Tag: Demographics

  • How Demographics Could Elevate the Political Stakes of Student Loan Debt in 2028 and Beyond

    How Demographics Could Elevate the Political Stakes of Student Loan Debt in 2028 and Beyond

    Student loan debt has been a defining economic and political issue in the United States for over a decade. As of 2025, Americans owe nearly $1.8 trillion in student loans, with roughly 42–45 million borrowers carrying federal debt and average balances exceeding $39,000 per borrower. Delinquency rates have surged since repayment reporting resumed, with more than one in five borrowers behind on payments, and millions at risk of default. These financial pressures are now rippling through credit markets and household budgets, especially for younger, middle-aged, and lower-income borrowers. While student debt already garners public attention, shifting demographic trends and mounting economic pressures promise to reshape its political weight in the coming years unless comprehensive changes are enacted.

    The largest cohort of student borrowers today consists of Millennials and older members of Generation Z, many aged between 25 and 45. These are prime years for political engagement, as individuals are more likely to vote, form households, buy homes, and shape community priorities. In 2028, this group will be even more politically active, navigating careers, families, and fiscal pressures that student debt directly influences. As borrowers age into life stages where financial stability becomes paramount, their appetite for political solutions — including forgiveness, refinancing, and more manageable repayment structures — is likely to intensify.

    Student loan debt also affects communities differently. Black and Latinx borrowers are disproportionately burdened, with Black borrowers often owing more and struggling with repayment longer due to structural inequities in income and wealth. These disparities will continue to grow unless systemic reforms address not just debt levels but the economic systems that compound them over time. Communities of color are projected to constitute a larger share of the eligible electorate by 2030, and when a disproportionate share of voters in a given demographic faces an issue like unsustainable debt, it naturally becomes central to their political priorities and shapes the platforms of candidates seeking their support.

    Older Americans are impacted by student loan dynamics not necessarily as borrowers themselves, but as co-signers, parents, or caregivers helping children or grandchildren manage debt. With the U.S. population aging, the 65+ age group is expected to grow as a portion of the electorate, and those over 80 will increasingly drive Medicaid and healthcare costs, adding strain to federal and state budgets. Older voters tend to vote at higher rates than younger voters, and as more families find multigenerational debt obligations weighing on retirement savings, caregiving responsibilities, and healthcare needs, the political urgency around student loan reform may expand beyond traditional “student” demographics and into older voters’ policy concerns.

    Geographic and economic shifts also shape the political significance of student debt. States with high education costs, and correspondingly high average debt loads, may see student loan issues become central to local and statewide elections. Migration patterns bringing younger, more diverse populations to new regions — including parts of the South and Midwest — will likely influence electoral alignments and policy debates in competitive districts. Meanwhile, national concerns such as the growing federal debt, ongoing military engagements abroad, and rising costs associated with healthcare for an aging population amplify the stakes, creating competing pressures on policymakers who must balance debt relief against broader fiscal challenges.

    Economic inequality further complicates the picture. The concentration of wealth among the richest Americans continues to grow, giving this group greater political influence and shaping policy priorities in ways that often conflict with the needs of student borrowers and middle-class families. As wealth and power accumulate at the top, voters carrying student debt may increasingly perceive systemic unfairness, heightening the political salience of debt relief and broader structural reforms. The interaction of these factors — persistent debt, rising national obligations, ongoing conflict, and economic inequality — suggests that student loans will remain intertwined with larger national debates over fiscal responsibility, social safety nets, and the distribution of economic power.

    Student loan debt has already become a wedge issue in national politics, especially within Democratic primaries. The demographic shifts of the late 2020s, rising diversity, coupled economic pressures, and growing awareness of wealth inequality could make it a central concern for a broader slice of the electorate. Policymakers who ignore student debt risk alienating key voter blocs: younger voters whose turnout matters in swing states, communities of color with growing electoral influence, and middle-class families navigating financial strain alongside broader economic and geopolitical uncertainties.

    The economic impact of outstanding student loan debt, from delayed homeownership to depressed small business formation, carries demographic implications that feed back into the political sphere. If current trends continue, the cost of inaction will not just be political but economic, affecting national growth rates, tax revenue, social programs, and inequality metrics that in turn shape voter sentiment and policy priorities.

    Student Debt and the Shifting Political Landscape

    By 2028 and into the 2030s, demographic change is poised to elevate student loan debt from a pressing public concern to a core political battleground unless policymakers act proactively. With more borrowers entering key voting blocs, disproportionate impacts across racial and economic lines, and economic consequences rippling through communities of all ages, student loan debt is more than a financial issue: it is a demographic reality shaping the future of American politics.

    Sadly, the Higher Education Inquirer will not be around to cover these developments as they unfold. HEI has made predictions about student debt and its political consequences in the past, and while nothing is set in stone, the combination of rising demographics, persistent economic inequality, the mounting national debt, ongoing war-related obligations, and pressures from an aging population does not paint a promising picture. Without major policy reforms — such as targeted debt relief, changes to repayment systems, or broader higher education financing reforms — the political salience of student debt is likely to intensify, influencing campaigns, elections, and national discourse for years to come.

    Sources

    Education Data Initiative, “Student Loan Debt Statistics 2025,” educationdata.org
    TransUnion, “May 2025 Student Loan Update,” newsroom.transunion.com
    Forbes, “Student Loans for 64 Million Borrowers Are Heading Toward a Dangerous Cliff,” forbes.com
    College Board, “Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2025,” research.collegeboard.org
    LendingTree, “Student Loan Debt Statistics by State,” lendingtree.com
    NerdWallet, “Student Loan Debt Statistics 2025,” nerdwallet.com

    Source link

  • Understanding Incoming College Student Demographics

    Understanding Incoming College Student Demographics

    Anecdotally, higher education practitioners frequently share challenges and changes with today’s college students, but how unique are the incoming learners of the Class of 2029?

    A February report published by the American Council on Education and the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, found the incoming class of college students is more diverse than past classes in terms of race, sexuality and socioeconomic standing.  

    According to the CIRP Freshman Survey 2024, some demographic groups are less likely to say they’re confident in their academic abilities and that they encounter mental health struggles, highlighting ongoing need to support students with their personal and academic development in higher education.

    “This report gives institutional leaders a clear view of today’s first-year students—their backgrounds, aspirations, and challenges—so they can better support learner success,” said Hironao Okahana, vice president and executive director of ACE’s Education Futures Lab, in a February press release. “Centering student experiences in higher education policy and practice is essential, and these findings help colleges and universities create environments where all students can thrive.”

    Methodology

    The survey, conducted between April 14 and Oct. 10, 2024, includes data from 24,367 incoming students across 55 colleges and universities.

    Demographics: Over half of respondents (50.8 percent) identify as white, but significant portions are students of color, including more than one race (14.8 percent), Asian and Pacific Islander (14.6 percent), Hispanic or Latino (11.0 percent), or Black and African American (7.7 percent). Around 1 percent of respondents are American Indian or Alaska Native.

    Nearly 10 percent of surveyed students reported English was not their primary language, and almost half of those learners are U.S. citizens.

    A majority of respondents indicated they are heterosexual (82.3 percent), but the next-greatest share identify as bisexual (8.5 percent).

    Nineteen percent of respondents were classified as low-income, defined in this study as having a family income of less than $60,000. First-generation students (those whose parents or guardians had no college experience) made up 12.4 percent of all students and one-third of the low-income group.

    Eight percent of respondents were military-affiliated, and these learners made up 3 percent of the low-income group.

    College prep: Nearly all students took three years of math in high school, but those from higher-income backgrounds were more likely to have completed advanced mathematics courses and Advanced Placement courses.

    Women (66.8 percent) were less likely than men to see themselves as having strong academic ability, compared to their male peers (75.8 percent) and those who indicated another gender identity (72.3 percent). Similarly, female students were less likely to say they have above-average intellect, compared to men and others.

    Despite that lack of self-confidence, women were more likely to report earning A’s in high school (78 percent) compared to men (72 percent) and other gender minorities (72 percent). Women and nonbinary students were also more likely to say they felt challenged by their coursework frequently (34.9 percent and 36.2 percent, respectively).

    Over half of students studied at least six hours per week, but first-generation students were less likely to study for six hours per week, compared to their continuing-generation peers. First-generation college students were also slightly more likely to work for pay at least six hours per week at 41.3 percent versus 38.6 percent.

    Around one-third of students socialized with their friends for at least six hours per week, on trend with national data that suggests Gen Z spends less time with friends compared to previous generations.

    Personal struggles: Mental health concerns have risen among young people nationally, and many incoming college students indicate feelings of being overwhelmed or depressed. Nonbinary students were most likely to report feeling anxious, stressed or depressed, and women were slightly more likely than men to share mental health concerns.

    “When asked how they compare with their peers on emotional health, men showed the most confidence; 48.5 percent rated themselves as above average or in the top 10 percent,” according to the report. “By contrast, only 35.2 percent of women and just 16.6 percent of students who identified outside of the gender binary rated themselves as above average or in the top 10 percent.”

    Around half of students indicated they had at least some chance of using mental health services offered at their institution.

    Financial stress continues to weigh on students, with over half (56.4 percent) expressing some or major concern about paying for college. Latino (81.4 percent) and Black students (69.6 percent) were more likely to say this was true. Sixty percent of Latino students, over half of American Indian or Alaska Native, and half of Black students utilize Pell Grants to fund their education, and each of these groups also relied on work-study funding for their education costs at higher rates than their peers.

    However, many students believe in the economic value of a college education, despite the financial barriers to access.

    Politics: For the first time, the survey asked students if they considered state policies and legislation to be important to their college decision. One-third of men and almost 40 percent of women considered politics and legislation to be at least somewhat important of where to go to college, compared to 56 percent of their nonbinary peers. LGBTQ students (48 percent) also weighed this factor as important more than their peers.

    The Class of 2029 is also civically engaged, with one-quarter of respondents indicating that they frequently or occasionally have demonstrated for a cause and one-third of respondents having publicly communicate their opinion about a cause. LGBTQ students were more likely to agree with these statements.

    Military-affiliated students also reported high levels of community engagement, such as volunteering and voting.

    Across the U.S., diversity, equity and inclusion work has become more controversial, but respondents still indicate a care for social equity. A majority of college students believe racial discrimination is still a major problem in the U.S., with students of color more likely than their white peers to share this opinion. Many students expressed an interest in correcting social inequalities and gender equity.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Across All Ages & Demographics, Test Results Show Americans Are Getting Dumber – The 74

    Across All Ages & Demographics, Test Results Show Americans Are Getting Dumber – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    There’s no way to sugarcoat it: Americans have been getting dumber.

    Across a wide range of national and international tests, grade levels and subject areas, American achievement scores peaked about a decade ago and have been falling ever since. 

    Will the new NAEP scores coming out this week show a halt to those trends? We shall see. But even if those scores indicate a slight rebound off the COVID-era lows, policymakers should seek to understand what caused the previous decade’s decline. 

    There’s a lot of blame to go around, from cellphones and social media to federal accountability policies. But before getting into theories and potential solutions, let’s start with the data.

    Until about a decade ago, student achievement scores were rising. Researchers at Education Next found those gains were broadly shared across racial and economic lines, and achievement gaps were closing. But then something happened, and scores started to fall. Worse, they fell faster for lower-performing students, and achievement gaps started to grow.

    This pattern shows up on test after test. Last year, we looked at eighth grade math scores and found growing achievement gaps in 49 of 50 states, the District of Columbia and 17 out of 20 large cities with sufficient data.

    But it’s not just math, and it’s not just NAEP. The American Enterprise Institute’s Nat Malkus has documented the same trend in reading, history and civics. Tests like NWEA’s MAP Growth and Curriculum Associates’ i-Ready are showing it too. And, as Malkus found in a piece released late last year, this is a uniquely American problem. The U.S. now leads the world in achievement gap growth.

    What’s going on? How can students here get back on track? Malkus addresses these questions in a new report out last week and makes the point that any honest reckoning with the causes and consequences of these trends must account for the timing, scope and magnitude of the changes.

    Theory #1: It’s accountability

    As I argued last year, my top explanation has been the erosion of federal accountability policies. In 2011 and 2012, the Obama administration began issuing waivers to release states from the most onerous requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Congress made those policies permanent in the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act. That timing fits, and it makes sense that easing up on accountability, especially for low-performing students, led to achievement declines among those same kids.

    However,  there’s one problem with this explanation: American adults appear to be suffering from similar achievement declines. In results that came out late last year, the average scores of Americans ages 16 to 65 fell in both literacy and numeracy on the globally administered Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. 

    And even among American adults, achievement gaps are growing. The exam’s results are broken down into six performance levels. On the numeracy portion, for example, the share of Americans scoring at the two highest levels rose two points, from 10% to 12%, while the percentage of those at the bottom two levels rose from 29% to 34%. In literacy, the percentage of Americans scoring at the top two levels fell from 14% to 13%, while the lowest two levels rose from 19% to 28%. 

    These results caused Peggy Carr, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, to comment, “There’s a dwindling middle in the United States in terms of skills.” Carr could have made the same comment about K-12 education —  except that these results can’t be explained by school-related causes.

    Theory #2: It’s the phones

    The rise of smartphones and social media, and the decline in reading for pleasure, could be contributing to these achievement declines. Psychologist Jean Twenge pinpointed 2012 as the first year when more than half of Americans owned a smartphone, which is about when achievement scores started to decline. This theory also does a better job of explaining why Americans of all ages are scoring lower on achievement tests.

    But there are some holes in this explanation. For one, why are some of the biggest declines seen in the youngest kids? Are that many 9-year-olds on Facebook or Instagram? Second, why are the lowest performers suffering the largest declines in achievement? Attention deficits induced by phones and screens should affect all students in similar ways, and yet the pattern shows the lowest performers are suffering disproportionately large drops.

    But most fundamentally, why is this mostly a U.S. trend? Smartphones and social media are global phenomena, and yet scores in Australia, England, Italy, Japan and Sweden have all risen over the last decade. A couple of other countries have seen some small declines (like Finland and Denmark), but no one has else seen declines like we’ve had here in the States.

    Other theories: Immigration, school spending or the Common Core

    Other theories floating around have at least some kernels of truth. Immigration trends could explain some portion of the declines, although it’s not clear why those would be affecting scores only now. The Fordham Institute’s Mike Petrilli has partly blamed America’s “lost decade” on economic factors, but school spending has rebounded sharply in recent years without similar gains in achievement. Others, including historian Diane Ravitch and the Pioneer Institute’s Theodor Rebarber, blame the shift to the Common Core state standards, which was happening about the same time. But non-Common Core states suffered similar declines, and scores have also dropped in non-Common Core subjects.

    Note that COVID is not part of my list. It certainly exacerbated achievement declines and reset norms within schools, but achievement scores were already falling well before it hit America’s shores.

    Instead of looking for one culprit, it could be a combination of these factors. It could be that the rise in technology is diminishing Americans’ attention spans and stealing their focus from books and other long-form written content. Meanwhile, schools have been de-emphasizing basic skills, easing up on behavioral expectations and making it easier to pass courses. At the same time, policymakers in too many parts of the country have stopped holding schools accountable for the performance of all students.

    That’s a potent mix of factors that could explain these particular problems. It would be helpful to have more research to pinpoint problems and solutions, but if this diagnosis is correct, it means students, teachers, parents and policymakers all have a role to play in getting achievement scores back on track. 


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link