Shutting Low-Income Students Out of Public Four-Year Higher Education

Transcription

1 May 2018 White Paper Shutting Low-Income Students Out of Public Four-Year Higher Education 1 P a g e

2 Writers: Carrie Warick, Director of Policy and Advocacy Bill DeBaun, Director of Data and Evaluation Contributor: Allie Ciaramella, Communications Manager 2018 National College Access Network. All rights reserved. Washington, DC 1 P a g e

3 Executive Summary College affordability is a perennial topic around kitchen tables, in the media, and for stakeholders with interest in seeing more students access and complete a postsecondary education. Low- and middle-income students and families wring their hands over the tuition bill that will come due before even setting foot on campus, as they worry about whether they can afford this investment in their futures. And now, a National College Access Network (NCAN) analysis shows that, unfortunately, this worry is justified far too often, at least when considering four-year public institutions. This white paper considers the affordability of four-year public institutions for an average Pell Grant recipient who receives the average amount of grant aid, takes out the average amount of federal loans, and collects reasonable work wages to contribute to an education. An astounding 75 percent of residential four-year institutions including 90 percent of flagships failed NCAN s affordability test. The average Pell Grant recipient in our model would be able to afford just 139 of 551 residential four-year public institutions across the United States. NCAN represents nonprofit organizations and schools committed to helping more low-income students and students of color enter and complete postsecondary education. Since our founding in 1995, the narrative about affordability that we hear from our members has changed for the worse, and our analysis confirms this trend. In the mid-2000s, I often said with confidence that if we did our job right, and our students followed our guidance, they could find a college pathway where finances did not have to be a barrier to success, Traci Kirtley, chief program officer at NCAN member College Possible, wrote this year (Kirtley, 2018). A decade later, I can no longer say the same thing. In 2018, we can do everything right, our students can follow all our best advice, and they can still find themselves without an affordable college option that gives them a good chance of earning their degree within six years. Beyond first-time, full-time students living on-campus and working over the summer, our analysis also considers three other student scenarios. Students who live off campus (not with family) and contribute summer earnings to their education have the highest percentage of affordable institutions to choose from, at 27 percent. By contrast, just 3 percent of four-year 2 P a g e

4 public institutions are affordable for those students who cannot contribute summer earnings to their postsecondary education, whether they live on campus or off campus and not with family. None of these three alternate scenarios paints any more optimistic a picture for the prospects of affordability, and given that our analysis only examines students paying in-state tuition rates, prospects vary widely within and across states. The glaring shortage of affordable four-year public options across the country is especially concerning given these institutions dual mission to provide postsecondary education to individuals and to promote an educated citizenry as a public good that benefits communities, states, and the nation as a whole. Postsecondary affordability is a significant equity issue for low-income students, firstgeneration students, and students of color across the United States. These groups access and complete college at lower rates than their peers, and when they do complete they are more likely than their peers to obtain an associate s degree or certificate. We hope that our analysis serves as a wake-up call to federal and state policymakers. This is not a problem on the margins of higher education. This is not a smattering of unaffordable institutions. This pervasive issue affects students in all 50 states. Without policy change that focuses on closing affordability gaps, the status quo of inequity will continue, denying students opportunities for economic mobility and personal and professional enrichment, and denying the public the myriad benefits associated with increasing levels of education economic, civic, and otherwise. NCAN members across the country work hard every day to put students on the best possible path for postsecondary success; unfortunately, those paths will continue to narrow unless policymakers act purposefully. 3 P a g e

5 Introduction Is college affordable? As our country debates the value of postsecondary credentials and politicians grapple with the federal and state roles in higher education, the conversation continually returns to affordability. To some, unaffordable means that some students cannot attend a private four-year institution without relying on loans, sometimes in substantial amounts. Others argue that public institutions should be free for all students, regardless of their ability to pay, and that no student should have to borrow in any amount. And a third group believes that the financial aid system is too complicated and that simplifying it alone can address any perceived affordability issues. At NCAN, one of our biggest concerns is the students who cannot afford to enroll full-time in any four-year institution at all, even with federal student loans. NCAN represents nonprofit organizations and schools committed to helping more low-income students and students of color enter and complete postsecondary education. Since our founding in 1995, the narrative about affordability that we hear from our members has changed for the worse. Whereas before the Great Recession, most of our students could find an affordable four-year option often at an in-state public institution our members increasingly report that this is often no longer the case. Low-income students who do everything right may, in the end, be left without an affordable four-year college choice, even at the very public institutions created to ensure that all citizens could benefit from higher education. This is a significant equity issue for our country. Especially for low-income students and students of color, a four-year degree is the surest path to the middle class (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012). Unfortunately, as of 2012, only 14 percent of students from low-income families completed a bachelor s degree within eight years of graduating high school, compared to 60 percent of high-income students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Further, highincome students are more than four times more likely to complete a bachelor s degree than low-income students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Low-income students are almost twice as likely as their high-income peers to obtain a postsecondary certificate or associate degree. These subbachelor s degrees and credentials are valuable, but the concentration of low-income students in them is surely a sign that students do not have equitable choices when picking their career paths. Students must have the option to decide their postsecondary and professional paths based on skills and interests, not finances alone. If solutions to college affordability address only simplifying a complex system or the debt burden of those who can afford to enroll in the first place, the share of low-income students completing four-year degrees will remain inequitable or could actually decrease. How widespread might the public four-year unaffordability problem be? To better understand the potential scope of the problem for low-income students, we decided to analyze data on public college costs and financial aid using the model of an average Pell Grant recipient who 4 P a g e

6 receives average grant aid and takes out average federal loans. A staggering 75 percent of residential public four-year institutions failed our affordability test. This white paper specifically explores public colleges and universities for in-state students because access to higher education for the residents of their states is the mission of these institutions. More than 150 years ago, the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act created a public promise of accessible higher education for all Americans. Its author, Rep. (and later Sen.) Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, said the act would build a college in every state upon a sure and perpetual foundation, accessible to all, but especially the sons of toil (Loss, 2012). Gender aside, the intent was clear: All Americans, particularly those who are poor or workingclass, should have accessible higher education. Recent trends have called into question this mission of not only land-grant but all public colleges, with half of states in 2016 receiving at least 50 percent of their revenue from tuition, and 49 of 50 (all but Wyoming) receiving a higher proportion of their revenue from tuition than they did in 2001 (Huelsman, 2018). An educated citizenry is a public good, to which an investment in public institutions is designed to yield access. This white paper will examine a formula for calculating whether an individual public institution is affordable for a low-income student, represented by the average Pell Grant recipient. In addition to laying out the formula for how affordability is measured, the white paper also explores how affordability differs for students who are unable to live on campus, unable to contribute summer earnings toward their education, or both. Measuring Institutional Affordability at State Colleges and Universities One way to assess the affordability of an institution for low-income students is to model the aid and resources of an average Pell Grant recipient. Congress created the Pell Grant program to close affordability gaps in college attendance for low-income students. Today, the vast majority of Pell Grant recipients have a family income under $40,000 (The Institute for College Access and Success, 2017). For the academic year, the average full-time Pell Grant award was $3,740 and the maximum award was $5,815. For students who qualify for this support, what does affordable access to a four-year public institution look like? Our answer to that question: A Pell Grant recipient should be able to pay the in-state, full-time cost of attendance at a public four-year college or university and have $300 on hand to cover an emergency when receiving the average grant aid from federal, state, and institutional sources, federal student loans, Federal Work-Study, her Expected Family Contribution (EFC)*, and wages from reasonable work. As a formula, that model looks like: Cost of attendance + $300 = grant aid + federal loans + Federal Work-Study + EFC ($2,075) 1 + wages 1 Expected Family Contribution determined by subtracting the average Pell Grant of $3,740 from the maximum award in that year of $5, P a g e

7 Ultimately, this formula tests whether a recipient of the average Pell Grant can assume, on average, that she will receive enough financial aid to cover the full in-state cost of attendance at a public, four-year college. This formula is generous in defining affordability in at least three ways: It includes gross wages derived from summer work. Gross wages are likely an overestimate of the amount students can contribute to their college education because they will pay taxes and are likely to have other life expenses over the summer. It assumes that students have the funds to pay their EFC and then put their wages toward additional costs beyond what the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) expects students or their families to pay. It assumes that all students receive Federal Work-Study, even though the program is not nearly large enough to fund all low-income students. However, work-study serves as a proxy for reasonable part-time work while enrolled full-time in school. Overall, this formula is based on averages. Some Pell Grant recipients may indeed be able to afford an institution listed as unaffordable if they receive higher-than-average state aid, institutional aid, or private scholarships. However, private and employer grants (i.e., scholarships) comprise only 13 percent of all grants awarded (College Board, 2017). They are not a reliable source for all students, particularly because many are not renewable after the first year of attendance, and thus we do not include them in our model. Further, this formula does not account for the use of tax credits or deductions due to their poor timing (Dynarski, 2018): The funds are not available to students and families to pay the upfront bill when first enrolling in college. To read more about the data and methods, please see Appendix A. As expected, results of the application of this formula vary tremendously based on a student s state of residence and that state s in-state tuition. States vary widely in cost of attendance as well as available financial aid. Further, a student without the ability to commute to campus or live with family has significantly higher housing costs. Finally, the proportion of wages available to offset the cost of college also varies according to the cost of individual, local, and state living and economic conditions. We first apply the formula to in-state, first-time, full-time (FTFT) students who live on campus and are able to work full-time over the summer. 2 We start with on-campus students because they encompass 67 percent of FTFT students, and students who live in education deserts (one in six high school seniors, based on two different measures) need to live on campus rather than commute (Wozniak, 2018). Later, we include a review of FTFT students who are unable to contribute full-time summer wages to the cost of college, as well as FTFT students who live off campus but not with family. 2 The focus of NCAN members and the availability of data from IPEDS influenced the selection of this group. We define working full-time as working 40 hours per week for 12 weeks making the state s minimum wage. 6 P a g e

8 Average Pell Recipient Living on Campus with Summer Work Examining 551 public four-year institutions with on-campus housing shows that 75 percent (412) of those institutions are not affordable for the average low-income student who receives federal, state, and institutional grant aid, takes out loans, has a Federal Work-Study job (or similarly paid part-time work), pays an EFC, and works full-time over the summer. The fact that the average student must pay an EFC, work to pay the additional amount owed, and then at 75 percent of institutions still would not have enough funds to close the gap, demonstrates why the current system is neither affordable nor working for many low-income students. These students are the least likely to have other options to fill their funding gap. Their choices are to work more hours, making it difficult to effectively complete their studies; take time off from school to work and save toward additional costs; or pursue a career field that is less desirable to them but is part of a more affordable program. Finally, although they could begin at a community college, there is a danger that they never reach their intended goal of a bachelor s degree. Low-income students who transfer from a two- to a four-year school complete a bachelor s degree at a rate of 35 percent, in comparison to 49 percent of highincome students (Shapiro, 2017). Additionally, there are 16 states and Puerto Rico that contain no affordable campuses by this measure. Students there do not have an affordable option because if they attend an out-ofstate institution, they will then be forced to pay higher out-of-state tuition. These states include Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. To view the affordability calculation for each of the 551 institutions, see Appendix B. Flagships Beyond examining all campuses per state, looking specifically at the flagship institutions nationally shows the ability of highly qualified, low-income students to access the most prestigious institution in their states. Only five states have flagships that are affordable by our definition for FTFT students living on campus and working full-time over the summer: University of Alaska Fairbanks University of Michigan-Ann Arbor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 7 P a g e

9 University of Washington-Seattle Campus University of Wyoming There are an additional five states with flagships that measure as unaffordable by fewer than $530. These campuses include: The University of Alabama University of Iowa University of Maine University of Virginia-Main Campus West Virginia University The affordability gaps at the remaining flagships are all greater than $1,000. At the least affordable end of the spectrum, there are 11 campuses with gaps of more than $5,000, with Pennsylvania State University having the largest gap by a long shot $13,884 compared to the University of Tennessee s next-highest affordability gap of $8,563. The 11 least-affordable flagships for the average Pell Grant recipient are: State Institution Affordability Gap Nevada University of Nevada-Reno $5,121 Louisiana Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College $5,230 Kentucky University of Kentucky $5,398 Colorado University of Colorado Boulder $5,989 Wisconsin University of Wisconsin-Madison $6,075 Hawaii University of Hawaii at Manoa $6,195 Massachusetts University of Massachusetts-Amherst $6,630 South Carolina University of South Carolina-Columbia $6,993 New Hampshire University of New Hampshire-Main Campus $7,332 Tennessee The University of Tennessee-Knoxville $8,563 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus $13,884 Average Pell Recipients in Other Circumstances The Impact of Summer Work A student s ability to contribute earnings from work is crucial to NCAN s affordability calculation, but not all students have the opportunity to contribute their earnings to college costs that exceed their EFC. These students may need to work to contribute to their household, pay for rent or a car, accept an unpaid internship to access work in their field, take summer classes, or cover childcare or medical costs. Further, not all students have the option of living at home with their parents while attending school due to familial situations or the geographic proximity of a campus. For these reasons, examining affordability without considering summer wages also gives some insight into students challenges. 8 P a g e

10 FTFT Students Living On Campus without Summer Work When students do not work over the summer, the percentage of campuses available to them drops to only 3 percent of the 551 residential, four-year institutions in this study. North Carolina has the most options, at three. Alabama and Oklahoma each have two affordable campuses. And the following states have only one affordable campus: Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, and Texas. All other states have no affordable campuses for this population. For a breakdown of the state-by-state calculations for this group of students, see Appendix C. FTFT Students Living Off Campus without Summer Work Many public institutions do not offer on-campus housing options. While there are 551 campuses with on-campus housing in our data set, there are 681 public, four-year institutions that have first-time, full-time students living off campus. For students who live off campus but do not live with family members, they must continue to pay for their cost of living over the summer and, in addition, could possibly have other previously mentioned obligations that prevent them from contributing summer wages toward their cost of attendance. Reviewing this calculation for students living off campus without summer wages going toward their cost of attendance does not mean those students are not working, but that they are not able to save their wages to spend toward their education due to other financial obligations. For this group of students, there are 681 public four-year institutions to which they can commute. Of those, only 20 campuses offer an affordable option, for a total of 3 percent of all options. Georgia provides five affordable campuses in this category, and Florida and North Carolina have three each. States with one affordable campus each include Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Texas. For a breakdown of the state-by-state calculations for this group of students, see Appendix C. FTFT Students Living Off Campus with Summer Work While only 10 percent of FTFT students live off campus according to the most recent Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection, it is important to consider this group who may no longer have the option of living with family or may not have a nearby campus to which they can commute. Of the 681 campuses where students can live off campus, only 26 percent, or 180 campuses, are affordable for this group of students, assuming they are earning minimum wage and able to contribute their full earnings to the cost of attendance for the fall. Nearly half of all states (20), do not have even a single affordable college for students who work over the summer but must live off campus. For a breakdown of the state-by-state calculations for this group of students, see Appendix C. 9 P a g e

11 Why We Need Better Data These data paint a bleak picture for affordability. Notably, they demonstrate that FTFT students those typically thought of as traditional struggle in many places to find an affordable four-year college option. However, this analysis is insufficient for understanding the full picture for all students because there are no available data to measure affordability for post-traditional students, who often put earnings toward other areas of their life, attend parttime, or take longer to graduate. We apply our affordability measure to one straightforward low-income student scenario due to the current data availability. The more complicated a student s situation, the less likely it is that a school is affordable. These calculations do not include the cost of child care, medical bills, or familial obligations such as helping parents pay for expenses even when a student does not reside with family members year-round. With 25 percent of college students having dependents of their own, ignoring these hard-to-quantify costs obscures the full affordability picture (Lumina Foundation, n.d.). It is possible to calculate similar affordability figures for students who live with family while in college, but there is no guarantee that such an option is available to post-traditional students. Families may not permit it, or campuses may not be within driving distances of their homes. The affordability picture offered here is a best-case scenario, and it still is not a positive one. Higher education stakeholders and policymakers can and should do better for students. Conclusion The United States is already losing college-qualified students from the pipeline. A recent analysis from Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce demonstrates that every year, 500,000 students in the top half of their high school class 47 percent of whom are low-income do not complete even a postsecondary certificate (The Forgotten 500,000 College-ready Students, 2018). Furthermore, low-income, high-achieving students are significantly less likely than their higher-income peers to apply to selective institutions, despite these institutions generally offering more generous financial aid packages. While some of these selective schools are private institutions, state flagships frequently also fall into this category (The Forgotten 500,000 College-ready Students, 2018). Postsecondary match consequently compounds the unaffordability dilemma for low-income students. Equity demands that students have the opportunity to pursue the postsecondary path of their choosing, regardless of income, race, or family educational experience. Opportunity means that they receive a secondary education where they can earn the qualifications to enter their chosen path, and that the higher education system does not narrow their degree option based on finances alone. As spelled out in this white paper, many students can do everything right and still not have an affordable option for pursuing a four-year degree. This reality should not be acceptable to our federal or state policymakers. It should serve as a wake-up call that policies for improving our nation s higher education system must include improvements for all pathways, including helping low-income students pursue a four-year degree should they desire one. 10 P a g e

12 The authors are grateful to Elizabeth Morgan (National College Access Network), Ben Miller (Center for American Progress), and Jason Delisle (American Enterprise Institute) for their valuable feedback that shaped this white paper. The positions only represent those of the National College Access Network. Any errors are the authors. 11 P a g e

13 Works Cited Clark, K. (2010, November 22). 3 Ways the Government Overestimates Your Ability to Pay for College. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from College Board. (2017). Trends in Student Aid. Retrieved from Dynarski, S. M.-C. (2018). The Tax Benefits for Education Don t Increase Education. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from Fain, P. (2016, February 22). Small Grants, Big Impact. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from Huelsman, M. (2018). The Unaffordable Era: A 50-State Look at Rising College Prices and the New American Student. Washington, DC: Demos. Retrieved from 50-state-look-rising-college-prices-and-new-american-student Jenkins, D. a. (2016). Tracking Transfer: New Measures of Institutional and State Effectiveness in Helping Community College Students Attain Bachelor s Degrees. New York City: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from Kelchen, R., & Sara Goldrick-Rab, a. B. (2017, March 9). The Costs of College Attendance: Examining Variation and Consistency in Institutional Living Cost Allowances. The Journal of Higher Education, Retrieved from Kirtley, T. (2018, March 23). Are Income Share Agreements the Solution to Burgeoning Student Loan Debt? St. Paul. Retrieved from Loss, C. P. (2012, July 16). Why the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act Still Matters. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from Lumina Foundation. (n.d.). Today's Student. Retrieved April 2018, from National Center for Education Statistics. (2015, May 28). Postsecondary Attainment: Differences by Socioeconomic Status. The Condition of Education Washington, DC. Retrieved from 12 P a g e

14 Shapiro, D. D. (2017). Tracking Transfer: Measures of Effectiveness in Helping Community College Students to Complete Bachelor s Degrees. Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Retrieved from The Forgotten 500,000 College-ready Students. (2018, January 16). Washington, DC: Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from The Institute for College Access and Success. (2017, June 30). Pell Grants Help Keep College Affordable for Millions of Americans. Retrieved April 2018, from The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2012, July). Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations. Washington, DC. Retrieved from y/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf U.S. Department of Labor. (2018, January 1). Minimum Wage Laws in the States. Retrieved from Wozniak, A. (2018, March 30). Analysis: Why Access to College Depends on Where You Live. PBS News Hour. Retrieved from 13 P a g e

15 Appendix A: Data Sources, Methodology, and Notes Succinctly assessing the affordability of public universities is a complicated exercise. NCAN approached this study from a few different angles before ultimately deciding on the methodology that appears here. The affordability formula uses the best data currently available and is based on the total average grant aid, part-time semester work, full-time summer work, and EFC. Several other iterations were considered. An earlier exploration of the formula summed average grant aid for federal, state, and institutional sources and found a higher percentage of affordable institutions. However, that approach provided students with $4,000 more in aid than the total average grant aid used in the calculation presented here. The approach overestimated the grant aid most students would receive. Additionally, the approach presented above includes Federal Work-Study as a proxy for part-time work during the semester, which was inadvertently excluded from the original definition. 3 Because campus sizes can vary widely within states, we also considered calculating the number of affordable in-state seats at four-year public institutions within a state as a percentage of all in-state seats. This would have compensated for varying campus sizes and offered a more granular look at affordability by state. IPEDS offers headcounts of in-state students by their living arrangement, but only for those students receiving federal, state, or local aid. The vast majority of students served by NCAN members receive financial aid, but we felt that excluding non-aided students from our percentage of affordable seats offered an incomplete picture. Some additional points to consider about our definition: Institutional cost of attendance is supposed to cover the full cost of earning a degree, including not only direct and indirect expenses to the school, but also a student s cost of living. Recent research calls into question the accuracy of this definition, given that institutions set the cost of attendance individually and similar schools in the same city can have drastically different costs of attendance (Kelchen & Sara Goldrick-Rab, 2017). This paper addresses the average Pell Grant recipient and assumes that the EFC for students is accurate. EFC is the calculation used for determining how much a family can afford to pay for college, but it is criticized frequently as outdated and unrealistic for families. The federal government s calculation for estimating the EFC is based on a 1967-era family budget. While this budget has been adjusted for inflation, it has not been adjusted to include the now far-more common and expensive cost of child care or the addition of internet and cell phone expenses to family budgets (Clark, 2010). The EFC formula is also not adjusted to reflect regional differences in the cost of living. Overall, the affordability formula presented here assumes that families can afford the calculated EFC, which in many situations is not the case. Our formula adds $300 in emergency funding to the cost of attendance. This is an amount that could cause a student to drop out when facing an emergency cost (Fain, 2016). 3 NCAN originally explored an affordability definition in the blog post, NCAN Analysis: Dozens of States Lack Affordable Four-Year College Options, 6 February P a g e

16 We include average student loans by institution because they are necessary in today s system to open the door to a four-year degree for most low- and moderate- income students. Although loan limits for independent and dependent students differ, average federal loans are combined in our formula because of IPEDS data availability. This formula also specifically focuses on the four-year pathway because it is the most viable pathway to a bachelor s degree for low-income students. Only 14 percent of students who begin at a community college successfully transfer and complete a bachelor s degree within six years, which makes this pathway more of an aspiration than an actuality for most students who choose it (Jenkins, 2016). Total price data come from IPEDS and cover in-state students living on campus during the academic year. Data on the total average grant aid awarded to full-time, first-time undergraduates are also from IPEDS but come from the academic year, the most recent data available. These data together average federal, state, and institutional grant aid sources. A well-known limitation of the IPEDS data is that they cover only FTFT students (future releases via an Outcome Measures survey will remedy this limitation). Data on minimum-wage levels by state come from the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018). IPEDS provides information on total price by institution for three distinct groups of in-state students: those living on campus, those living off campus with family, and those living off campus not with family. Using both total and disaggregated FTFT headcounts, NCAN examined the relative percentage of these three groups at the institutional, state, and national levels. In the academic year, 67 percent of FTFT in-state students lived on campus. Nineteen (19) percent lived off campus with family, and 10 percent lived off campus not with family. The remaining 3 percent had unknown living arrangements. After examining these data, we decided to restrict our analysis to in-state students living on campus for a few reasons. First, this is the group of students best represented by the available data. Second, many NCAN members predominantly serve more students who matriculate to college directly from high school. Third, the ability to live on campus addresses some of the concerns related to geographic location of the school, as well as whether a student has the option to live with family. To calculate wages from summer work, we multiplied each state s minimum wage by 40 hours per week by 12 weeks. Note that our affordability calculations do not consider income taxes drawn from wages, any cost-of-living expenses, or any expenses students may be expected to contribute to their household over the summer. This is a clear overestimate of the value of summer wages. This in turn means that any affordability gaps present for students at a given institution or in a given state are an underestimate of that gap. 15 P a g e

17 Appendix B: Individual Institutions by State Tables: FTFT Students Living On Campus, Assuming Summer Work State Affordable? Affordability Gap Alabama Alabama A & M University Yes -$2,680 Alabama State University Yes -$1,970 Auburn University No $7,787 Auburn University at Montgomery No $2,152 Jacksonville State University Yes -$2,742 The University of Alabama No $229 Troy University Yes -$4,869 University of Alabama at Birmingham No $3,552 University of Alabama in Huntsville No $1,037 University of Montevallo No $2,321 University of North Alabama No $1,946 University of South Alabama Yes -$4,608 University of West Alabama No $1,452 Alaska University of Alaska Anchorage No $3,683 University of Alaska Fairbanks Yes -$3,750 University of Alaska Southeast Yes -$961 Arizona Arizona State University-Downtown Phoenix No $3,113 Arizona State University-Polytechnic No $2,662 Arizona State University-Skysong No $1,829 Arizona State University-Tempe No $1,766 Arizona State University-West No $1,202 Northern Arizona University No $3,294 University of Arizona No $4,361 Arkansas Arkansas State University-Main Campus Yes -$429 Arkansas Tech University Yes -$2,201 Henderson State University Yes -$1,827 Southern Arkansas University Main Campus Yes -$301 University of Arkansas No $4,260 University of Arkansas at Little Rock No $760 University of Arkansas at Monticello Yes -$2,420 University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Yes -$5,947 University of Arkansas-Fort Smith No -$180 University of Central Arkansas Yes -$1, P a g e

18 State Affordable? Affordability Gap California California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo No $5,756 California State Polytechnic University-Pomona No $2,670 California State University Maritime Academy Yes -$645 California State University-Bakersfield No $1,844 California State University-Channel Islands No $4,106 California State University-Chico No $722 California State University-Dominguez Hills No $60 California State University-East Bay No $1,091 California State University-Fresno Yes -$4,117 California State University-Fullerton No $3,964 California State University-Long Beach No $1,248 California State University-Los Angeles No $1,743 California State University-Monterey Bay No -$166 California State University-Northridge Yes -$3,209 California State University-Sacramento No $1,469 California State University-San Bernardino No $421 California State University-San Marcos No $1,726 California State University-Stanislaus Yes -$3,222 Feather River Community College District Yes -$3,329 Humboldt State University No -$129 San Diego State University No $4,516 San Francisco State University No $2,035 San Jose State University No $3,852 Shasta College Yes -$7,823 Sonoma State University No $3,362 University of California-Berkeley No $3,462 University of California-Davis No $2,369 University of California-Irvine No $229 University of California-Los Angeles Yes -$529 University of California-Merced Yes -$551 University of California-Riverside No $412 University of California-San Diego No $1,022 University of California-Santa Barbara No -$114 University of California-Santa Cruz No $2,925 Colorado Adams State University No $351 Colorado Mesa University No $136 Colorado Mountain College Yes -$1,672 Colorado School of Mines No $8,972 Colorado State University-Fort Collins No $2,847 Colorado State University-Pueblo No $6,377 Fort Lewis College No $1, P a g e

19 State Affordable? Affordability Gap Colorado con t University of Colorado Boulder No $5,989 University of Colorado Colorado Springs No $4,814 University of Northern Colorado No $1,471 Western State Colorado University No $2,670 Connecticut Central Connecticut State University No $3,737 Eastern Connecticut State University No $4,935 Southern Connecticut State University No $4,679 University of Connecticut No $2,863 Western Connecticut State University No $5,045 Delaware Delaware State University Yes -$2,047 University of Delaware No $4,070 Florida Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Yes -$801 Florida Atlantic University No $1,186 Florida Gulf Coast University No $357 Florida International University No $3,608 Florida SouthWestern State College No $1,225 Florida State University No $2,216 New College of Florida Yes -$2,728 The University of West Florida Yes -$1,141 University of Central Florida No $2,623 University of Florida No $1,064 University of North Florida Yes -$387 University of South Florida-Main Campus Yes -$3,251 University of South Florida-St Petersburg Yes -$3,733 Georgia Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College Yes -$2,507 Albany State University Yes -$3,528 Armstrong State University No $1,386 Augusta University No $836 Clayton State University Yes -$1,767 College of Coastal Georgia No $2,482 Columbus State University No $1,316 Dalton State College Yes -$756 Darton State College Yes -$2,183 East Georgia State College Yes -$3,744 Fort Valley State University Yes -$1,283 Georgia College and State University No $7,033 Georgia Gwinnett College No $5,551 Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus No $1, P a g e

20 State Affordable? Affordability Gap Georgia con t Georgia Military College No $42 Georgia Southern University No $3,681 Georgia Southwestern State University No $817 Georgia State University No $4,421 Gordon State College Yes -$1,129 Kennesaw State University No $6,658 Middle Georgia State University Yes -$3,144 Savannah State University Yes -$3,608 South Georgia State College Yes -$2,031 University of Georgia No $2,721 University of North Georgia No $1,286 University of West Georgia No $2,469 Valdosta State University No $1,075 Hawaii University of Hawaii at Hilo No $1,151 University of Hawaii at Manoa No $6,195 Idaho Boise State University Yes -$2,158 Idaho State University No $1,436 Lewis-Clark State College No -$49 University of Idaho No $1,023 Illinois Chicago State University No $2,377 Eastern Illinois University No $2,043 Governors State University No $7,170 Illinois State University No $5,754 Northeastern Illinois University No $9,756 Northern Illinois University No $5,529 Southern Illinois University-Carbondale No $4,111 Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville No $4,425 University of Illinois at Chicago No $3,799 University of Illinois at Springfield Yes -$780 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign No $4,064 Western Illinois University No $1,990 Indiana Ball State University No $378 Indiana State University Yes -$376 Indiana University-Bloomington No $1,091 Indiana University-Purdue University-Fort Wayne Yes -$1,797 Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis Yes -$600 Indiana University-South Bend No $266 Indiana University-Southeast No $1, P a g e

21 State Affordable? Affordability Gap Indiana con t Purdue University-Calumet Campus No $2,890 Purdue University-Main Campus Yes -$546 University of Southern Indiana No -$190 Vincennes University Yes -$1,807 Iowa Iowa State University No $691 University of Iowa No $267 University of Northern Iowa No $3,783 Kansas Emporia State University No $1,124 Fort Hays State University No $111 Kansas State University No $3,858 Pittsburg State University No $1,435 University of Kansas No $3,795 Washburn University No -$96 Wichita State University No $1,942 Kentucky Eastern Kentucky University No $681 Kentucky State University Yes -$5,732 Morehead State University Yes -$592 Murray State University Yes -$2,970 Northern Kentucky University No $1,386 University of Kentucky No $5,398 University of Louisville No $3,625 Western Kentucky University No $182 Louisiana Grambling State University No $4,770 Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College No $5,230 Louisiana State University-Alexandria No $1,696 Louisiana Tech University Yes -$4,953 McNeese State University No $667 Nicholls State University No $822 Northwestern State University of Louisiana Yes -$640 Southeastern Louisiana University No $585 Southern University and A & M College No $1,077 Southern University at New Orleans No $1,710 University of Louisiana at Lafayette No $3,053 University of Louisiana at Monroe Yes -$1,246 University of New Orleans No $1, P a g e

22 State Affordable? Affordability Gap Maine Maine Maritime Academy No $5,876 University of Maine No $529 University of Maine at Farmington No $741 University of Maine at Fort Kent No $483 University of Maine at Machias Yes -$1,542 University of Maine at Presque Isle No $154 University of Southern Maine No $999 Maryland Bowie State University Yes -$1,527 Coppin State University Yes -$2,891 Frostburg State University Yes -$648 Morgan State University No $1,096 Salisbury University No $5,009 St Mary's College of Maryland No $6,299 Towson University No $3,136 University of Maryland Eastern Shore Yes -$353 University of Maryland-Baltimore County No $3,752 University of Maryland-College Park No $2,488 Massachusetts Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology No $11,602 Bridgewater State University No $5,896 Fitchburg State University No $3,749 Framingham State University No $4,752 Massachusetts College of Art and Design No $5,470 Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts No $3,939 Massachusetts Maritime Academy Yes -$735 Salem State University No $5,113 University of Massachusetts-Amherst No $6,630 University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth No $5,887 University of Massachusetts-Lowell No $6,035 Westfield State University No $3,485 Worcester State University No $6,371 Michigan Central Michigan University No $1,517 Eastern Michigan University No $1,799 Ferris State University No $452 Grand Valley State University No $3,223 Jackson College No $174 Lake Michigan College No $1,399 Lake Superior State University No -$98 Michigan State University No $2, P a g e

23 State Affordable? Affordability Gap Michigan con't Michigan Technological University No $3,177 Northern Michigan University No $1,318 Northwestern Michigan College No $2,695 Oakland University No $2,123 Saginaw Valley State University No $2,394 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Yes -$1,262 University of Michigan-Flint No $1,990 Wayne State University No $1,478 Western Michigan University No $3,406 Minnesota Bemidji State University No $734 Minnesota State University Moorhead No $1,552 Minnesota State University-Mankato No $470 Saint Cloud State University No $726 Southwest Minnesota State University No $1,876 University of Minnesota-Crookston No $64 University of Minnesota-Duluth No $2,719 University of Minnesota-Morris Yes -$1,881 University of Minnesota-Rochester No $4,076 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities No $4,275 Winona State University No $3,556 Mississippi Alcorn State University No $742 Delta State University Yes -$1,421 Jackson State University No -$103 Mississippi State University Yes -$1,647 Mississippi University for Women Yes -$4,273 Mississippi Valley State University Yes -$3,729 University of Mississippi No $1,866 University of Southern Mississippi Yes -$1,534 Missouri Harris-Stowe State University Yes -$4,541 Lincoln University Yes -$3,552 Missouri Southern State University Yes -$1,351 Missouri State University-Springfield No $1,973 Missouri University of Science and Technology No -$69 Missouri Western State University Yes -$659 Northwest Missouri State University Yes -$1,986 Southeast Missouri State University No $143 Truman State University Yes -$1,189 University of Central Missouri No $ P a g e

24 State Affordable? Affordability Gap Missouri con't University of Missouri-Columbia No $3,873 University of Missouri-Kansas City No $3,166 University of Missouri-St Louis Yes -$1,851 Montana Montana State University No $683 Montana State University-Billings No $1,032 Montana State University-Northern Yes -$1,661 Montana Tech of the University of Montana No $1,177 The University of Montana No $1,044 The University of Montana-Western Yes -$5,294 Nebraska Chadron State College No $1,521 Peru State College No $402 University of Nebraska at Kearney No $2,444 University of Nebraska at Omaha No $1,244 University of Nebraska-Lincoln No $3,213 Wayne State College No $336 Nevada Great Basin College Yes -$3,140 University of Nevada-Las Vegas No $4,532 University of Nevada-Reno No $5,121 New Hampshire Keene State College No $6,560 Plymouth State University No $8,377 University of New Hampshire-Main Campus No $7,332 New Jersey Kean University No $7,802 Montclair State University No $7,406 New Jersey City University No $6,634 New Jersey Institute of Technology No $6,237 Ramapo College of New Jersey No $4,944 Rowan University No $7,348 Rutgers University-Camden No $5,752 Rutgers University-New Brunswick No $3,533 Rutgers University-Newark No $5,068 Stockton University No $5,629 The College of New Jersey No $10,761 William Paterson University of New Jersey No $7, P a g e

25 State Affordable? Affordability Gap New Mexico Eastern New Mexico University-Main Campus Yes -$986 New Mexico Highlands University Yes -$3,936 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology No $1,275 New Mexico State University-Main Campus Yes -$2,861 Northern New Mexico College Yes -$1,394 University of New Mexico-Main Campus No $3,301 Western New Mexico University Yes -$1,971 New York College of Staten Island CUNY No $10,222 CUNY Bernard M Baruch College No $11,039 CUNY City College No $8,196 CUNY Hunter College No $918 CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice No $12,420 CUNY Lehman College No $3,647 CUNY Queens College No $6,338 Farmingdale State College No $4,214 Fashion Institute of Technology No $3,650 Morrisville State College No $5,623 State University of New York at New Paltz No $2,021 Stony Brook University No $1,861 SUNY at Albany No $2,279 SUNY at Binghamton No $3,256 SUNY at Fredonia No $3,217 SUNY at Purchase College No $5,097 SUNY Buffalo State No $3,397 SUNY College at Brockport No $2,143 SUNY College at Geneseo No $4,120 SUNY College at Old Westbury No $1,456 SUNY College at Oswego No $2,903 SUNY College at Plattsburgh No $2,082 SUNY College at Potsdam No $1,336 SUNY College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill No $3,380 SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry No $5,759 SUNY College of Technology at Alfred No $2,770 SUNY College of Technology at Canton No $1,155 SUNY College of Technology at Delhi No $1,953 SUNY Cortland No $4,472 SUNY Maritime College No $4,364 SUNY Oneonta No $2,948 SUNY Polytechnic Institute No $3, P a g e