No description available.

Higher education in the United States is known for its diversity; but even more diverse than the system are the methods used to finance it. These methods are, in many ways, a reflection of a pluralistic society trying to work out a democratic way of life within a federal system of government.The types of individuals and groups contributing to institutions of higher education have not changed significantly in the last three hundred years, but their relative contributions have shifted dramatically as the role of higher education in American society has changed. This support has taken two general forms: direct appropriations to institutions and financial aid to students.The end of World War II is a watershed in the history of higher education in the United States because the aggregate cost of education started to rise at an unprecedented rate at that time and it has continued to increase. The three variables which have mainly influenced the costs of higher education since the War are: a growth in the size of enrollments, an enlargement in the functions performed by the institutions, and a lack of growth in man-hour productivity within higher education. The rate of population growth will not be a major factor in college costs after the late 1970's, and there is considerable evidence to indicate that the percentage of population entering college has reached a maximum. However, the demands for services are not abating; and there seems to be no technological breakthrough on the horizon that will enable educators to equal the average three per cent per year increase in productivity experienced by the rest of the economy. This will make education relatively more expensive than other family purchases, and this difference in prices will become progressively larger.Most of the student financial aid programs now in existence were enacted after World War II. These programs were established to meet a rather bewildering variety of national, state, and private needs; but the enhancement of education was seldom the primary purpose for which a given program was developed. In particular, the over-all confusion in the federal programs can be attributed to the fact that each was conceived under the stress of a particular crisis, was therefore narrow in scope, and was independent of other existing programs. There was, and is, no general policy regarding the role of the federal government in higher education.If the direct costs paid by the student are added to the foregone earnings, the average student pays approximately seventy-five per cent of his total educational cost with the public accounting for the remaining twenty-five per cent. Approximately seventy-five per cent of the lifetime income of a college graduate above that which he would have received as a high school graduate can be attributed directly to the college experience. Twenty-five per cent of our recent growth in the gross national product has been the tangible effect of the increased educational level of the labor force. Thus, the balance of private and public benefits and cost would seem to have been reached--at least in terms of the crude accounting terms we have at our disposal.From the standpoint of "equity" and "efficiency" in the investment of resources in higher education, both institutional appropriations and student financial aids have certain merits. The author maintains, however, that society is best served by a diversified system of higher education and financing of higher education similar to the one we now have where the costs and benefits to the individual and society are of the same order of magnitude. To insure this diversity, the financial supporters of higher education should be kept so numerous as to prevent any one contributor from assuming economic control.

Thesis (M.S.)--Eastern Illinois University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-55).

Not available / text

Student financial-aid programs have changed drastically over the past twenty-five years. Many new loan and grant programs have come into existence at the federal, state, and institution level over this period. While more financial-aid programs are available now than in the past, little has been published regarding the financial-aid plans of high-school seniors and the likelihood of realization of these plans for students of different socioeconomic status (SES) or ability. Nor has there been much published regarding the dropout rates of students using various forms of financial aid. The purpose of this paper was to investigate these two topics with a special emphasis on comparing loan users with users of other forms of aid. The financial-aid groups used most often in these analyses were loans only, loans in combination with other aid, other aid only, and familial aid only. Differences in SES, ability, type of school, and type of loan for students planning various types of aid were analyzed statistically using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), or Chi-square tests. Similar analyses were performed for students using various forms of financial aid in their first postsecondary schooling. Comparisons of the planners and users are made for the different types of aid and other variables. Differences in dropout rates for students in the several financial-aid categories were analyzed using ANOVA. The variables SES, ability, grade-point average, and parental income were used in these ANOVA's as blocking factors to obtain separate estimates of dropout rates for categories of these variables as well as to test for differences in these rates. The final set of analyses in this paper tested for differences in SES, ability, and grade-point average of students in the several financial-aid groups who persist, stop out, or drop out. These tests were accomplished using MANOVA. The dropout rate analyses and the persist, stopout, and dropout analyses were accomplished for academic years beginning in 1972, 1973, and 1974 and thus allow longitudinal estimates of the dropout rates and other variables tested. Data for these analyses were extracted from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. Major findings follow. The planning and using analysis in this paper showed that students planning to use loans had significantly lower SES than those not planning loans. Further, when first-year loan users are compared larger percentages of low SES students were using loans than students in the two higher categories of SES. Vocational school students not only plan to use loans at higher rates than students planning other schools, but have a much higher percentage use of loans only than do students at other schools. Low SES students at these schools seem to bear a disproportionate loan burden when compared to students at other schools. Vocational students also use less desirable loan programs at higher rates than other students. When dropout rates of financial-aid groups are compared for this three-year study, it is evident the first year of schooling is critical. First-year dropout rates are higher than those in the following two years; type of aid used in the first year has an apparent effect on first-year students not indicated by the later analyses. Students relying on loans only or familial aid only have higher dropout rates than students using loans in combination with other types of aid. This phenomenon appears to affect levels of SES differentially. Low SES students have higher dropout rates when relying exclusively on loans or on family aid than do high SES students.

The purpose of the study was to determine the perceptions of Ball State University students who participated in the Guaranteed Student Loan Program and withdrew from school before completing a degree program. Specifically, the study was concerned with: (1) Determining the perceptions of identified students in areas of financial concern with regard to borrowing through the Guaranteed Loan Program; (2) determining the perceptions of the borrowers as related to selected personal areas with regard to borrowing through the loan program; (3) identifying the opinions of students regarding participation in the loan program as related to the appropriateness of the program, basis for eligibility, repayment plans, advice to prospective borrowers and the overall experience of borrowing through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program.A review of literature pertaining to guaranteed loan programs was made and a questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 100 students who had participated in the Guaranteed Student Loan Program but withdrew from Ball State University before completing a degree. Seventy-one borrowers returned a completed questionnaire.The analysis of data revealed that Ball State University students who borrowed through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program but left school prior to graduation were usually single at the time of borrowing but tended to marry at a later date, were not dependent on parents for financial support and came from homes of parents having a wide range of annual gross incomes. The identified dropouts were more likely to borrow through the loan program than obtain money for education expenses from any other source, did not, use the money for purposes other than education and tended not to default on repayment to the lender of the loan or declare bankruptcy. The student borrower accepted full responsibility for repayment of the loan in a majority of the cases.Ball State University dropouts did not perceive the influence of borrowing through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program as an inclination to be more susceptible to borrowing, interfering with the choice of a marriage partner or affecting decisions regarding size of family. The student borrowers perceived the loan program as a positive effect on the decision to attend college but not on the selection of Ball State University as the institution of higher education to attend.The identified borrowers indicated the amount borrowed as being appropriate, the overall borrowing experience as satisfactory but believed the basis for repayment should have been a combination of the amount borrowed and the borrower's income after leaving college.There was no significant relationship between the amount of money borrowed by the Ball State University dropouts and the use of the money for purposes other than education expenses, defaulting on repayment, necessity to borrow after leaving college due to the debt accrued by the loan, the influence of borrowing on the borrowers' ability to purchase certain consumer items, or the overall experience of borrowing through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2008. / "May, 2008." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 34-46). Online version available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (MBA)--Minnesota School of Business/Globe University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 40-45).

No description available.

No description available.