This article reflects on the major themes that emerge in the studies presented in this volume, concentrating on implications for federal policy and future research. We emphasize that for future federal policy to be successful, it will need to be revamped in ways that are relatively nuanced, encouraging (among other things) enrollment and persistence to degree completion among students who might not otherwise take loans or go to college, protecting taxpayers and students against investments in low-performing colleges, making federal loan programs more understandable to students who need them, and reducing the risks of student loan nonrepayment. For future research we make numerous recommendations, including calls for attention to debt aversion, income-based loan repayment, and the effects of borrowing on a broad range of student outcomes.
DynarskiSusan. 2016. The trouble with student loans? Low earnings, not high debt. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Available from https://www.brookings.edu.
FullerMatthew B.2014. A history of financial aid to students. Journal of Student Financial Aid44:42–68.
11.
GladieuxLawrencePernaLaura W.2005. Borrowers who drop out: A neglected aspect of the college student loan trend. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
12.
GrossJacob P. K.CekicOsmanHosslerDonHillmanNicholas. 2010. What matters in student loan default: A review of the research literature. Journal of Student Financial Aid39:19–29.
13.
HellerDonald E.2008. The impact of loans on student access. In Student aid policies: What the research tells us, eds. BaumSandyMcPhersonMichaelSteelePatricia, 39–68. New York, NY: College Board.
14.
HillmanNicholas W.2014. College on credit: A multilevel analysis of student loan default. Review of Higher Education37:169–95.
15.
HillmanNicholas W.2016. Designing and assessing risk-sharing models for federal student aid. Working Paper, Wisconsin Center for Advancement of Postsecondary Education, Madison, WI.
16.
HoxbyCarolineTurnerSarah. 2013. Expanding college opportunities for high-achieving, low income students. Discussion Paper 12-014. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
17.
HurwitzMichaelSmith.Jonathan2016. Student responsiveness to earnings data in the College Scorecard. Unpublished manuscript.
LucaMichaelSmithJonathan. 2013. Salience in quality disclosure: Evidence from theU.S. News college rankings. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy22:58–77.
20.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2015. Digest of education statistics, Table 326.10. Washington, DC: NCES.
21.
PaulsenMichael. 2001. The economics of the public sector: The nature and role of public policy in the finance of higher education. In The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy and practice, eds. PaulsenMichaelSmartJohn C., 95–132. New York, NY: Agathan Press.
22.
PernaLaura W.2006. Studying college choice: A proposed conceptual model. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. XXI, ed. SmartJohn C., 99–157. New York, NY: Springer.
23.
PernaLaura W.2010. Understanding the working college student: New research and its implications for policy and practice. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing.
24.
PernaLaura W., Kata Orosz, and Daniel Kent. 10November2016. The role of research in congressional hearings to inform the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Columbus, OH.
25.
SeiraEnriqueElizondoAlanLaguna-MuggenburgEduardo. 2017. Are information disclosures effective? Evidence from the credit card market. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy9:277–307.
26.
ShapiroDougDundarAfetWakhunguPhoebe KhasialaYuanXinNathanAngelHwangYoungsik. 2016. Completing college: A national view of student attainment rates—fall 2010 cohort. Signature Report No. 12. Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
27.
SmithZakiya.2016. Exploring the increased role of federal executive branch policy-making for higher education through lenses of the policy process. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, Philadelphia, PA.
28.
StevensMitchell L.Gebre-MedhinBen. 2016. Association, service, market: Higher education in American political development. Annual Review of Sociology42:121–42.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2016. Federal student loans: Education needs to improve its income-driven repayment plan budget estimates. Washington, DC: GAO. Available from http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681064.pdf.
31.
U.S. Department of Education. 2015. Fact sheet: Obama administration increased accountability for low-performing for-profit institutions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://www.ed.gov.
32.
U.S. Department of Education. 2016. Fact sheet: Department of Education announces efforts to strengthen loan counseling to help borrowers manage their debt. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://www.ed.gov.
WooJennie H.VelezEric D.SimoneSean A.2016. Use of private loans by postsecondary students: Select years 2003–04 through 2011–12. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017420.pdf.
36.
ZumetaWilliamBrenemanDavid W.CallanPatrick M.FinneyJoni. 2012. Financing American higher education in the era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
