aid awardsnces.ed.gov/pubs90/90332.pdf · 1998-04-13 · provides an...

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Analysis Report September 1990

UndergraduateFinancial Aid Awards

A Report of the 1987National PostsecondaryStudent Aid Study

Peter StOwePostsecondary Education Statistics Division

Data Series:SP-NPSAS-86187-5

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 90-332

U.S. Department of EducationLauro F, CavazosSecreta~

Office of Educational Research and ImprovementChristopher T. CrossAssistant Secretary

National Center for Education StatisticsEmerson J. ElliottActing Commissioner

Information ServicesSharon K. HornDirector

National Center for Education Statistics

“The purpose of the Center shall be to collect, and analyze,and disseminate statistics and other data related toeducation in the United States and in othernations.”- Section 406(b) of the General EducationProvisions Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1221 e-1).

September 1990

I:$

Foreword

Student financial aid has grown substantially in the last 25 years. As a result,policymakers at the Federal, State, and institution levels have needed information on thedistribution of student financial aid to answer a number of questions. In the past, dataon financial aid have been collected by groups interested in the distribution of aidamounts to specific student populations, but, with only one exception, no comprehensivedata have been collected on a nationally representative sample of all postsecondarystudents. As a result, many issues could not be addressed. For example, while thenumber of undergraduates who received a Pelt award in an academic year was knownas well as the number who received a Guaranteed Student Loan, rarely did anyone knowhow many received both of these awards. To meet this and other information needs, theNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Office of Educational Research andImprovement (OERI), with assistance from other governmental components, launched acomprehensive study on student financial aid: The 1987 National Postsecondary StudentAid Study (NPSAS).

This report is one in a series of reports based on NPSAS. The primary purpose ofthis one is to provide information to policymakers and interested parties on how differentsources and types of student financial aid are combined to produce a student aid awardor package. For example, the report discusses the proportion of students who receivedboth a Pen grant and a Guaranteed Student Loan. The wealth of the NPSAS data baseprovides an analyst with a large variety of approaches to examine student aid awards.This report presents three: First, aid awards are examined by the source of aid; second,by the type of aid; and, third, by a combination of sources and types. We hope thisreport will stimulate other to explore alternative approaches to analyzing student aidawards using the wealth of NPSAS data.

Samuel S. PengDirectorPostsecondary Education

Statistics Division

Martin FrankelChiefSpecial Surveys and

Analysis Branch

. . .Ill

Acknowledgments

The author is in debt to Lee Eiden and Roz Korb of the National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES) for their contributions to the organization of this report. The author isalso very appreciative of the numerous suggestions received on early drafts from MartinFrankel and Linda Zimbler. Many helpful comments on later versions of the report weremade by a number of reviewers, including David Bergeron of the Office of PostsecondaryEducation of the U.S. Department of Education, Timothy Christensen of the NationalAssociation of Student Financial Aid Administrators, and MacKnight Black, CharlesCowan, Bill Fowler, Sam Peng, and Gayle Rogers of NCES. A special thanks is due toSam Barbett for his help in explaining how the derived aid variables, used in this report,were coded, making sure that the variables were appropriately used, and providing ananalysis file.

A note of appreciation should be expressed to Sandra Garcia and Gerald Malitz fortheir contributions as project monitors to the development and production of the NPSAS.Carl Knapp of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators assistedin providing literature on student financial aid packaging. Sharon Nelson providedassistance in the typing of this report and Mark Travaglini lent his careful and thoughtfulpen to the manuscript in crafting a more readable, intelligible version of the report.

iv

Highlights

Some of the more interesting results of this report are presented below. In this report,aid packages (which consist of one or more aid awards) are described three differentways: by source, by type, and by a combination of sources and types. The results listedbelow are similarly organized. In examining these results two cautionary notes arenecessary. First, all of the estimates cited are subject to sampling variability. Second,estimates of the number of students who received aid and the distribution of aidedstudents among different types of postsecondary institutions are based on postsecondaryenrollment in the fall of 1986 and not that for the entire 198&87 schml year. As a result,some estimates in this report may differ substantially from numbers in Federal financialaid program reports, which represent data for the full academic year. Comparisonsbetween these two data sources should take note of these differences.’

Aided undergraduates

o Slightly less than half (49 percent) of all undergraduates received some form ofstudent financial aid.

o Students with low family incomes, who attended high cost institutions, were morelikely to be aided than those with high family incomes who attended low costinstitutions.

o Students who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely to be aidedthan those who attended a private, not-for-profit institutions, who, in turn were morelikely to be aided than those who attended public institutions.

Sources of student financial aid

The

o

0

Federal Government:

The Federal Government was the largest supplier of student financial aid toundergraduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the fall of the 1986-87academic year. Of all the student financial aid supplied to these undergraduates,the Federal Government supplied 62 percent.

Seventy-one percent of aided undergraduates received somepercent received aid awards consis~ng solely of Federal aid.

Federal aid and 46

1‘ A detailed discussion of the difference between the NPSAS data base and other data bases is

found on pp. 119-137 of the report on Undergraduate Financing of Postsecondary Education, May 1988.

v

o Similarly, aided undergraduates whoattended private, for-profit institutions weremore likely than those who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions toreceive Federal aid, only, awards.

Postsecondary institutions:

o Postsecondary institutions were the second largest suppliers of student financialaid. Of all the aid awarded to undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986,postsecondary institutions supplied 21 percent.

o Aided undergraduates who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutionswere more likely to receive institutional aid than those who attended private, for-profit institutions.

Types of student financial aid

Grant aid:

o Among the aid received by undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, slightly lessthan 60 percent was in the form of grant aid.

o Among aided undergraduates, 83 percent received grants and slightly more thanone-half received grants, only.

o Aided undergraduates who attended public institutions were more likely to receivegrant awards, only, than those who attended private institutions.

Loan aid:

o Aided undergraduates who were loan recipients were more likely to receive someother type of aid in addition to loans than to rely completely on a loan to helpfinance their undergraduate expenses.

o Among aided undergraduates, a larger proportion of borrowers was found amongthose in higher than in lower income brackets.

o Aided undergraduates who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likelyto receive loans than those who attended public or private, not-for-profitinstitutions.

vi

Sources and types of student financial aid

o

0

0

0

0

0

Thirty-six percent of aided undergraduates received Pen grants in their aid awards.Five percent of all aided undergraduates received Pen grants, alone, for an averageaward of $1,981 for full-time undergraduates.

Aided undergraduates with low family incomes were more likely to receive Pengrants, alone, than those with high family incomes.

Aided undergraduates who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutionswere more likely to receive Pen grants, alone, than those who attended private, for-profit institutions.

Forty-two percent of aided undergraduates received Guaranteed Student Loans(GSLS). Eleven percent of all aided undergraduates received these aid awards,alone, for an average GSL of $2,585 for full-time undergraduates.

Aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likely to borrow GSLSthan those whose family incomes were in the lower income brackets.

Students who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely to borrowGSLS than those who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions.

vii

Foreword

Table of

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Highl ights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . ● . . . .

Contents

Page

. . . . ...* . . . . ...* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

. . . . . ● ● ● ✎☛ ✎ ● ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ●

✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ● o . . ● . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter I: An Overviev . . . ● . .*. . . . . . . ● . . . . ● . ● ● . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . .Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Report structure . . . . . . . ● . ● . . ● . . ● . . . ● . . . . . . . ● . ● . ● ● . . . ● . ● . . . . . ● . ● . . . ● . .

Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Background . . . . ...*. . . . . ...*. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0.0 . . . . . ...0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter II: Aid Awards by Source of Aid ● . . . . . . . . . . . ...0.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . ● . . ● . . . . ., . . . ● ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . .How sources of aid vere combined . . ● ● . ● ● ● . . . . ● . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Character is t i cs o f rec ip ients . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 111: Aid Awards b y Type o f Aid . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*..* . . ...*.. . ..*.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .How types of aid were combined . . . ● . . . . ● . . . . . . ● . ● . . ● . ● . . . . ● . . . . ● . . . . . .

Characteristics of recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter IV: Aid Awards by Source and Type of Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . .How the components of aid avards vere combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r e c i p i e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . .

Chapter V: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . .

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0.... ., .0..0.. ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.. .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendices

Appendix A: Detailed tables for chapters II, 111, and IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appendix B: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . ..*..... . . . . . . . . . . . ...*... . ..*...Appendix C: Components of the grants only avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appendix D: All aid avards by source andtype of aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figures

Figure 2.1--Contributions of the four sources of aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 3.1--Percentage of total student financial aid, by

type of aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . .Figure 4.1--Average amount of aid avarded, by aid avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text Tablesl .1--Undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 by aid status

for the 1986-87 academic year and selected student andinstitutional characteristic . . . ...0.. . . . . . . . . . .0 .,....0 . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1--Aided under~raduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavardedsources

aid-for the 1986-87 academic year, by number ofof aid and source of aid . . . . ● ● . . . . . . ● ● . ● . . . . ● . ● . . . ● . . . . . . .

ix

iv

v

11223

777

10

17171820

27273034

43

47

53

55759599

8

;;

4

9

–—

PaEe2.2--Average aid award and composition of three, multiple-source

aid awards to undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986vho received aid for the 1986-87 academic year, by controlof institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . .

2.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who wereavarded Federal aid, only, for the 1986-87 academic year,by selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereawarded institutional aid, only, for the 1986-87 academicyear, by selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . .

2.5--Aid+d undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vereavarded private aid , only, for the 1986-87 academic year,by selected student and institutional characteristic . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .

2.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded Federal and State aid, only, for the 1986-87academic year, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.7--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded Federal and institutional aid, only, for the1986-87 academic year, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. *...*. . ..*.... . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.8--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereawarded Federal, State, and institutional aid, only, forthe 1986-87 academic year, by selected student andinstitutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . .

3.1--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who wereavarded aid for the 1986-87 academic year, by the number oftypes of aid and aid avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2--The average amounts and percentage distribution of single-type components of multiple-type avards to full-time aidedundergraduates, by avard and control of the institution . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vereavarded grants only, for the 1986-87 academic year byselected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded grants and loans, only, for the 1986-87academic year, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded loans only, for the 1986-87 academic year byselected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded grants, loans, and vork-study aid, only, forthe 1986-87 academic year, by selected student andinstitutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.7--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vereavarded grants and vork-study aid, only, for the1986-87 academic year, by selected student andinstitutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

x

1--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded aid for the 1986-87 academic year and averageaid avard, by aid avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2--Aided undergraduates vho received aid components bythemselves and in combination vith all other aidcomponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.3--Aided undergraduates vho received combinations of tvo aidavard components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.4--Aided undergraduates vho received combinations of Pen andGSL vith other aid components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● *....... . 31

4.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded guaranteed student loans, only, for the1986-87 academic year, by selected student andinstitutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vereavarded Pen grants, only, for the 1986-87 academicyear, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.7--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded GSL and Pen aid, only, for the 1986-87academic year, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.8--Composition of three multiple-component aid avards receivedby full-time undergraduates vho vere enrolled in thefall of 1986 for the 1986-87 academic year andaverage aid avard, by aid avard and control ofinstitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.9--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded institutional grant aid, only, for the 1986-87academic year, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.10--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereavarded a combination of Pen, other Federal grants,and State grants for the 1986-87 academic year, byselected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.11--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vereawarded private grant aid, only, for the 1986-87academic year, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.12--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vhowere awarded private grants, only, for the 1986-87academic year, by selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Appendix Tables

A2.la--Aided dependent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of1986, by source of aid avard, cost of attendance, andfamily income . . . . ..* . . . . . . . . . . ● , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

xi

I

I

PageA2.lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of

1986, by source of aid award, cost of attendance, andfamily income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

A2.2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bysource of aid avard and control and level ofinstitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

A2.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bysource of aid avard, attendance status and dependencystatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

A2.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bysource of aid avard, age, academic level, and gradepoint average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...**.. . . . . . . . 61

A2.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bysource of aid, sex, and race/ethnicity . ...00... . . . ...0.. . . . . . . . . . 62

A3.la--Aided dependent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of1986, by type of aid avard, cost of attendance, andfamily income ● *........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* ● O..*.*.. . . . . . 63

A3.lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of1986, by type of aid avard, cost of attendance, andfamily income .. *..*.*. ● *.*..... . ..0..... .* *.*.**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

A3.2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bytype of aid avard, and control and level ofinstitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* . . . ...*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

A3.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bytype of aid avard, attendance status, and dependencystatus . , ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

A3.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bytype of aid avard, age, academic level, and gradepoint average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0. . . . . . . . . 67

A3.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bytype of aid avard, sex, and race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

A4.la--Aided dependent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of1986, by aid avard, cost of attendance, and levelof family income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

A4.lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of1986, by aid avard, cost of attendance, and level offamily income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

A4.2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bysource and type of avard, and control and level ofinstitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . ● ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

A4.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bysource and type of avard, attendance status, anddependency status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

xii

PageA4.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source and type of award, age, academic level, andgrade point average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0 . ..0..... . . 73

A4.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, bysource and type of aid award, sex, and racelethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

B.1--Response rates for the student questionnaire mailoutbased on student characteristics from the institutionalrecords data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

B.2--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in thefall of 1986 who were awarded aid from a single sourcefor the 1986-87 academic year and for average award,b source and selected student and institutional{c aracteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . ● . . . . ● ● . . ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . 84

B.3--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in thefall of 1986 who were awarded one o f three mult i le-source awards and average aid award, by source o! award,and award, and selected student and institutionalcharacteristic ● . . . ...*. . . . . . . . . . . ...0.... ● . . . ...*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

B.4--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in thefall of 1986 who were awarded aid for the 1986-87academic year and average award, by type of aid awardand selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

B.S--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in thefall of 1986 who were awarded one of nine multiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year andaverage aid award, by aid award and selected studentand institutional characteristic . . ● ● . . . .*. . . . . . ● . . ..* . . . . ● . . ● ● . . .* 90

B.6--Standard errors of average awards for aided undergraduatesenrolled in the fall of 1986 who were awarded one of ninemultiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academicyear, by aid award and selected student and institutionalcharacteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Cl--Aided undergraduates who received grant only awards, by thetype of award they received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

D.1--The aid awards constructed using the eight componentclassification scheme, by component, unweighed frequency,percentage receiving the award, and the average amountof the award for full-time students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

. . .X111

Chapter 1: An Ovewiew

Purpose

Issues related to financial aid for students enrolled in postsecondary institutions havebeen and continue to be the subject of study, analysis, argument and debate. In 1985,the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) initiated The National PostsecondaryStudent Aid Study (NPSAS) to better address these student financial aid issues. TheNPSAS survey collected information for the first time during the 1986-87 school year. (Amore detailed description of this survey is provided in the technical notes section ofappendix A.) Two reports have been released by NCES based on this database. Thefirst report focused on how undergraduates financed their postsecondary education inthe 1986-87 academic year and the second report focused on graduate and first-professional students.

This report focuses on the combinations of aid (or aid awards or packages)undergraduate students received from one or more financial aid programs. One of thechapters in the first NPSAS report provided information on combinations of aid toundergraduates, but this report provides more detail on this important issue. The NPSASsurvey identified a total of 65 different aid programs from which a student could receiveaid. Because the number of ways these aid programs can be combined to describestudent aid awards is in the millions, useful analysis requires that the programs be

2 Three ways have been chosen for this report;grouped together in meaningful ways.however, the richness of the NPSAS data base permits a multitude of different analyticapproaches.

2Numerous methods have been used to describe aid awards. Nichols (1980) defined them most

narrowly by restricting his exploration to the Campus-Based Aid Program, Smith and Henderson (1977)were slightly more inclusive than Nichols. They added Pelt grants. Stampen and Cabrara (1986a) lookedat grants, loans, and college work-study. Wagner and Tabler (1977) and Olivas (1985) broke out transferbenefits from grants to use a four category typology. Carroll (1984) used grants and loans but broadenedwork to include both work-study and off-campus earnings (non-term-time employment). Stampen andCabrara (1986b) grouped aid into three categories based on the extent to which financial need wasdemonstrated. The broadest methodology was used by Anderson (1986) when he used grants, loans,scholarships, college work-study and personal resources (parental contributions and student self-support)as package components. Packages were also analyzed, by source, by Wagner and Rice (1977) andOlivas (1985). Both used two components, Federal and non-Federal. Finally, one of the most uniqueapproaches to constructing packages was proposed by Maw (1987) who used cluster analysis to developpackage components.

1

Report structure

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this report each present a different way of describing the aidawards that undergraduate students received. Chapter 2 groups aid by source. Thereare four sources: Federal, State, institutional (i.e., the postsecondary institution), andprivate. Chapter 3 groups aid by type: grants, loans, and work-study. Chapter 4combines the approaches in the prior two chapters. Chapter 5 provides a summary ofthe findings. A glossary is provided at the end of chapter 5. The appendices provideadditional findings or results of the analyses and technical notes on sampling, survey anditem response rates, variable definitions, and standard errors of estimates. In eachchapter the following two questions are addressed:

1. How were the sources and/or types of aid combined to produce aid awards?

2. What are theawards?

Caveats

characteristics of the undergraduate students who received these

The data presented in this report are based on a nationally representative sample ofpostsecondary students enrolled in the fall of 1986. Since ‘the” data are based” on asample, they are estimates and therefore subject to sampling variability. Because thesample is of students enrolled in the fall, it does not represent all students enrolled in apostsecondary institution at all times during the 1986-87 school year. 3 This reportfocuses on aided undergraduates, only. me tables in each chapter contain informationon the percentage of aided undergraduates who received awards. Information on theaverage amount of the awards is found in appendix A.

Some of the estimates presented in this report may differ slightly from estimatespresented in the initial NPSAS report of undergraduate financing of postsecondaryeducation. There are two reasons for this. First, the NPSAS report was based on apreliminary data file. The final data file refines some variables and contains additionalvariables that are used in this report. Second, in computing average awards, the firstNPSAS report placed undergraduates into one of two groups: a “full-time, full-year”group; or an “all other” group. This report places undergraduates into one of threegroups: a “full-time, full-year” group; a “half-time” or more but not full-time” group; or a

3A detailed discussion of the differences between the NPSAS fall sample database and other data

bases is found on pp. 119-137 of the first NPSAS report: Undergraduate Financing of PostsecondaryEducation: A Reporl of the 1987 National Postsecondaty Student Aid Study, May 1988 U.S. Departmentof Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

2

“less than half-time” group. In this report a student who attended a postsecondaryinstitution in the fall but not in the spring term would have his or her award multiplied bytwo and placed in the “full-time, full-year” group. This procedure has led to slightly largeraverage awards than those in the first NPSAS report. While comparisons betweencharacteristics of students and postsecondary institutions, on the one hand, and studentfinancial aid awards, on the other hand, are presented in this repod, no causalrelationship can be assumed between aid received and any student or institutionalcharacteristics or behaviors.

Background

At most postsecondary institutions, the student financial aid office coordinates anddistributes student financial aid. This may be a complex task. The office must besensitive to the needs of the institution to attract the most qualified students, while at thesame time provide an equitable distribution of its financial aid resources among its needystudents. Furthermore, all the aid its students receive is not directly under institutionalcontrol. Frequently, students bring aid with them when they come to an institution.Federal aid in the form of Pen Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans, now calledStafford Loans, some forms of State aid, and aid from private employers are examplesof the aid which students may bring with them to the campus. The student financial aidoffice is further limited by the aid provider in how it distributes aid. For example, theFederal Government typically requires that the aid recipient attend school at least half-time, make satisfactory progress in his or her course of study, receive no more thanlegislated maximum amounts for an individual program, and demonstrate a financial need.

To calculate a student’s financial need, the institution’s financial aid office must accountfor the student’s room and board costs as well as the costs of books, supplies,transportation, and personal expenses. In addition, the procedure takes into accountwhat the family is expected to contribute to the financing of school expenses. Both thecalculation of school expenses and the expected family contribution must take intoconsideration unique student financial circumstances. Out of this milieu of goals,constraints, and considerations, the institution’s financial aid office then constructs an aidaward, or package, for each individual student in need of one.

Each institution may be expected to allocate its financial aid resources to best meetthe financial needs of its students. Yet, when examining the distribution of aid toundergraduates at many different institutions, the patterns of aid distribution whichemerge may suggest otherwise. This is to be expected. Different institutions have attheir disposal different forms and amounts of financial aid and different institutions attractstudents with differing personal resources and differing amounts of aid which they bringto campus with them. For example, private, not-for-profit institutions have moreinstitutional aid available for their students than other institutions, while public institutionshave a greater proportion of students who bring aid with them from private sources, suchas emplbyers. For these reasons, it is inappropriate to assume that the distributions

3

presented in this report reflect the distribution of aid at any one institution.

Table 1.1 puts the findings on aided undergraduates into the larger context of allundergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. It presents the proportion of allundergraduates who received any financial aid in the 1986-87 school year by the studentcharacteristics that are used throughout the report.

Table 1. l--llodergraduetes emrolled in the fall of 1986, by ● id statue for the 1986-87academic year aod selected studemt and imetitutiomel cberacteriotic

Aided AidedDependency status, Number under- Selected institutional Number under-coet of attendance (in graduates and 8 tudent (in graduatesand family income thoue. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

As

Dependent studentsLow cost:

Low family incomeMedian family incomeHigh family income

High cost:Lov family incomeMedian family incomeHigh family income

Independent studentsLov cost:

Low family incomeMedian family incomeHigh family income

High coat :Low family incomeMedian family incomeEigh f amlly income

11,185 48.6

7,04s

9601,3061,67S

665884

1,553

4,13s

690729

1,73s

310336325

47. s

56.93s.421.3

84.673.14s.4

49.9

59.455.22S.4

87.4S8.457.4

Total 1 1, 185 48 . 6

Control of institutionPublic S,55S 41.4Private, not-for-profit 2,026 6S.1Private, for-profit 602 85.0

Attendance statusFul 1- t ime 6,960 60.3Half-time or more 2,209 3s.3Less than half-time 2,017 19.1

Age23 or younger24-2930 or older

Academic levelContact hourFreshmanSophomoreJuniorSenior

Grade point average ~12.3 or lese2.6-2. s2.9-3.33.6-4.0

6,754 52.91,880 45.52,551 39.4

5583,6452,s141,7692,599

2,4611,5462,1461,544

69.350.146.450.543.0

45.348.847.446.5

1/ Details d dd 1 b f missing values.~j Pertains ~on~~e~it-zu~o~;d er~~~;;~t;s only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;!

They do notadd to total eince each percentage is baeed on the number of ai ed undergraduates vith theeelected characteristic. Details on the number of students may not add to total due torounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Educatinn, National Center for Education Statistics, 1987NatiOnal Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

can be seen from this table, slightly less than one-half (49 percent) of allundergraduates who were enrolled in the fall of 1986 received some form of financial aidduring the 1986-87 academic year. Undergraduates from low income families were morelikely to receive aid than those from high income families. Those who attended a high-cost institution were more likely to receive aid than those who attended a low-costinstitution, controlling for level of family income. Undergraduates who attended a private,for-profit institution were more likely to receive aid than those who attended a publicinstitution (85 versus 41 percent, respectively). Full-time undergraduates were more likely

4

than those who attended less than half-time to receive some form of financial aid (60versus 19 percent, respectively) and contact-hour students were more likely than credit-hour students to receive financial aid. Finally, receiving financial aid seems to beunrelated to the grade point average these students earned.

5

Chapter 11: Aid Awards by Source of Aid

Background

There are four sources of student financial aid: Federal, State4, institutional, andprivate. Postsecondary institutions are the institutional source. As figure 2.1 indicates,of all the aid awarded to undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the fallof 1986, the Federal Government was the largest supplier, furnishing 62 percent of allfunds, with institutions providing 21 percent, States 11 percent, and private sources about6 percent.

This pattern has existed over the past decade. The Federal government has beenthe largest supplier of student financial aid since the 1965-66 academic year.5

How sources of aid were combined

Although there are but four sources of aid, one of the most striking aspects of aidawards is that these sources are not frequently combined. Close to 60 percent of allaided undergraduates received an award stemming from one source alone. Only 11percent of aided undergraduates received an award combining three or more sources(table 2.1 ).

,

Because the Federal Government was the dominant supplier of financial aid, it’s notsurprising to find that more undergraduates relied on this source of aid than any other.Seventy-one percent of aided undergraduates received some Federal aid, and 32 percentreceived only Federal aid (table 2.1 ). The Federal aid, only, award was the largest of allsingle-source packages ($3,41 4).

4States provide sizeable amounts of aid to public institutions enabling them to charge lower

tuitions than private institutions, While these amounts may be thought of as financial aid to all studentswho attend these institutions, they are not usually included in a discussion of student financial aid andwill be excluded from the discussion here.

5For data on trends in sources of student financial aid since the 1963-64 academic year, see the

College Board series of publications, Trends in Student Financia/Aid, However, these publications do notseparate Sources of funds by education level, undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional, and theydo not provide data on private sources.

7

Figure 2.1--Contributions of the foursources of aid

Federai

Private6%

state11% nStitution

21%

SOURCE: The 1987 Nat iona l Pos ts econdaryStudent Aid Study

8

Table 2.1 --Aided umlergraduatee emrolled in the fall of 1986 who were amrded nid for the 1986-87acadtie year, by number of eourcee of ● id WA emurce of aid lJ

NumberAverage award

Aid award by Aided for full-time aidedof aourcea source of aid undergraduates undergraduates ~1

Number (in thousands) 58631

Three

PercentOme A3.1 ei le-eource avcrde

Y58.1

Federal on y 32.’4 .$3,414Institutional only 15.2Private only

2,1337.7

State only2,005

2.8 1,333

Ul two-source ● werde 30.3Federal and state only 16.4 3,928Federal and institutional only 9.0 5,794

k;;;t;t%;~~t~r%;{e only2.2 4,7921.5 3,963

State and institutional only 1.0 3,589State and private only 0.2 3,307

A3S thxee-eource awcrde 10.0Federal, atate, and institutional only 6.9Federal,

6,706state, and private only 1.6 6,886

Federal, institutional, and private only 1.3 7,442State, institutional, and private only 0.2 5,731

?our Federal, State, inetitutiomcl, ● nd private 1.4 S,156

Percentages will not auto to 100 ecause some aided un ergraduates id not report their source of aid.~~ See Appendix B for a discussion ~f students included ~n each atten~ance status.

NOTE : The percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

gOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,19S7 National Posts econdarv Student Aid Study.

Institutions provided 21 percent of the aid received, and supported 36 percent of aidedundergraduates (table 2.1 ). About half of the undergraduates who received institutionalaid, received it alone.

States were the third largest suppliers of student financial aid. Despite the fact thatroughly one-third (31 percent) of aided undergraduates received State aid (table 2.1),very few (3 percent) relied on it as their only source. Hence, State aid was much morelikely to be combined with aid from other sources, especially Federal aid, than awardedby itself.

Private sources supplied only 6 percent of all the aid awarded. It went to 16 percentof aided students, about half (49 percent) of whom received an award consisting solelyof private aid (table 2.1). The average private aid, only, award was similar in amount tothe average institutional aid award and larger than the average State aid, only, award.

Components of multiple-source awards

Table 2.2 examines the three most commonly held multiple-source aid awards: Federaland State, only; Federal and institutional, only; and Federal, State, and institutional, onlyawards. In each of these three multiple-source awards the Federal component was the

9

largest, ranging from a high of 70 percent of all aid on average to slightly less than 50percent of all aid.

Table 2.2 also indicates that the amounts representing each of the components variedby control of the postsecondary institution. The Federal component of the Federal andState aid, only, award was largest at public institutions. The institutional component ofthe Federal and institutional aid, only, award was largest for undergraduates at private,not-for-profit institutions.

Table 2. Z--Average aid award sod campmitiom of three miltiple-eource aid award. awarded to full-timeUmdergradaatee emrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 whm received aid for the 19$6-87 academic year, bycomtrol of last i tut iom

Federal and Federal, StateFederal and State only institutional only ● nd institutional only

Control Perc*llt Percentof

PercentAverage Average Average

institution amount ● Federal State amount ● Federal In8t. ● mount ● ~ederal State Inet.

Total s 3,928 69 . 30 . 1 S5 794v 59 . 0 41 . 0 s 69708 46 . 9 24 . 28 . 2

ControlPublic 3,466 73.9 26.1Private,

4,184 68.9 31.1 4,664 56.6 19.9 23.4

not-for-profit 5,151 61.3 38.7 6,986 54.3 45.7Private,

7,679 44.1 26.2 29.8

for-profit 6,095 62.4 37.6 6,574 63.1 36.9 -- -- -- . .

3 Average amount8 are for aided f 11-time under raduates.f

Ava rd amount 8 for under raduates who reportedfthat the were enrolled full. ti~e for the fal term only were included b multip ying their award

amounts {y two. Thie procedure may represent an under-or over-e.timate for those studente vho attendedpublic, for-profit Institution which are not typically on a terms system.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE : U.S. De artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,I1987 National osteecondary Student Aid Study.

Characteristks of recipients

The Federal aid, only, recipients

Thirty-two percent of aided undergraduates received federal aid, only, in an amountaveraging $3,414 (table 2.1). Legislation requires that Federal student financial aid bedirected to needy students. Table 2.3 indicates that undergraduates who only receivedFederal aid were more likely to be those from families with low than high family incomes.(l%e exception to this is independent students attending high cost institutions.) Aidedundergraduates who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely to receiveonly Federal aid than those who attended other types of institutions. Aidedundergraduates who attended private, not-for-profit institutions were least likely to receivesuch an award (table 2.3).

Aided undergraduates enrolled half-time or more, but not full-time, were about as likelyto be awarded Federal aid, only, as full-time students (table 2.3) were. The age groupmost likely to receive Federal aid, only, was the 24- to 29-year-old group. Independent

10

students were more likely than dependent students to receive such an award (40 versus28 percent, respectively). Among credit-hour students, those with the lowest grade nointaverages (GPA) were more likely to receive Federal aid, only, than those with the highestGPA. (Appendix A contains tables with additional information to that provided in the text.For example, tables A2.1 a-A2.5 contain information on average award amounts, thedistribution of awards by institution level, attendance status, academic level, sex, andrace/ethnicity.)

Table 2.3--Aided under rsduetem emrolhd in the f ● ll of 1986 wlw were auerded ?ederal.td, ody, for the 1986-B7 . ..daai. year by .ele.ted ● tude.t ● d i..tit.tiomalcharacteristic

Dependency statue, Number Federal Selected institutionalcost of attendance, (in

Number Federsl● nd student

thous. ) ?~~r% )(in

and family income● id only

characteristic thous. ) (percent)

5,431 32.4

3,367 28.0

547501357

33.130.124.9

563647752

31.524.325.0

39.5

409402494

271297186

42.941.128.4

42.147.141.5

Dependent etudentsLOW cost:

Lov family income ~1Medium family incomeHigh family income

‘Wvc;%ly incomeUed ium family incomeHigh family income

Independent studentsLov co8t:

Low family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

‘i*wc~%ly incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

1/ Lov cost refers to student reported attendance coats leas than the medi an coet forunder raduatea of $4,523.than .!18.641. $18,641 to $36,076, and more than $36,076. For independent atudenta

The three income rangea for dependent students are: leee

theee ran es are: less than $5,028, $5,028 to $15,769, and more than $15,069.Appendix # for a more detailed diacu.aion.

See

Z/ Details do not add to total becauee of miesing valueo.~/ Pertains to credit-hour undergraduate only.

Control of institutionPublic 3,540 32.5Private, not-for-profit 1,380 15.0Private, for-profit 511 78.1

Attendance etatueFull - time 4,200 33.1Half-time or more 845 38.2Lese than half-time 386 11.7

Age;: ;; younger

30 or older

3,571 29.885S 43.1

1,004 32.4

Grade point average ~/2.3 or less 1,115 34.82.4-2.8 754 29.92.9-3.3 1,016 28.33.4-4.0 718 22.7

NOTE: Percenta8ee are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduaten; They donot add to total eince each percentage ie baeed on the number o ! aided undergraduatesvith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students my not sdd tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center fo,r Education Statiwtice,1987 National Po8teecondarv Student Aid Study.

The institutional aid, only, recipients

Fifteen percent of aided undergraduates received aid from institutions, only, in anamount averaging $2,133 (table 2.1 ). The characteristics of these aid recipients were verydifferent from those who received only Federal aid (table 2.3). Aided undergraduatesfrom families in the highest income bracket were more likely to receive this type of awardthan those from families in the lowest income bracket. ~lded students who attendedpublic or a private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to receive this award thanthose who attended private, for-profit institutions. Students who received only Federal aid

11

.

or only institutional aid differed in attendance status. The Federal aid, only, recipientswere most likely to attend school half-time or more while the institutional aid, only,recipients were most likely to be enrolled less than half-time. Finally, aidedundergraduates with the highest grade point averages were more likely to receiveinstitional aid, only, awards than those with the lowest GPAs.

Table 2.4 --Aided undergraduates emrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 who were awardedimetitutiomel a%d, only, for the 1986-87 ● csdtic per by oelected etudentamd institutiomsl characteristic

Dependency statue, Number Instit. Selected institutionalcoet of attendance, (in

Number Inetit.aid only and etudent (in aid only

and family income thous. ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent) ITotal 5,631 15 . 2

ITotal 5,431 15 2.

Dependent student eLov coet:


High cost:Lov family incomeMedium family incomeHigh f ami 1 y income

3,367 18.4 Co;~b;~cof institution

Private, not-for-profitPrivate, for-profit

3,5401,380

511

17.015.62.3

547sol357

14.123.837.4

Attendance etatusFull - timeHalf-time or moreLese than half-time

4,200845386

13.315.934.6

563647752

6.610.624.7

Ane IIndependent etudentsLov coet:Lov family income

tfedium family incomeHigh family income

High cost:Lov family incomeHedium family incomeHigh family income

10.0 ‘;: ;; younger-

30 or older

3,571a55

1.004

16.012.514.9409

402494

7.29.818.2 Grade point average gl

2.3 or lees2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

1,115754

1,016718

12.313.715.721.1

271297186

3.83.114.2

NOTE: Percentage are baeed on unduplicated counte of aided under raduatea;not add to total since each percentage la based on the number o ! aided unde;~d~teavith the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of etudenta may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Netional Center for Education Statistic,L987 National Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

I

The private aid, only, recipients

Eight percent of aided undergraduates received awards, from private sources, inannual amounts averaging which had an $2,005 (table 2.1). The characteristics of thoseaided undergraduates who received private aid awards were very similar to those whoreceived the institutional aid, only, awards (table 2.4).

Aided undergraduates from families in the highest family income bracket were morelikely to receive the private aid, only, award than those from families in the lowest incomebracket (table 2.5). Those aided undergraduates who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to receive this type of award than those who attendedprivate, for-profit institutions. Like those who received only institutional aid, these

12

-.

I

recipients were more likely to receive private aid if they attended less than half-time thanif they attended either full-time, or half-time, or more. Finally, those with high grade pointaverages were more likely to receive this award than those with a low GPAs.

Table 2.5--Aided umdergraduetes emrolled in the fall of 1986 who vere wmrded

Letittationel eheraeter..ticrivate aid, mmly, for the 1986.87 academic year by #elected student and

Dependency status, Number Private Selected institutional Number Privatecost of attendance, (in ● id only and student ( tn aid onlyand f ami 1 y income thous. ) (percent ) characteristic thoua. ) (percent)

Dependent atudentaLOW coet:

LOW family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

>,431 7.7

3,367 5.3

547 5.8501357 1;:;

563 1.3647 2.6752 4.9

409 4.2402 4.9494 34.2

271 1.7297186 l::i I

Total 5,431

Control of institutionPublic 3,540Private, not-for-profit 1,380Private, for-profit 511

7.7

8.96.61.8

Attendance statueFull-time 4,200Half-time or more 84SLees than half-time 386

3.612.242.0

High coat:Low family incomeMedium family incomeEigh family income

Independent etudentsLow coet:

LOW family incomePfed ium family incomeHigh family income

‘i&cWly incomeUedium family incomeHigh family income

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing valuea.~1 Pertaina to credit-hour undergraduate only.

NOTE: Percentage are based on unduplicated counte of aided under raduates;not add to total eince each percentage ie based on the number o ! aided unde~~d~~teewith the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

Age23 or younger 3,57124-29 85530 or older 1,004

Grade point average ZI2.3 or lees 1,1152.4-2.8 7542.9-3.3 1,0163.4-4.0 718

4.110.018.2

5.05.29.215.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Posteecondarv Student Aid Study.

Recipients of private aid, only, differed from those who received only institutional aidin terms of dependency status and age. Dependent students were more likely to receiveonly institutional aid whereas independent students were more likely to receive onlyprivate aid. Age was not related to receipt of an institutional aid, Only, award but thosein the oldest age group were more likely to receive private aid, only, awards than thosein the younger age groups.

The State aid, only, recipients

The average amount of a State aid, only, award was $1,333 for the 3 percent of aidedundergraduates who received one (table 2.1 ). State aid was much more likely to becombined with aid from other sources than to be awarded alone. It also tended to be

13

evenly distributed among aided undergraduates, regardless of student characteristics.

The Combined Federal and State aid, only, recipients

The 16 percent of aided undergraduates who were awarded a combination of Federaland State received $3,928 on average (table 2.1 ). Because the Federal component in thisaward represents, an average, 70 percent of the aid (table 2.2), its distribution amongaided undergraduates is expected to be similar to the distribution of the Federal aid, only,award. Indeed, this is the case with respect to family income, attendance status, andgrade point average. Unlike the Federal aid, only, award, however, aided undergraduateswho attended public institutions were more likely than those who attended private, for-profit institutions to receive a combined Federal and State award.

Table 2. 6--didad undergraduate.e enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were awarded ?aderalaod State ● id, ooly, for the 1986-87 ● cademic year. by selected student adimetitutiomal characteristic

FederalDependency status, Number

Federal& State Selected institutional Number & State

cost of attendance, (in only and student (inand family income

onlythous. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 16 . 4 I Total 5,43T 16.4

Dependent students 3,367 15.5Low cost:

LOW family income 5.47 25.5Medium family income 501 17.5High family income 357 5.5

High coet :Lov family income 563 22.3Medium family income 647 15.7High family income 752 6.1

Independent students ~/ 2,06& 1s.0Low cost:

Low family income 409 26.2Medium family income fbo2 24.3Eigh family income 494 4.3

High. cost:Low family income 271 24.0Uedium family income 297 21.4HiSh family income 186 8.5


Attendance statusFull - time 4,200 18.4Half-time or more 845 13.7Less than half-time 386 0.1


3,571 16.6855 15.7

1,004 16.3

Grade point average ~12.3 or less 1,115 21.52.4-2. S 754 19.92.9-3.3 1,016 15.33.4-4.0 718 9.5

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;not add to total since each percentage ia based on the number o ! aided unde~~d%te.with the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

The Federal and institutional aid, only, recipients

The average amount of aid that aided full-time undergraduates received for this type

14

of award was $5,794; nine percent of aided undergraduates received one (table 2.1).This amount was the largest of the two-source aid awards. As table 2.2 indicates, onaveraye, 60 percent of the aid in this award came from the Federal Government and 40percent came from postsecondary institutions. The average size of this award, and thefairly substantial institutional aid component, suggest that those who attended high costprivate, not-for-profit institutions would be its primary recipients. This conjecture issupported by the data in table 2.7. Students at these institutions were more likely toreceive a combination of Federal and institutional aid than those who attended the othertwo types of institutions. Full-time students were more likely to receive this award thanthose who attended less than full time. Aided undergraduates in the youngest age groupwere more likely to receive a combination of Federal and institutional aid than those in theolder age groups. Finally, since we have seen that the Federal aid, only, and theinstitutional aid, only, awards were distributed in dissimilar ways across income brackets,it is not surprising to find that this award was approximately evenly distributed acrossincome groups.

Table 2.7--Aided umdergraduatee enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ● warded Federalmmd institutional aid, only, for the 1986-87 academic year by selected ● tudent● md inetitutiond cberacteriatic

FederalDependency status,

FederalNumber 6 inst. Selected institutional Number

cost of attendance, (in& inst.

and studentthous. ) (p~~~nt )

(insnd family income

onlycharacteristic thoua. ) (percent)

Totsl 5,431 9.0I Total 5,431 .

Dependent students 3,367 10.0 Control of institutionLow coet: Public

Low family income3,5’40

547 5.8 Private, not-for-profit 1,380 1:::tledium fsmily income 501 4.7High family income

Private, for-profit357

511 3.14.0

Attendance statusHigh cost: Full-time

Lov family income 5634,200 10.2

11.2 Half-time or more 86533edium family income 647

6.713.4 Less than half-time 386

High fsmily income 7520.7

15.7I

Independent students ~j 2,064 7.4Low cost:

LOW f smi 1 y income 409 7.9Medium fsmily income 402 7.8High fsmily income 494 3.7

High cost :Lov family income 271 9.6Medium family income 297 9.7Eigh family income 186 8.1


3,571 10.7855 6.5

1,004 5.2

Crsde point average ZI2.3 or less 1,115 9.32.4-2.8 756 10.22.9-3.3 1,016 9.83.4-4.0 718 9.3

I D 1 d dd 1 b f miesing values.~1 P%~i;s ;on~;e;it-~u;o?nder~ ;;%;t~s only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided unde;~d~tesvith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National PostsecondarY Student Aid Study.

15

The Federal, State, and institutional aid, only, recipients

Aided undergradlJates who received this award (7 percent) received $6,706 onaverage. The Federal component of this award was slightly less than 50 percent, onaverage (table 2.2), with the other two components contributing roughly one-fourth each.The average size of the award, along with the presence of an institutional aid component,again suggest that aided undergraduates who attended private, not-for-profit institutionswould be its most likely recipients. Indeed, the data in table 2.8 indicate that thesestudents were more likely to receive this type of award than those at the other two typesof institutions. Traditional students (those in the youngest age group and those whoattended full time) were more likely than their counterparts to receive an award thatcombined Federal, State, and institutional aid, on~. Finally. this tvpe of award seems tobe evenly distributed across grade point averages, but more likely to be received bystudents from families in the low than high income brackets. 1

Table 2. 8-4ided undergraduates emrollad in the fall of 1986 who were ● warded Federal,State, ● od institutional ● id, only, for the 19 S6-87 ● cademic year by selectedstudeat ● md imtitutiomal cheracterimtic

Federal, Federal,State &

Dependency status, NumberState L

instit. Selected institutional NumberCOSG of attendance, (in

instit.● nd student

thoue. ) (p%~%nt )(in

and family incomeonly

characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 . I Total 5,431 6 . 9

Dependent studentsLow cost:


‘ig!wJ:;h:i;FEomeHigh family income

3,367

547501357

563647752

Independent atudenta ~/ 2,064Low coat:Low family income 409Medium family income 402High family income 494

High coet:Low f ami 1 y income 271Medium family income 297EiSh family income 186

8.6 Control of institutionPublic 3,540

5.03.7

Private, not-for-profit 1,380 i7.33.0 Private, for-profit 5111.3

0.6

Attendance atatuaFull-time 4,200

L4.88.2

Half-time or more 84516.5

2.6Leas than half-time 386

6.91.3

Age4.0 23 or younger

24-293.5 30 or older3.21.1 Grade point average ~1

2.3 or leaa2.4-2.8

7.8 2.9-3.37.5 3.4-4.04.2

3,571855

1,004

1,115754

1,016718

8.83.42.8

7.09.08.56.0

il D 11 d dd lb f miaai.ng valuea.~1 P%ai:a ~on~~e~it-&~O~der&&t~a only.

NOTE: Percentage are baaed on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatea;not add to total since each percentage is baaed on the number o! aided unde~~~d~teawith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of atudente may not add tototal due to rounding.

I

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statiatica,1987 NatiOnal Poataecondarv Student Aid Study.

16

Chapter Ill: Aid Awards By Type Of Aid

Background

In this chapter, student financial aid is grouped into three categories by type of aid:grants, loans, and work-study. These three groups of aid include a wide variety of morespecific types of aid. Grants include scholarships, tuition wavers, and fellowships. Work-study includes employment received through the campus Office of Student Financial Aid,but excludes work which the student obtained on his or her own initiative. The Federalwork-study program, which is by far the largest work-study program, subsidized thestudent’s wages up to 80 percent in the 1986-87 academic year. Historically, the jobsavailable to students have been primarily on campus and associated with work for anonprofit organization. Only recently has the Federal work-study program been extendedto students who are enrolled in private, for-profit postsecondary institutions. Teachingand research assistantships also are included in the work-study category.

The estimated proportions of total aid provided to these aided undergraduates enrolledin the fall of 1986, through these three types of aid, were 56.7 percent in grants, 37.0percent in loans, and 6.3 percent in work-study (figure 3.1).6

Figure 3.1--Percentage of total studentfinancial aid, by type of aid

Grants57%

Loans37%

SOURCE: The 19B7 National Poa!secondaryStudent Ala Study

:tudy

6A somewhat different picture of the distribtiion of these three types of aid and how the distribution

has changed in recent years maybe obtained from College Board publications. As mentioned previously,the College Board data are not broken out by level of education and exclude private aid sources (whichfor undergraduates consists primarily of grant aid). Nonetheless, these data suggest that for allpostsecondary students, grant aid, as a proportion of all aid, has declined steadily between the 1975-76and 1984-85 academic years. Since then, it has leveled off. Loan aid increased steadily between the1975-76 and 1984-85 academic years. Since that period, ~ has leveled off also. Work-study aid hasalways been a small and relatively constant portion of total aid.

17

How types of aid were combined

Just as undergraduates were more likely to receive a single-source aid award than amultiple-source aid award, they were also more likely to receive a single-type aid awardthan a multiple-type aid award. Fifty-nine percent of aided undergraduates received onlyone type of aid in their award (table 3.1). The most common single-type aid award wasthe grant, only, award, which went to 43 percent of aided undergraduates. Amongund”ergraduates who received a grant, 52 percent received only a grant; 48 percentreceived a grant in combination with another type of aid. The average award for full-timeundergraduates who received awith other types of aid, the total

grant alone was $2,456. When gr%ts were combinedaverage award was larger.

Table 3. l--Aided uwdergraduetes emrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ● werded aid forthe 1986-87 academic year, by the number of types of aid mid aid ● ward

Average award fNumber Aid awarde Aided full-time aide~rof types by type of aid undergraduate undergraduates

Al 1 aided undergraduates 5,431

Ome Total 59.3Granta only 43.0Loans only 13.6

$2,4562,793

Work-study only 2.7 1,652

Tww Total 32.7Grants and loans only 27.6 5,343Grants and work-study only 4.5 4,583Loane and work-study only 0.6 6,114

Three Crante, loans, ● nd wwrk-mtudy 7.7 7,287

NuTE: Percentage are baeed on undupli cated counts of aided undergraduates.

SOURCE : U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Poets econdary Student Aid Study.

Undergraduates who borrowed were more likely to receive a loan in combination withsome other type of aid than to have a loan as the only type of aid they received. Of the50 percent of aided undergraduates who borrowed, one-fourth (27.5 percent) relied onloans alone; and three-fourths relied on loans in combination with other types of aid, themost frequent combination being grant aid (table 3.1 ). Loans were much more likely tobe combined with grants than with work-study. The average loan, only, award was$2,793, while the average loan and grant combination award was $4,583 for full-time,aided undergraduates.

only 16 percent of aided undergraduates received work-study aid. Of these, the vastmajority received work-study aid in combination with other types of aid. Seventeenpercent of those who received work-study relied on it alone while 83 percent had theirwork-study combined with another form of aid. Undergraduates who received work-study

18

I,,,

were much more likely to have it combined with grant aid than with loan aid, although theproportion receiving grant and work study aid was small (4.5 percent).

Components of multiple-type aid awards

Of the various awards consisting of more than one type of aid, by far the mostcommon was the grant and loan combination (table 3.1 ). It was held by 28 percent ofaided undergraduates and had an average value of $5,343 for full-time undergraduates.The next most common were the grant, loan, and work-study combination (average value,$7,287) and the grants and work-study combination (average value, $4,583), held by 8and 4 percent of aided undergraduates, respectively. One percent of aidedundergraduates held the loan and work-study combination. Multiple-type awardsaveraged at least a thousand dollars more than single-type aid awards.

The proportions of grants and loans were equal (50 percent for each component) forall full-time undergraduates who were awarded such a combination, but they variedaccording to the type of institution the student attended (table 3.2). Undergraduates atprivate, not-for-profit institutions had a larger proportion of grants (58 percent) than loans(42 percent) in their awards. The opposite was the case for undergraduates at theprivate, for-profit institutions (42 percent grants and 58 percent loans, on average).

Table 3.2--Tha avaragc awunta ● id parcmtqa distribution of single-type componmts of multiple-typo awards to full-tiretidad undmgraduacm, by ● ward ● nd control of tha institution

ban ● UO work-at ~T rant ● wor -@t y Grant ● nd loan Grant , loan & vork-wmrd ● ward ● ward study ward

Control of cmpolmlt 9last itut ion

component ● Component 9 c0mp0n*nc9

hers.$o Vork - Average v k- Averagc● mount Losmc otudy Grant %dy

Average Tiork-● mouot ● mount Cr*nt Loan ● ount Grant Loan study

Tots 1 w 9114 65 . 5 34 . $4 533, 61 . 2 32 . S5 343t 50 . 49 . 87 287, 50 . 33 6. 15 .

ControlPublic 3,993 60.8 39.2 3,937 62.0 38.0 4,312 48.0 52.0 5,429 40.8 38.1 21.1

Private,mot-for-profit 4,030 70.0 30.0 6,276 76.0 24.0 6,57S 57.7 42.2 0.835 56.4 31.1 12.5

Private,for-profit -- .- .- .- -- .- 6,087 42.2 57. s -. -- .- .-

. . 00 few ca8e* for a reliabl ● ettimate.NOTE : Percentm are baaed on unduplicated couata of aided undergraduate.

SOURCE: U. S. Departmmt of Education, Cantar for Education Stttiacicc,.

Among all those who were awarded a combination of grants, loans, and work-studyawards, grants made up one-half (51 percent) of the award amount, loans made up one-third (34 percent) and work-study one-sixth (16 percent) (table 3.2). Undergraduates whoattended public institutions and received this award, had a smaller proportion of grantsin their packages (41 percent) and a larger proportion of loans and work-study. Theopposite was the case for undergraduates who attended private, not-for-profit institutions.They received a slightly larger grants component and slightly smaller loans and work-

19

study components.

Because the overall proportion of work-study aid was much smaller than the proportionof grant aid, it is not surprising to find that the work-study component of the combinedgrant and work-study award was also smaller. Grants made up two-thirds of theseawards (table 3.3). For students who attended public institutions and received thispackage, grants made up slightly less than two-thirds of it, while they made up more thantwo-thirds for undergraduates at private, not-for-profit institutions.

Characteristics of r-”pients

The grant aid, only, recipients

These recipients represented 43 percent of all aided undergraduates. The full-timeundergraduates among them received, on average, an award of $2,456 (table 3.2). Grantaid is often thought of as being targeted to the most needy students, with loan and work-study aid used to supplement grant aid, if necessary.7 Such does not seem to be thecase for aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. For independent students anddependent students who attended high cost institutions, the proportion of those whoreceived grant aid, only, was greater among high family income students than low familyincome students (table 3.3). If one expected a larger proportion of grant aid to beawarded to students from low income families than middle income families (or moremiddle income families than high income families), then this is surprising news. Howeverjif one were to consider that there are four sources of grant aid (see chapter 11), thiscomes as less surprising. As we have seen from the previous chapter, aidedundergraduates from high income families are more likely to receive institutional andprivate aid than those from low income families. (See appendix C for a listing of all 31aid combinations, using the chapter IV categorization scheme, that make up the grants,only, award addressed in this chapter.)

7 See, for example, Hattman, 1978,

20

Table 3 .3--Aided umder raduatee emrolled in the f 811 of 1986 who were awarded grmte,~:;c~i;~=191J6-117 .eademie year, by eelected ● tudeot .od institutional

Dependency status, Number Grant Selected institutional Number Grantcoat of attendance, (in and student

thous. ) !~r~~~~)(in aid only

and family Lncome characteristic thoua. ) (percent)

T o t a l 5,431 .43.0

Deuendent students 3,367 40.4Low iost:

Low family income 547 58.0Medium family income 501 48.8High family income 357 55.4

‘WLc;%ly income 563 28.6Medium family income 647 26.3High family income 752 35.6

Inde~endent atudente II 2.064 47.2Lov co; t:

-. .

Low family income 409 51.2Hedium family income 402 49.6High family income 494 68.9

High cost:Low family income 271 27.9Medium family income 297 27.0High family income 186 36.1

Total 5,431 43.0


Attendance atatuaFull-time 4,200 36.8Half-time or more 845 54.2Less than half-time 386 85.3


3,571 38.2855 44.7

1,004 58.4

Academic levelContact hour 387 34.4Freshman 1,727 48.2Sophomore 1,307 45.4Junior 892 37.8Senior 1,118 39.2

Grade point average ~i2.3 or less 1,115 38.02.4-2.8 754 38.52.9-3.3 1,016 41.83.4-4.0 718 52.7

1/ Details do not add to total becauae of missing values.~/ Pertaina to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;not add to total since each percentage ie based on the number o ! aided unde~~d~teewith the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

There are other indications that this type of award was distributed more like institutionalor private aid than Federal aid. First, students who attended public institutions were morelikely than others to receive one (table 3.3). Second, students who attended less thanhalf time were more likely to receive this award than those who attended at least half timeor full time (figure 3.7). Third, aided undergraduates with high grade point averages weremore likely than those with low GPAs to receive these awards. Finally, those in the oldestage group were more likely to receive this type of award than those in the youngest agegroup.

A claim often made is that freshmen are attracted to an institution by the offer of grantaid. By the time they become seniors, then, they are less likely to receive grant aid.Weak support for this claim (since the pattern is not consistent across all academic levels)may be found in table 3.3. It shows that 48 percent of the freshmen received this award,while 39 percent of the seniors received only grant aid.

21

The grant and loan aid, only, recipients

These recipients made up 28 percent of all aided undergraduates. The full-timeundergraduates among them received an average award of $5,343 (table 3.1 ). Unlike thegrant aid, only, awards which have several sources, the Federal Government is the majorsource of loan aid (table 4.1, 4.2, and appendix D). Since loans made up roughly halfof these awards (table 3.2), they are likely to be distributed like the Federal aid, only,awards. The distribution of the grant and loan aid, only, and the Federal aid, only,awards have four characteristics in common. First, larger proportions of students withlow family incomes received these two types of awards than students with high familyincomes (table 3.4). Second, those who attended private, for-profit institutions were morelikely than those at the two other types of institutions to receive one or the other of theseawards. Third, aided undergraduates who were enrolled less than half time were lesslikely to receive the awards than those enrolled at least half time. Finally, students withhigh grade point averages were less likely than those with low GPAs to receive a grantand loan aid, only, or Federal aid, only, award.

Table 3.4--Aided umdergraduetes emrollad in the fall of 1986 whn were awarded grantamid bans, only, for the 1986-87 acadsmic year, by selected student midinstitutional characteristic

Grants GrantsDependency status, Number & loana Selected institutional Number & loanscost of attendance, (in only and student (in onlyand family income thous. ) (percent) characteristic thoua. ) (percen

Total 5,431 27 . 6 Total ,J 1 27 . 6

Dependent studentsLow coat:

Low f ami 1 y incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

High cost:Low family incomeMedium family incomeEigh family income

Independent studentsLOW coet :


3,367

547501357

563647752

409402494

271297186

26.1

20.019.88.2

43.834.822.6

30.0

28.328.69.8

52.749.727.0

Control of institutionPublicPrivate, not-for-profitPrivate, for-profit

Attendance statusFull-timeHalf-time or moreLeaa than half-time


Grade point average ZI2.3 or less2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

3,540 21.91,380 32.3

511 54.9

4,200 31.3845 20.8386 2.5

3,571 29.0855 28.2

1,004 22.2

1,115 29.2754 28.9

1,016 27.0718 20.7

Eigh coat:Low family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing values.~/ Pertains to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentage are baaed on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates; they donot add to total since each percentage ia baaed on the number o ~ aided undergraduateswith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.


22

The loan aid, only, recipients

Fourteen percent of all aided undergraduates received these awards. The averageamount was $2,793 for full-time undergraduates (table 3.1 ). The primary source of loanaid was the Federal Government (table 4.1, 4.2, and appendix D). According to someanalysts, 8 the purpose of loans, and particularly Federal loans, was to increase thechoices of institutions a student could attend. Students with low family incomes whochose to attend a high cost institution were expected to supplement their grants withloans in order to attend high cost institutions. Students with greater family incomes wereexpected to supplement their family support with loans to attend high cost institutions.Therefore, the loan, only, award, would be given to aided undergraduates at high costschools. The data in table 3.5 suggest that this may be the case, at least for independentstudents. Since this type of award was likely to be composed mostly of Federal aid, itis not surprising to find that students who attended private, for-profit institutions weremost likely to receive one and that full-time and half-time or more students were morelikely to receive loan, only, awards than those who attended less than half time.

Table 3. 5--Aided under raduates enrolled in the f 811 of 1986 vim were awarded loan aid,%nmly, for t e 1986-87 ● cademic year, by selected student ● nd institutional

characteristic

Dependency status, Number Loan Selected institutionalcost of attendance, (in

Number Loanaid only and student (in aid only

and family income thous. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5, 31 13 . 6 Total 5,431 13 . 6

Dependent atudenteLov coat:


High cost:Lov family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

3,367 15.1 Control of institutionPublicPrivate, not-for-profitPrivate, for-profit

Attendance statusF u l l - t i m eHalf-time or moreLess than half-time

3,5401,380

511

13.19.9

27.3547501357

5.217.625.6

4,200845386

14.315.22.6

563647752

5.115.023.2


Independent studentsLov coat :


~/ 2,064 11.2 3,571855

1,004

14.214.910.2409

402494

3.610.514.7 Grade point average ~/

2.3 or less2.4-2.82.9-3.33.6-4.0

1,115754

1,016718

16.314.012.910.9

‘if~wcg~iily incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

1/ Details do not add 1 b f missing values.~1 Pertaina to credit-&~O~der~~~~=t~e only.

NOTE: Percentage are based on unduplicated counte of aided under raduates;not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided unde~~%d~tesvith the selected characteristic. Detaile of the number of etudente may not add tototal due to rounding.

271297186

3.411.729.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistic,1987 National Poatsecondarv Student Aid Study.

8See, for example, Hartman, 1978.

23

The grants, loans, and work-study aid, only, recipients

Eight percent of allaided undergraduates received this type of award. The averageaward for full-time undergraduates, $7,287, was the largest average among the aidawards characterized by type (table 3.1). Hence, the most likely recipients would bethose whose cost of attendance is greatest. Students at private, not-for-profit institutionswere more likely to receive this type of award than those at other types of institutions(table 3.6). Since the work-study portion was the smallest component of this award,making up only one-sixth of the average amount (table 3.2), it may be expected that itwould be distributed in a fashion similar to the grant and loan, only, aid award. The twoawards have three features in common. First, aided undergraduates with low familyincomes were more likely to receive these awards than those with high family incomes.Second, full-time students were more likely to receive these awards than those in theother two attendance status categories. Third, undergraduates in the youngest agecategory were more likely than those in the oldest to be given one of these awards.Unlike the grant and loan, only, award, students at private, for-profit institutions were nomore likely than others to receive a combination grant, loan, and work-study aid, only,award. This is probably due to private, for-profit institutions having limited access toFederal work-study aid during the 1986-87 school year.

Table 3.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the f 811 of 1986 who vere awarded grant a,loam, ● nd work-study mid, only, for the 1986-87 acadedc year, by selectedotudemt ● rid lnst%tuttomal characteristic

Grants,loans,

Grants,loans,

Dependency status, Number & v-a Selected inetitutionsl Number & v-ecost of attendance, (in and student

thous. ) ( p%~nt )(in only

and family income characteristic thous. ) ( percent)

Total 5,431 7.7

Dependent students 3,367 9.6Lov coet:

Low family income 547 5.9Ffedium family income 501 Ii. ?High family income 357 1.0

‘il%c:%ly income 563 15.9Hedium family income 647 17.1High family income 752 8.6

Independent etudents ~/ 2,064 4.6Low cost:

Lov family income 409 6.3Hedium family income 402 3.4High family income 49.i 0.4

High cost :Lov family income 271 10.4Medium family income 297 6.6High family income 186 2.6

Total 5,431 . 7


Attendance statuaFull-time 4,260 9.4Half-time or more 845 2.6Lese than half-time 386 0.0

Age23 or younger 3,571 10.024-29 85530 or older 1,004 :::

Grade point average ~12.3 o r lese 1,1152.4-2.8

9.2754 9.7

2.9-3.3 1,016 9.33.4-4.0 718 5.7

1/ Detaila d dd 1 b f miesing values.~1 Pertaine ~on~~e~it-~u~~der~~~~=t~e only.

NOTE: Percentage are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatee; they donot add to total eince each percentage ie baeed on the number o ! aided undergraduatewith the eelected characteristic. Detaile of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,19S7 National Poetaecondary Student Aid Study.

24

I

The grants @ work-study aid, only, recipients

Among all aided undergraduates, 4 percent received this type of award. On average,this award was worth $4,583 (table 3.1 ). Aided undergraduates who attended low costinstitutions, and were from families with low family incomes were more likely to receive thisaward than those with high family incomes (table 3.7). Those who attended public or aprivate, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to receive this award than those whoattended private, for-profit institutions. With respect to other student characteristics (suchas attendance status, age, and grade point average), this type of award was fairly evenlydistributed.

Table 3.7--tided undergradueteo enrolled in the f 811 of 1986 who were awarded grant aufwrk-otudy aid, nmly, for the 1986-87 academic year, by selected student andinstitutional cbarscteristic

Dependency status, Number Grant & Selectedal institution Numbercost of attendance,

Grant &(in - and student

thous. ) ~p~r%~)(in v-s only

and family income characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 4.5I

Total 5,431 4.5

Dependent etudenteLow cost:


‘if!wc;~~ily incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

Independent student eLOW coet:

Lov family incomeMedium family incomeEigh family income

3,367

547501357

563647752

409402694

4.5 Control of institutionPublic 3,540

8.0 Private, not-for-profit 1,3803.4 Private, for-profit 5113.1

Attendance statusFull-time 4,200

4.8 Half-time or more 8453.9 Less than half-time 3863.6

Age4.5 23 or younger 3,571

24-29 8558.4 30 or older 1,0045.12.3 Grade point average ~1

2.3 or less 1,1152.4-2.8 754

4.4 2.9-3.3 1,0163.9 3.4-4.0 7181.2

5.24.30.3

4.92.93.0

4.74.83.5

271297186

High cost:Lov family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

11 Details do not add 1 b f missing values.~1 Pertains to credit.%”~der~~~~~~tzs only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatee;not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided unde~~%d~tesvith the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

5.45.14.55.3


25

:

Chapter 4: Aid Awards by Source and Type of Aid

Background

In this chapter, the 65 aid programs on which NPSAS collected information are placedinto one of eight groups or components. Some of them consist of a single aid program,such as a guaranteed student loan (GSL) or Pen Grant. Other components consist of alarge number of programs that are homogeneous with respect to source and type of aid(e.g., institutional grants or private grants). Aided undergraduates could receive onecomponent or more than one aid component. For example, some undergraduatesreceived GSLS, alone, while others received them in combination with Pen Grants. In thediscussion which follows, all students who received GSLs, for example, are said to receivea GSL component. Those who received it alone are said to receive a GSL award. Lastly,those who received GSLS along with aid from one or more of the other eight componentsare said to have a GSL component in their aid awards. Theoretically, a total of 255 aidawards could be constructed from the eight aid components.

Characterizing aid awards by both source and type of aid involves a substantialamount of personal judgment. The method used here attempts to achieve the followingobjectives:

● to describe the interaction of the two major Federal aid programs, Pen and GSL,with other Federal and non-Federal programs;

● to show the relative proportion of undergraduate aid stemming from each of thefour sources (Federal, State, institutional, private);

● to distinguish between grant aid and self-help (loans and work-study) aid;

● to combine aid programs into separate components with similar financial aidcharacteristics; and

● to equalizecomponent,

If

the percentages of aidedfor comparison’s sake.

undergraduates participating in each

The result is an eight component classification scheme. The eight components are:

● GSL (Guaranteed Student Loans, recently renamed Stafford Loans);

● Pen Grants:

27,..

. OFG, (Other Federal Grants--e. g., SEOGS, SSIGS);

. OFSH (Other Federal Self-Help--e. g., NDSL or Perkins Loans, College Work-Study,PLUS, SLS);

. State Grants;

. Institutional Grants;

. NFSH (Non-Federal Self-Help--e. g., State and institutional loans and work-study);and

. Private Grants.

Two categories of aid were excluded from this scheme: the very small private self-helpawards; and aid for which there was no identifiable source. The largest proportion of aidwith no identifiable source was reported by aid recipients who said they received grantsbut did not specify the source of the grants on the NPSAS student survey response form.

Of the 255 possible packages which could result from the various combinations ofthese eight aid components, 251 actually emerge. And of these, only a small fractionwere actually awarded in numbers amounting to more than 2 percent of the aidedundergraduate population. (See appendix D for a listing of all 251 aid awards along withthe percentages of aided undergraduates who received them, and the average amountsthey were awarded).

In this chapter, there are detailed tables on 9 of the 251 awards (discussion is limitedto 6). These 9 awards are among the most commonly held financial aid awards.Together, they represent the awards received by one-half of all aided undergraduates.(The awards are listed in table 4.1, ranked in order of the percentages who receivedthem).

28

Table 4.1 --Aided uodergraduatee enrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 who were avarded aidfor the 1986-87 ● cademic year aid average ● id award, by aid ● ward

fAid

Average awardAided full-time aide~r

award undergraduates undergraduates

All aided undergraduatea (in thousands) 5,431 NA

TotalPercent

51.3

Institutional rant onlyf

11.4 $1,835Guaranteed Stu ent Loan (GSL) only 10.7 2,587Private grant only 7.6 1,658GSL and Pen Grant only 5.8 4,904Pen Grant only 4.7 1,554Pen, other Federal granta, State granta (POS) only 3.6 3,076Other Federal grants (OFG) only 3.1 3,090State grants only 2.4 995GSL, Pen, other Federal granta, State grants

(CPOS) only 2.0 5,270

NA Not applicable.NO+E : Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

SOURCE : U.S. De artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,E1987 National ostsecondarv Student Aid Studv.

Figure 4.1--Average amount of aidawarded, by aid award

Aid award

GSL, Pen, OFG,St

GSL &Pell Grants

Other Federal Grants

Pen, OFG, State Gts

GSL

Institutional Gran

Private Gran

Pen Gran

s

s

s

State Grants

SOURCE: The 1987Student Aid Study

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6

AverageNatlonel Posts econdery

29

amount (thousands)

How the components of aid awards were combined

Because this chapter is somewhat more complex than the previous chapters, andbecause the initial tables have an unfamiliar format, it is useful to discuss the structure oftables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 in greater detail at this point, As in previous chapters, table 4.1lists the most commonly held aid awardsg and their average amounts for full-timestudents. Since these nine awards are held by one-half of all aided undergraduates andrepresent only a fraction (9 out of 251) of all the different types of aid awards made,tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 are presented in an effort to summarize how the eightcomponents were combined to produce the remaining 242 (251 minus 9) awards.

Table 4. z.-tided under raduetee who received aid

‘“T-’”e ‘y ‘h-se’’” “d ‘“com ioa t ion with all other aid component t

Aid Withaward By other aid

component itself components Total

I(percent )

GSLPen Grants

Institutional granteOther Federal ~rants

10 74:7

30 8 531:4

4136:1

11.4 20.0 31.43.1 27.8 30.9::; 26.7 29.1

18.0 19.17.6 8.1 15.71.1 8.5 9.6

E . . Department of Ed i NationalCent& for Education Statiet~:~ ;k7 NationalPostsecondary Student Aid Study.

Table 4.2 provides the percentage of aided undergraduates who received an aidcomponent by itself (i.e., as the sole component in the aid award) and in combinationwith other aid components (i.e., as one of two or more aid components in the aid award).In the last column, the total proportion of aided undergraduates who received a givencomponent is reported. For example, in table 4.2 we find that 10.7 percent of aidedundergraduates received the GSL component, alone, as the sole component in their aidaward. Nearly 31 percent (30.8) of aided undergraduates who received this componentcombined it with other aid components. The sum of these two figures, 41.5 percent,represents the proportion of aided undergraduates who received the GSL component.

9One aid award, the non-Federal self-help, award has been omitted from the table since it is a

combination of a variety of many different programs, and acts more as a residual, or catch-all, thananything else,

30

Table 4. 3--A.fded under raduetes whn received aid components in combination with otherepecific aif CCmpOnent a

Aidaward

component

GSLPen Grants

Other Federal rants!Other Federal sel -help

State granteInstitutional rants

!Non-Federal sel -help

Percentage of etudents receiving aid award component

Other ROther Fd:;al Fe%&al

Federal . State Instit. self- PrivatePen grante help grante grante help grante

17 . 1* 13 3 10 1 12 0 10 4 3 0 3 4. . . . . 16:h 10:4 15:9 7:5 2:2 3:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 19.5 8.4 2.2 3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 7.7 1.8 2.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 2.1 3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

* The f igure of 17.1 for the Pen GSL combina t ion is the percentage of aidedundergraduate who received bot~ a Pen and a GSL, only, or theee two components incombination with other award components.

SOURCE: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, ~National Posteecondarv Student Aid Study.

Table 4.3 gives the proportion of aided undergraduates who received two or morecomponents, combined together, to produce an aid award. For example, from table 4.2we found that 30.8 percent of GSL recipients also received some other aid componentin their aid award. From table 4.3, we find that 17.1 percent of aided undergraduates, apart of the 30.8 percent, received a combination of GSL and Pen, either separately or withother components in their aid award. Finally, from table 4.4 we find that 5.9 percent ofaided undergraduates received the GSL and Pen components, combined, as the only twocomponents in their aid award. Hence, of the 30.8 percent (table 4.2) who received aGSL combined with other components, 17.1 percent (table 4.3) of aided undergraduatesreceived the GSL combined with a Pen and other components; and 5.9 percent (table4.4) of aidedaward. Thepercent.

undergraduates received the GSL and Pen components, only, in their aid5.9 percent is part of the 17.1 percent which in turn is part of the 30.8

Table 4.4 --tided undergraduate who received an aid component in combination with only one otheraid ccmponent

Percentage of students receiving aid avard component e

Other Non-Aid Other Federal Federal

award Fed era 1 9elf - State Instit. self- Privatecomponent (XL Pen grants help grante grants help grants

GSL 11 . 0 5 9* 1 0 1 0 0 7 1 9 0 6 0 6Pen Grants . . . . . 4:8 0:7 0:9 1:3 0:6 0:2 0:4

Other Federal rants!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.3 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.3Other Federal sel -help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1

State grante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.2Institutional rsnte

!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 0.9 1.1

Non-Federal sel -help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.2Private grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8

* Th fi f 5 9 f h GSL P 11 bi i is the percentage of sidedun;erg%a~ee ~ho ;~c~i~ed a‘ Pe;l G;~~t % ~nGSL, only, aid award.

SOURCE: U.S. De artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 Nationa! Poetsecondar~ Student Aid Stud~.

31

The GSL component

Over 40 percent of aided undergraduates received a GSL component, making thiscomponent one of the most commonly awarded among aided undergraduates (table 4.2).Eleven percent of aided undergraduates received the GSL component by itself (for an

‘ 0 Seventeen percent of aided undergraduates whoaverage aid award of $2,587).received a GSL also received a Pen Grant, but only 3 percent of aided undergraduatesreceived a GSL and private grant together.

The Pen Grant component

Slightly more than 36 percent of aided undergraduates received the Pen Grantcomponent (table 4.2). Roughly one-third of aided undergraduates received the PenGrant in combination with other aid awards. Only 5 percent of aided undergraduatesdepended on a Pen Grant, alone, for their financial aid. For them, the average award was$1,554 (table 4.1 ). Pen Grants were as likely to be combined with the other Federalgrants component as with State grants. Sixteen percent of aided undergraduatesreceived a Pelt and another Federal grant, together, and 16 percent received a Pen anda State grant combination (table 4.3).

The GSL and Pen Grant combined component

I

A total of 17 percent of aided undergraduates received an aid award that included botha GSL and a Pen grant (table 4.3). Six percent of them received the GSL and Pen Grant,alone, for an average award of $4,904 (tables 4.1 and 4.4). Seven percent of aidedundergraduates were awarded the GSL and Pen combination along with the other Federalgrant component or the State grants component; 5 percent with the other Federal self-help component; and 1 percent with either the private grantor the non-Federai, self-helpcomponents (table 4.5).

,.

10Prior to January 1, 1987, the maximum annual GSL award was $2,500. Subsequently,

undergraduates who had not completed two years of study could borrow up to $2,650 annually throughthe GSL program. Undergraduates who completed at least two years of study could borrow up to $4,000annually through the program,

32

Table 4. 5--Aided undergraduates who receivedcmbioationt? of Pen and GSL vithother aid components*

daward

component

~‘ei f

e gure 7. repreeenta the percents e o!aided undergraduates vho received a Pe 1 Grant,

GSL, other Federal granta and otheraward component.

SOURCE I U, S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statiatice, 19S7National Posts econdary Student Ai=udv.

Other Federal aid components

The two remaining Federal aid components--other Federal grants (OFG) and otherFederal self-help (OFSH)--are combinations of smaller Federal aid programs, programstoo small to be analyzed by themselves in this report. The other Federal grantscomponent consists mainly of the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG)program and the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) pi.ogram. The other Federal self-help component consists primarily of the National Direct Student Loan (NDSL) programand the College Work-study program but also includes Parental Loans to UndergraduateStudents (PLUS) and Supplemental Loans to Students (SLS) program.

The other Federal grants component was awarded to 3 percent of aidedundergraduates (table 4.2). Sixteen percent of aided undergraduates received a financialaid package combining Pen with the other Federal grants component. Furthermore, 13and 20 percent of them, respectively, received one combined with a GSL and a Stategrant (table 4.3). However, only 8 and 3 percent received the other Federal grantscomponent combined with institutional and private grants, respectively (table 4.3). Thetotal average award amount for those who received one or more of the grants in thiscomponent was $3,090 (table 4.1 ).

A total of 19 percent (table 4.2) of aided undergraduates received the other Federalself-help component (which consisted of Federal work-study or a Federal loan, other thana GSL). The other Federal self-help component was almost always combined with othercomponents (table 4.2). Eighteen percent received financial aid under this category incombination with another aid component. These work-study and Federal loan amountsstood an equal chance of being combined with a GSL, a Pen, or the other Federal grantscomponent (table 4.3).

33

“y”

Non-Federal aid components

With reference to the four non-Federal aid components (State grants, institutionalgrants, private grants, and non-Federal self-help) 29 and 31 percent of recipients,respectively, were awarded funding under the State grant and institutional grantcomponents. Ten and 16 percent, respectively, received the non-Federal self-help andprivate grant components (table 4.2). The State grant component was frequentlycombined with the other aid components (27 percent received State grants incombination with another component) while the non-Federal self-help and private grants(table 4.2) were infrequently combined with another component (8 percent, each).

Characteristks of recipients

The GSL, only, recipients

Eleven percent of aided undergraduates held the Guaranteed Student Loan, only,award (table 4.1 ), receiving an average of $2,587 (table 4.1). As noted previously in thediscussion on loans as a type of aid, GSLS were originally designed to increase students’choices of institutions. For low income students who received a grant and thereby madeit possible to attend public institutions, the GSL could have provided sufficient additional

‘‘ The GSL programfunds to permit them to attend private institutions if they so chose.was also designed to assist relatively well-off students who relied on family supportinstead of a grant so they could borrow enough to expand the number of institutions theycould choose to attend.

11See, for example, Hartman, 1978,

34

Table 4.6--Aided modergrsduatea emrolhd in the fall of 1986 who were amerdedguaranteed etudemt loeme, om.ly, for the 1986-87 academic year. by selected● tudent ● md inetitutiomel cherecteri*tic

Dependency gtatus, Number GSL Selected institutional Number GSLcoet of attendance, (in only and e tudent (in onlyand family income thous . ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 10 . 7 Total 5,431 10 . 7

Dependent students 3,367 11.8 Control of institutionLow cost: Public 3,540 10.2

Low family income 547 Private, not-for-profit 1 ,;;~ 7.8Medium family income 501 12:: Private, for-profit 22.1High family income 357 18.1

Attendance statua

“I%CWIY incomeFull-time 4,200 11.3

563 4.1 Half-time or more 845 12.533ed ium family income 647 12.2 Leea then half-time 386 0.0High family income 752 17.9

AgeIndependent students ~1 2,06b 8.9 23 or younger 3,571 11.3

Low cost: 2.4-29 855 11.1Low family income 409 3.0 30 or older 1,004 8.0Medium family income 402 8.9High family income 494 11.3 Grade point average ZI

2.3 or less 1,115 11.4High coet: 2.4-2.8 754 10.7

Low family income 271 2.6 2.9-3.3 1,016 10.1Medium family income 297 9.3 3.4-4.0 718 8.2High family income 186 23.3

1/ Details do not add to total becauae o f missing valuee.~1 Pertaina to credit-hour undergraduate only.

NOTE: Percentages are baeed on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates; they donot add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided undergraduateswith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of atudenta may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid Stud~.

As table 4.6 indicates, aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likelyto receive a GSL than were those with low family incomes. Additionally, aidedundergraduates who attended the more expensive private, for-profit institutions were morelikely to have a GSL, only, award than those who attended the less expensive publicinstitutions (table 4.6). Because of the attendance requirement associated with a GSL,only students attending full time or half time or more received this award. GSLS wereevenly distributed across age groups. Among credit-hour students, freshmen were aslikely to receive this award as seniors (not in table). Furthermore, students with low andhigh GPAs were equally likely to receive this award (the difference in the two percentagesis not statistically significant).

The Pen Grant, only, recipients

The 5 percent of all aided undergraduates who received only a Pen Grant were givenan average amount of $1,554 (table 4.1). The data in table 4.7 indicate that aidedundergraduates from low income families were more likely to receive a Pen Grant thanthose from high income families. This is to be expected. The Pen Grant program makesawards on the basis of applicants’ financial resources and the cost of attendance. Fora given cost of attendance, Pen awards are generally inversely related to family financialcapacity. Aided undergraduates who attended public or private, for-profit institutionswere more likely to receive one than those who attended private, not-for-profit institutions.

35

This may be because Pen Grant, only, recipients could more easily cover the cost of apublic institution (or even a private, for-profit institution) than the cost of a private, not-for-profit institution.

Less than half-time students were not eligible to receive Pen Grants. Distribution wasequal among age groups. Among credit-hour students, Pelt Grants were as likely to beawarded to freshmen as to seniors; and to students with low GPAs as well as those withhigh GPAs.

The distributions of recipients of Pelt Grant, only, awards and grants, only, awards(tables 4.7 and 3.3, respectively) differ on several dimensions. Those include familyincome, control of institution, attendance status, age, academic level, and grade pointaverage. Clearly, the distribution of the grants, only, award does not depict thedistribution of the Pen Grant, only, award.

ITable 4. Z--Aided undergrad~tes enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were awarded Pen

Grant a, only, for the 1986-87 academic year, by aelceted etudent andimetitutiooal characteristic

P 11Dependency status, Number

Peng;ant Selected institutional Number aid

cost o f attendance, (in only and student (in onlyand family income thous. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 4 . 7local

Dependent studentsLow coat:

Lov family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

Iiigh coat:Low family incomeMedium family incomeEigh family income

Independent studentsLov cost:


High cost :Lov family incomelfed ium family incomeHigh family income

5,431 6.7

3,367 3.3 Control of institution6.30.84.1

Public 3,540Private. not- for-mofit 1.380547 11.2

2.60.6

501357

Private: for-prof~t -511

Attendance statusFull-time 4,200Half-time or more 845Less than half-time 386

4.57.80.0

563647752

6.71.20.0

Age23 or younger 3,57124-29 85530 or older 1,004

~1 2,064 7.0 4.17.04.9409

402494

14.710.41.5 Academic level

Contact hour 387Freshman 1,727Sophomore 1,307Junior 892Senior 1,118

8.45.45.03.03.4

271297186

7.2.4.91.0

Grade point average ~\2.3 or less 1,115 5.32.4-2.8 754 4.12.9-3.3 1,016 4.13.4-4.0 718 3.3

NOTE: Petcentagea are based w. unduplicaced counts of aided under raduates; they donot add to total since each percentage is baaed on the number o ! aided undergraduatesvith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid Study.

36

The GSL and Pen Grant, only, recipients

Six percent of aided undergraduates received this combination of financial aid. The full-time undergraduates among them received an average amount of $4,9o4 (table 4.1 ). Thedistribution of this type of award (table 4.8) across income brackets was similar to thatof the pen Grant, only, award (table 4.7) in the sense that low family income studentswere more likely to be awarded one than high family income students. By far the mostlikely recipients of this award were those who attended private, for-profit institutions.Thirty-one percent of aided students at these institutions received a combination GSL andPen Grant, only, award, while only 4 and 2, percent respectively, of the students at publicand private, not-for-profit institutions received one (table 4.8). The receipt of this award,by attendance status, reflects the eligibility requirements associated with both the Pen andGSL programs. Younger students (table 4.8) were as likely to receive one as olderstudents, as were those with low and high grade point averages (i.e., the differences arenot statistically significant).

Table 4 .8--Afded umdergraduatem enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ● mrded GSL amdPen Grante, ody, for the 1986-87 academic year, by eelected student ● diastitutiomel cbaracterietic

;: Xl& CSL &Dependency status, Number Selected institutional Number aidcent of attendance, (in only and student (in onlyand family income thous . ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 . 8 Total 59431 . 8

Dependent atudenta 3,367 3.9 Control of institutionLow cost: Public 3,540 3.8

Lov family income 547 6.3 Private, not-for-profit 1,;;; 1.6Medium family income 501 2.3 Private, for-profit 30.7High family income 357 0.1

Attendance statueHigh cost: Full-time 4,200 6.3

Lov family income 563 12.5 Half-time or more 845 6.0Medium family income 647 1.9 Less than half-time 386 0.0High family income 752 0.1

A8eIndependent students J./ 2,064 9.0 23 or younger 3,571 5.1

Low cost: 24-29 855 8.6Lov family income 409 10.6 30 or older 1,004 6.0tfedium family income 402 7.3Eigh family income 494 0.7 Grade point average ~1

2.3 or less 1,115 6.3High cost: 2.4-2.8 754 4.2

Low family income 271 18.9 2.9-3.3 1,016 3.9Hedium family income 297 17.8 3.4-4.0 718 3.1High family income 186 2.5

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing values.~1 Pertains to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates; they donot add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided undergraduateswith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid Study.

The GSL and Pen Grant, only, award distribution was similar to that for the grants andloans, only, awards discussed in chapter Ill (table 3.4). However, students at private, for-profit institutions were much more likely to receive the combination Pen and GSL, only,

37

award than students at the other institutions (table 4.8). The differences in proportionswere less pronounced among the institutional types for the grants and loans, only, award.

Despite the fact that the combined GSL and Pen, only, award was distributed acrossincome ranges in a pattern similar to the Pelt, only, award, the GSL portion was the largercomponent.percent was

For the average GSL and Pen, only, package, 60 percent was GSL and 40Pen Grant (table 4.9).

Tablo 4.9--Cmpd$tition of chrm mltiplo-compamnt aid ● ward@ ● ward-d to full-tima undmgrsduataa ● rollod in tha fall of1986 who wars ● warded ● id for tho 1986-.7 ● cademic year ● id ● vorqc ● id ● ward, by -id *ward and control ofinstitution

P 11 h Td 1 CSL P 11 h ~d ICSL aIW2 Poll grants: ● R ;A”:os) grak ~ •&~i &nL”RPOS)

P*rcmtt P*rc*ut Percent

Control Otherof AveraKm

OthmAvmagw hdard stat*

institutionAverage

● munt ●

Fodaral stateCSL P*11 ● mount* P*11 grmta grante ● mOunt* CSL Pall srmm Brmlt,

fetal W 904, 59 . 40 3. S3 076● 54 . . 3s .

controlPublic 4,010 60.9 39.0 2,720 57.6 7.2 35.1?rivat~, not-for-profit

4,728 47.6 33.1 3.1 16.14,602 58.5 41.3 4,249 44.2 5.1

Private. for-profit 5,760 S9. O50.7

40.96,419 37.6 28.5 4.4 29.3

4,574 54.5 5.8 39.7 6,936 40.7 30.5 3.7 25.1

3 TIM SV*T*SC ● uomta ● re tOr Aided ful l-tire undergraduate.140TII Porcontagec arc kced on .mdupllcstcd counts of ● ided undergraduates. !SOURCE , U. S. Department of Education, Caoccr for Education Ststiaticc,

.

38

The institutional grant, only, recipients

Eleven percent of aided undergraduates were awarded this type of financial assistance.The full-time undergraduates among them received amounts averaging slightly less than$2,000 (table 4.1 ). Aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likely toreceive this award than those with low family incomes (table 4.10). The award was alsomore likely to go to dependent students (14 percent) than independent students (8percent). Two percent of aided undergraduates at private, for-profit institutions receivedan institutional grant, while 12 and 13 percent of those at public and at private, not-for-profit institutions, respectively, received one. Those aided undergraduates attending fulltime were less likely to receive an institutional grant than those attending on a less thanhalf-time basis (1 O percent versus 26 percent, respectively). The youngest age groupwas as likely to receive the award as the oldest. Among credit-hour students, those withthe highest grade point averages (15 percent) were more likely to receive this award thanthose with the lowest GPAs (9 percent).

Table 4. 10--Aided undergraduetee enrolled in the fall of 19s6 who were ● wardedinstitutional grant ● id, omly, for the 1986-87 academic year, by selected● tudent and institutional character atic

Instit. Instit.DeDendencv status. Number srants Selected institutional Number arants. .coat of attendance, (in “only and student (in ‘onlyand family income thoua. ) ( percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Tota l 5,431 11 .I

Total 5,431 11.4

Dependent students 3,367 13.8Low cost:

LOW family income 547 11.2Medium family income 501 17.6High family income 357 28.1

High COSt:Lov family income 563 4.3Medium family income 647 7.6Eigh family income 752 18.7

Independent students ~/ 2,064 7.6Low cost :

Lov family income 409 6.0Medium family income &oz 7.4High family income 494 14.2

High cost:Low family income 271 2.6Medium family income 297 2.1High family income 186 10.1


Attendance statusFull-timeHalf-time or mnreLess than half-time

Age’23 or younger24-2930 or older

Grade point average ~12.3 or less2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

3,5401,380

511

4,200845386

3,571855

1, Oofi

1,115754

1,016718

12.711.71.8

10.011.926.2

12.28.311.3

8.9

1::;14.9

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing values.~1 Pertains to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates: they donot add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided undergraduateswith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Posts econdarv Student Aid Study.

39

r

The distribution of institutional grant awards across the spectrum of such studentcharacteristics as family income, grade point average, control of institution, andattendance status was similar to that of the grants, only, awards. On the other hand, thetwo distributions differed on the basis of age (tables 4.10 and 3.3).

The POS, only, recipients

Recipients of the Pen Grant, other Federal grant, and State grant, only, aid award(POS) amounted to 4 percent of aided undergraduates. Their awards for full-timeundergraduates averaged slightly over $3,000 (table 4.1 ). Aided undergraduates fromlow income families were more likely to receive this type of financial aid package, (table4.1 1) than those from high income families, possibly reflecting the importance of the PenGrant component, which represented 55 percent of this award combination (table 4.9).Approximately the same proportion of aided undergraduates at each type of institutionreceived this type of award (4 percent of public; 3 percent private, for-profit; and 2percent for private, not-for-profit aided undergraduates).

Table 4.11 --tided umdergreduatea emrolled in the fall of 1986 who were avarded acombimetiom of ?ell, other Federal grante, sod State grants for the 19S6-S7acadtic per, by eelected studmt ● md Imetitutiomel characteristic

Pen. OFG. 1 Pen. OFG.Stiite - Stite v

Dependency statue, Number

thou.. ) (P!?z

Selec ted ins t i tu t iona l Numbercoat of attendance, (in

~;~;eand e tudent (in

and family income characteristic chous. ) (percent)

3,367

547501357

563647752

2.9

9.12.b0.1

5.1

:::

Total 5,431 3.6I

Total 5*431 3.6

Dependent atudenteLov coat:

Lov family incomeMedium family incomeEigh family income

‘i!%c~~~ily incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

~/ 2,064

409402494

271297186

4.7

7.87.30.3

5.65.41.1

Control of inatitutfonPublicPrivate, not-for-profitPrivate, for-profit

Attendance statueFull-timeHalf-time or moreLees than half-time


Grade point average ~12.3 or lees2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

3,5401,380

511

4,200845386

4.41.72.7

3.74.30.0

3,571855

1,004

3.13.55.1

Independent etudenteLov cost:

Low family incomeUed ium family incomeHigh family income

Eigh cost:LOV family incomeMedium family incomeEigh family income

1/ D 1 d dd 1 b f miseing valuee.~\ P%t~i& ~on~~e~it-zu~o~der~~z~~t~s only.

NOTEs Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatee; they donot add to total eince each percentage ie based on the number o ! aided undergraduatevith the selected characteristic.total due to rounding.

Details of the number of studente may not add to

1,115754

1,016718

4.63.92.32.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistic,~987 National Poeteecondarv Student Aid Study.

40

. .

The POS award is made up of three, separate grant components. As a result, it’s oneof the awards that make up the grants, only, award decribed in chapter Ill, thus allowingfor comparison of their respective distribution. It turns out they have little in common.They differ on the basis of income, control of institution, attendance status, age, andgrade point average (tables 4.11 and 3.3).

The Pen component of the average POS award amounted to 55 percent; the otherFederal grant component, 7 percent (table 4.9). It is not surprising that this type of awardwas distributed across income groups in a manner similar to the Pen, only, award.

The private grant, only, recipients

As has been noted, private sources supplied the smallest amount of aid of any of thefour sources (table 2.1 ), However, because private aid was infrequently combined withother aid components (table 4.2), the private grant, only, award was held by a relativelysizeable proportion of individuals, when compared with other single component aidawards. Eight percent of aided undergraduates received this award. The full-time aidedundergraduates among them received an average amount of $1,658 (table 4.1). Theprivate grants, only, award was distributed across income brackets in the same way thatthe institution grants, only, award was distributed (table 4.1 O). Students from low incomefamilies were less likely to receive this award than those from high income families (table4.1 2). Similar to the institution grants, only, award, students at public and private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to receive this award than those at private, for-profitinstitutions (table 4.12). Older students were more likely to receive this award thanyounger students, students going less than half time were more likely to receive thisaward than those going full time, and aided undergraduates with a high rather than a lowgrade point average were more likely to receive this award (table 4.12).

When the distribution of the private grants, only, award is compared with that of thegrants, only, award of chapter Ill (table 3.3), some of its unique characteristics can beseen. For example, a large proportion of grants, only, recipients were less than half-timestudents. They were also the students in the oldest age groups and the students withthe highest grade point averages.

41

Table 4. 12--Aided umdergmduates emrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 who were ● werded privateysrsy, mmly, for the 1986-87 ● cademic yeer, by ● elected student mad

tutionel cheracterletic

PrivateDependency status, Number grants

PrivateSelected institutional Number

cost of attendance, (inaid

only and student (inand family income

onlythous. ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

5,431

3,367

547501357

563647752

Total 7.6 Total 5,431 .

Dependent students 5.2 Control of institutionLow cost : Public

Lov family income 5.83,540 8.8

Private,Medium f am%ly income

not-for-profit7.8

1,380 6.5

High family incomePrivate, for-profit

2.3511 1.8

Attendance status

‘igw::;::i=omeFull-time

1.34,200 3.5

Half-time or more2.5

845 12.1Less than half-time

High family income 4.73S6 41.9

Independent a tudentsLow cost :

LOW family incomelied ium family incomeHigh family income

Age~/ 2,064 11.5 23 or younger 3,571 4.0

24-29409 4.2

855 9.930 or older

402 4.71,004 18.2

494 34.1 Grade point average ~/2.3 or less 1,115 4.92.4-2.8 754 5.1Eigh coat:

Lov family income 271 1.7 I 2.9-3.3Medium family income 297 2.1 3.4-4.0High family income 186 11.4

1,016718 1;::

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatea; they donot add to total since each percentage ia baaed on the number o ! aided under~raduateavith the selected characteristic. Detaile of the number of studente may not add tototal due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educat%on Statistics,1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid study.

42

Chapter V Summary

This reporl is concerned with two aspects of undergraduate student financial aidawards. First, and foremost, it discussed the financial aid awards that undergraduates,enrolled in the fall of 1986, received. Second, the report explored methodology; that is,how to present a coherent and comprehensive view of the many different combinationsof financial aid awards that undergraduates receive. The findings are summarized, bytopic, in the discussion that follows.

Aid awards

Aid awards by source of aid

There are four sources of student financial aid: Federal, State, institutional, and private.The Federal Government was found to be the largest supplier of student financial aid,providing 62 percent of all aid to undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. Institutionswere found to be the second largest suppliers of student financial aid. They provided 21percent of all aid to these same undergraduates. Undergraduates’ awards were morelikely to consist of aid from a single source rather than multiple sources. Nearly 60percent of ail aided undergraduates received assistance from only one source, with theFederal Government being the provider in over half of these cases.

The sources of aid in a student’s award were found to be associated with the type ofinstitution the student attended, the student’s family income, and his or her attendancestatus. For example, students who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likelyto receive packages of Federal aid, alone, than those who attended other types ofinstitutions. On the other hand, students at public or private, not-for-profit institutionswere more likely to receive awards of institutional or private aid, alone, than those whoattended private, for-profit institutions.

Family income was also associated with the source of aid received. For example,undergraduates with low family incomes were more likely to receive a Federal aid, oniy,award than those with high family incomes. High family income students were more likelythan low family income students to receive institutional or private aid, only, awards.

Aided undergraduates who attended school full time were more likely to receive aidpackages consisting of Federal and institutional aid or Federal, State, and institutional aidthan those undergraduates who attended on a less than full-time basis. Those whoattended school half time or more, but less than full time, were more likely than others toreceive Federal aid, only, awards. Finally, those who attended school less than half timewere more likely than others to receive awards of institutional or private aid, alone.

43

1I

Aid awards by type of aid

There were three types of aid which undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 wereawarded: grants, loans, and work-study. These students were more likely to receive anaward which consisted of a single type of aid rather than two or three types. Roughly 60percent of aided undergraduates were awarded packages of only one type of aid. Ofthese, 57 percent were in the form of grants, 37 percent were in the form of loans, andthe remaining 6 percent were in work-study. Among all aided undergraduates, 43percent received awards consisting of grant aid alone; 28 percent received awardsconsisting of grants and loans; and 14 percent relied on loans, alone, as their source offinancial aid. Loans, therefore, were more likely to be offered in combination with grantsthan by themselves. Work-study was also more likely to be awarded in combination withgrant aid than by itself.

The same three factors -- type of institution, level of family income, and attendancestatus -- were associated with the type of aid received in the award. Aidedundergraduates at public institutions were more likely than those at the other two typesof institutions to receive grant aid, only. Those who attended private, for-profit institutionswere more likely than others to be awarded either loan aid, only, or loan aid incombination with grant aid. Those who attended private, not-for-profit institutions weremore likely than those who attended other types of institutions to receive a combinationof all three types of aid.

In general, aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likely to receiveawards of either grant aid, only, or loan aid, only, than those with low family incomes.However, dependent students with lower family incomes who attended low costinstitutions were more likely to receive grant, only, awards. The opposite was the casefor those who received awards which combined grant and loan aid. Students from lowincome families were more likely to receive these awards than those from high incomefamilies.

Undergraduates who attended school less than half time were more likely to receiveawards of grant aid, only, than were those who attended at least half time. On the otherhand, those who attended school at least half time were more likely to receive acombination of grants and loans, or loans, only. This relates to the fact that the FederalGovernment is the primary lender to undergraduates. It generally requires theseborrowers to attend school at least half time.

Aid awards by source and type of aid

For purposes of discussing aid awards by source and type, the student financial aiditems werelikely to be

grouped into eight components: Using this scheme, the component mostheld by aided undergraduates was the GSL. Forty-two percent of all aided

44

I

undergraduates held this award. Eleven percent relied on it alone and 31 percentcombined it with some other type of aid. The next most commonly held aid componentwas a Pen Grant, which 36 percent of all aided students received. Five percent relied onthe Pen Grant, alone, while 31 percent combined this award with other types of aid tomake up their aid packages. Seventeen percent of all aided undergraduates wereawarded packages containing a GSL and Pen Grant. Six percent relied on the GSL andPen Grant combination, alone. The remaining 11 percent combined GSL and Pen withother aid components.

Type of institution attended, level of family income, and attendance status were alsolinked with awards characterized by source and type of aid received. Aidedundergraduates enrolled in private, for-profit institutions were more likely to receive GSLS,or GSL and Pen Grant combinations than those who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions. Undergraduate students enrolled in public or private, for-profitinstitutions were more likely to receive Pen Grants, alone, than those who attendedprivate, not-for-profit institutions.

Students from families with low family incomes were more likely to receive Pen Grantsor aid awards with a Peil Grant component than students from families with high familyincome. On the other hand, aided undergraduates from families with high family incomeswere more likely to receive either a GSL, an institutional grant, or a private grant as theironly source of financial aid than were students from families with low family incomes.

Because undergraduates awarded Federal aid are generally required to attend schoolat least half time, those going to school less than half time did not receive GSLS or PenGrants. Since students going to school less than half time were frequently employed,they were more likely than others to receive private grants.

Methodology

Three different methods of describing undergraduate aid awards or packages werechosen: by source, by type, and by combinations of sources and types. Past literaturerelied on the first and second methods, but primarily on the second as a way ofcharacterizing student financial aid awards. Unfortunately, the second method hasfrequently been unable to provide unduplicated counts of students. AS a result, it canproduce puzzling results. Two examples are worth mentioning. First, a commonly heldview is that a larger proportion of students from low income families receive grant aidthan those from high income families. The results of chapter Ill do not support thiscontention. However, by examining the distribution of grant aid by source, as was donein chapter IV, we found that Federal grant aid is indeed distributed as is commonlybelieved. Such is not the case, however, for either institutional or private grant aid. Wehave discovered that in examining the distribution of grant aid, it is important to examinethe distribution by the source of that aid.

45

As a second example, a commonly held view is that loan aid is used primarily by morewealthy families to supplement their expected family contributions in meeting the cost ofattendance. Hence, we would expect to find that undergraduates from low incomefamilies were less likely to borrow than those from high income families. This result didindeed hold for 14 percent of the aided undergraduates, those who received a loan, only,aid award. However, we found that loan recipients were more likely to receive a loan incombination with a grant than to receive it by itself (28 percent). Among those whoreceived the grant and loan combination, we found that students from low income familieswere more likely to receive this type of award than those with high family incomes. In thepast, analysis of loan recipients would include those who received a loan, only, awardand a grant and loan, only, award together. Similarly, analysis of grant recipients wouldinclude those who received a grant, only, award and a grant, and loan, only, awardtogether. The weakness of this approach was two-fold. First, double counting of aidrecipients would occur and grant, and loan, only, award recipients would appear in theanalysis twice. Second, the analysis of the distribution of loans by income would becompromised since the distribution of loan, only, recipients by income is different fromthe distribution of loan and grant, only, recipients by income.

These are only two examples which illustrate that a better understanding of thedistribution of aid may be obtained by: (1) examining unduplicated counts of aidedstudents; and (2) characterizing aid awards by both sources and types of aid. In thepast, analysts were constrained from following these suggestions by the databasesavailable to them. The NPSAS database provides analysts with a wealth of informationon student financial aid. Analysts now have the ability to characterize aid awards inunique ways by combining sources and types of aid in different schemes. Furthermore,since the unit of analysis is the student rather than the aid program, they may conducttheir analyses based on unduplicated counts of students. Hopefully, the appropriate useof this powerful database will lead to a better understanding of how student financial aidis distributed.

■

46

-!mGlossary

College WOrk-StUdY Program (CWJ. (Public Law 89-329, as amended, Public Law94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV-C; 42 U.S. Code, sec. 275-1976.) Acampus-based Federal program designed to stimulate and promote the part-timeemployment of undergraduate and graduate students with demonstrated financial needin eligible institutions of higher education who need earnings from employment to financetheir course of study. This program provides grants to institutions for partialreimbursement of wages paid to students.

Dependent student. A student dependent on his or her parents or guardians for financialsupport. For financial aid purposes, a student is classified as dependent unless thedefinition of independent student is met.

Federa/ aid. Student financial aid whose source of origin is a Federal agency. This aidcan either be provided by or administered by a Federal agency. This includes, but is notlimited to, programs of the U.S. Department of Education, Department of Health andHuman Services, Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, Department ofAgriculture, and National Science Foundation.

Financia/ aid. Consists of grants, loans, and work-study from sources other than familyor self to help students finance a postsecondary education.

Financia/ aid combinations. The total financial aid award received by a student.Combinations of aid may include grants, loans, and work-study from a variety of sources(Federal, State, institutional, othefi.

4-Year doctord institution. Institutions, or subsidiary elements, whoseprovision of postsecondary education. They also confer at leastfirst-professional degree in one or more programs.

.

purpose is thea doctoral or

Grants. A type of student financial aid that does not require repayment or employment.It is usually awarded on the basis of need, possibly combined with some skills orcharacteristics the student possesses.

Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL). (Public Law 89-329, as amended, Public Law 91-95, asamended, Public Law 94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV-B; 20 U.S. Code, sec.1071-1 976.) A long-term, low-interest loan program administered by the FederalGovernment through guarantee agencies. Students borrow money for educationexpenses directly from banks and other lending institutions.

hdependent student. A student independent of financial support from his or her parentsor guardians. The factors considered are: the student’s age, length of time away from

47

parent’s home, status as a dependent for tax purposes, and the amount of financialsupport provided by the parents to the student.

Institutional aid. Student financial aid whose source of origin is the postsecondaryinstitution. This aid is provided by the institution.

Less than 2-year institution. Institutions or subsidiary elements whose purpose is theprovision of postsecondary education and all of whose programs are less than 2 yearslong. These institutions must offer, at a minimum, one program at least 3 months longthat results in a terminal occupational award, or is creditable toward a formal 2-year orhigher award.

Loans. A type of student financial aid which advances funds and which is evidenced bya promissory note requiring the recipient to repay the specified amount(s) underprescribed conditions.

National Direct Student Loan (NDSL). (Public Law 83-329, as amended, Public Law94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV; 42 U.S. Code, sec. 2571-1976) now knownas the Carl D. Perkins Loan program. A campus-based program that sets up funds athigher education institutions for making long-term, low-interest loans to graduate,undergraduate, and vocational students attending school at least half-time.

Off-campus housing. Students living in their own or a shared off-campus residence, notwith their parents, guardians, or other relatives.

Other 4-year institution. Institutions or subsidiary elements whose purpose is theprovision of postsecondary education. They confer at least a baccalaureate or master’sdegree in one or more programs. These institutions cannot award a degree higher thana master’s.

Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). (Authorized under Title IV, HigherEducation Act of 1965, as amended.) A Federal program that allows parents ofdependent undergraduate, graduate and first-professional students (prior to 1987, onlydependent undergraduate students) to make long-term loans for their children’seducation expenses. These loans are made directly by banks and other lendinginstitutions.

(PLUS)/Auxi/iary Loans to Assist Students (AMS). (Authorized under Title IV, HigherEducation Act of 1965, as amended.) Currently known as Supplemental Loans forStudents (SLS). A Federal program that allows independent undergraduate students,and graduate/professional students to make long-term loans for their education expenses.These loans are made directly by banks and other lending institutions.

Pen Grants. (Public Law 92-318, as amended, Public Law 94-482, Education

48

1

I

Amendments of 1972, Title IV; 20 U.S. Code, sec. 1070a-1976.) A Federal studentfinancial aid entitlement program that provides eligible undergraduate students who havenot yet completed a baccalaureate program with need-based grants to help them defraythe cost of postseconda~ education. (Note: Grant limitations are subject to change withrevised legislation.)

Private, for-profit institution. An educational institution that is under private control andwhose profits, derived from revenues, are subject to taxation.

Private, not-for-profit institution. An educational institution that is controlled by anindividual or by an agency other than a State, a subdivision of a State, or the FederalGovernment; and is usually supported primarily by other than public funds; and theoperation of whose program rests with other than publicly elected or appointed oticials.

Public institution. An educational institution supported primarily by public funds andoperated by publicly elected or appointed school officials programs and one whoseactivities are under the control of these officials.

Fface/ethnicity. Categories used to describe groups to which individuals belong, orbelong in the eyes of the community, or with which they identify. The categories do notdenote scientific definitions of anthropological origins.

American Indian (or Alaskan Native). A person having origins in any of the originalpeoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribalaffiliation or community recognition.

Asian American (or Pacific Islander). A person having origins in any of the originalpeoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or Pacific Islands.This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Samoa,India, and Vietnam.

Hack, Non-Hispanic. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups ofAfrica (except those of Hispanic origin).

Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South Americanor other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, Non-Hispanic. A person having origins in any of the original peoples ofEurope, North Africa, or the Middle East.

Source of suppott. The origin of different sources of support to help the student defraythe cost of a postsecondary education.

State aid. Student financial aid whose source of origin is a State agency. This aid can

49

either be provided or administered by a State agency.

Student attendance status:

Full-time undergraduate. Student enrolled for 12 or more semester credits, or 12or more quarter credits per academic term; or 24 clock hours per week ininstitutions which measure progress in terms of clock hours.

Part-the undergraduate. A student enrolled for either 11 semester credits or lessor 11 quarter credits or less per academic term; or less than 24 clock hours perweek in institutions which measure progress in terms of clock hours.

Supplementary Education Opportunity Grants (SEOG). (Public Law 92-318, as amended,Public Law 94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV; Subpart A-2; 20 U.S. Code,sec. 1070b-1 976). A campus-based program that provides financial assistance toundergraduate students who have not yet completed a baccalaureate program, withdemonstrated financial need to enable them to attend college. Priority for SEOG awardsmust be given to Pen Grant recipients. The grants are made directly to institutions ofhigher education, which select students for the awards. (Note: Grant limitations aresubject to change with revised legislation.)

Title IV Programs. Those Federal student aid programs administered within theDepartment of Education and authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of1965, as amended. Title IV programs encompass Pen Grants, Perkins (formerly NDSL)loans, College Work-Study (CWS), Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants (SEOG),Guaranteed Student Loans (GSL), Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS, formerlyALAS), Parent loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), State Student Incentive Grants(SSIG), and TRIO. Funds for these programs are appropriated annually by Congress.

Tuition and fees. Amount of money charged to students for instructional services (tuition)and additional services that the tuition charge does not cover (fees).

2-year institution. Institutions or subsidiary elements whose purpose is the provision ofpostsecondary education. They confer at least a 2-year formal award (certificate orassociate degree) or have a 2-year program that is creditable toward a baccalaureate orhigher degree in one or more programs. These institutions cannot award abaccalaureate degree.

Undergraduate student. A student enrolled in a 4-year or 5-year baccalaureate degreeprogram, in an associate degree program, or in a vocational or occupationally specificprogram below the baccalaureate level.

Work-study. A campus-based program designed to stimulate and promote the part-time

50

employment of undergraduate and graduate students with demonstrated financial need.The work-study program is distinquished from CWS in that it is a generic term used torefer to programs that encourage the part-time employment of postsecondary students,regardless of the source of funding.

51

References

Anderson, C. A. Student Financial Aid to Full-time Undergraduates, Fall 1984.American Council On Education. Washington, D.C. 1986.

Carroll, C. D. Packaging of Grants, Loans, and Earnings for Financing PostsecondaryEducation. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C. 1984.

Hartman, R. W. “Federal Options for Student Aid.” Public Policy and Private HigherEducation. Edited by Breneman, D. W. and Finn, C. E. Brookings Institution.

Washington, D.C. 1987

Lewis, G. L. Trends in Student Aid: 1980 to 1988. The College Board. Washington,D.C. September 1988.

Maw, Cadyle E. Improving Financial Aid Data: Categorizing Aid Packages fromGrants, Loans, and Work. Paper presented at the 1987 Annual Meetings of theAmerican Statistical Association.

Nichols, Edward E. “Financial Aid Awards: Predictors of Grade-Point Averages.” ~Journal of Student Financial Aid. Vol. 10, No. 3, November 1980.

Olivas, M. A. “Financial Aid Packaging Policies.” Journal of Higher Education. Vol.56, No. 4, July/August 1985.

Smith, P. and Henderson, C. Federal Student Aid: Who Receives It and How is ItPackaged? American Council on Education. Washington, D.C. May 1977.

Stampen, J. O. and Cabrera, A. F. “Exploring the Effects of Student Aid on Attrition.”The Journal of Student Financial Aid. Vol. 16, No. 2, Spring 1986.

Stampen, J. O. and Cabrera, A. F. “The Targeting and Packaging of Student Aid andIts Effect on Attrition.” Economics of Education Review. Vol. 7, No. 1 1988.

Wagner, A. P., and Rice, L. D. Student Financial Aid: Institutional Packaging andFamily Expenditure Patterns. The Washington Office of the College Board.

Washington, D.C. April 1977.

Wagner, A. P. and Tabler, K. A. Distribution and Packaging of Student Financial Aid:Some Evidence From the Survey of the High School Class of 1972. U.S.Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, D.C. 1977.

53

I

Appendix A:

Detailed tables for chapters 11, Ill, and IV

55

.

m-1

Table A2. la--Aided dependent undergraduates en,rolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid award,cost of attendance, and family Lnccms

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ---------------- -------

Aid ●wards by source of aid----------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---

Cost of attendance Aided Federal Federal & Federal, Alland undergraduates Federal Inst. Private . State & state Lnst itut ion State, and other

family income (in thousands ) Total only only only only only only Lnst. only avards*------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- ------------- -----------------------

TotalLow cost :

Low f ami 1 y incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

High cost:Low family incc+naMedium family incomaHigh fsmily income

TotalLow cost :


High cost:Low f smi 1 y incc+neMedium family incomeHigh family Lncoms

--------- ----------------

3,367

547501357

563647752

NA

NANANA

NANANA

--------------

100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0

NA

NANAliA

NANANA

28.0

33.130.12.4.9

31.524.325.0

$3,129

2,8412,5072,293

4,2203,4672,905

--------------

Percent

18.4 5.3 3.2 15.5 10.0

14.1 5.8 2.0 25.5 5.823.8 7.9 3.7 17.5 4.737.4 12.7 5.6 5.5 4.0

6.6 1.3 1.8 22.3 11.210.6 2.6 2.5 15.7 13.424.7 4.9 4.3 6.1 15.7

Average award for full-time aided undergraduates

$2,110 s,a97 S1,221

1,515 1,311 --

1,052 1, 26a 9611,234 1,166 1,220

2,S03 -- 1,5242,950 2,155 1,4512,795 2,615 1,239

-----------------------------

S.6 11.0

5.0 a.73.0 9.31.3 8.6

lb. a 10.516.5 lk. b6.9 12.4

.$3,659 S5,977 $6,71a NA

3,363 3,930 4, a55 NA2,658 3,502 4,250 NAl,a51 3,634 -- NA

4,731 7,236 7,880 NA3,954 7,028 6,913 NA3,521 5,699 6,328 NA

------------------------------------------

* Includes those who did not report their source of aid.-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.NOTE: Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nat ional Post secondary Student Aid Study.

C.Jlco

Table A2. lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid award,cost of attendance , and family income

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------Aid avard by source of aid

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of attendance Aided Federal Federal & Federal, Al 1and uncle rgraduates Federal Inst. Private State C state institution State, and

family incomeother

(in thousands) 2/ Total only only only only only only inst. only awards 1 /------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TotalLow cost :


High cost:Low family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family incoms

TotalLow cost :


High cost:Low family incomeMedium family incomeHigh family income

2,064

409402494

271297186

NA

NANANA

NANANA

100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0

NA

NANANA

NANANA

39.5

42.941.128.4

42.147.141.5

.$3,824

3,4543,1772,920

4,9624,5643,573

Percent10.0 11.6 2.0 18.0 7.4

7.2 4.2 1.7 26.2 7.99.8 4.9 1.6 24.3 7.8

18.2 34.2 3.6 4.3 3.7

3.8 1.7 1.0 24.0 9.63.1 2.3 0.9 21.4 9.7

14.2 11.4 2.4 8.5 8.1

Average award for full-t ime aided undergraduates

$2,296 $2,355 $2,071 $4,376 S5,292

-- -- -- 4,156 4,667-- -- -- 3,563 3,940

1,622 1,237 -- 3,144 4,691

-- -- -- 5,374 6,774-- -- -- 4,798 5,677

3,090 -- -- 4,650 6,506--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 \ Includes those who did not report their source of aid.2/ Details do not sum to total due to missing values for incrsns and costs.-- Too few cases for a reliable estimateNOTE: Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.SOURCE: U. S. Department of Educat ion, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

4.0 7.5

3.5 6.43.2 7.31.1 6.5

7.8 10.07.5 8.04.2 9.7

.$6,667 NA

-- NA4,914 NA

-- NA

8,102 NA7,119 NA6,628 NA

--------------- .

Table A2. 2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid awardand control and level of inst itut ion

----------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aid award by source of aid---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cent rol and Aided Federal Federal C Federal, Al 1level of uncle rg raduat es Federal Institution Private State & state inst itut ion State, 6 other

inst itut ion (in thousands ) Total only only only only only only inst. only awards*----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent

7.7 2.8 16. b 9.0 6.9

‘3.75.53.52.30.8

17.315.919.29.42.0

0.61.20.3

$6,708

4,6644,8684,630

.---

7,6798,7467,2535,611

--

_-----

9.6

8.911.08.37.65.5

14.213.615.210.16.6

3.13.72.7

NA

NANANANANA

NANANANANA

HANANA

Total 5,431 100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0

NA

NANANANANA

NANANANANA

NANANA

32.4 15.2

Public4-year doctoralOther b-year2-yearLess than 2-year

3,5401,270

8361,361

72

32.5 17.034.3 16.432.9 12.329.7 20.651.9 11.5

8.9 3.2 19.5 6.36.6 3.0 14.7 8.56.4 3.1 27.9 5.6

12.8 3.2 18.9 4.94.7 3.9 18.1 3.6

6.6 2.5 10.7 18.18.0 2.4 8.2 21.06.2 2.5 11.1 17.23.3 3.2 17.5 11.94.4 3.7 32.5 2.3

Private, not-for-profit~-year doctoralOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

1,3804907879211

15.0 15.614.7 16.213.6 15.025.6 19.044.7 3.8

78.1 2.369.4 1.983.0 2.6

1.8 0.5 10.5 3.11.6 0.5 19.2 2.51.9 0.6 5.5 3.4

Private, for-profit2-year and aboveLess than 2-year

511186325

Average award for full-time aided undergraduates

$2,005 s ,333 $3,928 .$5,794Total NA $3,414 $2,133

Public4-year doctoralOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

NANANANANA

2,791 1,6013,058 2,3352,787 1,3672,383 8452,811 --

1,329 1,138 3,466 4,1841,854 -- 3,976 4,8131,190 940 3,601 3,855

734 -- 2,841 3,110-- -- 3,484 --

3,803 3,2254,047 4,1713,556 2,7543,697 1,5805,288 --

3,671 1,526 5,151 6,9863,664 1,726 5,540 8,1613,705 1,376 5,044 6,212

-- 1,419 4,738 5,319-- -- 5,031 --

Private, not-for-profit4-year doctoralOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

NANANANANA

5,998 -- 6,095 6,574-- -- 5,822 7,999-- -- 6,611 5,831

4,863 2,6964,157 --5,234 2,546

Private, for-profit2-year and aboveLess than 2-year

NANANA

.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* includes undergraduates who received aid but did not report their source of aid.-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.NOTE: Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

mo

Table A2. 3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid award,attendance status and dependency status

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________

Aid award by source of aid----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Aidedstudent undergraduates Federal

characteristic (in thousands ) Total only----------------------------------------------------------

Total 5,431 100.0Attendance status

Full-time 4,200 100.0Half-time or more 845 100.0Less than half -t ime 386 100.0

Dependency statusDependent 3,366 100.0Independent 2,064 100.0

Total NA NAAttendance status

Full-time NA NAHalf-time or more NA NALess than half-time NA NA

Dependency statusDependent NA NAIndependent NA NA

---------------------------------------------------

32.4

33.138.211.7

28.039.5

Federal Federal & Federal, Al 1Institution Private State & state institution state, and other

only only only only only inst only awardsl-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent

15.2 7.7 2.8 16.4 9.0 6.9 9.6

13.3 3.6 2.6 18.4 10.2 8.2 10.615.9 12.2 3.0 13.7 6.7 2.6 7.734.6 42.0 3.4 0.1 0.7 1.3 6.2

18.4 5.3 3.2 15.5 10.0 8.6 11.010.0 11.6 2.0 18.0 7.4 4.0 7.5

Average award for full-time aided undergraduates2

$3,414 $2,133 $2,005 $1,333 $3,928 S5,794 $6,708 NA

3,b14 2,133 2,005 1,333 3,928 5,794 6,708 NA2,667 1,421 1,152 1,256 2,684 3,659 4,918 NA

801 1,596 746 -- -- -- -- NA

3,129 2,110 1,897 1,221 3,659 5,977 6,718 NA3,82fI 2,296 2,355 2,071 4,376 5,292 6,667 NA

------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------1 Includes those who did not report their source of aid.2 Except when attendance status is not full-time

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate .NOTE: Percents are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1987 Nat ional Post secondary Student Aid Study.

—————. . .. —- .—. . .

Ot

T a b l e A2.4--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrot ted in the fall of 1986, by source of a id auard,age, academic level, and grade point average

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . .A i d award by source of a id

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Se Lected Aided Federa( Federal & F e d e r a l , All

student undergraduates F e d e r a l I n s t i t u t i o n P r i v a t e S t a t e & s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n State, a n dc h a r a c t e r i s t i c

other(in thousands) Tota( on[y o n l y o n l y only on[y o n l y inst. o n l y amardsl

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Percent

Tota[Age

23 or younger24-2930 o r o l d e r

Academic levelContact hourFreshmanSophomore.luni orSenior

G r a d e point average22.3 o r l e s s2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

Tota lAge

23 or younger24-2930 o r e ide r

Academic 1 evelContact hourFreshmanSophomoreJuniorSenior

G r a d e point average22.3 o r l e s s2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5,431

3,571855

1,004

3871.7271;307

8921,118

1,115754

1,016718

NA

NANANA

NANANANANA

NANANANA

. . - . . . . - - - . - . - - - - -

100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0

NA

NANANA

NANANANANA

NANANANA

. . . - - - - -

32.4 15.2 7.7 2.8 16.4 9.0

29.8 16.0 4.1 3.0 16.6 10.743.1 12.5 10.0 2.1 15.7 6.532.4 14.9 18.2 2.4 16.3 5.2

66.531.9

6.1 3.8 2.2 10.415.8 7.8 2.7 17.3

3.07.6

29.8 13.7 7.8 3.3 19.2 10.127.9 14.6 6.6 3.0 17.8 10.427.8 19.9 9,5 2.1 12.8 10.9

34.829.9

12.3 5.0 21.513.7 5.2 H 19.9

9.310.2

28.3 15.7 9.2 2.4 15.3 9.822.7 21.1 15.5 3.3 9.5 9.3

A v e r a g e award for ful l - t ime a ided undergraduates

$3,414 $2,133 S2,005 $1,333 S3 ,928 $ 5 , 7 9 4

3,242 2,073 1,885 1,237 3,825 5,9323,725 2,857 2,242 -- 4,256 4,9363,789 2,050 2,356 2,072 4,099 5,475

4,508 1,355 4,635 -- 4,510 5,2273,236 1,659 1,502 1,310 3,767 5,5863,112 1,715 1,682 1,065 3,765 5,4153,163 2,385 2,082 1,201 3,936 5,9513,360 3,145 2,384 1,635 4,387 6,335

3,247 2,094 2,177 1,411 3,968 5,4463,126 2,191 2,094 1,284 4,019 5,5873,142 1,977 1,617 1,201 3,904 5,9773,342 2,395 1,544 1,225 4,054 5,411

6.9

8.83.42.8

0.86.07.69.47.4

;::8.56.0

S6, 708

6,7615,9226,929

-.6,4186,5926,8757,078

6,4946,4856,8406,457

9.6

11.06.77.8

7.210.98.5

10.39.6

U10.812.6

NA

NANANA

NANANANANA

NANANANA

,------ . ------------------- --------------------- . ----- -------------------- . --------1 Includes t h o s e who d i d n o t r e p o r t their s o u r c e o f aid.2 App(ies t o c r e d i t - h o u r s t u d e n t s only.

- - T o o few c a s e s f o r a re(iable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Detai 1s may not a id to totals due to rounding.SCURCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Educat ion, National Center for Educat ion Statist its,1987 Nationa( Postsecondary S t u d e n t A i d Study.

T a b l e A2.5--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrol Led in the fal 1 of 1986, by source of aid,sex, and race/ethnici ty

----..-----.---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A i d award by source of a id- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . - - - - - - - -

Se lec ted Aided Federal Federal & Federal, Allstudent mdergraduates F e d e r a l I n s t i t u t i o n P r i v a t e S t a t e & s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n State, a n d other

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (in thousands) T o t a l C+lly only only only only o n l y inst. on[y auards*- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. . ..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . - - - - - -

Percent

TotaLSex

MaleFemate

Race/ethnicityAmerican IndianAsian AmericanBlack, non- HispenicHispanicUhite, n o n - H i s p a n i c

5,431

2,3923,039

2E698394

4,025

Total NASex

Male NAFemale NA

Race/ethnic i t yAmerican Indian NAAsian American NAB(ack, non- Hispenic NAHispanic NAUhite, n o n - H i s p a n i c NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .-.

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

NA

NANA

NANANANANA

32.4

32.832.0

34.524.043.238.830.4

$3,414

3,4163,412

3,4013,%53,7963,9193,235

15.2 7.7 2.8 16.4 9.0

16.2 7.1 3.1 15.1 9.514.4 8.1 2.5 17.4 8.6

16.6 2.8 4.4 16.3 6.417.9 4.7 2.2 21.7 8.59.1 4.2 1.3 20.2

12.1 5.1 21.6 ::;16.4 8.8 ;:: 14.9 9.3

A v e r a g e award for ful l-time aided tndargraduates

S2,133 S2, 005 S1,333 S3, 928 S5 ,794

2,486 2,105 1,409 3,948 6,1171,804 1,934 1,268 3,914 5,5W

-. . . -. .-2,878 -- -- 3, 7;; 6,6392,589 2,186 -- 4,328 6,1252,442 -- -- 3,858 5,7892,031 1,869 1,325 3,869 5,685

6.9

6.96.9

5.19.55.05.27.2

M, 708

6,8396,603

. .7,0827,6147,3986,522

9.6

9.310.1

13.911.58.08.59.9

NA

NANA

NANANANANA-------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------- ------- -.----

● I n c l u d e s t h o s e uho d id not repor t thei r source of aid.- - T o o few c a s e s f o r a reliable estimate.NOTE : Percentages are based on undupl i cated counts of a ided undergraduates.

Oetai 1s may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Education, Nationa L Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

8

Table A3.la--Aided d e p e n d e n t mdergraduates e n r o l l e d i n t h e fall of 1986, by type of a id award,c o s t o f attendance, a n d fsmi (y inccme

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Aid award by type of aid

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Grants,

Cost of at tendance loans, & G r a n t sand Aided Grants nork- & ~ork- A l l

fami [y income mdergraduates Grants & [ oans Loans study s t u d y other(in thousands) Tota( o n l y o n l y o n l y o n l y o n l y auards*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - - - - -

TotalLobI cost:

Low family incomeMediun fami[y incomeHigh family income

High cost:Lou fsmi(y incomeMediun fami(y incomeHigh famity income

Tota (Lou cost :

LOIII fsmi [y i n c o m eHedim family incomeHigh family income

High cost:Lou fami Iy incomeMediun fami[y incomeHigh family income

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

38367

547501357

563647752

NA

NANANA

NANANA

---------------.

100.0 40.4

100.0 58.0100.0 48.8100.0 55.4

100.0 28.6100.0 26.3100.0 35.6

Average award for

NA S2,373

NA 2,064NA 1,380NA 1,280

NA 3,354NA 3,089NA 2,917

. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Percent

26.1 15.1

20.0 5.219.8 17.68.2 25.6

43.834.8 1::;22.6 23.2

9.6 4.5

5.9 8.04.7 3.41.0 3.1

15.9 4.817.1 3.98.6 3.6

f u l l - t i m e a i d e d undergrhtes

S5,248 S28689 S7,352 S4,468

4,318 2,684 4,0893,708 2,379 ::Z 3,0263,093 2,125 -- 3,511

6,076 3,347 8,248 5,0505,736 3,027 7,649 5,3595,141 2,827 7,650 4,787

. . . . . . ..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . . - - - - -● I n c l u d e s t h o s e ho did not report the type of a id they received.

- - T o o fe~ cases for a reliable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based cm undqd i cated counts of aided undergraduates.

Oetails may not a id to totals due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n Statistics,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

4.3

2.9

::;

;::6.4

NA

NANANA

NANANA

- - - -

T a b l e A3.lb--Aided indapdant undergrechetes enrol(ed i n t h e fall of 1986, b y t y p e o f aid awerd,cost of attendance, and femi (y i n c o m e

- - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A i d award by type of aid

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .Granta,

Cost of at tendance loens, t G r a n t sand Aided Grants work- & nork- All

family income mdergraduetea Grants & loans Loena s t u d y s t u d y other(in thouaanda) 2/ T o t a l o n l y Onty o n l y Only o n l y ewerds 1/

- - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .

Total 2,064Low coat:

Low fwnily income 409)kdiun f a m i l y income 402High family income 494

High cost:Low f-i [y inccsne 271Medium femi~y income 297High family income 186

T o t a l NALow cost :

Low family income NAMediun fami (y income NAHigh family income NA

High cost:Low fanity income NAMediun fami ly income NAHigh family income NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Percent

100.0 47.2 30.0 11.2

100.0 51.2 28.3 3.6100.0 49.6 28.6 10.5100.0 68.9 9.8 14.7

100.0 27.9 52.7100.0 27.0 49.7 1::$100.0 36.1 27.0 29.7

4.6 4.5 2.5

6.3 8.43.4 5.1 ;::0.4 2.3 3.9

10.4 4.4 1.26.6 3.92.6 1.2 ;::

Average award for f ul 1 -t ina aided tstdergradmtes

MA S2,663 S5,497 S3,093 %,749 S4,804 NA

NA 2,269 5,141 3,098 6,107 4,074 NANA 2,290 4,724 2,933 5,936 4,281 NANA 1,794 4,022 2,466 -- -- NA

NA 3,1%6 6,312 3,908 7,424 5,332 NANA 3,588 5,n7 3,477 7,427 -- NANA 3,366 5,762 3,371 -- -- NA

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . .----1/ I n c l u d e s t h o s e uho did not report the type of a id they received.2/ Detai [s do not sun to tota( due to missing values for income and costs.

- - Too few cases for a reliable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on undup( icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Detai (s may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Education, National C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n Statistics,1987 Nationa[ Postsecondary S t u d e n t A i d Study.

T a b l e A3.2--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrolled in the fall of 1986, by type of a id a~ard,a n d c o n t r o l a n d leve( o f i n s t i t u t i o n

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A i d a~ard by source of a id

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------------- ------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----A v e r a g e award for

Percent fu[l-time aided mdergreduates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------- ---------------

Grants, Grants,loans,& G r a n t s Loans, & G r a n t s

Cent rol and Aided Grants uork- & nork- AIL Grants work- S uork-level o f tirgreduetes G r a n t s & l o a n s L o a n s study study other Grants & (clans Loans study s t u d y

i n s t i t u t i o n (in thousands) Tota( o n l y only o n l y o n l y o n l y auards* Onty o n l y o n l y o n l y o n l y- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . .

Tota l 5,431 100.0 43.0

50.337.341.267.656.6

34.234.333.043.736.5

16.215.916.3

27.6

21.928.824.413.823.2

32.331.332.733.441.2

54.949.058.3

13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6

13.1 5.5 4.017.5 ::; 4.515.3 ::; 5.6 4.6

2.1 5.4 3.3;:; 2.8 3.9 4.2

15.8 4.3 3.51::; 16.0 3.4 4.39.0 17.0 5.2 3.1

11.8 6.3 3.314.7 3.4 ;;; 1.2

27.3 0.7 0.3 0.632.6 1.1 0.4 1.024.3 0.5 0.2 0.4

S2 ,456

1,8852,2521,9351,5601,677

3,%74,7963,5772,Z595,461

3,W24,0803,946

$ 5 , 3 4 3 $ 2 , 7 9 3 S7,216 S4, 583

P*1 ic4-year d o c t o r a lOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

3,5401,270

836

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

4,3124.511

2,4332,4902,3952,299

. .

5,4025,8055,0665,051

. .

3,9375,1513,4313,262

. .

4;1573,99948535

1,36172

3,0483,2282,9342,8183,139

8,83810,3168,0407,387

. .

6,2767,2825,972

Private, n o t - f o r - p r o f i t4-year doctoralOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

1,3804907879211

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

6,57S7,6236,0945,1976,139

. .

.-

6,0875,6796,307

3,6743,2284,057

Private, f o r - p r o f i t2-year and aboveLess than 2-year

100.0100.0100.0

. .----

.-

. .

.---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------- --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Includes those uho did not report the type of a id they received.-- Too few cases for a ret i able estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on undup( icated counts of aided mdergraduates.

Oetails may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SUIRCE : U. S. Department of Education, Nat ional Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

Tsble A3.3--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrolled in the fal 1 of 1986, by type of a id award,a t t e n d a n c e status, and dqadency s t a t u s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A i d award by type of aid

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------ --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A v e r a g e auard for

Percent full-time aided mdergraduates2-. . . . ..- ------- . . . . . . . ..- --------- . . . . . . . . -------- ------- ------ . . .. ---- . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grants, Grants,[oens,& G r a n t s loans,& Granta

Se lec ted Aided Grants nork- t wrk- All Grants uork- & uork-Student undergraduates G r a n t s & loans L o a n s s t u d y s t u d y other Grants & 10SI’IS Loens

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (in thousands) Totals t u d y

o n l y cdys t u d y

ordy Onty only awardsl o n l y ody o n l y On(y o n l y. . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . ---------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---------- . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tota 1 5,431 100.0 43.0 27.6 13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6 S2,456 S5,343 S2,793 S7,216 S4,583Attendance status

F u l l - t i m e 4,200 100.0 36.8 31.3 14.3 9.4 4.9 3.3 2,456 5,343 2,793 7,287 4,583Haif-time or more 845 100.0 54.2 20.8 15.2 2.6 4.3 1,410 4,277 2,603 5,961 4,564Less than hat f-time 386 100.0 85.3 2.5 2.6 0.0 ::: 6.6 795 -- -- -- --

Dependency statusDependent 3,366 100.0 40.4 26.1 15.1 9.6 4.5 4.3Independent

2,3~ 5,248 2,64392,064 100.0 47.2

7,352 4,46830.0 11.2 4.6 4.5 2.5 2,663 5,497 3,093 6,749 4,804

---------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- -------- ---------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------- . . . . . . . . .1 Inc ludes those who d id not rq.wrt the type of aid they received.2 Except uhere at tendance status is otherwise indicated.

- - T o o fe~ cases for a reliable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on undup[ icated comts of aided mdergrackmtes.

Details may not a id to totals due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Education, N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n Statistics,1987 National Postsecondary S t u d e n t A i d Study.

——-—.—._—— — .—-—-— —.

— —. ———.——— . ———._ -.— ——

T a b l e A3.4--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s e n r o l l e d i n t h e fal[ of 1986, by type of aid auardage, academic l e v e l , and grade point average

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A i d auard by type of aid

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A v e r a g e auard for

Percent ful i-time aided undergraduates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grants, Grants,loans, & Grants loans,& G r a n t s

Se lec ted Aided Grants uork- & work- All Grants nork- & uork-student undergraduates G r a n t s & [ oans Loens study study other Grants & 1 oans Loans s t u d y

--:~::::::~!::~ :-----: j:-:~w:fp~ ---::: y!----:: !~----~!y----~! ~---- ~:~----.:;:y-----::::~ ~----- y!~-----y!~-----:y !y-----:~!~-----:~ !~--study

Tota l 5,431 100.0 43.0 27.6 13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6 S2 ,456 $5,343 S2,793 S7,21L S4,583Age

23 o r yomger24-2930 o r o l d e r

u)-1 Academic (evel

Contact hourFreshmanSophomoreJun io rSen ior

3,571 100.0 38.2 29.0 14.2 10.0 4.7 3.9 2,397 5,338 2,n5 7,308 4,428855 100.0 44.7 28.2 14.9 3.9 4.8 3.5 2,614 5,149 2,803 6,574 5,005

1 # 004 100.0 58.4 22.2 10.2 2.6 3.5 3.1 2,631 5,615 3,191 6,771 5,048

387 100.0 34.4 41.5 19.4 1.6 1.7 1.4 2,625 5,9421,727

3,836 -- --100.0 48.2 26.7 12.7 6.5 3.8 2,219 5,240 2,663 7,284 3,920

1,307 100.0 45.4 25.7 12.2 4.8 ::: 2,300 5,295 2,713 6,792 3,909892 100.0 37.8 28.5 14.3 18:: 4.1 2,749 5,170 2,564 7,307 4,326

1,118 100.0 39.2 25.9 14.1 8.5 ::; 6.2 2,874 5,401 2,765 7,552 6,285

Grade point average22.3 o r less 1,115 100.0 38.0 29.2 14.3 9.2 5.4 3.9 2,553 5,035 2,579 6,793 3,8542.4-2.8 100.0 38.5 28.9 14.0 9.7 5.1 3.8 2,452 5,057 2,744 7,062 4,2032.9-3.3 1,;: 100.0 41.8 27.0 12.9 9.3 4.5 4.5 2,310 5,308 2,615 7,301 4,6423.4-4.0 718 100.0 52.7 20.7 10.9 5.7 5.3 4.7 2,510 5,603 2,771 7,151 5,433

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . ... .................1 Inc ludes those who did not report the type of a id they received.2 P e r t a i n s t o c r e d i t - h o u r s t u d e n t s only.

- - T o o feu cases for a re(iable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided tirgredustes.

Oetails may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, Nat ional Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nations~ Postsecondary S t u d e n t A i d Study.

?i

Tab(e A3.5--Aidad uxlargraduetes e n r o l l e d i n t h e f a l l o f 1986, b y t y p e o f a i d award,sex, and race/ethni ci ty

. . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . ------.-- --------- -------- . . . . . . . . ----------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-A i d auard by type of aid

. . . . . . . . ------- ----------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . .

Grants,Loans,& G r a n t s

Salected Aidad Grants work- & mork- A11student undergraduates G r a n t s & (oana L o a n s s t u d y s t u d y

c h a r a c t e r i s t i cother

(in thousands) T o t a l On[y Only o n l y only On(y awards*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tota l 5.431 100.0 43.0 27.6 13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6

A v e r a g e auard forf u l l - t i m e aidad mdargreduataa

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grants,(oans,& G r a n t s

Granta work- & nork-G r a n t s & loans loans s t u d y study

only Ody Ody Cdy o n l y-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---$2,456 S5.343 $2,793 S7,216 S4,583

SexHateFemale

2,392 100.0 43.3 27.0 14.1 7.4 4.1 4.1 2,666 5,446 2,826 7,386 4,8273,039 100.0 42.7 28.1 13.2 7.9 4.8 3.3 2,287 5,263 2,764 7,090 4,412

Race/ethnicityAmerican Indian 56 100.0 49.5 24.3 7.7 3.5 7.7 3,342 5,U85 -“Asian American 257 100.0 44.5 24.2 7.8 8.0 1::: 5.1 3,193 6,220 2,813 8,4;; ‘-4,856Black, non-Hisp 698 100.0 39.8 34.5 8.3 6.2 2,8~ 5,399 2,631 7,489 4,539Hispanic 394 100.0 45.9 29.2 1::; 5.3 ;:: 2,607 6,042 3,358 7,620 3,838Uhite, non-liisp 4,025 100.0 43.1 26.5 15.1 7.9 ::: 3.7 2,309 5,209 28769 7,041 4,620

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..● Includes those who did not report the type of a id they received.

- - T o o fau c a s e s f o r a r e l i a b l e estimate.NOTE : P e r c e n t s a r e b a s e d o n und@ icatad ctits of aidad undergraduates.

Detaila may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, Nat ional Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

.— —. .

Table A4.la--Aided d e p e n d e n t u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrolled in the fal 1 of 1986, by aid a~ard, cost of attendance, and level of family i n c o m e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-

Aid award by source and type of aid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pe[l, OFG, Other GSL, Pelt,Cost of at tendance Aided lnsti - GSL S t a t e Federal OFG, S t a t e All

and undergraduates tution P r i v a t e a n d Pen g r a n t

--!:! !!!.::! ------: !:-:! ?Y?!5?. -!!!! !.. ---!: !-----! !!?: . . ..!!.! !-... !!! . . . ..?!! .!. ----. !!?!--.---.!.!?----!!:!!:----!!!!!?----.!!!!!!:-

g r a n t s State

Percent

Tota lLou cost:

Low incomeMediun incomeHigh income

3,367 100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0

NA

NANANA

NANANA

10.7 11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

3.42.71.8

1.01.21.4

S3,090

.-

.-

. .

--. -

5,140

2.4 2.0 48.7

547501357

4.2 11.2 5.8 6.3 11.2 9.114.3 17.6 7.8 2.3 2.6 2.418.1 28.1 12.3 0.1 0.6 0.1

2.7 44.145.334.8

High cost:Lou incomeHediun inccnneHigh inccme

563647752

4.3 12.5 4.7 5.11::: ;:: 1.2 1.017.9 li:$ 4.7 ::7 0.0 0.0

1.7 61.769.153.4

Average award for ful 1- time aidad undergraduates

Tota lLow cost :

Low incomeMediun incomeHigh income

NA S2,587 S1 ,835 S1,658 S4,904 $1,554 S3 ,076 $995 S5,270 NA

NANANA

2,745 1,119 1,137 4,393 1,452 2,8182,336 870 1,129 3,439 -- . .2,166 1,061 1,087 -- -- . .

4,488- -- -

NANANA

High coat:Low incomeMediun incomeHigh income

NANANA

2,970 2,693 -- 4,962 1,795 3,6482,737 2,726 1,840 3,907 -- - -2,415 2,659 2,197 -- -- . .

1,3371,345

877

5,8554,529

.-

NANANA

. ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------------- ------ ------ -....------* Includes those who did not report the source or type of the i r award.

- - Too few cases for a reliable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on umdupt icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Detaiis may not a id to tota ls due to romding.SIYJRCE : U. S. Department of Education, N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n Statistics,1987 Nationa[ Postsecondary S t u d e n t A i d Study.

T a b l e A4.lb--Aidad i dapadent udargraduataa enrol(ad i n t h e fa[l of 1986, b y a i d auard, c o s t o f attendance, a n d levet of fami ty inccme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid award by source and type of aid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . ----------- . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pell, OFG, OtherCost of at tendance Aidad Insti -

GSL, Pen,GSL S t a t e Fadera[ OFG, Stata Al 1

and undergraduates tut ion P r i v a t e

..!?! !!.:?-... --:!? .:!?! :?!-!! .:?:? ! . . . ..!... --..! !?.. -..!::?! . . ..!.! --... !.!:... --!F!. --..: Y!!.--.?!!!!;...-..!:+?-...!:!!!:!!Percent

Tota l 2,064 100.0LoH cost:

Lon inccms 409 100.0Madiun income 402 100.0High income 494 100.0

High cost:Lou inccata 271 100.0Madiun income 297 100.0High income 186 100.0

10.7

3.0

1:::

2.6

z:;

S2,587

3,0652,8522,514

3,2573,2613,004

11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1 2.4 2 48.7

6.0 4.2 10.6 14.7 7.87.3 10.4 7.3 :::

1;:: 4:; 0.7 1.5 0.3 10.9

3.72.80.2

43.346,323.8

2.6 18.9 7.2 5.6 0.9::: 17.8 4.9 5.4

1;:! 11.4 2.5 1.0 1.1 :::

0.60.82.0

6.93.40.8

53.052.443.8

Average auerd for f ul 1- t i ma aidad mdargreduates

T o t a l NA NALou cost :

Lou income NA NAMediun income NA NAHigh income NA NA

High cost:Lou income NA NAMediun income NA NAHigh income NA NA

-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.-------

S1,835 S1,658 S4,904 S1,554 S3,076 S3,090 S995 S5 ,270 NA

. . . . 4,974 1,671 2,896 --- - . . 4,579 1,563 2,530 --

697 992 -- -- -. 3,244

5,297. .-.

NANANA

.-

.-

. .

5,9515,782

-.

. . . . 5,548 1,8~ 4,099 --

. . - - 5,331 1,743 3,601 --1,977 -- -- -- - - . .

NANANA

--. .-.

. . . . . . . . . . . -------------- ------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- --------- . . . . . . . . -------- -.----1/ Inctudes those who d id not report the source or type of a id they received.2/ Oetails do not edd to tota l due to missing values for income and costs.

- - T o o feu cases for a reliable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on undupl i cated comts of aided wdergraduates.

Details may not a id to totals due to rounding.SWRCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Education, National C e n t e r f o r E&cation Statistics,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

-4

Tabte A4.2--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrol led in the fal t of 1986, by source and type of auard, a n d c o n t r o l a n d leve~ o f i n s t i t u t i o n. . . . . ..- .. -. .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------------------- .------- . . . . . . . . . . . . --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A id auard by source and type of aid. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . -

Petl, OFG, Other GSL, Pel(,Control and Aided Insti - GSL S t a t e Federai

1 evel ofOFG, S t a t e All

undergraduates tution P r i v a t e a n d Pett g r a n t g r a n t s S t a t e g r a n t otheri n s t i t u t i o n (in thousands) Tots I GSL g r a n t g r a n t Pen g r a n t (Pos ) (OFG) grants (GPOS) auards*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................

Tots 1

Pdic4-year d o c t o r a lOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

Private, not - f or-profit4-year d o c t o r a lOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

Private, f o r - p r o f i t2-year and aboveLess than 2-year

5,431

3,5401,270

8361,361

72

1,380490787

9211

Totat NA

Pti[ ic NA4-year d o c t o r a l NAOther 4-year NA2-year NALess than 2-year NA

Private, n o t - f o r - p r o f i t NA4-year d o c t o r a l NAOther 4-year NA2-year NALess than 2-year NA

Private, f o r - p r o f i t NA2-year and above NALess than 2-year NA

. . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--.---....---

100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0

NA

NANANANANA

NANANANANA

NANANA

- - - - - - - -

10.7

10.213.912.3

;:;

H’

;::12.1

22.125.920.0

S2,587

2,3452,3082,3212,450

--

2,6472,7882,5182,T33

. .

3,2922,8593,658

. . . . . . . . .

11.4

12.711.4

1::;10.8

11.711.311.615.93.5

1.8

;::

S1,835

1,2811,9261,070

701. .

3,0324,2002,5391,378

- -

1,8509,9991,507

. . . ----- .

7.6

8.86.56.3

12.84.7

6.5

;::3.34.4

1.81.61.9

S1,658

1,1241,5271,089

633. -

3,1713,2833,063

. .

. -

4,148. -. .

5.8

3.85.13.8

;::

::;1.4

1;:;

30.720.436.6

S4,904

4,0104,0383,9393,W14,131

4,6029,9994,3344,2895,986

5,7604,8126,099

Percent

4.7

6.33.5

;:;13.3

0.80.90.43.00.9

4.13.04.8

Average

$1,554

1,4631,5611,6561,3401,493

1*W1- -. -. .. .

2,1942,2342,179

3.6 3.1 2.4

4.4 4.1 2.72.4 2.4

::: 2.2 2.75.80.2 1::: ::!

1.7 1.0 2.31.0 1.4 2.1

0.8;:: ::;9.1 !:: 1.8

1.6 0.5::; 1.2 0.51.8 1.8 0.5

2.0

2.2

H2.20.0

2.25.5

2.45.00.9

aid award for ful i-time aided mdargradustes

S3,076 $3,090 S995 S5 ,270

2,720 2,379 4,7283,129 2,795 F9 4,8292,982 2,491 664 4,8772,347 2,1n -- 4,495

. . . . . . . .

4,249 6,848 1,240 6,4199,999 7,815 1,342 - -4,320 -- 1,161 6,2413,861 -- 1,285 .-

. . . . -. . .

4,574 5,267 -- 6,9364,331 -- -- 6,9604,873 4,820 -- - -

48.7

44.851.449.136.139.0

65.365.667.052.940.8

32.336.729.7

NA

NANANANANA

NANANANANA

NANANA

. . . . . . . . ..- ------ -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .● Inctudes those who d id not report the i r source or type of aid.

- - T o o feu cases for a rel iab~e estimate.NOTE : Percentages are based on undupt i cated counts of aided undargracbstes.

Details may not a id to tota(s due to rounding.SWRCE : U. S. Department of Educat i on, Nat i ona I Center for Education Statist its,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

T a b l e A.4.3--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enro( ted in the fal 1 of 1986, by source and type of award, at tendance status, a n d d e p e n d e n c y s t a t u s- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . - - - - - - . . . . .

Aid auard by source and type of a id- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Peii, OFG, OtherSe lec ted

GSL, Pen,Aided Insti - GSL S t a t e

studentFederal OFG, S t a t e All

undergraduates tuti6n P r i v a t e a n d Pel( g r a n t g r a n t s S t a t ec h a r a c t e r i s t i c

g r a n t other(in thousands) T o t a l GSL g r a n t g r a n t Pet 1 g r a n t (Pos) (OFG) g r a n t s (GPOS) awardsl

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Percent

Tota 1 5,431Attendance status

F u l l - t i m e 4,200Half - t ime or more 845Less than half - t ime 386

Dependency statusDependent 3,366Independent 2,064

Tota ( NAAttendance status

4 Fu(l-timeN

NAHalf - t ime or more NALess than half - t ime NA

Dependency statusDependent NAIndependent NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - . . . . . - - - . - - -

100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0

NA

NANANA

NANA

- - - - - - . -

10.7

11.312.50.0

11.88.9

S2,587

2,5872,605

-.

2,4722,912

. . . . . . ..-

11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

10.0 6.3 4.5 3.711.9 1::: 6.0 7.8 4.3 :::26.2 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8

13.8 5.2 3.9 3.3 2.97.6 11.5 9.0 7.0 4,7 ;;7

A v e r a g e award for fu[ l - t ime a ided undergraduates2

S1 ,835 S1 ,658 S4,904 $1,554 S3, 076 S3, 090

1,835 1,658 4,904 1,554 3,076 3,090831 985 4,139 1,255 1,798 2,057474 532 -- -- . - 1,140

1,922 1,611 4,582 1,471 2,W6 3,1161,207 1,810 5,138 1,636 3,181 3,063

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Inc~udes those who did not report the source or type of award,2 P e r t a i n s t o fu([-tinw s t a t u s u n l e s s other~ise indicated.

- - Too few cases for a re l iable estimate.NOTE : Percents are based on undupl i cated counts of a ided undergraduates.

Detai ts may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Education, Nat iona[ Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

2.4 2 48.7

2.3 2.3 54.036.7

::? ::: 18.0

2.8 52.91.7 H 41.7

$995 S5 ,270 NA

W5 5,270 NA840 4,675 NA.- -- NA

936 4,988 NA1,432 5,545 NA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----

T a b l e A4.4--Aided mdergreduatee enrol led in the fat 1 of 1986, by swrce and type of award, age, a c a d e m i c L e v e l , a n d g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e. . . ----------- -----.-- -.----- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid award by source and type of aid-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----

Se lec ted Pe[l, OFG, Other GSL, Pelt,s t u d e n t Aided Insti - GSL S t a t e Federal OFG, S t a t e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c undergraduatesAl{

tution P r i v a t e a n d Pelt g r a n t

. . ..--- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..!...E!.. !.!.! . . . ..!... -.--! !!.! . . . ..!.. ! . . ..?!! - . . . . . ..! . . . . ...!?.?........!!?...!!.?!.......!!!?!.-.-!!!?!

g r a n t s S t a t e g r a n t other

Tota lAge

23 or younger24-2930 o r o l d e r

Academic levelContact hourFreshmenSophcsnoreJuniorSenior

Grade p o i n t average22.3 o r l a s s2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

Tota(A-

23 o r yocstger24-2930 or older

Academic levelContact hwrFreshmanSophomoreJuniorSenior

Grade p o i n t average22.3 o r less2.4-2.82.9-3.33.4-4.0

5,431 100.0

3,571 100.0855 100.0

1,004 100.0

387 100.01,727 100.01,307 100.0

892 100.01,118 100.0

1,115 100.0

1,:: :;::;718 100.0

NA NA

NA MANA NANA NA

NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA

NA NANA NANA NANA NA

Percent

10.7 11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

11.3 12.2 4.0 4.1 3.111.1 ;:; 3.58.0

::;1!:: 1::; 6.0 ::; 5.1 6.5

16.3 3.8 22.2 8.49.9

4.51;:2 7.6 6.0 5.4 ::; 3.010.1 3.7

1;:;4.7 3.4

10.7 ::: 3.6 ::! 3.410.8 12.4

2.69.4 4.2 3.4 1.7 2.8

11.4 8.9 4.9 6.3 5.3 4.610.7 4.2 4.110.1

3.9 :::1::; ;:; 3.9 4.1

8.2 14.9 15.3 3.1 3.3 ::: ::;

Average ● ward for futl-time aidad mdergrtitea

S2,587 $1,835 S1,658 S4,904 S1,554 S3,076 S38090

2,505 1,911 1,609 4,667 1,5382,705

3,0481,677

2,8761,931 5,043 1,641 3,231

3,0253,916

1,044 1,672 5,480 1,511 3,062 2,760

3,417 3,052 5,819 1,698 487952,464

2,8191,?4 1,207 4,685 1,560

2,51738045

1,5852,598

1,516 4,4W 1,4312,417

2,9282,466

3,0111,895 4,271 1,628

2,577 2,3322,908 3,778

1,985 4,546 1,540 38223 3 # 493

2,381 2,079 1,555 4,485 1,5822,540

3,2932,049

2,2701,W6 4,245 1,357 2,820

2,4453,225

1,778 1,315 4,632 1,6402,659

2,8W1,896

3,6931,433 5,327 1,556 3,334 --

2.4

2.6

::;

::;2.62.61.7

2.32.82.02.9

$995

931. -

1,520

. -945833989

1,062

1,014914

1,::

2.0

;::2.5

H2.21.91.8

2.32.6

:::

S5, 270

5,1545,6245,353

5,6435,2715,1125,2145,411

5,1W5,3815,100

. .----------- ------ . . . . . . . . . . . ----------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . . ...............

48.7

54.342.035.4

33.245.551.254.051.8

51.753.352.446.2

NA

NANANA

NANANANANA

NANANANA

.-------- .1 Includes t h o s e ho d i d n o t r e p o r t t h e swrce or type of a id received.2 P e r t a i n s t o c r e d i t - h o u r s t u d e n t s onty.

- - T o o few cases for a re(iabte estimate.NOTE : Percentages are based on unduplicated comts of aided undergraduates.

Detai(s may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SCNJRCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Education, Nat ional Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nationa( Postsecondary S t u d e n t A i d Study.

Table A4.5--Aided u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrol ted in the fat 1 of 1986, by source and type of a id award, sex, and race/ethnicity. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - -

A id award by source and type of aid- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SelectedPen, OFG,

AidedOther GSL, Pen,

lnsti - GSL S t a t estudent

Federal OFG, S t a t e A(lundergraduates tution P r i v a t e a n d Pen

.-..: !:!!: !:::: !!!.. -----: !!-!! :!!:? !..:? :!!-- . ..!!! -----! !.!:. ---!! :?:.. --!!! . . . ..!.! ! . . ..--.!! .-----gi.;!---:;; ;; . . ..-.! .;!-.. -:;;;;~:Percent

lota~Sex

MaleFemale

5,431

2,3923,039

2;$698394

4,025

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

MA

MAMA

NANANAMAMA

10.7

11.110.3

4.96.9

:::11.8

$ 2 , 5 8 7

2,6002,575

. -2,8312,6573,1092,535

11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

4.81.7

2.4

2.82.1

0.02.21.1

::;

S995

1,032961

. .

. .

. .

. .941

2.0 48.7

12.2 7.0 4.3 4.1 3.110.8 8.0 7.0 5.2 3.9

1.82.2

48.848.8

Race/ethnicityAmerican IndianAsian AmericanBlack, n o n - H i s p a n i cHispanicWhite, n o n - H i s p a n i c

11.6 2.8 8.2 11.8 7.910.6 4.7 4.8 4.1 5.5

2.3

;:;2.61.8

47.056.948.145.348.8

6.7 4.2 12.8 8.75.0 9.9 6.2 i::

1::: 8.6 4.2 3.8 2.6

Average aid award for ful 1- time undergraduates

S1,835 S1,658 S4,904 S1,554 S3,076TotalSex

MaleFemale

MA

MAMA

S3,090

3,4632,246

S5 ,270

5,2365,292

NA

MAMA

2,125 1,763 4,656 1,468 3,0281,569 1,583 5,034 1 # 606 3,106

Race/ethnicityAmerican IndianAsian AmericanBlack, n o n - H i s p a n i cHispanicWhite, n o n - H i s p a n i c

MANANANAMA

MAMAMAMANA

-- . . -- . . -. --. .

2,143- -

3,117. . . . . . . . . ---

.-2,261 -- 5,282 -- 2,7722,592 2,090 5,071 1,597 3,3782,009 -- 5,947 1,289 3,3251,755 1,519 4,594 1.548 2.925

. .5,6455,5455,123

. ------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- .------------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .● Inc(udes t h o s e uho d id not report the source or type of a id received.

- - T o o few c a s e s f o r a retiable estimate.NOTE : Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

Oetai(s may not a id to tota ls due to rounding.SOURCE : U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Education, Nat ional Center for Educat ion Statistics,1987 Nat ional Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

Appendix B:

Technical notes

The 1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) was conducted duringthe 1986-87 school year after an extensive national field test in 1985-86. The full-scalestudy involved 59,886 postsecondary students selected from 1,074 postsecondaryinstitutions.

1. Samde Desian

Students were selected for the 1987 NPSAS as the third stage in a three stage sampledesign. The first stage of sampling consisted of selecting geographic areas based uponthree-digit ZIP code areas. The largest primary sampling units (PSUS) were selected withcertainty. Of the 361 PSUS in the universe, the 50 largest PSUS were included in thesample with certainty. The remaining PSUS were stratified on the basis of the State inwhich the PSU was located and 70 PSUS were selected with probability proportional totheir measure of size (i.e., the total number of students enrolled in postsecondaryeducation).

Institution samdinq

Once the 120 PSUS were selected, the second stage of the sample selection processwas institutions within selected PSUS. A total of 7,814 schools was identified in the 120sample PSUs.

Institutions in these 120 PSUS were then classified into 10 strata for sample selection,based upon the control of the institution (public, private, not-for-profit, and private,for-profit) and type (highest degree awarded). Five-hundred and eight institutions werelarge enough to be selected with certainty. The mmining institutions were sampledwithin strata with probability proportional to the total enrollment in the institution.

A total of 1,342 institutions and branch campuses was selected. A specialsupplemental sample was designed for New York State after the national sample ofschools had already been selected that added an additional 11 campuses and increasedthe numbers of sample institutions to 1,353.

Ninety-two percent of the sampled institutions agred to participate in the study. Whenparticipating institutions were weighted to reflect total enrollment, the final weightedinstitutional response rate was 94.6 percent.

Student samdinq

The third stage of the sampling process was the selection of students within

77

participating institutions. institutions were asked foralist ofallstudents enrolled on orabout October 15, 1986. All students enrolled for courses for credit, in a degree or formalaward program, or in a vocational or occupationally specific program were eligible forselection, including part-time and full-time students and aided and nonaided students.If a student also was in a high school program, he/she was not eligible.

Students were stratified by level (undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional) andsystematically sampled, using a random start and a prespecified sampling rate that variedby student level. Sampling rates for graduate and first-professional students were 3 to7 times the rate for undergraduate students, resulting in a total student sample of 59,886.

The sample of undergraduate consisted as 34,544 students. The overall response ratefor the student questionnaire was 71.2 percent. Item nonresponse was not a significantproblem. Item response rates for almost all items was close to 100 percent for the itemsused in this report The exeptions were for the number of credit hours and thecumulative grade point average of undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. For theseitems the non-response rates were 7 percent. The average student response rate was71 percent and ranged from the low 60s to the high 70s across selected classificationvariables. Table B.1 provides more details. Table B.1 below gives record response ratesfor the student mail questionnaire. The rates generally apply to all students rather thanjust undergraduates.

Ii. Data Sources

The data in this report were obtained from multiple sources. Once a student samplewas identified at an institution, fall 1986 enrollment data on each sampled member wereobtained from administrative records from December 1986 through March, 1987. Foreach sample member with a financial aid record, the aid record was obtained at this timeand was subsequently updated in the summer of 1987 at the end of the 1986-87 Federalfinancial aid program fiscal year. These updated records reflected aid award status andamounts for the entire 1986-87 school year.

In March, 1987, each of the 59,886 students sampled for the NPSAS was sent aquestionnaire to his/her school or local address as identified in the institution’s registrationrecords. After significant follow-up attempts were made by mail, all nonrespondents tothe mail survey were targeted for telephone interviews that encompassed all but five itemsin the mail questionnaire. The overall response rate across all levels of students andtypes and controls of institutions in the sample was 72 percent.

In addition to extensive editing of the student questionnaire data, a significant amountof telephone follow-up to retrieve missing or out-of-range responses on 21 key items wascarried out. These key items included sources of financial support, education expenseitems, items to define dependency status, and the financial condition variables for

78

students identified as independent. Over 14,000 students were contacted for dataretrieval.

Ill. Estimation Weiahts

The production of student-level estimates was accomplished in steps. First,student-level estimates were obtained by using weights that reflected the probability ofa student’s being selected for the NPSAS sample. Since the student was selected in amultistage manner, the student weight was the product of the reciprocals of theprobabilities of selection at each stage. For the student questionnaire, data nonresponseadjustments were made for both institution nonresponse (that is, refusal to participate inNPSAS) and student nonresponse.

A ratio adjustment technique was used to adjust for institution nonresponse. The1986-87 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) file was the sourcethat was used for the ratio adjustment; for institutions of higher education. For otherpostsecondary institutions ones that could not be matched to the IPEDS file, a simple,nonresponse adjustment factor (the inverse of the weighted-response rate within stratum)was used.

To account for nonresponse on the student questionnaire, the initial student weight(the product of the adjusted institution weight and the inverse of the probability ofselection of the student within the institution) was adjusted by the inverse of the weightedstudent response rate. These student questionnaire weights were used to produce thenational estimates of the number of students by their characteristics presented in thisreport.

Accuracv of estimates

The estimates in this report are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error.Nonsampling error can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain completeinformation about all students in all schools in the sample (such as some students orschools refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items);ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness togive correct information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors ofcollecting, processing, sampling, and estimating missing data.

Sampling error arises because a sample of individuals was selected from apopulation and was used to make inferences about the population. Estimates derivedfrom one sample differ from estimates derived from another sample drawn from the same

79

population in the same way. These differences result from sampling variability. There area number of methods for computing estimates of the sampling variability of the statisticsproduced from complex sample designs (that is, multistage, stratified, cluster sampleswith varying probabilities of selection) such as that used for NPSAS. For this study,variance estimates were produced using a formula which closely approximates the abovedesign features, but which does not reflect adjustments for nonresponse. (The procedureused is a SAS procedure, PROC CDCTAB, which is internal to NCES.) When comparingtwo estimates, it has been assumed that the two estimates are independent. Often timesthe assumption of independence is appropriate (e.g. in the comparison of the percent ofaid received by undergraduates at public and private institutions). Most of the remainingtimes the estimates are positively correlated, resulting in a variance estimate that isconservatively large. All statements of comparison made in the report have been testedat the alpha = 0.05 level. When making multiple comparisons among three or moremeans, the test statistics have been adjusted using the Bonferonni procedure to limit theprobability of making at least one type I error (a flase rejection of the null hypothesis) toalpha = 0.05 or le&.estimates presented in

.

Tables B._2 through 6.6 cont~n standard errors-for selectedthis report.

80

Table B.I--Response rates for student questionnaire mailout based onstudent characteristics from the institutional records data

Tvve ControlDoctoral Public 75.5Doctoral4-year4-year2-year2-year2-yearLess than 2-yearLess than 2-yearLess than 2-year

Private, n o t - f o r - p r o f i tPublicPrivate, n o t - f o r - p r o f i tPubl icPrivate, n o t - f o r - p r o f i tPrivate, f o r - p r o f i t ,publicPrivate, n o t - f o r - p r o f i tPrivate, f o r - p r o f i t

71.474.576.565.667.870.967.962.360.7

Ai.dedness DependenceAided Dependent 78.9Aided Independent 70.6Nonaided 23 or younger 71.4Nonaided 24 or older 66.4

RaceBlack 65.5White 73.3Hispanic 65.7Other 67.4Unknown 68.9

SexMale 71.0Female 71.4Unknown 63.7

Leve 1Clock hour 66.0Undergraduate 71.2Graduate 73.9F i r s t - p r o f e s s i o n a l 70.6U n c l a s s i f i e d 73.0

Attendance StatusFul l - t ime 74.6Part- t ime 66.1Unknown 64.7

81

Analvtic methodology

All univariate comparisons cited in the text of this report were significant at orbeyond the .05 level as determined by pairwise t-tests for independent samples. Thelevel of significance used in making comparisons was adjusted for the number ofcomparisons made within a “family” of comparisons. Adjustments were made using aBonferroni adjustment to preclude the possibility of some comparisons being significantby chance alone.

All entries in the tables were based on at least 30 unweighed cases. Percentagedistributions developed for this report and total numbers of students by individualcharacteristics were based on the number of cases for whom data were available for thevariable(s) of interest.

IV. Variables Used in the Renort

With few exceptions definitions of the variables used in this reporl may be found inthe NPSAS codebook documentation. The following represents variable definitions forthose not found in the codebook.

Private aid = sum of oths_aid and emp_aid.Federal grant aid = sum of fgrt_aid and fotypaid.Federal work aid = sum of fworkaid and fasstaid.State grant aid = sum of sgrt_aid and sotypaid.Institution grant aid = sum of igrt_aid and iotypaid.Institution work aid = sum of iworkaid and iasstaid.Private grant aid = sum of ogrt_aid, ewaivaid, egrt_aid, and ootypaid.Grant aid = sum of gran_amt, twaivaid, and otypeaid .Work aid = sum of work_aid asst_aid.

Similar variables as those above except for amounts are similarly defined summing overcorresponding amounts. For example:

Private amount of aid = sum of oths_amt and emp_amt.

There are eight classification variables used in this report. Only the attendance status,academic level, grade point average, and income and costs variables are notdocumented in the codebook.

Attendance status:If the record abstract form indicated that the student was a full-time student (R22= 1 )

82

1

I

this was accepted. If the record abstract form indicated that the student was a part-time student then the number of credit hours or contact hours the student took,adjusted for the credit-hour system the student was under, were used to determinewhether the student was attending half time or more or less than half time. Ifresponses to the record abstract form attendance status item were missing and/ordata on the number of credit/contact hours were missing but the student receivedone of the Federal awards requiring at least half-time attendance status then thestudent was assigned a half-time or more attendance status.

Academic level:The record abstract item, RI 9, and the student questionnaire item, S3, were usedto produce this variable.

Grade point average:the variable VSTDR21 D was used to produce this variable.

Income and costs:For income the two variables, dep_inc and ind_inc, were used. For costs the threevariables of tuitfees, std_room and std_misc, were summed to obtain the costvariable. For student living at home the value of std_room was set to $1,100. Theweighted distribution of family income for dependent and independent studentswere each divided into thirds to obtain the ranges used. The median value of theweighted distribution of costs was used to divide costs into two ranges. The twocosts ranges and the three income ranges for dependent and independent studentswere then used to create the income and cost variables.

Aid amounts and cost amounts for students either not enrolled in the spring or enrolledin a different institution in the spring were “annualized.” That is, they were multiplied by2 to put then on the same basis as that for students who attended the full year. Averageaid or costs amounts presented in this report therefore represent, within the limitationsof the data, awards and costs for the academic year.

83

T a b l e B.2--Standard e r r o r s f o r a i d e d u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enro( led in the fa~ 1 of 1986 who were awarded a id from asingle source for the 1986-87 academic year and average award, by source and seiected student andinstitutional characteristic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard errora for average amounts

Selected Standard errors for percentages for ful 1- time undergraduatesstudent and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .institutional Federal Institution Private State Federat Institution Private State

characteristic only only only only only only only only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tota l

Dependent studentsLow costs, low incomeLow costs, medium incomeLow costs, high incomeHigh costs, low incomeHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income

Independent studentsLow costs, tow incomeLow costs, medium incomeLow costs, high incomeHigh costs, low incomeHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high incc+ne


Type of institutionPublic

4-year doctoralOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year


Private, for-profit2-year or moreLess than 2-year

1.00

2.131.621.502.141.461.28

2.162.041.821.932.912.44

1.120.931.94

1.541.521.434.05

0.721.433.379.92

3.052.40

0.47

1.281.932.160.740.720.91

1.121.351.300.900.441.97

0.710.850.38

0.770.811.435.46

0.811.174.891.58

0.350.55

0.35

0.780.791.500.240.320.32

0.691.082.150.590.631.64

0.490.580.64

0.620.551.011.81

0.900.751.011.85

0.440.95

0.18

0.350.530.930.400.350.56

0.620.740.820.460.230.84

0.260.440.14

0.370.420.491.59

0.350.721.511.81

0.180.16

66.4

125.9103.769.2108.5118.053.4

183.7146.6200.7209.1223.0134.0

56.683.392.0

69.552.9134.1256.3

130.8143.7129.5460.2

96.294.5

81.1

378.687.879.4

273.3182.5136.8

. .

257:8-.. .

713.0

87.9168.2429.9

158.271.3134.8

. .

293.8193.7229.5

. .

549:0

177.8

261.4204.7115.8

. .356.0313.1

. .

371:i. .. .. .

99.9254.9678.6

235.3157.8114.7

. .

465.2638.7

. .

-.. .

108.7

. .117.3271.2208.6142.5151.9

. .. .. .. .. .. .

108.4179.5

. .

136.3232.1

. .

. .

310.1226.5405.9

. .

. .

. .

84

I

Table B.2. -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol led in the fall of 1986 who were awarded aid from asingle source for the 1986-87 academic year and average award, by source and se(ected student andinstitutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard errors for average amounts

Selected Standard errors for percentages for ful 1- time undergraduatesstudent and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .institutional Federal Institution Private State Federal Institution Private State

characteristic only only on(y only on(y only only only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attendance status

Fu( l-time 1.07Half - t ime or more 2.27Less than half - time 1.67

Dependency statusDependent 1.00Independent 1.43

Age23 or younger 1.0824 . 29 1.9030 or older 1.43

Academic 1 eve 1Contact 3.76Freshmen 1.14Sophomores 1.38Juniors 1.48S e n i o r s & 5th yr. 1.12

Grade point average2.3 o r Less 1.542.5 TO 2.73.0 TO 3.3

1.381.28

3.5 TO 4.0 1.45

SexMales 1.15Females 1.27

Race/ethnicityAmerican Indians 4.37Asian Americans 2.73Black, non-Hispanics 2.16Hispanics 2.83Uhite, non-Hispanics 1.06

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.

0.391.272.29

0.610.59

0.531.050.92

1.280.870.771.020.72

0.770.720.810.96

0.730.56

8.651.690.841.290.60

-. . . . . .

0.201.042.76

0.290.83

0.240.931.27

0.910.530.590.680.66

0.620.540.561.27

0.500.44

2.381.010.770.840.41

. . . . . . . .

0.190.550.66

0.220.36

0.200.480.47

0.970.360.420.330.28

0.350.560.310.75

0.290.21

3.150.340.270.550.22. . . . . . . . .

66.4. .. .

60.3107.3

56.4122.2182.2

199.698.099.893.297.8

102.497.2104.2178.6

76.884.6

439.5231.4140.8298.355.4

. . . . . . . . . .

81.1. .. .

81.8259.2

88.1310.5233.3

312.8100.0156.0174.6165.8

183.3190.4120.1189.2

113.889.7

. .289.3255.3333.682.3

. . . . . . ----

177.8. .. .

128.9601.2

132.3349.1697.4

955.0165.5196.1263.6408.5

481.0400.1262.8180.8

194.3241.4

. .. .

442.2. .

171.6. . . . . . . . .

108.7. .. .

3%;

110.5. .

328.1

. .174.4140.0154.4204.7

151.4207.3208.6209.3

136.3132.6

. .

. .

. .

. .112.4. . . . . .

-- Too few cases for reliable estimates

85

Table B.3- -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol led in the fa~ I of 1986 who wereawarded one of three multiple-source awards and average aid award, by source of award,a n d s e l e c t e d s t u d e n t a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Se lec tedstudent and

institutiona~c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tota l

Dependent studentsLow costs, low i n c o m eLow costs, medium incomeLow costs, high incomeH i g h costs, low i n c o m eHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income

I ndepandent studentsLow costs, low incomeLow costs, mediun incomeLow costs, high incomeHigh costs, low incomeHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income

C o n t r o l o f i n s t i t u t i o nPublicPrivate, n o t - f o r - p r o f i tPrivate, for-profit

T y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o nPublic

4.year d o c t o r a lO t h e r 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

Private, n o t - f o r - p r o f i t4-year d o c t o r a lO t h e r 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

Private, f o r - p r o f i t2-year or moreLess than 2-year

Standard errors for percentages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Federal & Federal,& state institution state, andoniy o n l y inst. o n l y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.61

1.771.880.681.191.160.41

1.811.970.851.751.901.23

0.860.881.53

1.101.621.438.40

0.841.432.7412.03

2.841.74

0.33

0.810.630.690.670.850.64

1.241.020.791.041.141.24

0.370.770.44

0.580.330.761.72

1.101.202.320.71

0.670.60

0.40

0.730.540.381.041.240.58

0.760.730.361.110.970.70

0.320.810.24

0.600.470.490.48

0.791.382.311.21

0.460.25

Standard errors for average awardsfor full-time undergraduates

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Federal & Federa L,& state institution state, and

o n l y o n l y inst. o n l y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69.6

138.0160.2134.7131.5111.7190.4

178.6160.8251.4158.2238.3399.9

74.8124.9230.1

91.7108.4118.5281.0

159.9168.2231.5438.0

284.7217.2

168.9

443.1364.6520.0241.6214.0220.8

351.6437.8970.4393.8321.1774.2

136.2213.6568.2

158.9197.9370.0

. .

232.6323.1577.1

. .

756.4748.0

148.3

582.9356.8

. .245.1206.3236.7

. .719.1

377:8438.4435.2

162.3134.0

. .

131.9204.0

. .

. .

243.1180.2593.7

. .

. .

. .

86

Tabte B.3--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol ted in the fal 1 of 1986 who wereawarded one of three multiple-source awards and average aid award, by source of award,and selected student and insti tut iona( characterist ic. -Cent inued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard errors for average awards

Selected Standard errors for percentages for ful 1 -time u n d e r g r a d u a t e sstudent and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . .

i n s t i t u t i o n a l Federal Federa l & F e d e r a l , Federal F e d e r a l & F e d e r a l ,c h a r a c t e r i s t i c & s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n state, a n d & s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n state, and

only o n l y inst. o n l y o n l y o n l y inst. o n l y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attendance status

Full-time 0.68Half-time or more 1.80Less than half-time 0.08


Age23 or younger24 - 2930 o r o l d e r

0.721.151.11

Academic 1 eve LContact 2.16Freshmen 0.88Sophomores 0.93Juniors 0.86Seniors & 5th yr. 0.74

Grade point average2.3 or less 0.942.5 TO 2.7 1.253.0 T03.3 1.073.5 T04.O 0.85

SexMa ~ es 0.66Fema 1 es 0.79

Race/ethnicityAmerican Indians 4.73Asian Americans 1.60Black, non-Hispanics 1.57Hispanics 2.28Uhite, non-Hispanics 0.74

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- Too few cases for reliable estimates

0.390.880.31

0.460.50

0.470.520.62

0.610.460.600.690.59

0.690.770.570.65

0.420.37

2.731.420.860.840.36

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.490.450.73

0.510.37

0.550.400.40

0.370.400.640.670.51

0.650.780.570.64

0.470.44

1.801.070.590.820.48. . . . .,.

69.6. .. .

69.3122.1

71.0181.1157.8

483.0115.787.198.7

137.4

98.8140.8118.2188.9

92.582.3

. .201.4161.3174.173.2

168.9. .. .

175.0241.0

164.0377.3399.8

848.1243.2204.7223.1225.1

294.7279.3225.3218.0

246.7145.5

. .608.8390.6433.7171.1

148.3. .. .

150.2256.4

147.9331.3536.1

. .228.7149.9232.5258.7

217.1213.2226.3293.3

183.2170.2

. .499.6463.9472.8157.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

I

T a b l e B.4- -Standard errors for a ided undergraduates enrot led in the fal 1 of 1986 who were awarded a id f o rthe 1986-87 academic year and average aid award, by type of award and selected student andinstitutional characteristic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard errors for average awards

Standard errors for percentages for ful 1- time undergraduates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Grants, Grants,student and 1 oans, Grants ( oans, Grantsinstitutional Grants nork - & work- Grants work- & work.

characteristics Grants & 1 oans Loans study study Grants & 1 oans Loans study studyoniy oniy only only only only onty only onty only

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Total

Dependent studentsLow costs, Low incomeLow costs, medium incomeLow costs, high incomeHigh costs, tow incomeHigh costs, medium income

High costs, high income

1 ndependent studentsLow costs, low incomeLow costs, medium incomeLow costs, high incomeHigh costs, low incomeHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income



4-year doctoralOther 4-yearZ-yearLess than 2-year



0.75

2.242.161.941.381.170.89

2.392.311.881.612.072.50

1.330.981.46

1.012.111.808.63

1.571.683.287.85

1.192.28

0.68

1.151.030.981.411.180.72

2.092.041.001.842.782.17

0.820.932.49

0.841.401.259.43

1.301.281.907.39

1.423.47

0.44

0.731.371.780.491.081.13

0.640.951.230.541.451.89

0.560.601.83

0.940.980.583.05

0.720.912.293.11

1.612.30

0.44

0.870.800.291.501.050.72

0.990.700.151.461.140.76

0.541.010.20

0.791.210.442.09

1.151.661.951.58

0.520.13

0.23

0.760.560.600.560.410.36

1.181.080.550.590.950.50

0.310.410.09

0.510.590.581.27

0.280.750.511.24

0.180.09

74.2

116.285.064.0128.4153.5133.1

109.7139.3210.1241.4261.3363.1

49.2139.5235.2

80.974.797.2

237.1

192.8169.0166.3

. .

177.2338.1

76.0

125.2129.3270.7106.6108.5170.0

157.1234.1318.6137.7149.6219.6

64.6132.981.7

67.671.6

207.2392.2

181.2174.7221.0319.6

136.396.7

40.7

420.894.658.7

180.687.463.5

304.6170.8165.5371.8194.9127.2

51.285.290.5

57.453.4

212.6. .

102.7114.493.4

196.7

64.0154.0

207.6

328.7388.3

. .284.8281.3239.3

299.2520.5

. .303.2364.4

. .

99.5248.9

. .

164.4154.6268.3

. .

293.6340.7752.8

. .

. .

. .

165.5

362.0500.7645.0392.9316.6415.1

407.9444.6

542:;. .. .

149.5431.5

. .

300.9151.5232.7

. .

577.2688.5

. .

. .

. .

. .

88

I

Table B.4--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ewerded aid forthe 1986-87 academic year and average aid award, by type of award and selected student andinstitutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Standard errors for average awards

Standard errors for percentage for full-time undergraduates. . . . ---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Grants, Grants,student and loans, Grants 1 oans, Grantsinstitutional Grants work- & work- Grants work- & work

characteristics Grants & Loans Loans study study Grants & loans Loans study studyonly onty only only oniy only only only onty only

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attendance status

Ful (-time 0.85Half-time or more 1.80Less than half-time 1.75


Aae‘~~ ~rz;ounger

30 or older

0.821.981.61

Academic levelContact 3.67Freshmen 1.49Sophomores 1.20Juniors 0.87Seniors & 5th yr. 0.91

Grade point average2.3 or less 1.372.5 TO 2.7 1.153.0 T03.3 1.103.5 T04.O 1.33

SexMales 1.02Females 0.85

Race/ethnicityAmerican Indians 5.64Asian Americans 2.54BLack, non-Hispanics 1.45Hispanics 2.76Uhite, non-Hispanics 0.75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.721.570.60

0.551.19

0.651.671.50

3.141.200.920.960.86

1.100.941.120.93

0.720.90

3.842.181.403.170.59. . . . .

0.500.990.81

0.520.52

0.450.970.80

1.850.630.600.820.74

0.880.7.40.730.77

0.630.47

2.981.180.440.880.55-. ..-. . .

0.560.390.00

0.550.43

0.580.580.44

0.630.530.620.650.54

0.690.680.570.52

0.470.50

1.281.010.880.850.52. ..-.

0.260.420.75

0.260.37

0.270.650.39

0.460.310.450.460.47

0.390.650.570.42

0.250.31

4.241.440.631.230.23. . . . . . .

74.2. .. .

71.6131.4

72.3181.0144.8

320.183.693.1121.8121.0

100.6127.6105.4130.1

97.473.4

425.8263.0117.9183.578.0

. . . . . . . .

76.0. .. .

92.2100.5

83.2110.0167.8

105.4109.787.4127.3115.2

107.3131.099.0153.8

96.580.6

589.2247.4129.4177.981.8

. . . . . . . .

40.7. .. .

43.682.5

46.895.1136.9

156.361.390.398.364.6

107.9104.376.1102.5

52.360.1

. .237.8120.4217.941.9

. . . . . . . .

215.2. .. .

233.2221.2

223.1263.1451.2

. .221.4191.5234.3322.9

242.5297.1277.2318.0

249.0201.0

512:;404.4554.4203.9. . . . . . . .

165.5. .. .

177.6270.1

181.8476.8536.1

. .267.0138.0247.2345.0

197.1237.0304.0402.4

240.5183.2

523:;332.4392.8221.4. . . . . .

-- Too feu cases for reliable estimates

89

Table B.S. -Standard e r r o r s f o r a i d e d u n d e r g r a d u a t e s enrol ted in the fal 1 of 1986 who w e r e a w a r d e done of n ine mul t ip le -component a id awards for the 1986-87 academic year and average sward,b y a w a r d a n d s e l e c t e d s t u d e n t a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Se lec ted Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pen,

student and Insti - GSL S t a t e Federai OFG, S t a t ei n s t i t u t i o n a l tution P r i v a t e a n d Pen g r a n t g r a n t s S t a t e g r a n t

. . . . . ..~ . . . . . . . . ..~ . . . . . . ..--- ~.~----g . . ..--. -9 . . ..-. -...::.. -g~:::--- ..:~:y~--- ..-:o~yf ---::: ~::--- .: f~::f --

Tota l

Dependent studentsLow costs, l o w i n c o m eLow costs, mediun incomeLow costs, high incomeH i g h coats, low i n c o m eHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income

Independent studentsLow costs, low incomeLow costs, medium incomeLou costs, high incomeH i g h costs, low incc+neHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income

Controt o f i n s t i t u t i o nPublicPrivata, not-for-profitPrivate, f o r - p r o f i t

T y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o nP u b l i c

4.year d o c t o r a lO t h e r 4-year2.yearLess than 2.year

Private, not. f o r - p r o f i tk-year doctoraiO t h e r 4-year2.yearLess than 2.year

Private, f o r - p r o f i t2.year or moreLess t h a n 2.year

0.42

0.621.151.430.440.961.09

0.580.901.100.521.421.63

0.530.481.53

0.860.830.633.27

0.560.761.882.56

1.522.02

0.45

1.091.701.700.620.570.78

1.151.301.260.720.381.81

0.67.0.62

0.30

0.620.711.385.39

0.890.863.151.48

0.250.45

0.34

0.780.791.440.230.320.34

0.691.072.140.590.641.64

0.480.590.64

0.630.561.021.81

0.920.761.011.85

0.440.95

0.50

0.850.490.081.520.380.06

1.170.990.261.532.340.51

0.340.262.26

0.730.440.402.97

0.200.371.747.97

2.542.85

0.31

1.100.430.390.760.320.03

1.931.380.391.260.920.59

0.470.120.54

0.490.551.082.98

0.170.110.970.51

0.500.81

0.36

1.370.540.000.710.240.00

1.221.650.110.921.090.35

0.510.330.65

0.171.150.970.20

0.480.470.996.15

1.040.87

0.24

0.550.640.500.240.310.36

0.760.791.320.290.530.86

0.380.120.43

0.280.380.873.64

0.200.130.252.52

0.320.61

0.16

0.350.540.830.390.290.55

0.530.730.680.400.210.79

0.240.440.13

0.290.440.381.49

0.340.731.511.00

0.180.15

0.17

0.570.470.000.490.230.04

0.680.570.110.920.750.53

0.220.170.45

0.220.360.470.00

0.160.260.522.54

1.030.39

90

Table B.5- -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol ted in the fall of 1986 who were awardedone of nine multiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year and average award,by award and selected student and institutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Setected Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pen,student and Insti - GSL State Federa 1 OFG, Stateinstitutional tution Private and Pe(l grant grants State grant

--. ---:ha:::::~:::::.. -.--- . .. fs. ----9 ::~:--. -9y~::----::: !---9 :::: -.---: ~f:~------:y~y~ -.. g::;::.. -.: G~f:f --

Attendance statusFull-timeHalf-time or moreLess than half-time

0.440.970.00

0.401.111.95

0.550.57

0.511.080.76

1.220.930.610.790.59

0.810.520.611.05

0.690.46

5.841.430.691.190.57. . . . .

0.191.042.76

0.290.82

0.240.931.26

0.910.520.590.670.66

0.610.530.551.26

0.500.43

2.381.010.770.840.41

. . . . . . . .

0.531.250.00

0.390.76

0.480.830.72

2.390.730.440.410.46

0.760.470.510.54

0.360.70

2.561.741.661.900.33. ..-

0.340.910.00

0.420.930.00

0.170.721.73

0.180.55

0.170.710.99

1.080.510.370.320.33

0.280.700.430.55

0.380.26

1.331.240.640.900.27

0.160.460.66

0.200.390.00

Dependency statusOependentIndependent

0.500.52

0.300.60

0,370.53

0.200.31

0.160.32

Age23 or younger24 . 2930 or older

0.440.830.73

0.330.880.67

0.360.560.63

0.190.370.41

0.160.400.49

Academic levelContactFreshmenSophomoresJuniorsSeniors & 5th yr.

1.590.550.600.790.64

1.740.500.600.310.45

1.070.610.560.390.29

0.890.350.320.370.30

0.610.240.340.260.22

Grade point average2.3 or less 0.75

0.650.680.81

0.670.630.510.58

0.670.510.380.38

0.300.440.280.61

0.330.400.340.29

2.5 102.73.0 TO 3.33.5 T04.O

SexMalesFemales

0.180.22

0.540.47

0.360.33

0.360.43

0.260.20

Race/ethnicityAmerican IndiansAsian AmericansBlack, non-HispanicsHispanicsWhite, non-Hispanics

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.691.010.450.880.52

. . . . . . .

4.090.971.131.090.28

3.681.040.791.780.30

0.000.340.270.540.21

1.940.600.420.490.20

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- Too few cases for reliable estimates

91

I

Tabie 6.6- -Standard errors of average awards for aided undergraduates enrol led in the fal 1 of 1986 who were awardedone of nine mu(tip~e-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year, by award and selectedstudent and institutiona~ characteristic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pe(l,

student and lnsti - GSL State Federal OFG, Stateinstitutional tution Private and Pelt grant grants State

. . . . . ..!.! ?...: !:!:: . . . . . . ..-.. Gs... -.. g!.?! . . ..g..? . . . ..!.! ! . . . ..?!? . . . . . . ..!!! ! . . . . . ..!!! ?... g!... ? . . . . ..!!o!!...

grant

Tota i

Dependent studentsLow costs, low incomeLow costs, medium incomeLow costs, high incomeHigh costs, tow incomeHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income

Independent studentsLow costs, low incomeLow costs, medium incomeLow costs, high incomeHigh costs, low incomeHigh costs, medium incomeHigh costs, high income



~-year doctoralOther 4-year2-yearLess than 2-year

Private, not-for-profit4-year doctoralOther .4-year2-yearLess than 2-year


35.0

307.974.678.5

146.874.932.5

322.8173.7184.0296.8174.8131.4

40.542.073.9

55.440.4

170.0. .

65.945.7

118.1. .

51.1105.5

99.8

276.688.686.0

278.0182.8172.5

.-

.-79.3

-.. .

504.3

82.0170.3296.9

147.278.5

106.9. .

348.2171.2189.8

. .

-.345.1

127.4

192.5174.8100.2

. .300.3226.8

. .

. .267.3

. .

. .

. .

64.8260.1333.0

167.6150.792.0

. .

412.1296.8

. .

. .

. .

. .

105.6

182.0216.5

. .140.2223.0

.-

214.8198.9

. .219.7165.1

.-

94.3284.1103.6

101.9166.3278.4241.6

. .208.3460.1469.3

133.1129.5

49.9

71.8. .. .

145.5. .-.

97.1106.7

. .156.4271.8

. .

51.0139.0120.2

63.347.784.3

131.7

. .

. .

. .

. .

212.9160.5

89.7

170.7. .. .

197.0. .. .

97.6177.4

. .141.0280.4

. .

79.5199.0199.5

171.879.2

119.8. .

. .268.5238.0

. .

155.5365.3

264.3

. .-.. .. .. .

703.9

. .

. .521.6

. .

. .

. .

224.7664.7531.0

313.4395.5372.2

.-

1085.2-.. .. .

-.557.5

81.1

. .98.0

118.0164.7156.596.0

.-

. .

. .

. .

. .-.

70.8151.0

. .

69.1144.9

. .-.

304.2172.9320.4

. .

-.. .

120.2

244.4. .. .

171.9205.9

. .

252.7. .. .

246.5568.6

. .

97.7249.3312.0

204.0103.3159.7

. .

. .229.7

. .

. .

339.6. .

92

I

Table B.6--Standard errors of average awards for aided undergraduates enrolled in the fali of 1986 who were awardedone of nine multiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year, by award and selectedstudent and institutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selec tedstudent and lnsti - GSLinstitutional tution Private and

characteristic GSL grant grant Pen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pelt,State Federal OFG, State

Pen grant grants State grantgrant (Pos) (OFG) grants (GPOS )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attendance status

Full-timeHalf-time or moreLess than half-time

35.0. .. .

99.8. .. .

97.2162.7

104.6281.8136.6

219.3111.2140.5204.8177.5

227.5203.2148.3211.6

126.6101.4

. .462.6260.9316.699.0

127.4. .. .

102.7417.8

99.0366.8432.9

647.3116.2155.1244.9286.9

250.5415.5143.0170.5

153.3172.3

. .

.-431.7

. .175.3

105.6. .. .

116.1127.0

91.8206.0195.3

107.5187.7158.5134.8192.6

173.7158.1187.4422.1

111.9129.2

. .341.7144.7273.3103.0

49.9. .. .

60.474.4

55.0121.4102.0

161.1106.985.5113.580.0

86.6113.3120.5176.4

67.564.3

. .

. .87.8

145.156.3

89.7. .. .

105.0122.4

93.3238.8145.7

351.4164.3117.1119.7160.9

153.2159.3149.8212.1

120.0119.4

. .189.0166.1206.898.7

264.3. .. .

352.4373.5

322.6566.6332.3

556.3499.0528.5481.6590.2

285.6623.2372.7

. .

330.2304.6

. .

. .444.7

. .302.4

81.1. .. .

120.2. .. .

Dependency statusDependentIndependent

36.077.9

80.6215.8

113.4158.3

Age23 or younger24 - 2930 or older

“125.9265.4220.8

42.589.3117.9

83.09999.0210.0

Academic levelContactFreshmenSophomoresJuniorsSeniors & 5th yr.

76.057.772.285.057.7

9999.0106.4106.7121.085.6

783.6147.0179.1198.3212.5

Grade point average2.3 o r l e s s2.5 102.73.0 103.33.5 104.0

73.570.462.4

1%;122.0161.0

229.5170.4176.6

98.8 . .

SexMa 1 esFemales

36.359.3

94.793.2

162.5131.6

Race/ethnicityAmerican IndiansAsian AmericansBlack, non-HispanicsHispanicsUhite, non-Hispanics

. .235.880.4177.828.7

. .

. .

. .

. .75.2

. .

. .317.7365.9110.2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- Too few cases for reliab(e estimates

93

Appendix C:

Components of the grants only award

95

Table Cl--Aided undergraduates vho received agrant only ;vard, by the typethey received

of award

Components of the aid avard

Pen OFG

xx x

x-- -- - - ---- - --

xx

---------- ---x xx xx

xx

------------ -x

xx x

x

State Inst. Priv.grants grants grants

xx

x

- ---- - ------ - - - - --- --- -- -.xxx

xx :

- - --- -- -- - -- --- -- - - - --- ---

x xx

x xx

------- - --- - ----- - - - -- - - -- - --- - - - - --- - --x x x

x x xx x x

x x xx x x x x

----------- --x

;xx x

---- -- ---- - -- ----- - ------ -I xl x

x xx ;

x x xI xl x

Weightedpercent

11 47:64.73.6301

------- ---2.42.01.3

;::------ ----

0.70.60.60.50.4

- - - - - - - - - -0.40.30.20.20.2

- - - -- --- --0.20.l0.10.10.1

------ ----0.10.10.10.00.0

------ - ------ - ----- - - -- - -- --- - - - -- - ------ ---- - --- --

X1X1 I I xl 0.0

Total 43.0

97

Appendix D:

All aid awards by source and type of aid

99

Table D.1--The aid awards constructed using the eight componentclassification scheme, by component, unweighedfrequency, percent receiving the award, and theaverage amount of the award for full-time students

Componentsof the aid award

—

GsL—

x

x

- - -IP 0EOFLFSLGH—— —

xx----- --- -TSIGG.—x------TNFSPHG——

x

------

Unweighted Weightedfrequencies percent

1976 11.42433 10.71182 7.61517 5.8701 4.7

------.------ - - - - - -- --

Averageaward for

Cumulative full-timepercent students

11.4 $1,83522.1 2,58729.7 1,65835.5 4,90440.2 1,554

- - - - --- - ---------- .x x x 601 3:6 43.8 3,076

x 554 3.2 47.0 1,700x 421 3.1 50.1 3,090

x 431 2.4 52.4 995x x x x 423 2.0 54.5 5,270-- --- ---- -- --- --- --- --- ---------- -- -- - - - -- -- - - - -- ------ - ---------

x x 336 2.0 56.4 1,296x x 521 1.9 58.3 4,165

x x x x 217 1.4 59.7 4,075x x 196 1.3 61.0 2,688

x x x 308 1.2 62.2 3,608--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------------ ------ --- ------ ------ ------ --

x 221 1.1 63.3 2,679x x 262 1.1 64.4 3,366

x x x x x 204 1.0 65.4 6,091x x 209 1.0 66.5 5,258x x 266 1.0 67.4 4,617--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------------ ---------- ------- - -- - ---- - - --

x x 199 0.9 68.3 4,964x x x 299 0.8 69.1 7,069x x x 180 0.8 69.9 5,555

x x 123 0.8 70.7 3,247x x 200 0.8 71.5 3,255

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - ----------- ---------- ------ ----- ------ --x x x 227 0.7 72.3 6,135x x x 158 0.7 73.0 5,010

x x 128 0.7 73.7 2,922x x 171 0.7 74.4 3,460

102 0.7 75.1 ---- - -- - --- - - - - -- - -------- - --------------------- - --- --- - -- --- - - --- -

101

Table D.I--The aid awards constructed using the eight componentclassification scheme, by component, unweighedfrequency, percent receiving the award, and theaverage amount of the award for full-time students--Continued


------ -.---__-____--___-

Unweightedfrequencies

116233146117154

------- ----x x 148x x x x 142x x 130x x x x x x 175x x x 126

Weightedpercent

0.70.70.60.60.6

.----- -----

Cumulativepercent

75.876.577.177.778.3

- -- --------0.6 78.90.6 79.50.6 80.00.6 80.60.5 81.1

Averageaward forfull-timestudents

3,5697,8494,2042,7136,296

------ --4,6085,1223,5049,0905,596

- - -- - --- - - - - -- - ------ - - - -- --- --- --- - - - ----- - _- --- ----- -- - - --- -- - -x x x x 166x x x x x 147

x x x 126x x x x x 115

x x 83

0.5 81.70.5 82.20.5 82.70.5 83.10.4 83.6

6,0527,1593,7376,3274,953

- - -- -- --- ______ -- - ------------ ___ -- - ________ - - - -- --- -- --------- - -x x 114

x x x 101x x x x x 117

x x x 76x x x x 99

0.4 84.00.4 84.40.4 84.80.4 85.20.4 85.6

4,1655,2348,6182,6787,799

x x 59 0.4x x x 122 0.3

x x x 55 0.3x x x x 115 0.3

x x x x 90 0.3-- --- --- --- --- --- --- ___ - - -- -- - --- -- ------ ----,x x x 101 0.3

x x x 41 0.3x x 46 0.3

x x x x 69 0.3x x 50 0.3

- - - - - - _- - -- - --- - - ___ -- - -- _______ - --- --- - - -- --,

85.9 3,30186.3 5,69686.6 3,97286.9 7,75787.2 5,426

--------- - - -- - - --- -87.5 6,77887.8 3,56188.1 5,40988.4 6,84088.7 2,881

- --- ---- - - - - - - -- ---

102


—

GsL—

x

---


—

PG—

xx

x---

x x xx x x x x

x x x x xx x xx x x x

Unweighedfrequencies

5547365137

- - - --- - - ----5228297266

Weightedpercent

0.30.30.20.20.2

------ ----

Cumulativepercent

88.989.289.489.689.8


6,4815,3363,9013,0944,399

------- ------- -----0.2 90.0 6,9770.2 90.2 (*)0.2 90.4 (*)0.2 90.6 6,2620.2 90.8 7,300

-- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- ----- - -- - ----- ___________ ----- - -- ---- - - -- - -- -- - - -x x x

x xx x x x xx x xx x x x

4738524963

0.2 91.0 6,2220.2 91.2 2,4030.2 91.3 8,0280.2 91.5 5,8620.2 91.7 9,306

------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------- -------x x x x 33 0.2 91.8 6,350

x x x 35 0.2 92.0 4,066x x x 20 0.2 92.1 (*)

x x x x x 27 0.1 92.3 (*)x x x 30 0.1 92.4 3,726x x x 44 0.1 92.6 5,761

x x xx x x

x x x x x x xx x x x

x x x x

3422424125

0.1 92.7 5,4960.1 92.8 (*)

0.1 93.0 10,0950.1 93.1 7,0670.1 93.3 (*)

------ ------ -----_ ----------- ------ ______ ------- ------- ------- ---x x x

x x x x x xx x x x

x x x x xx x x

3828232327

-- - - - - -- -- - -- -- -- ------- -- - - ---- - --

0.10.10.10.10.1

------ ---

93.4 5,18793.5 (*)93.6 (*)93.7 (*)93.9 (*)

- --- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -

103

I

Table D.1--The aid awards constructed using the eight componentclassification scheme, by component, unweighedfrequency, percent receiving the award, and theaverage amount of the award for full-time students--Continued


P o NG E o F Fs L F s s I sL L G H G G H— — — — . — —

x xx x x

x x x xx x x x xx x x x x- - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

—

P UnweighedG frequencies—

151840

x 3435

-----.---------

Weightedpercent

0.10.10.10.10.1

------ ----

Cumulativepercent

94.094.194.294.394.4

------- ----


(*)(*)

7,7328,6916,780

- - -- -- - -x x x 22 0.1 94.5 (*)

x x x x x 26 0.1 94.6 (*)x x x 19 0.1 94.7 (*)

x x x 28 0.1 94.8 (*)“x x x x x 19 0.1 94.9 (*)

-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ------ _----- ---- -------- --- - -- -- - - --x x x x x x 34 0.1 95.0 9,581

x x x x 27 0.1 95.0 (*)x x x 25 0.1 95.1 (*)

x x x x 16 0.1 95.2 (*)x x x 20 0.1 95.3 (*)-- --- --- --- --- --- --- ___ --- -- - - - ---- --------- - - - - - - - ----- -- - - - - - - -

x x 24 0.1 95.4 (*)x x x 12 0.1 95.5 (*)

x x x x x 32 0.1 95.6 9,837x x x x x x 20 0.1 95.6 (*)x x x x 20 0.1 95.7 (*)----- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ - -- -- -- - --- ---x x x x x x 22 0.1 95.8 (*)

x x x 11 0.1 95.9 (*)x x 17 0.1 96.0 (*)

x x x x 16 0.1 96.0 (*)x x 21 0.1 96.1 (*)

-. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - -_ -_----- ------_--- ----------- ---------x x x x 8 0.1 96.2 (*>

x x 15 0.1 96.3 (*)x x x x 17 0.1 96.3 (*)x x x x x x 17 0.1 96.4 (*)x x x 15 0.1 96.5 (*)- - - - - ------ - - - --- -- - - ------- -- - - - - - - - - _- ------------ - - - - --- - - -- - -

104

II

! Table D.I--The aid awards constructed using the eight componentclassification scheme, by component, unweighedfrequency, percent receiving the award, and theaverage amount of the award for full-time students--Continued


T0O FFSGH

—

[

NFsE—

xx[

PG.—

x

x

.

GsL—

xx

x


IG


2024131121

Weightedpercent

‘umulativepercent

— —x

x xx

x

0.10.10.10.10.1

96.696.696.796.896.8

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)(*)

xxx

----- .----- ------x x

xx x

------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- -

xx xx

x xxx

xx

xxx

xx

20 0.115 0.115 0.18 0.1

22 0.1

96.997.097.097.197.2

(*)

(*)(*)

(*)

(*)

-----x

xx xx x

.----- ------x

xxx

x x

x xx xx x

x x

xxxx

x

11 0.119 0.122 0.113 0.114 0.1

97.297.397.397.497.5

(*)(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

. - - --- - - - -- -- - -- -- ----- --- - -- - -- - - - -- - --- - - - - - -------x x

xx

x xx x

, -- - --

x

x xx x

.- - -- -xx

xxx

14 0.110 0.112 0.117 0.114 0.0

97.597.697.697.797.7

(*)

(*)(*)(*)

(*)

x Ix x

xx

------ ------ ------ ---_-- ------ ------ ------ ----------- .----- ------x xx x

x

x

x

xx xx x

x

x xx

xxx

xx

16 0.015 0.011 0.08 0.O6 0.0

97.897.897.997.998.0

(*)(*)

(*)

(*)(*)

- --- - - - -- ----- - -- ---- - ------ - - - --- - -- - - - -- - - - - -98.0 (*)98.1 (*)98.1 (*)98.1 (*)98.2 (*)

------- ------- -----

x xx

x- - - - -

x xx xx xx x

x,- - - --

xx x xx x x

x xx

,----- ---

105


Weightedpercent

0.00.00.00.00.0

Cumulativepercent

98.298.398.398.498.4


(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)


TP

G ESLLL——

xxx

xx

—

PG—

xxT

0O FFSGX——x x

x xx

—

sG

—

xx T

NF

I SG E——x x

xx

xx x

Vnweightedfrequencies

1113139

12-- - - ---- - - - - - -- - - - ----- -------- - - - - - ------- - - . - ------- -- ------ ---

x x x xx

x x,x x

x x

xxxx

x

13 0.0 98.4x 4 0.0 98.5

11 0.0 98.55 0.0 98.6

x 16 0.0 98.6

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x

x------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ --x xx xx

x xx

x xxx

x x x

8 0.0 98.611 0.0 98.7

x 10 0.0 98.7x 7 0.0 98.7x 6 0.0 98.8

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)(*)

-- ----- - ------- ____ - - - ------------- - -- - - - ---- - - - - -------(*)

(*)(*)

(*)

(*)

x xx x x

x xx xx x

xx x xx xx x x

x x

x 7 0.011 0.0

x 9 0.010 0.09 0.0

98.898.898.998.998.9

--- - ----- - - - - ___ - - - ---- - --------- - - ---- - -------- -- - ----- ------ ---

xx xx

xx x x

x x x 9 0.0x x x 7 0.0

x x x 3 0.0x x x 7 0.0

x 7 0.0

99.099.099.099.199.1

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x x x

x xx

x x x

x 8 0.0x x x 9 0.0x x x x 7 0.0x x 5 0.0x x x 4 0.0

99.199.199.299.299.2

(*)(*)

(*)

(*)(*)

------- ------- ------ ------- --------- ------- ------- ______ -------- -

106

eight componentunweighed

Table D.1--The aid awardsclassification

constructed using thescheme, by component,I frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--Continued

Vnweightedfrequencies

24646


6--FsH T

NF

I sCR.—

xx

x

—

PG

F

xxx

—

GsL—

xx

— —Averageaward for

Cumulative full-timepercent students

oFG

sG

Weightedpercent

—i-xxxx

—0.00.00.00.00.0

99.2 (*)99.3 (*)99.3 (*)99.3 (*)99.3 (*)

xx

xxx

- -- -- -- - ------ .----- ------- ------- .x 6

63

x 86

--- ------- -----x 6x 6x 7

4x 6--- ------ ------x 5

5x 5x 4

3--- ------ ------x 5x 6

3x 5x 4,------ ------- -

------ ------- ------- ------- --0.0 99.3 (*)0.0 99.4 (*)0.0 99.4 (*)0.0 99.4 (*)0.0 99.4 (*)

x

x

x

xx xx xx x

x

xx x

x

x xxx

- - -- --- - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - . . - - - -0.0 99.4 (*)0.0 99.5 (*)0.0 99.5 (*)0.0 99*5 (*)0.0 99.5 (*)

------- -- ------- ---- -- - - - --- -0.0 99*5 (*)0.0 99.6 (*)0.0 99.6 (*)0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)------- --------- ---- -------- -

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.7 (*)0.0 99.7 (*)

------- -------- -------- ------

------ -- ,----- ------xx

x

x xxx

x xx xx

xx x

x

xI xx

I ,- --- . .-----x xx xx x

x

x xx

xx x

x xx xxx x

x-- - --- -- ,-----

Xx x

x

.-----x xx x

xxx x

xxx xx xx

xxx

- - -- - --- .-----x xxx xxx- - - - -

x xx

xx. - - _ - -

xxxxx---

xxx

- - -

x xxx xx xx x--- -- -

3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.0

------- ------- ------ -

99.799.799.799.799.7

------- ---!

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)

- -- -- -- -

107

F-

Table D.1--The aid awards constructed using theclassification scheme, by component,

eight componentunweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and theaverage amount of the award for full-time students--Continued

—

GsL

Txx


------ ------ -----_TNFSPEG——x xx xx xx xx x------

Unweighted Weightedfrequencies percent

5 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.0

---------------------

Cumulativepercent

99.899.899.899.899.8

.- -- - ---- - - -


(*)

(*)(*)

(*)

(*)

- - - - - - - -

x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.8 (*)x x x x 3 0.0 99.8 (*)

x x x 3 0.0 99.8 (*)x x x x x 2 0.0 99.8 (*)x x x x x 3 0.0 99.8 (*)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- --- - - - - - - --- -- - ------ ---x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x 3 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)- - - - - - - - ___ - - - - - - - - - ___ --- - - - - - ----- -------- - ______ _____ - - - - - - - - -

X x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - ___ - -- - - -- - - ___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

X x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___________ - - - - -- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -------- -x x x 2 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)x x x x x x x 2 0.0 100.0 (*)- - -- - - - --- - - - ---- - - -- - - ------ --- -- - - - -- ____ - -------- -- --- -- --- - - -

108



—

GsL

Y

x

F--ELL

Y-

Xxx

------

0FG—

xx T

0FSsHG——x xx

xx

—

IG—

xx T

NFSPHG——xx x

xx xx x


11211

Weightedpercent

0.00.00.00.00.0

‘umulativepercent

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0


(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)x x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)x x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -

* Sample size too small for reliable estimates.

-- This award was received by students who reported that theyreceived aid but did not report the source or type of aid andstudents who received non-grant aid from a private source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics, The 1987 National PostsecondarvStudent Aid Study.

MJ.S.COVERIWSFWPRUWUWC)FFICE, X990.262.91927999

109

undergraduate financial aid awardsnces.ed.gov/pubs90/90332.pdf · 1998-04-13 · provides an...

Documents