Better Information for Better College Choice
& Institutional Performance
















U.S. Department of Education
September 2015

2

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Context of Postsecondary Education ........................................................................................................ 4
The Diversity of the Higher Education System ...................................................................................... 5
Misaligned Incentives in Other Consumer Information Systems ......................................................... 6
Identifying Performance Metrics That Matter .............................................................................................. 7
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Access ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Percentage of Pell Students .................................................................................................................. 9
Alternative Access Measures .............................................................................................................. 10
Affordability ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Net Price .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Borrowing and Debt ............................................................................................................................ 13
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Completion Rate ................................................................................................................................. 15
Transfer Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Labor Market Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 18
Loan Performance Metrics .................................................................................................................. 21
Composite Metrics .............................................................................................................................. 22
Learning and Other Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 26
Other Metrics for Consumers ................................................................................................................. 27
Steps Forward ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Improving the Data ................................................................................................................................. 27
Improving the College Scorecard ............................................................................................................ 28
Changing the Public Discourse ................................................................................................................ 29



3
Introduction
In today’s economy, higher education is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for individual economic
opportunity, as well as America’s competitiveness in the global economy. At a time when jobs can go
anywhere in the world, skills and education will determine success, for individuals and for the health of
our democracy and our nation. Over this decade, employment in jobs requiring education beyond a high
school diploma will grow more rapidly than employment in jobs that do not; of the 30 fastest-growing
occupations, more than half require postsecondary education.1 With the average earnings of college
graduates at a level that is twice that of workers with only a high school diploma, higher education is
now the clearest path into the middle class.
There are a variety of ways that postsecondary institutions prepare students for diverse personal and
career goals in their future. Many institutions offer high-quality, affordable educational experiences that
expose students to new fields of thought and prepare them to be engaged and productive citizens in
their communities. However, some schools do not serve their students well; for instance, they may
charge prices that make higher education increasingly out of reach or fail to support students through to
completing their education and obtaining well-paying jobs. With such great variation in the types of
educational opportunities available throughout the country, it is increasingly important for students and
families to have the best information about the educational experiences and outcomes they may expect
at different institutions.
To that end, the Administration is releasing new information to provide unprecedented transparency
about the costs and quality of institutions of higher education:
 An updated College Scorecard redesigned to provide students, families, and their advisers with a
truer picture on college cost and value, and includes the most reliable national data on the
earnings of former college graduates and new data on student debt. Rather than highlighting
traditional rankings that are constructed to drive colleges to care more, for example, about how
many students they reject, this new College Scorecard can empower Americans to compare
colleges’ performance based on what matters most to them; highlight colleges that are serving
students of all backgrounds well; and keep the focus on ensuring that a quality, affordable
education remains within reach.

 A new technical site for researchers, policymakers, and others interested in delving more deeply
into institutional performance. After exploring several methods for assessing the extent to
which institutions contribute to students’ growth and future opportunities, the Administration
has produced data and published analyses that share lessons learned and provide
considerations for researchers and others in the field regarding factors to consider when
building models for evaluating institutional performance. This release represents the best
national data on higher education, ranging from demographic information to student outcomes,

1
“Employment Projects: 2012-2022 Summary.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. 19 December 2013:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm.
4
from the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, the Federal
Student Aid office, and the Department of the Treasury.
With greater transparency around student outcomes at various colleges, the tools needed to identify
and promote high-performing institutions no longer rest solely with policymakers and accreditors. On
the other hand, students, parents, researchers, and others in the higher education community can serve
as better-informed ambassadors and advocates in the conversation about strengthening the higher
education system for all.
This paper describes the measurements included in the updated College Scorecard and explores how
the data can be combined to measure the tradeoffs that exist among outcomes and costs of different
institutions of higher education. It accompanies a technical paper that describes the data, and explores
their use and limitations in greater detail.
Context of Postsecondary Education
American higher education comprises a diverse range of colleges and universities that vary significantly
in terms of quality and cost, making it challenging to evaluate college performance and difficult for
students and families to understand which college options are most suitable to them. Indeed, surveys of
Americans reveal that they are looking for more and better information to help evaluate their options.2
Existing college ranking systems focus attention on resources spent, rather than outcomes achieved, and
often emphasize selectivity over inclusiveness. At a time when our nation needs more college graduates,
and credentials at an affordable cost, these are the exact wrong characteristics to encourage. Moreover,
existing rankings do little to focus colleges and universities on improving the effectiveness of academic
offerings, strengthening supports that help students to persist in and complete college, and providing
increased opportunities for disadvantaged students to earn a college degree.
In August 2013, at the State University of New York at Buffalo, President Obama announced that his
Administration would work to combat rising college costs, expand opportunity, ensure quality, and
make college more affordable for American families. He committed to focus on improving college
performance across the critical dimensions of access, affordability, and outcomes—the key goals and
expectations for the higher education community, regardless of school mission, location, size, or student
body.
The new College Scorecard provides free, transparent, and nationally comparable data on the full
universe of higher education institutions and their performance on student outcomes, such as
graduation rates, student debt repayment, and post-college earnings prospects – information that can
help students apply to and enroll in colleges that serve them well. The website will also provide states,
colleges, and the public with access to a large database suitable for in-depth analyses to examine

2
“Is College Worth It?” Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends, 15 May 2011. http://www.pewsocialtrends.
org/2011/05/15/is-college-worth-it/2/#fn-7679-1; and Fishman, Rachel. “Deciding to Go to College: 2015 College
Decisions Survey part 1.” New America, 2015: https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/3248-deciding-to-go-to-
college/CollegeDecisions_PartI.148dcab30a0e414ea2a52f0d8fb04e7b.pdf.
5
questions related to the quality of academic offerings, student supports, factors affecting student
outcomes, and other key areas for improvement. With access to better information, the public can
engage in a shared effort to strengthen educational opportunities and resources for students from all
backgrounds.
The College Scorecard represents the Administration’s continued commitment to expanding college
opportunities for all students. Since the President took office, the Administration has made historic
investments to help Americans pay for college and to reduce the burden of student debt by increasing
the maximum Pell Grant by over $1,000, creating the American Opportunity Tax Credit worth up to
$10,000 over four years of college, and letting borrowers cap their student loan payments at 10 percent
of income.
The Administration has also worked to promote innovation and competition to improve the overall
performance of our nation’s colleges and universities to ensure they are working to reduce costs,
improve quality, and help more students complete their education. A critical part of that strategy has
been to help students and families obtain reliable information about college performance to help them
select schools that provide the best value, and to encourage colleges to improve by making them
publically accountable for the outcomes of the students they enroll. With the resources available
through the College Scorecard, college leaders and policymakers now have access to free, high quality,
comprehensive, and accurate information that can help inform their efforts to raise graduation rates,
bring down costs, and help colleges improve.
The Diversity of the Higher Education System
Comparing and evaluating the performance of diverse institutions of higher education in order to
identify those that provide good value to students based on objective and valid measures presents an
array of challenges. Institutions serve students from a wide array of backgrounds, with varied levels of
academic preparation and different goals for their education. Differences in students’ needs and
institutional resources across higher education create a challenge in assessing institutional performance
using shared measures of student success.3
Moreover, institutions have varied strengths. For instance, many community colleges serve and are
closely connected to the populations in their area; build strong partnerships with local employers, tie
their curricula and program offerings to local labor market needs, and tend to offer skill-building
opportunities as well as educational experiences. In many cases, they provide students with affordable
opportunities for success at an impressive value. Some colleges excel in preparing students for
important careers in public service, such as social workers and teachers. Still others produce graduates

3
Notwithstanding the complexity of comparing the performance or value of institutions in general, in some cases a
more focused assessment is appropriate. In particular, title IV of the Higher Education Act requires vocational
programs to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. 20 U.S.C. §§1001(b)(1) &
1002(b)(1)(A)(i). As the Department has indicated, to meet this obligation, such programs at the least should be
enabling students to earn enough money to pay the debts they incur in purchasing their education.
6
in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields and may, as a result, boast high
earnings for alumni as a result.
Yet despite the diverse higher education landscape, all colleges should meet baseline expectations and
advance values that the public generally shares: whether the institution is affordable; the degree to
which the institution supports students to and through graduation and prepares them to earn at least a
minimal wage and repay their educational debts in the future; and the extent to which the school serves
low-income students and serves them well. Data aligned with these expectations will serve as a starting
point for meaningful public discourse, and promote a collective effort to understand institutions’
performance and for various audiences.
Misaligned Incentives in Other Consumer Information Systems
As President Obama noted in his August 2013 speech, many of the incentives in higher education do
little to promote an affordable, high-quality education – and often even work against promoting
affordability. For instance, the U.S. News and World Report ranking weights spending and school
resources as nearly thirty percent of the evaluation, scored six times greater than how students fare
after their educational experience. Although a few college ranking systems have attempted to value
access and affordability, they focus on only a fraction of the highest-regarded institutions in the U.S.
rather than providing information for the majority of colleges. For instance, MONEY magazine’s college
rankings consider only about 700 of more than 5,000 total degree-granting institutions, leaving many
students unable to access information relevant to their own college selection process.
Due in part to pressure from distorted incentives such as those created by some ratings systems, many
leaders say that to show their institution is a good choice, they would have to increase selectivity by
rejecting more students who apply, admitting fewer disadvantaged students, and implementing policies
that drive up costs. Schools face severe pressure to climb the existing rankings, to succumb to the
“higher education arms race” of raising tuition and growing more selective as ways to compete with
other institutions for higher scores.4 One holdout to the U.S. News and World Report rankings, Reed
College, has declined to participate to avoid those misaligned incentives; said the school’s former
president Steven Koblik, “The best college is what’s best for the individual student.”5
The Administration’s efforts with the redesigned College Scorecard focus on driving the conversation
and the incentives toward what is most essential for students, with their families, in making a decision
about where to go to college—what it costs and whether students at the college graduate with more
opportunities. As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said, “[t]he degree students truly can’t afford

4
Burd, Stephen. “How public colleges use merit aid to compete in the out-of-state student arms race.” The
Hechinger Report, 18 May 2015: http://hechingerreport.org/how-public-colleges-use-merit-aid-to-compete-in-
the-out-of-state-student-arms-race/.
5
Watson, Harriet. “U.S. News and World Report Hat Trick.” Reed Magazine, November 1997:
http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/nov1997/news/3.html.
7
is the one they don’t complete, or that employers don’t value.”6 The College Scorecard provides a
critical improvement over the information currently available to students and families. And it does
something even more important—it holds colleges accountable to the public.
The new College Scorecard, accompanying data, and research analyses are the result of teamwork from
federal staff and the American public, who engaged with thoughtful ideas and a shared concern for
students. In addition to pulling together experts from across the federal government – including the
White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, Domestic Policy Council, Office of Management and
Budget, and the U.S. Digital Service; the Department of Education; and the Department of the Treasury–
the team traveled the country to hear from thousands of students, families, advocates, institutions,
researchers, and other stakeholders through bus tours, technical review panels, conferences, and
consumer testing to develop the most relevant and responsive college website tool.
This collective work will strengthen national efforts to develop meaningful measures of college success
for all students in ways that are easy to understand. For instance, we encourage additional thoughtful
efforts, like that of the New York Times list of “the Most Economically Diverse Top Colleges,” to ensure
that rankings also consider and recognize how institutions provide educational opportunities to support
the success of all students, regardless of their family income, geography, or personal background.7 Also
recognizing the value of diversity, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, a philanthropic organization,
introduced its annual economic diversity award – a $1 million prize to an institution that shows a proven
track record of enrolling and helping to graduate low-income high-achievers.
The College Scorecard will contribute to the Administration’s vision for a sustained national
commitment to strengthen college opportunities for all. Particularly in the coming weeks and months,
we welcome continued dialogue with students, parents, counselors, colleges, and other stakeholders to
further develop, consumer-test, and expand its potential in order to build upon and improve the
resources available to help students and families make good college choices, and encourage institutions
to improve their performance.
Identifying Performance Metrics That Matter
Overview
A college degree or postsecondary certificate is more important than ever, particularly for low-income
students exiting high school and looking to enter the workforce. However, many students, and especially

6
Duncan, Arne. “Toward a New Focus on Outcomes in Higher Education.” Remarks at the University of Maryland—
Baltimore County. 27 July 2015. http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/toward-new-focus-outcomes-higher-
education.
7
Leonhardt, David. “The Most Economically Diverse Top Colleges.” The New York Times, 8 September 2014:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/09/upshot/09up-college-access-index.html?_r=0.
8
underserved students, feel unprepared for the choices they need to make and may not even fully
understand that college is within reach.8
In exploring the metrics that best represent those categories of information, the Department of
Education evaluated all available data sources, from publically available data, including the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), as well as newly produced data from the National
Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)9 and from the Treasury Department’s federal wage records, and non-
federal data sources like the Student Achievement Measure (SAM).10 We identified particular elements
that represent schools that are providing affordable, high-quality educational opportunities, particularly
to students from low-income families.
As detailed below, the elements we selected revealed several exemplar institutions that serve students
well. For example, the graduation rate at Georgia Tech—a predominantly four-year institution located in
Atlanta, Georgia—is in the top 10th percentile of four-year schools (80 percent), with median earnings 10
years after entering the school of more than $74,000. The lowest-income students, at Georgia Tech, pay
an average of $7,364 per year, and nearly one-fifth of students are Pell Grant recipients. A very different
school, State Technical College of Missouri in Linn, Missouri, stands out among predominantly two-year
colleges.11 More than 40 percent of its students receive Pell Grants; the lowest-income students pay
$7,783 per year, on average, and borrow less than half the federal student loan debt of Georgia Tech
graduates; and six years after entry, more than seven in 10 students earn more than the national
average annual earnings for high school graduates aged 25 to 34, exceeding many other two-year
institutions (see Table 1).
Table 1.

Net Price for
the Lowest-
Income /
Highest-
Income
Students
Median
Debt of
Completers
Completion
Rate
Median
Earnings

Share of
Fmr.
Students
Earning
More than
HS Graduate
Share of
Pell
Recipients
Georgia Tech
(Atlanta, GA)
$7,364 /
$14,114
$22,750
80%
$74,000

86%
19%
State Technical
College of Missouri
(Linn, MO)
$7,783 /
$10,382
$10,500
60%
$36,400

71%
42%

8
“Is College Worth It?” Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends, 15 May 2011: http://www.pewsocialtrends.
org/2011/05/15/is-college-worth-it/2/#fn-7679-1.
9
Several of the new NSLDS measures mirror similar measures for Gainful Employment programs, but data are now
available at an institution level for all schools; for instance, the cumulative median loan debt of graduating
students is now being released for all institutions. Newly constructed NSLDS completion and transfer rates and
federal student loan repayment rates are also produced across all institutions.
10
“A New System of College Ratings—Invitation to Comment.” U.S. Department of Education, December 2014:
http://www2.ed.gov/documents/college-affordability/framework-invitation-comment.pdf.
11
This institution was formerly known as Linn State Technical College.
9
Access
The primary goal of the federal student aid system is to provide access to high-quality higher education
for low-income populations. The legacy of the Title IV aid programs rests on the millions of low- and
middle-income students who have successfully completed degrees, found well-paying and rewarding
careers, and can support their families as they pursue their own educational opportunities.12
Recognizing and rewarding institutions that play a critical role in providing educational opportunities to
hard-working, low- and moderate-income students—and noting those that have not succeeded in
ensuring access to low-income students, and/or that have not served low-income students well—is an
important element in examining college performance. Some institutions that admit more Pell Grant
students than others may provide more aid to low-income students, or offer more support to help low-
income students complete their education. On the other hand, schools that fall short in these areas can
negatively impact a student’s chance of completing college and transitioning to the workforce.
Percentage of Pell Students
For the College Scorecard, we measure low-income students’ access to education based on the share
of Pell Grant students that the institution enrolls using IPEDS data. The Pell Grant program, which has
provided grants to low- and moderate-income students since its inception in the 1970s, forms the
cornerstone of efforts to increase access for disadvantaged students. This metric is widely recognized
and understood within the field as a proxy for the financial circumstances of enrolled students and their
families.
Some institutions do well by the disadvantaged students that they do enroll, but serve only a small
number of them. Ivy League schools like Harvard University, Columbia University, and Princeton
University have some of the lowest net prices for students in the bottom two quintiles of family income
($0 to $48,000), low typical loan debt for students, and high graduation rates and earnings. However,
these selective institutions tend to be among those in the bottom 10 percent of all four-year institutions
whose students receive Pell Grants (see Table 2).13
Table 2.

Share of Pell
Recipients
Net Price for the Lowest-
Income Students
Median Debt
of Completers
Completion
Rate
Median
Earnings
Harvard
University
10%
$3,897
$6,000
97%
$87,000
Stanford
University
16%
$3,516
$12,224
95%
$81,000
Columbia
University
22%
$8,086
$19,435
94%
$73,000
Princeton
University
12%
$5,932
$6,810
96%
$75,000

12
Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes the federal loans and grants administered to students by the U.S.
Department of Education.
13
These data measure the outcomes from the most recent cohort available.
10
Many public colleges are pledged to an historic mission of serving low- and moderate-income students,
and some stand out as serving them especially well. For instance, a large share of students at the
University of California—Los Angeles (UCLA) receive Pell Grants (36 percent), and the school has a high
overall cohort graduation rate (91 percent) among first-time, full-time students and below-average debt.
Similarly, about 20 percent of undergraduates at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign receive
Pell Grants, and the school reports excellent outcomes, including an 84 percent completion rate for first-
time, full-time students and median earnings of more than $57,000 10 years after entering the school
(see Table 3).

Table 3.

Pell
Recipients
Net Price for the
Lowest-Income
Students
Median Debt of
Completers
Completion
Rate
Median
Earnings
UCLA
36%
$8,883
$15,900
91%
$59,000
University of
Illinois at
Urbana-
Champaign
20%
$7,954
$20,950
84%
$57,000

Alternative Access Measures
Students can use the College Scorecard to identify schools that serve disadvantaged students. These
student populations, which may be geographically constrained in the locations they can consider, often
have less guidance available to them, may do less research prior to selecting a school, and are
vulnerable to choices that may lead them to enroll in a school with fewer opportunities for them to
succeed.14
The Administration is releasing additional data that can help inform higher education stakeholders
about the quality of educational services those low- and moderate-income students received, which is a
critical component of ensuring equitable access to a high-quality education for all students. Several of
the data elements published through the technical page of the College Scorecard disaggregate key
metrics—completion rate, federal loan repayment rate, and median debt, for instance—by family
income and for Pell Grant recipients. These metrics offer additional details on how well schools serve
specific subgroups, like first-generation or low-income students, rather than simply meeting an average
bar for the entire student population. The disaggregated data may also help schools to identify their
own shortcomings and develop solutions.
The data produced also include disaggregated enrollment information addressing the income
breakdown of federal financial aid recipients at the institution, those who are first-generation students,

14
Fishman, Rachel. “Deciding to Go to College: 2015 College Decisions Survey part 1.” New America, 2015:
https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/3248-deciding-to-go-to-
college/CollegeDecisions_PartI.148dcab30a0e414ea2a52f0d8fb04e7b.pdf.
11
the racial/ethnic makeup of the student body, and more, all of which can provide important evidence of
the degree to which schools serve historically disadvantaged populations. Indeed, these elements can
contribute to a more complete picture of institutional performance.
Affordability
Affording college is one of the concerns at the forefront of students’ and parents’ minds as they explore
the college selection process. Families’ out-of-pocket costs have continued to rise, in part because of the
economic downturn, which precipitated further declining state investments in public higher education.15
In Wisconsin, state higher education appropriations per student as of fiscal year 2014 were reduced
nearly 20 percent since 2008, before the recession. Over the same period, tuition at Wisconsin state
institutions increased by more than 30 percent. Similarly, Florida reduced its per-student appropriations
by 32 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2008 to FY 2014, and tuition rose 53 percent over that time period.16
At the same time, fewer public institutions are helping make up the difference in costs for low-income
students. Many public colleges and universities—including well-resourced ones—are reacting to budget
constraints, contracting enrollment, and college rankings that emphasize spending over outcomes by
diverting their institutional aid to attract high-performing students, which can drive up costs without
improving quality.17
Net Price
The combination of
falling state
investments,
redirected institutional
aid, and rising costs
force many students to
wonder which—if
any—colleges are
worth the cost. But
finding information
about the true costs of
college can be difficult,
and the information
that exists for students
can be misleading.
Prospective students are often presented with a school’s tuition and fees, which can understate the
costs of attendance by excluding the living costs and additional costs of books and other supplies. Other

15
“Out-of-Pocket Net Price for College.” U.S. Department of Education, April 2014:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014902.pdf.
16
“State Higher Education Finance: FY 2014.” State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, April 2015:
http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/SHEF%20FY%202014-20150410.pdf.
17
Burd, Stephen. “Undermining Pell: Volume II.” New America, September 2014:
https://www.newamerica.org/downloads/UnderminingPellVolume2_SBurd_20140917.pdf.
$58,408
$3,516
$40,323
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Cost of Attendance
Net Price for the
Lowest-Income Title
IV Students
Net Price for the
Highest-Income Title
IV Students
Stanford University provides low average costs for
the lowest-income students
Figure 1
12
students may see the full cost of attendance, which may overstate the cost because it does not account
for federal, state, local, or institutional aid—possibly substantial—that students may receive.18
For consumers looking to compare college costs, the best publically available, comparable information
is the net price of the school across students’ income brackets, as it provides a more personalized
number that allows students to better gauge the actual price they will need to pay to attend the school.
These data also help policymakers, researchers, and institutions to identify inequities in the distribution
of need- and merit-based aid. The metric used here captures the total cost of attendance, less federal,
state, local, or institutional aid, for students, based on the income of the student and/or his family, on
average.19 Presenting this information tailored to each student’s income can show that schools they
thought were too expensive may actually be affordable for them. For instance, students who received
federal financial aid at Stanford University and who come from families earning $30,000 per year or less
can expect to pay, on average, $3,516—just a fraction of the overall cost of attendance for the 2012-
2013 academic year ($58,408). Even Title IV-receiving students from families earning over $110,000
annually pay less than the full, posted cost of attendance ($40,323) (see Figure 1).
The Department of Education already helps students understand costs in terms of net price, recognizing
it as the most accurate available measure of what students can actually expect to pay. In 2008, Congress
required institutions of higher education to create net price calculators that generate individualized cost
estimates for the freshman year. 20 The Department’s Net Price Calculator Center compiles the
information from all institutions, allowing students to easily access their top schools’ calculators.
For the purposes of college comparison on the redesigned College Scorecard, the Administration chose
average net price calculated across the five income quintiles, an element reported through the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for every institution and that provides a
reasonable expectation of what Title IV students (those eligible for federal grants and loans) pay. More
detailed institutional pages also offer net price information by income quintile, to help lower-income
students especially get a more accurate sense of their cost of attendance.21 To date, this is the most
consistent and individualized source of information for each school.
Furthermore, the data are listed on the College Scorecard’s profiles for each institution, where students
can weigh the metric side-by-side with other metrics that illuminate such important questions as their
odds of graduating, their prospects in the job market, and the amount of debt they are likely to take on.

18
Low-income students and families, particularly Latino parents, frequently overestimate the costs of college.
“Paving the Way: How Financial Aid Awareness Affects College Access and Success.” The Institute of College Access
and Success, October 2008: http://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/Paving_the_Way.pdf.
19
The net price calculation used on the College Scorecard is derived from a weighted average of the five income
quintiles reported in IPEDS. We have also provided some of the information by income bracket to aid students in
identifying the most granular information possible.
20
Levine, Phillip. “Transparency in College Costs.” Brookings Institution, 12 November 2014:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/11/12-transparency-in-college-costs-levine.
21
Income quintiles are defined as follows: $0-$30,000; $30,001-$48,000; $48,001-$75,000; $75,001-$110,000; and
$110,000 or more.
13
For instance, at Columbia University in New York City, students in the lowest income quintile can expect
to pay an average net price of $8,086 per year. That price is substantially lower in cost than neighboring
institution New York University, where the net price for students in the lowest income quintile is
$25,441. Moreover, Columbia has a completion rate for first-time, full-time students of 94 percent, and
median earnings 10 years after entry of nearly $73,000. At NYU, though outcomes are still relatively
positive, the completion rate is lower at 84 percent, its median earnings average closer to $58,800, and
graduating students carry a similar amount of loan debt at both schools (see Table 4). Knowing that
information, students who are weighing the two schools stand a far better chance of making an
informed, carefully considered decision. With that information, students can be better prepared to
delve deeper into the programs and other specifics of the two schools.

Table 4.

Net Price for the
Lowest-Income
Students
Median Loan
Debt of
Completers
Completion
Rate
Median
Earnings
Columbia University
$8,086
$19,435
94%
$73,000
NYU
$25,441
$23,250
84%
$58,800

It is also crucial to note that the total cost of attending and graduating from college depends largely on
the number of years a student takes to complete. If a student takes longer to graduate, and pays for
more credits or terms, he will face higher costs than a more efficient completer. An $8,000 per year
bachelor’s degree program that takes six years to complete still costs more in the end ($48,000) than a
$10,000 per year, bachelor’s degree program in which most students complete on time ($40,000),
despite a $2,000 additional annual cost. Given that most students who default on their federal student
loans are those who never complete a degree22, a marginal additional cost each year to attend an
institution that provides substantially greater academic supports and has higher completion rates and
employment outcomes is one that may be a wiser choice for many students.
Borrowing and Debt
The Administration has also worked to reduce the burden of student loan debt. The Financial Aid
Shopping Sheet is designed to help students disentangle the types and amount of loans the typical
student can expect to borrow each year. The interest rate reform that the Administration signed into
law has resulted in lower interest rates on federal undergraduate student loans. And reforms and
expansions to income-based repayment options, like the establishment of Pay As You Earn to limit loan
payments to 10 percent of a borrower’s income over 20 years, will help make loan payments more
affordable, particularly for low- and middle-income alumni.
Students and families can and should consider their expected levels of indebtedness when searching for
and selecting a school. While federal student loans enable millions of students to enroll in and complete

22
McCann, Clare. “College completion is the best default aversion.” The Hill, 13 October 2014:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/220532-college-completion-is-the-best-default-aversion.
14
higher education, excessive amounts of debt should serve as a warning to students. In a consumer-
facing college selection tool, the debt levels students who borrow can expect to bear through
graduation, and the payments they can expect to owe each month thereafter, along with information on
these other metrics, are relevant.
The College Scorecard site includes the median debt of graduates from each institution who borrow,
and the typical monthly payments due on that debt level, based on a 10-year repayment plan, though
payments could be lower on an income-driven or another repayment plan. The Department previously
reported debt of all former students, which may perversely make an institution appear more affordable
if its students are less likely to persist. Knowing the full debt typically required of borrowers to earn a
college degree, rather than just the cost of taking classes that fall short of a degree, provides a more
realistic picture of affordability to students. Details of student debt—presented as the overall loan
balance borrowed and as monthly payments—are included for each institution.
In addition, the College Scorecard’s technical page includes even more information about the debt levels
of students who borrow at each institution, including the total median debt that incorporates data for
both borrower completers and non-completers. The data are disaggregated in several ways, including
family income, first-generation status, and Pell Grant recipient status. The new information will provide
additional nuance to researchers, counselors, and advocates exploring the borrowing behaviors at a
school to help hold institutions to high standards across all of the students they serve.23

Clear information on debt is essential as students consider their choices. For instance, at the
predominantly two-year Bellevue College outside Seattle, Washington, graduates who take out loans
typically leave with just $12,224 in federal student loan debt—about $136 per month in monthly
payments; and the institution has a completion rate of about 26 percent and median earnings of nearly
$42,000. But at the neighboring ITT Technical Institute in Seattle, a two-year, for-profit institution,
students take on far more debt for similar completion rates (37 percent) and post-school earnings
($42,500). Debt levels for ITT Tech students total around $27,833 for students who graduate, or about
$309 per month in student loan payments—more than twice what Bellevue students owe after
completing with similar post-school outcomes (see Table 5). The College Scorecard will help students to
evaluate their expected federal student loan debt against the payoffs of attending the school.

Table 5.

Share of students
borrowing federal loans
Median loan
debt
Completion
rate
Median
earnings
Bellevue College
10%
$12,224
($136)
26%
$41,300

23
One element that we are unable to provide at this time is the amount of private student loan debt that students
take on per institution. These loans frequently offer less-generous terms for students who fall on hard times or
find their degree cannot bear its own weight in the job market; and they may have much higher interest rates or
require a credit check that many undergraduates are unlikely to pass. Data on private student loan borrowing can
offer an important measure of students’ expected financial health upon leaving the school.
15
ITT Technical Institute-
Seattle
75%
$27,833
($309)
37%
$42,500
Outcomes
We received hundreds of comments and spoken testimony suggesting particular elements we should
examine to determine a student’s success. One of the driving factors in announcing the College
Scorecard project was the concern that too many students have their futures shortchanged because
they attend schools that do not serve them well—either because the institution doesn’t get the student
to graduation, or because the student completes the course of study but finds their credential or degree
is not valued in the labor market—and then are left saddled with debt but with few opportunities. These
considerations should be a major factor in students’ college choices. At 53 percent of institutions, more
than half of alumni are not even earning more than a typical high school graduate within six years after
starting at the school.24
Completion Rate
One widely recognized metric of student success is the rate at which students are able to earn their
degrees. Student borrowers who fail to obtain a degree are three times as likely to default on their
federal student loans, and are less likely to find well-paying jobs, than those who complete their
programs.25 Completion rates are helpful indicators of institutional quality for students, families, and
researchers. Furthermore, for subgroups of students, such as first-generation and low-income students,
completion rates can help determine how well the school is supporting its neediest populations.
The Administration has taken major steps to highlight the importance of completion on improving
students’ ultimate outcomes. The Department of Education has proposed and implemented a number
of reforms that incent institutions and other higher education partners to emphasize the importance of
college completion through proven, evidence-based strategies and interventions. For instance, the,
Administration’s First in the World program, as well as the 2015 TRIO Student Support Services grant
competition, emphasize the importance of completion. Both competitions have helped to identify
interventions that show positive outcomes, and that meet standards for high levels of evidence,
suggesting they can have a real impact on students’ likelihood of finishing their degrees. America’s
College Promise, proposed by the Department of Education in its fiscal year 2016 budget request, would
encourage and support state and institutional efforts to improve student outcomes through, for
example, requiring community colleges to adopt promising and evidence-based institutional reforms
and innovative practices to improve student outcomes. In addition, the Administration has proposed
reforms to campus-based student aid programs, which would target those institutions that enroll and
graduate higher numbers of Pell-eligible students, and offer affordable and quality education and
training such that graduates can obtain employment and repay their educational debt. And in the
Department’s Gainful Employment regulations, we recognized that “it is important to hold institutions

24
This percentage defines the institution at the six-digit OPE ID level, and includes any institution with Treasury
data, regardless of predominant degree type or other characteristics.
25
“Fact Sheet: Focusing Higher Education on Student Success.” U.S. Department of Education, 27 July 2015:
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-focusing-higher-education-student-success.
16
accountable for the outcomes of students who do not complete a GE program,” and are requiring
institutions to disclose the completion rates for any of their programs covered by the regulation.26
Institutions themselves are also generating many new strategies to support student completion. The
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) program implemented by the City University of New
York (CUNY) is one example. CUNY’s educational model provides additional resources and supports to
help community college students attend school full time, through funding the cost of attendance and
through enhanced advising efforts. Rigorous studies have shown that students participating in the ASAP
program earned more credits, graduated at nearly twice the rate of completion, and transferred to four-
year degree programs at higher rates than similar students at the institution.
It is important to consider what a graduation rate does and does not tell a student about a school. For a
school at which programs are typically of short duration—such as six or nine months—the graduation
rate may be higher than at a school that typically confers four-year degrees, where the time
commitment to graduate is significantly higher. But a four-year degree typically also has higher pay-offs
than short-term programs.
Both shorter- and longer-duration programs can be right for some students, and the graduation rate
tells students what share of their peers finish the programs offered at that school. However, graduation
rates must be considered alongside other contextual information, such as the kinds of programs or
degrees offered and the employment outcomes of individuals who go to those schools. Importantly,
many less-than-two-year schools have high completion rates but poor labor market outcomes. This
suggests that the credentials or degrees offered by a school do not necessarily help them in the job
market. Consider, for example, Golf Academy of America, which offers online or brick-and-mortar
options for associate’s degrees in Golf Complex Operations and Management. Despite a completion rate
of 85 percent at the school’s Myrtle Beach, South Carolina location, median earnings 10 years after
entering the program fall barely above that of the average high school graduate at $26,400 (see Table
6).
Table 6.

Median Loan Debt of
Completers
Completion Rate
Median Earnings
Golf Academy of America $19,000
85 %
$26,400

Similarly, schools that serve large numbers of disadvantaged students may have lower completion rates
than schools that may be less accessible to those students. That does not necessarily mean that
disadvantaged students are better served in less-accessible schools, however. In this case, the
graduation rate data should be considered alongside data that provide insight into how accessible and
successful the school is for disadvantaged students.

26
Program Integrity: Gainful Employment; Final Rule. 34 Fed. Reg. Parts 600 and 668 (October 31, 2014): 64928.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-10-31/pdf/2014-25594.pdf.
17
The most commonly referenced completion rates are those reported to IPEDS and are included on the
College Scorecard (measuring completion within 150 percent, or six years, for predominantly four-year
colleges; and within four years for predominantly two- or less-than-two-year schools). However, they
rely on a school’s population of full-time students who are enrolled in college for the first-time. This is
increasingly divergent from the profile of the typical college student, particularly at many two-year
institutions and some four-year schools. For instance, Marylhurst University in Oregon, a four-year
institution that has been recognized for serving adult students, reportedly had a 23 percent, six-year
completion rate – namely because a very small subset of its students (just one percent) fall in the first-
time, full-time cohort used to calculate completion rates. As with many schools that serve students who
already have some college experience, this rate is, therefore, hardly representative of the school’s
student body.
The Department also considered, as described in the December 2014 Framework for the College
Scorecard project, external efforts to improve the measurement of completion rates to include more
students.27 While the Department is not including those data on the site, in part because the data are
submitted voluntarily, these initiatives have helped to inform our work and other efforts in the field and
should continue to be a part of the conversation on measuring institutional performance.
The Department has previously announced plans to work with colleges and universities to improve the
graduation rates measured by the IPEDS system. Beginning in 2016, colleges will begin reporting
completion rates for the other subsets of their students: first-time, part-time students; non-first-time,
full-time students; and non-first-time, part-time students. In the meantime, by using data on federal
financial aid recipients that the Department maintains in the National Student Loan Data System
(NSLDS) for the purposes of distributing federal grants and loans, we constructed completion rates of all
students receiving Title IV aid at each institution. For many institutions, Title IV completion rates are
likely more representative of the student body than IPEDS completion rates – about 70 percent of all
graduating postsecondary students receive federal Pell Grants and/or federal loans.
Given concerns about the quality of historical data, these NSLDS completion rates are provided on the
technical page, rather than on the College Scorecard itself.28 We also produced and published, on the
technical site, information on the completion rates of subgroups of Title IV students collected in NSLDS,

27
For instance, the Framework document said that “in a future iteration of college ratings, the Department may
allow institutions to voluntarily submit their Student Achievement Measure (SAM) completion/transfer rate…” The
Student Achievement Measure is a system of voluntary completion and transfer rate reporting that encompasses
non-first-time, -full-time students as well as first-time, full-time students.
28
We identified some gaps in reporting from institutions of higher education that suggest those rates are not fully
accurate. Prior to a 2012 Dear Colleague Letter from the Department of Education, institutions were not required
to report enrollment and completion information for Pell Grant students or student loan recipients; therefore, the
reporting for those students is often spotty, and the rates may be less representative. For instance, Harvard
University has a reported six-year graduation rate for Pell Grant students of just 37 percent—implausibly low,
particularly given an 80 percent completion rate for all of its Title IV students. The Department plans to rerun the
data during the first year to permit institutions time to update their historical reporting.
18
including low-income students and first-generation students. These rates can help schools to identify
gaps in their support of students, benchmark with other schools serving similar student populations, and
improve the outcomes of populations within their schools that may need additional assistance to
complete college.
Transfer Rates
The Administration also believes it is important that the College Scorecard address students who
transfer to a higher degree program. Many students receive great value in attending a two-year
institution first, and eventually transferring to a four-year college to obtain their bachelor’s degrees. In
many cases, the transfer students do not formally complete the two-year program and so do not receive
an associate degree prior to transferring. When done well, with articulation agreements that allow
students to transfer their credits, this pathway can be an affordable and important way for students to
receive four-year degrees. In particular, according to a recent report from the National Center of
Education Statistics (NCES), students were best able to transfer credits when they moved from two-year
to four-year institutions, compared with horizontal and reverse transfers.29
The Obama Administration has taken steps to ensure that strong pathways exist between two- and four-
year institutions. The First in the World program encourages the development of articulation and
transfer agreements between two- and four-year institutions. The proposed America’s College Promise
initiative would provide a matching grant to states that agree to strengthen articulation and transfer
agreements to ensure that every student has access to a free community college education, and an
opportunity to transfer credits to a four-year-school, among other things.
To measure the successes of institutions that support students to transfer to higher degree programs,
we calculated transfer rates for Title IV-receiving students who moved on from two-year to four-year
colleges using a methodology similar to the NSLDS completion rates. Those data are included on the
data and technical site of the College Scorecard.30
Labor Market Outcomes
The Department has developed, and made available for the first time, data on the post-school earnings
of federal student aid recipients. Included within this new set is data disaggregated by students’ pre-
college family income, which may provide additional information concerning economic mobility for
students at the institution.31

29
“Transferability of Postsecondary Credit Following Student Transfer or Coenrollment.” National Center for
Education Statistics, August 2014: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014163.pdf.
30
We hope to be able to produce those figures for consumers after correcting for the same reporting limitations as
exist for the completion rates.
31
While it is not feasible for the Department to provide an analysis of the direct impact an institution has on a
former student’s earnings by looking at his individual earnings before and after attending the school,
disaggregating post-enrollment earnings by a student’s family income, as reported on the FAFSA to determine the
student’s eligibility for student aid, allows researchers, policymakers, institutions, and others to see if the
institution was able to contribute to the student’s upward social mobility. It is important to note that considering
upward social mobility may be an important factor in assessing how well a school serves its students, but it does

20
of whether the student completed the program. This measure was created of the belief that all colleges
should be able to provide benefit to students beyond just a high school degree. The measure identifies
schools with low performance—where few students earn above the threshold—but is less useful in
distinguishing the labor market outcomes among higher-performing schools. However, it serves a
particular purpose: to help prospective students identify whether they can realistically expect that
attending this school will provide a minimum level of employment and afford them value above and
beyond a high school diploma. At the same time, prospective students need to consider any projected
income increases against the higher-education debt that they will be repaying.
At some schools, the data suggest that students cannot expect that a college certificate or degree will
create an earnings premium. For instance, at Midwest Institute in Fenton, Missouri, barely 30 percent of
students earn more than a typical high school graduate within six years after entering the school. Those
students fare similarly poorly on other measures of post-school outcomes; they have a fairly low student
loan repayment rate of 36 percent, despite a median debt of completers of less than $10,000. However,
at the nearby State Technical College of Missouri, fully 71 percent of former students earned more than
a high school graduate within six years of enrolling; the median loan of graduating students is relatively
low at $10,500; and 83 percent of former students are making progress on repaying their loans at the
three-year mark after leaving school (see Figure 2).33 These data can provide valuable information on
the immediate earnings
potential of students at the
school.
We also produced a long-
term earnings measure,
which depicts the median
earnings of students 10
years after entry into the
school—regardless of
whether the student
completed a degree or
certificate.34 This measure
provides more detailed
information about the
earnings of former
students as they expand

33
This institution was formerly known as Linn State Technical College.
34
This measure of median earnings 10 years after entry accompanies another, shorter-term (threshold) earnings
measure. For programs not necessarily designed to lead directly to employment and/or a career—for example,
liberal arts programs—a longer-term measure may provide a better sense of the eventual payoff for students. For
programs meant to lead directly to gainful employment, it is critical to look at earnings closer to the time the
student completed the program to ensure the student is making enough money to pay off the debts he
accumulated to attend the program.
$0
$15,000
$30,000
$45,000
Colorado State University--Fort
Collins
Art Institute of Colorado
Students must weigh the tradeoffs of costs and
labor market outcomes
Net price for the lowest-income students
Median earnings
Figure 3
20
of whether the student completed the program. This measure was created of the belief that all colleges
should be able to provide benefit to students beyond just a high school degree. The measure identifies
schools with low performance—where few students earn above the threshold—but is less useful in
distinguishing the labor market outcomes among higher-performing schools. However, it serves a
particular purpose: to help prospective students identify whether they can realistically expect that
attending this school will provide a minimum level of employment and afford them value above and
beyond a high school diploma. At the same time, prospective students need to consider any projected
income increases against the higher-education debt that they will be repaying.
At some schools, the data suggest that students cannot expect that a college certificate or degree will
create an earnings premium. For instance, at Midwest Institute in Fenton, Missouri, barely 30 percent of
students earn more than a typical high school graduate within six years after entering the school. Those
students fare similarly poorly on other measures of post-school outcomes; they have a fairly low student
loan repayment rate of 36 percent, despite a median debt of completers of less than $10,000. However,
at the nearby State Technical College of Missouri, fully 71 percent of former students earned more than
a high school graduate within six years of enrolling; the median loan of graduating students is relatively
low at $10,500; and 83 percent of former students are making progress on repaying their loans at the
three-year mark after leaving school (see Figure 2).33 These data can provide valuable information on
the immediate earnings
potential of students at the
school.
We also produced a long-
term earnings measure,
which depicts the median
earnings of students 10
years after entry into the
school—regardless of
whether the student
completed a degree or
certificate.34 This measure
provides more detailed
information about the
earnings of former
students as they expand

33
This institution was formerly known as Linn State Technical College.
34
This measure of median earnings 10 years after entry accompanies another, shorter-term (threshold) earnings
measure. For programs not necessarily designed to lead directly to employment and/or a career—for example,
liberal arts programs—a longer-term measure may provide a better sense of the eventual payoff for students. For
programs meant to lead directly to gainful employment, it is critical to look at earnings closer to the time the
student completed the program to ensure the student is making enough money to pay off the debts he
accumulated to attend the program.
$0
$15,000
$30,000
$45,000
Colorado State University--Fort
Collins
Art Institute of Colorado
Students must weigh the tradeoffs of costs and
labor market outcomes
Net price for the lowest-income students
Median earnings
Figure 3
21
their job skills and build their careers. For instance, at Colorado State University (CSU)—Fort Collins,
median earnings of alumni total about $44,300 ten years after entering. In contrast, at the nearby for-
profit Art Institute of Colorado, students pay thousands more ($24,863 for the lowest-income students
at Art Institute compared