education cost in america

• Society ›
• Education & Science

The cost of college in the United States - Statistics & Facts

Taking out student loans to afford higher education, is college still worth the cost, key insights.

Detailed statistics

University tuition costs and fees U.S. 2000-2022

Room and board cost per year at U.S. universities 2000-2019

Most expensive colleges in the U.S. 2021-2022

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Current statistics on this topic.

Educational Institutions & Market

Total student loans provided in the U.S. 2001-2023

Value of outstanding student loans U.S. 2006-2023

Related topics

Recommended.

• Cost of living U.S.
• Saving for college in the U.S.
• Back-to-college

Recommended statistics

• Basic Statistic Average annual costs of attending a 4-year university U.S. 2000-2022
• Basic Statistic Average undergraduate budgets U.S. 2023/24, by expense and institution type
• Basic Statistic Tuition cost and student loan amounts U.S. 2021/22, by institution type
• Basic Statistic Average debt of university graduates in the U.S. 2008-2022
• Basic Statistic Number of student aid applicants in the U.S. 2006-2022

Average annual costs of attending a 4-year university U.S. 2000-2022

Average annual undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board for full-time students in four-year postsecondary institutions in the United States from the academic year 2000/01 to 2021/22 (in U.S. dollars)

Average undergraduate budgets U.S. 2023/24, by expense and institution type

Average estimated undergraduate student budget in the United States in academic year 2023/24, by expense category and institution type (in U.S. dollars)

Tuition cost and student loan amounts U.S. 2021/22, by institution type

Average tuition and fees compared to average student loan amount received in the United States 2021/22, by institution type (in U.S. dollars)

Average debt of university graduates in the U.S. 2008-2022

Average university graduate debt levels in the United States from 2008 to 2022 (in U.S. dollars)

Number of student aid applicants in the U.S. 2006-2022

Number of applicants for federal student aid in the United States from 2006/07 to 2021/22 (in millions)

Tuition and fees

• Basic Statistic University tuition costs and fees U.S. 2000-2022
• Basic Statistic Average cost to attend a U.S. university 2013-2024, by institution type
• Basic Statistic Average tuition costs when studying in-state at U.S. universities by state 2018/19
• Premium Statistic Average tuition and fees at U.S. flagship universities 2023-24
• Premium Statistic In-state vs out-of-state tuition at public four-year institutions U.S. 2022, by state
• Premium Statistic Annual tuition and fees at leading universities U.S. 2023/24
• Basic Statistic Room and board cost per year at U.S. universities 2000-2019
• Basic Statistic Most expensive colleges in the U.S. 2021-2022

Average cost for tuition and required fees at all degree-granting postsecondary institutions* in the United States from 2000/01 to 2021/22 (in U.S. dollars)

Average cost to attend a U.S. university 2013-2024, by institution type

Average annual cost to attend university in the United States from 2013/14 to 2023/2024, by institution type (in U.S. dollars)

Average tuition costs when studying in-state at U.S. universities by state 2018/19

Average tuition and fees per year when studying in-state at U.S. universities 2018/19, by state (in U.S. dollars)

Average tuition and fees at U.S. flagship universities 2023-24

Average In-state vs. out-of-state tuition at flagship universities in the United States in academic year 2023-24, by state (in U.S. dollars)

In-state vs out-of-state tuition at public four-year institutions U.S. 2022, by state

Average in-state vs. out-of-state tuition at public four-year institutions in the United States in 2022-23, by state (in U.S. dollars)

Annual tuition and fees at leading universities U.S. 2023/24

Annual tuition and fees for full-time students at leading universities in the United States in 2023/24 (in U.S. dollars)

Average cost for room and board at U.S. universities per year from the academic year of 2000/01 to 2018/19 (in U.S. dollars)

Most expensive colleges in the United States for the academic year of 2021-2022, by total annual cost (in U.S. dollars)

Distribution of student aid

• Basic Statistic Total student grants provided in the U.S. 2002-2023
• Basic Statistic Total student loans provided in the U.S. 2001-2023
• Basic Statistic Graduate student aid in the U.S. 2022/23, by source and type
• Basic Statistic U.S. undergraduate student aid 2022-2023, by source and type
• Basic Statistic Amount of student loans offered, by federal loan program U.S. 2017-2023
• Basic Statistic Amount of student aid paid U.S. 2017-2023, by federal grant program
• Basic Statistic Expenditure on Federal Pell Grants in the U.S. 1981-2023
• Premium Statistic Grant aid as percentage of total state financial support U.S. 2020/21, by state

Total student grants provided in the U.S. 2002-2023

Total amount provided in student grants in the United States from 2002/03 to 2022/23 (in billion 2022 U.S. dollars)

Total amount provided in student loans in the United States from 2002/01 to 2022/23 (in 2022 billion U.S. dollars)

Graduate student aid in the U.S. 2022/23, by source and type

Amount of graduate student aid provided in the United States in the academic year 2022/23, by source and type (in billion U.S. dollars)

U.S. undergraduate student aid 2022-2023, by source and type

Amount of undergraduate student aid provided in the United States in 2022-2023 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Amount of student loans offered, by federal loan program U.S. 2017-2023

Total amount of student aid distributed in the United States, by federal loan program from 2017/2018 to 2022/2023 (in 2022 million U.S. dollars)

Amount of student aid paid U.S. 2017-2023, by federal grant program

Total amount of student aid distributed in the United States from 2017/2018 to 2022/2023, by federal grant program (in 2022 million U.S. dollars)

Expenditure on Federal Pell Grants in the U.S. 1981-2023

Total expenditure on Federal Pell Grant Awards in the United States from 1981/82 to 2022/23 (in billion 2022 U.S. dollars)

Grant aid as percentage of total state financial support U.S. 2020/21, by state

Share of the total state support for higher education spent on grant aid in the United States in the 2020/21 academic year, by state

Student aid received

• Basic Statistic Share of students receiving student aid in the U.S. 2020-2021, by type of aid
• Basic Statistic Percentage of U.S. students with student loans 2020/21, by institution type
• Basic Statistic Share of Federal Pell Grants recipients U.S. 2012-2023
• Basic Statistic Recipients of Federal Pell Grants in the U.S. 1980-2023
• Basic Statistic Share of U.S. students' expenses covered by Pell grants 2003/04-2023/24
• Basic Statistic Total Education tax savings for college students U.S. 2002-2023
• Premium Statistic Student grant aid at public 2-year institutions U.S. 2006-2023
• Premium Statistic Student grant aid at public 4-year institutions U.S. 2006-2023
• Premium Statistic Student grant aid in private nonprofit 4-year institutions U.S. 2006-2022

Share of students receiving student aid in the U.S. 2020-2021, by type of aid

Share of university students receiving student aid in the United States for the 2020/21 academic year, by type of aid and institution

Percentage of U.S. students with student loans 2020/21, by institution type

Percentage of students attending 2-year and 4-year institutions who have student loans in the United States 2020/21, by type of institution

Share of Federal Pell Grants recipients U.S. 2012-2023

Share of Federal Pell Grant recipients in the United States, as percentage of total undergraduate enrollment from 2012/13 to 2022/23

Recipients of Federal Pell Grants in the U.S. 1980-2023

Number of recipients of the Federal Pell Grant Award in the United States from 1980/81 to 2022/23 (in millions)

Share of U.S. students' expenses covered by Pell grants 2003/04-2023/24

Percentage of U.S. students' expenses for tuition fees, room and board covered by Pell grants from 2003/2004 to 2023/2024

Total Education tax savings for college students U.S. 2002-2023

Total Education tax savings for college students and their parents across the United States from 2002/2003 to 2022/2023 (in billion 2022 U.S. dollars)

Student grant aid at public 2-year institutions U.S. 2006-2023

Average grant aid per student at public two-year institutions in the United States from academic year 2006/07 to 2022/23 (in U.S. dollars)

Student grant aid at public 4-year institutions U.S. 2006-2023

Average grant aid per student at public four-year institutions in the United States from academic year 2006/07 and 2022/23 (in U.S. dollars)

Student grant aid in private nonprofit 4-year institutions U.S. 2006-2022

Average grant aid per student at private nonprofit 4-year institutions in the United States from academic year 2006/07 to 2022/23 (in U.S. dollars)

Student debt

• Premium Statistic Value of outstanding student loans U.S. 2006-2023
• Basic Statistic Average student debt for a 4-year bachelor's degree, by institution type U.S. 2020/21
• Basic Statistic Per capita debt of university graduates in the U.S. 2003-2019
• Basic Statistic Share of U.S. graduates with debt 2003-2019
• Basic Statistic U.S. student loan borrowers' debt levels in public four-year colleges 2006-2022
• Basic Statistic U.S. student loan borrowers' debt levels, private four-year colleges 2006-2022
• Basic Statistic Average student debt U.S. 2020, by state
• Premium Statistic Share of Americans with student loan debt U.S. 2023, by state
• Basic Statistic Student loan cohort default rate in the U.S. 2019, by institution type
• Basic Statistic Average student debt of students at top U.S. universities 2023
• Premium Statistic Students with federal loans for higher education U.S. 2023, by repayment status

Value of outstanding student loans in the United States from Q1 2006 to Q3 2023 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Average student debt for a 4-year bachelor's degree, by institution type U.S. 2020/21

Average student loan debt for a four-year bachelor's degree in the United States in 2020/21, by institution type (in U.S. dollars)

Per capita debt of university graduates in the U.S. 2003-2019

Per capita graduate debt levels in the United States from the academic year of 2003/04 to 2018/19 (in U.S. dollars)

Share of U.S. graduates with debt 2003-2019

Share of graduates with debt in the United States from the academic years 2003/04 to 2018/19

U.S. student loan borrowers' debt levels in public four-year colleges 2006-2022

Average amount of debt per borrower at public four-year colleges and universities in the United States from 2006/07 to 2021/22 (in 2022 U.S. dollars)

U.S. student loan borrowers' debt levels, private four-year colleges 2006-2022

Average amount of debt per borrower at private nonprofit four-year colleges and universities in the United States from 2006/07 to 2021/22 (in 2022 U.S. dollars)

Average student debt U.S. 2020, by state

Average debt of university graduates in the United States in 2020, by state (in U.S. dollars)

Share of Americans with student loan debt U.S. 2023, by state

Share of Americans who have some form of student loan debt in their name in the United States in 2023, by state of residence

Student loan cohort default rate in the U.S. 2019, by institution type

Percentage of students in default on student loans after attending 2-year and 4-year institutions United States in 2019, by institution type

Average student debt of students at top U.S. universities 2023

Average student debt of students at the top 20 U.S. universities in 2023 (in U.S. dollars)

Students with federal loans for higher education U.S. 2023, by repayment status

Distribution of federal education loan recipients in the United States as of second quarter fiscal year 2023, by repayment status

Further reports Get the best reports to understand your industry

Get the best reports to understand your industry.

• The student debt crisis in the U.S.

Mon - Fri, 9am - 6pm (EST)

Mon - Fri, 9am - 5pm (SGT)

Mon - Fri, 10:00am - 6:00pm (JST)

Mon - Fri, 9:30am - 5pm (GMT)

Why Is College in America So Expensive?

The outrageous price of a U.S. degree is unique in the world.

B efore the automobile , before the Statue of Liberty, before the vast majority of contemporary colleges existed, the rising cost of higher education was shocking the American conscience: “Gentlemen have to pay for their sons in one year more than they spent themselves in the whole four years of their course,” The New York Times lamented in 1875.

Decadence was to blame, the writer argued: fancy student apartments, expensive meals, and “the mania for athletic sports.”

Today, the U.S. spends more on college than almost any other country, according to the 2018 Education at a Glance report , released this week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

All told, including the contributions of individual families and the government (in the form of student loans, grants, and other assistance), Americans spend about $30,000 per student a year—nearly twice as much as the average developed country. “The U.S. is in a class of its own,” says Andreas Schleicher, the director for education and skills at the OECD, and he does not mean this as a compliment. “Spending per student is exorbitant, and it has virtually no relationship to the value that students could possibly get in exchange.”

Only one country spends more per student, and that country is Luxembourg—where tuition is nevertheless free for students, thanks to government outlays. In fact, a third of developed countries offer college free of charge to their citizens. (And another third keep tuition very cheap—less than $2,400 a year.) The farther away you get from the United States, the more baffling it looks.

This back-to-school season, The Atlantic is investigating a classic American mystery: Why does college cost so much? And is it worth it?

A t first, like the 19th-century writer of yore, I wanted to blame the curdled indulgences of campus life: fancy dormitories, climbing walls, lazy rivers , dining halls with open-fire-pit grills . And most of all—college sports. Certainly sports deserved blame.

On first glance, the new international data provide some support for this narrative. The U.S. ranks No. 1 in the world for spending on student-welfare services such as housing, meals, health care, and transportation, a category of spending that the OECD lumps together under “ancillary services.” All in all, American taxpayers and families spend about $3,370 on these services per student—more than three times the average for the developed world.

One reason for this difference is that American college students are far more likely to live away from home. And living away from home is expensive, with or without a lazy river. Experts say that campuses in Canada and Europe tend to have fewer dormitories and dining halls than campuses in the U.S. “The bundle of services that an American university provides and what a French university provides are very different,” says David Feldman, an economist focused on education at William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. “Reasonable people can argue about whether American universities should have these kind of services, but the fact that we do does not mark American universities as inherently inefficient. It marks them as different.”

But on closer inspection, the data suggest a bigger problem than fancy room and board. Even if we were to zero out all these ancillary services tomorrow, the U.S. would still spend more per college student than any other country (except, again, Luxembourg). It turns out that the vast majority of American college spending goes to routine educational operations—like paying staff and faculty—not to dining halls. These costs add up to about $23,000 per student a year—more than twice what Finland, Sweden, or Germany spends on core services. “Lazy rivers are decadent and unnecessary, but they are not in and of themselves the main culprit,” says Kevin Carey, the author of The End of College and the director of the education-policy program at New America, a nonpartisan think tank.

The business of providing an education is so expensive because college is different from other things that people buy, argue Feldman and his colleague Robert Archibald in their 2011 book, Why Does College Cost So Much? College is a service, for one thing, not a product, which means it doesn’t get cheaper along with changes in manufacturing technology (economists call this affliction “cost disease”). And college is a service delivered mostly by workers with college degrees—whose salaries have risen more dramatically than those of low-skilled service workers over the past several decades.

College is not the only service to have gotten wildly more expensive in recent decades, Feldman and Archibald point out. Since 1950, the real prices of the services of doctors, dentists, and lawyers have risen at similar rates as the price of higher education, according to Feldman and Archibald’s book. “The villain, as much as there is one, is economic growth itself,” they write.

This all makes sense, if we just focus on the U.S. But what about the rest of the world? These broader economic trends exist there, too. So why does college still cost half as much, on average, in other countries?

O ne oddity of America’s higher-education system is that it is actually three different systems masquerading as one: There is one system of public colleges; another of private, nonprofit institutions; and one made up of for-profit colleges.

The biggest system by far is the public one, which includes two-year community colleges and four-year institutions. Three out of every four American college students attend a school in this public system, which is funded through state and local subsidies, along with students’ tuition dollars and some federal aid.

In this public system, the high cost of college has as much to do with politics as economics. Many state legislatures have been spending less and less per student on higher education for the past three decades. Bewitched by the ideology of small government (and forced by law to balance their budgets during a period of mounting health-care costs), states have been leaving once-world-class public universities begging for money. The cuts were particularly stark after the 2008 recession, and they set off a cascading series of consequences, some of which were never intended.

The easiest way for universities to make up for the cuts was to shift some of the cost to students—and to find richer students. “Once that sustainable public funding was taken out from under these schools, they started acting more like businesses,” says Maggie Thompson, the executive director of Generation Progress, a nonprofit education-advocacy group. State cutbacks did not necessarily make colleges more efficient, which was the hope; they made colleges more entrepreneurial.

Some universities began to enroll more full-paying foreign and out-of-state students to make up the difference. Over the past decade, for example, Purdue University has reduced its in-state student population by 4,300 while adding 5,300 out-of-state and foreign students, who pay triple the tuition. “They moved away from working to educate people in their region to competing for the most elite and wealthy students—in a way that was unprecedented,” Thompson says.

This competition eventually crept beyond climbing walls and dining halls into major, long-term operating expenses. For example, U.S. colleges spend, relative to other countries, a startling amount of money on their nonteaching staff, according to the OECD data. Some of these people are librarians or career or mental-health counselors who directly benefit students, but many others do tangential jobs that may have more to do with attracting students than with learning. Many U.S. colleges employ armies of fund-raisers, athletic staff, lawyers, admissions and financial-aid officers, diversity-and-inclusion managers, building-operations and maintenance staff, security personnel, transportation workers, and food-service workers.

The international data is not detailed enough to reveal exactly which jobs are diverting the most money, but we can say that U.S. colleges spend more on nonteaching staff than on teachers, which is upside down compared with every other country that provided data to the OECD (with the exception of Luxembourg, naturally).

In addition, most global rankings of universities heavily weight the amount of research published by faculty—a metric that has no relationship to whether students are learning. But in a heated race for students, these rankings get the attention of college administrators, who push faculty to focus on research and pay star professors accordingly.

Likewise, the new data show that U.S. colleges currently have a slightly lower ratio of students to teachers than the average for the developed world—another metric favored in college rankings. But that is a very expensive way to compete. And among education researchers, there is no clear consensus about whether smaller classes are worth the money.

In the beginning, university administrators may have started competing for full-freight paying students in order to help subsidize other, less affluent students. But once other colleges got into the racket, it became a spending arms race. More and more universities had to participate, including private colleges unaffected by state cuts, just to keep their application numbers up. “There is such a thing as wasteful competition,” Charles Clotfelter, a Duke University professor and the author of Unequal Colleges in the Age of Disparity , wrote me in an email.

All that said, it’s also true that state budget cuts were uneven across the country. Today, in-state tuition in Wyoming is about a third of the cost of Vermont, for example. In places where higher education has not been gutted and the cost of living is low, an American college degree can still be a bargain—especially for students who don’t mind living at home and are poor enough to qualify for federal aid. Taking into account living expenses, says Alex Usher of the consulting firm Higher Education Strategy Associates, a student at a public university in Mississippi will likely end up with similar out-of-pocket costs as a student in Sweden.

Usher, who is based in Toronto, is one of the few researchers to have looked carefully at the costs of higher education globally. And much of what he finds is surprising. In 2010, he and his colleague Jon Medow created a clever ranking of 15 countries’ higher-education systems—using a variety of ways to assess affordability and access. Reading the report is like peeling an onion. The first layer focuses on the most obvious question: the affordability of college based on the cost of tuition, books, and living expenses divided by the median income in a given country. By this metric, the U.S. does very poorly, ranking third from the bottom. Only Mexico and Japan do worse.

But the U.S. moves up one place when grants and tax credits are included. “Your grants are actually really generous compared to everybody else,” Usher says. Tuition is higher in the U.S., so the grants don’t fully cover the price, but 70 percent of full-time students do receive some kind of grant aid, according to the College Board . From this perspective, sometimes called “net cost,” Australia is more expensive than the U.S.

Next, looking only at our public colleges, the U.S. rises higher still, ranking in the middle of the pack in Usher’s analysis, above Canada and New Zealand. This data is from 2010, and things may look less rosy if he were to redo the study now, Usher cautions. But still, he sounds weirdly hopeful. “The public system in the U.S. is working as well as most systems,” he says. “Parts of the U.S. look like France.”

The problem, of course, is that other parts of the U.S. look more like a Louis Vuitton store. America basically contains 50 different higher-education systems, one per state, each with public, private, and for-profit institutions, making generalizations all but impossible. The U.S. does relatively well on measures of access to college, but the price varies wildly depending on the place and the person. Somehow, students have to find their way through this thicket of competition and choose wisely, or suffer the consequences.

T he more I studied America’s baffling higher-education system, the more it reminded me of health care. In both spaces, Americans pay twice as much as people in other developed countries—and get very uneven results. The U.S. spends nearly $10,000 a person on health care each year (25 percent more than Switzerland, the next biggest spender), according to the OECD’s 2017 Health at a Glance report , but our life expectancy is now almost two years below the average for the developed world.

“I used to joke that I could just take all my papers and statistical programs and globally replace hospitals with schools , doctors with teachers and patients with students ,” says Dartmouth College’s Douglas Staiger, one of the few U.S. economists who studies both education and health care.

Both systems are more market driven than in just about any other country, which makes them more innovative—but also less coherent and more exploitive. Hospitals and colleges charge different prices to different people, rendering both systems bewilderingly complex, Staiger notes. It is very hard for regular people to make informed decisions about either, and yet few decisions could be more important.

In both cases, the most vulnerable people tend to make less-than-ideal decisions. For example, among high-achieving, low-income students (who have grades and test scores that put them in the top 4 percent of U.S. students and would be eligible for generous financial aid at elite colleges), the vast majority apply to no selective colleges at all, according to research by Caroline Hoxby and Christopher Avery. “Ironically, these students are often paying more to go to a nonselective four-year college or even a community college than they would pay to go to the most selective, most resource-rich institutions in the United States,” as Hoxby told NPR .

Meanwhile, when it comes to health care, low-income Americans tend to be less familiar with the concepts of deductibles, coinsurance rates, and provider networks, according to a variety of studies , which makes it extremely difficult to choose a health-care plan. “These are both sectors where consumers are too poorly informed and societal costs and benefits too great to leave decision-making entirely in the hands of individuals,” as Isabel Sawhill at the Brookings Institution has written .

Ultimately, college is expensive in the U.S. for the same reason MRIs are expensive: There is no central mechanism to control price increases. “Universities extract money from students because they can,” says Schleicher at the OECD. “It’s the inevitable outcome of an unregulated fee structure.” In places like the United Kingdom, the government limits how much universities can extract by capping tuition. The same is true when it comes to health care in most developed countries, where a centralized government authority contains the prices.

The U.S. federal government has historically been unwilling to perform this role. So Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals—and for college classes. Meanwhile, more and more of the risk gets shifted from government onto families, in both sectors.

At the very least, the American government could do a better job sharing information about the quality of colleges in ways everyone can understand, Schleicher says. “You can’t force people to buy good things or bad things, but they should be able to see what the value is.”

S pending a lot of money can be worth it, if you get something awesome in exchange. “America has the best colleges and universities in the world!” President Donald Trump exclaimed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, earlier this year. Former President Barack Obama said the same thing before him.

But is it actually true? No meaningful data exist on the quality of universities globally. America does have a disproportionate number of elite colleges, which accept fewer than 10 percent of applicants, and these places do employ some brilliant scholars who do groundbreaking research. But fewer than 1 percent of American students attend highly selective colleges like those.

Instead, more than three-quarters of students attend nonselective colleges, which admit at least half of their applicants. No one knows for sure how good these colleges are at their core job of educating students. But in one of the only careful, recent studies on adult skills, the OECD’s Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, Americans under age 35 with a bachelor’s degree performed below their similarly educated peers in 14 other countries on the test of practical math skills. In other words, they did only slightly better than high-school graduates in Finland. America’s college grads did better in reading, performing below just six other countries, but dropped off again in another test, scoring below 13 other countries in their ability to solve problems using digital technology.

If American colleges are not adding obvious and consistent academic value, they are adding financial value. Americans with college degrees earn 75 percent more than those who only completed high school. Over a lifetime, people with bachelor’s degrees earn more than half a million dollars more than people with no college degree in the U.S. In fact, no other country rewards a college degree as richly as the United States, and few other countries punish people so relentlessly for not having one. It’s a diabolical cycle: Colleges are very expensive to run, partly because of the high salaries earned by their skilled workers. But those higher salaries make college degrees extremely valuable, which means Americans will pay a lot to get them. And so colleges can charge more. As Carey, the End of College author, summarizes: “Students are over a barrel.”

Still, the return varies wildly depending on the college one attends. One in four college grads earns no more than the average high-school graduate. Associate’s degrees from for-profit universities lead to smaller salary bumps than associate’s degrees from community colleges, which are cheaper. And two-thirds of students at for-profits drop out before earning their degree anyway, meaning many will spend years struggling with debt they cannot afford to pay off—and cannot, under U.S. law, off-load through bankruptcy.

This convoluted, complicated, inconsistent system continues to exist, and continues to be so expensive because college in America is still worth the price. At certain colleges, for certain people. Especially if they finish. But it doesn’t have to be this way, and almost everywhere else, it isn’t.

• MAIN NAVIGATION
• All Schools & Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Online Degrees
• Community Colleges
• Career Schools
• Law Schools
• Medical Schools
• Comparison Home
• Quick Comparison
• Best Colleges
• Rivalry Schools
• College by SAT/ACT
• 2024 Core Stats
• Tuition Trends
• Area of Study
• Career Programs

2024 Average College Tuition By State

2024 tuition and living costs summary by states.

State Having Highest Tuition

State having lowest tuition, state having highest graduate tuition, state having lowest graduate tuition.

• Grand Canyon University Private, four-years | Phoenix, AZ
• CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice Public, four-years | New York, NY
• Harvard University Private, four-years | Cambridge, MA
• University of Florida Public, four-years | Gainesville, FL
• University of Georgia Public, four-years | Athens, GA
• Stanford University Private, four-years | Stanford, CA
• East Carolina University Public, four-years | Greenville, NC
• University of Delaware Public, four-years | Newark, DE
• University of California-Los Angeles Public, four-years | Los Angeles, CA
• University of Wisconsin-Madison Public, four-years | Madison, WI
• George Washington University Private, four-years | Washington, DC
• Walden University Private, four-years | Minneapolis, MN
• Bethany Global University Private, four-years | Bloomington, MN
• National University Private, four-years | San Diego, CA
• Saint Cloud State University Public, four-years | Saint Cloud, MN
• Bethel University Private, four-years | Saint Paul, MN
• Florida State University Public, four-years | Tallahassee, FL
• University of Central Florida Public, four-years | Orlando, FL
• New York University Private, four-years | New York, NY
• Minnesota North College Public, 2-4 years | Hibbing, MN
• Ashford University Private, four-years | San Diego, CA
• Capella University Private, four-years | Minneapolis, MN
• Normandale Community College Public, 2-4 years | Bloomington, MN
• Rasmussen University-Minnesota Private, four-years | St. Cloud, MN
• Howard University Private, four-years | Washington, DC
• University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Public, four-years | Minneapolis, MN
• Crown College Private, four-years | Saint Bonifacius, MN
• Benedictine College Private, four-years | Atchison, KS
• Ivy Tech Community College Public, 2-4 years | Indianapolis, IN
• Cochise County Community College District Public, 2-4 years | Sierra Vista, AZ
• Pitt Community College Public, 2-4 years | Winterville, NC
• City College-Hollywood Private, 2-4 years | Hollywood, FL
• Lawson State Community College Public, 2-4 years | Birmingham, AL
• De Anza College Public, 2-4 years | Cupertino, CA
• Carrington College-Mesa Private, 2-4 years | Mesa, AZ
• Carrington College-Tucson Private, 2-4 years | Tucson, AZ
• Diablo Valley College Public, 2-4 years | Pleasant Hill, CA
• Aveda Arts & Sciences Institute Minneapolis Private, Less than 2-years | Minneapolis, MN
• Summit Academy Opportunities Industrialization Center Private, Less than 2-years | Minneapolis, MN
• Cosmetology Careers Unlimited College of Hair Skin and Nails Private, Less than 2-years | Duluth, MN
• Paul Mitchell the School-Murfreesboro Private, Less than 2-years | Murfreesboro, TN
• Coastline Beauty College Private, Less than 2-years | Fountain Valley, CA
• Advance Beauty College Private, Less than 2-years | Garden Grove, CA
• Paul Mitchell the School-Milwaukee Private, Less than 2-years | Wauwatosa, WI
• Evergreen Beauty and Barber College-Everett Private, Less than 2-years | Everett, WA
• Careers Institute of America Private, Less than 2-years | Dallas, TX
• Champion Beauty College Private, Less than 2-years | Houston, TX

• Best Online Colleges & Universities 2023
• Best Nationally Accredited Online Colleges & Universities 2024
• Regionally Accredited Online Colleges
• Best Online Colleges That Offer Free Laptops 2023
• Top Self-Paced Online College Degrees for 2023
• Best Online Universities & Colleges
• Cheapest and Most Affordable Online Colleges 2024
• The Most Affordable Online Master's Programs 2024
• The Best Online MBA Programs
• Most Affordable Online MBA Programs 2024
• Online MBA Programs with No GMAT Requirement 2024
• Cheapest Law Schools Online 2023

The Quickest Online Master's Degrees 2024

• Easiest PhD and Shortest Doctoral Programs Online 2024
• Fastest Accelerated Online Degree Programs by Degree Level 2023
• Best Accredited Online Law Schools 2023
• 4-Week Online Course for Medical Coding and Billing 2024
• Accredited Medical Billing and Coding Schools Online with Financial Aid
• Become a Medical Assistant in 6 Weeks
• 20 Most Useless College Degrees 2023
• 6 Month Certificate Programs That Pay Well
• Online Colleges

Best Accelerated Nursing & BSN Programs Online

Best online colleges south carolina 2024, accredited online colleges in missouri 2024, accredited online colleges in pa 2024, best online colleges that offer free laptops 2024, online colleges that pay you to attend, top self-paced online college degrees for 2024, how college tuition in the us compares to the rest of the world.

Written by: Martha Sandoval

The last months of 2022 brought many political surprises. Among them were the rulings of two federal courts that halted President Joe Biden's student debt relief initiative, which aimed to forgive the debts of tens of millions of people. Shortly after it was first unveiled, the government announced it had to stop the application process while seeking to overturn the court orders to hinder the program.

The lofty costs of higher education in the United States have been debated for many years. They have gained greater prominence after multiple statements by President Biden expressing his concerns about Americans carrying student loans while still trying to secure financial stability.

As tuition costs keep rising, high school graduates are considering alternatives to postsecondary education, including intensive, short-term training courses—especially in the tech industry. Another option is studying abroad, where students can attend prestigious universities in countries where the cost of living and tuition is cheaper. 

Data shows that settling for a high school diploma is the least convenient choice. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development , a 38-member watchdog for economic growth comprising the world's wealthiest and most developed nations, reports that people with postsecondary education—technical or vocational training or university degrees— are more likely to get a job and excel in the labor market. And numbers are growing in OECD countries. Among 25-34 year-olds, those with higher degrees increased to 48% in 2021, up from just 27% in 2000.

EDSmart analyzed the most recent data on higher education provided by the OECD to see how college tuition costs compare across different countries. England was the only country with an average undergraduate cost higher than the U.S. The other countries were ranked from the most similar price to the least expensive by comparison.

England and U.S. lead 12 nations for the cost of a bachelor’s degree

Among public institutions in OECD countries, about a quarter do not charge national students for undergraduate tuition, including Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Turkey. On the other end of the spectrum is England, where colleges are independently run, government-supported institutions that can come with higher price tags. In both England and U.S., at least 80% of students receive some form of financial support, which can range from grants, loans, and scholarships.

DISCOVER AFFORDABLE EDUCATION Discover a detailed list of the cheapest online colleges with top programs to advance your education.

United States

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $9,212

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $12,171

- 51.2% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 3.6% points higher than OECD average

The average cost of a college degree in the United States, without considering room, board, or books, was calculated by averaging the tuition of public, private, and for-profit institutions.

Federal Reserve data reveals that more than 4 in 10 college students took out student loans. Among those individuals, adults under 30 have taken out more educational loans than older adults, consistent with borrowing trends. In 2021, the median individual debt was between $20,000 and $25,000.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $12,255 ($3,043 more than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: data not available

- 57.5% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 9.9% points higher than OECD average

A university degree in England can cost 20% more than in the U.S. However, payment terms of student loans are more flexible. The U.K. government's website forewarns potential borrowers they will start paying off debt once their income reaches a certain amount and that the size of monthly repayments will depend on how much they earn—not on what they owe.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $8,363 ($850 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $9,736 ($2,435 less than in the U.S.)

- 62.9% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 15.3% points higher than the OECD average

Simon Harris, minister of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, implemented the Higher Education Authority Act 2022. The milestone education policy was designed to provide disadvantaged students with more scholarship options, among other reforms. Also, in late 2022, Harris allocated $27.8 million in funding to Ireland's five tech universities.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $8,131 ($1,081 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $11,274 ($897 less than in the U.S.)

- Data for college-educated 25-34 year olds was not available

In 2019, the cost of a college degree in Chile was just over a thousand dollars less than in the U.S. That same year, hundreds of thousands of Chileans took to the streets to demand free, quality public education from the government. The protests springboarded the political career of current leftist President Gabriel Boric, a former student union leader. They paved the way to seek constitutional amendments to reduce economic and social inequality.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $5,144 ($4,069 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $5,139 ($7,032 less than in the U.S.)

- 64.8% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 17.3% points higher than OECD average

The Japanese Constitution states that everyone can receive an equal education without distinction between men and women. It adds that such compulsory education is free. A total of 4,597 institutions make up Japan's higher education landscape, offered to international students through the Study in Japan program. These include universities, junior and professional training colleges, and graduate and tech schools.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $5,031 ($4,182 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $9,006 ($3,165 less than in the U.S.)

- 54.3% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 6.8% points higher than OECD average

Australia promotes itself as a country with an outstanding postsecondary education system. Among the policies seeking to protect and ensure the success of international students is the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. The act has three primary purposes: to oversee international students' well-being, protect the quality of their educational experience, and allow them access to current and accurate information.

EARN AN MBA WITHOUT GMAT Find the right online MBA no GMAT needed with this comprehensive list of affordable programs.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $4,924 ($4,289 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $8,724 ($3,447 less than in the U.S.)

- 66.4% of 25-34 year olds were college educated in 2020

--- 18.8% points higher than OECD average

The Canadian higher education system's operation and regulation depend on each province, so studying in British Columbia can be more appealing to some, while others might opt for Nova Scotia. Overall, postsecondary education in Canada is highly popular: Year after year; it maintains its spot in the top five countries with the highest number of college graduates in the 25-34 age bracket. Keep in mind that tuition is not free anywhere in the nation, especially not for international students.

South Korea

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $4,814 ($4,399 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $6,185 ($5,985 less than in the U.S.)

- 69.3% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 21.8% points higher than OECD average

After decades of political and educational reforms, South Korea launched the Study in Korea initiative, inviting foreigners to ride its "Hallyu," the expanding wave and popularity of Korean culture worldwide. Some benefits the Asian country offers potential foreign pupils are a highly competitive educational system and guidance toward career development and employment.

COLLEGES OFFERING FREE LAPTOPS Browse this guide to online colleges with free laptops and other tech perks

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $4,715 ($4,498 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $4,898 ($7,273 less than in the U.S.)

- 45.5% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 2.0% points lower than OECD average

The European Union aims to increase the number of people between 25 and 34 who complete postsecondary education. It intends to reach an average of 45% in 2030. Latvia, the Baltic country with less than 2 million inhabitants, exceeded the objective in 2021 , as did 12 other EU member nations. More than 10,000 college attendees in Latvia are foreigners, roughly 13% of the higher education student body.

New Zealand

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $4,621 ($4,591 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $5,951 ($6,220 less than in the U.S.)

- 45.3% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 2.2% points lower than OECD average

Under the motto "Think new," the New Zealand government affirms that employers value university graduates because of their ability to think critically and creatively solve problems. With an emphasis on soft skills, the island nation promotes a future-focused education system that offers official degrees through online classes and on-campus programs.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $4,020 ($5,192 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $7,893 ($4,278 less than in the U.S.)

With a webpage translated into more than 12 languages, Lithuania aspires to attract students from all over the world into its higher education programs. Job opportunities are available for those attending university, and the country offers residence for 15 months after graduation. Living costs are affordable, and Lithuania has some of Europe's fastest and least expensive internet services.

FIND THE CHEAPEST ONLINE MBA PROGRAM Find out which university offers the cheapest online MBA program from this comprehensive list of affordable programs.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $3,783 ($5,429 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $7,990 ($4,181 less than in the U.S.)

- 32.9% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 14.6% points lower than OECD average

With a vast higher education history of over 650 years, Hungary presents itself as a promising option for future professionals. An academic catalog of more than 500 courses in several languages and the possibility of obtaining double-major degrees issued jointly with other European universities round up the offer. Also, the cost of living in Eastern Europe is generally lower than in its Western counterpart.

Netherlands

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $2,622 ($6,591 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $2,622 ($9,549 less than in the U.S.)

- 55.6% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 8.1% points higher than OECD average

The higher education student body of the Netherlands represents more than 160 countries that blend with its diverse society. The Dutch government touts its postsecondary institutions for offering the highest number of English-taught programs in continental Europe. It also publicizes the teaching style, describing it as interactive and student-centered.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $2,604 ($6,608 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $3,519 ($8,652 less than in the U.S.)

- 46.0% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 1.5% points lower than OECD average

To attract students worldwide, Israel implemented a postsecondary education system fully in English. Although the cost is higher than traditional studies in Hebrew, foreigners can apply for scholarships from the Student Authority to cover tuition; the applicant must pay the rest of the expenses. Financial aid is applicable exclusively toward university-level degrees.

CHOOSE THE BEST ONLINE COLLEGE Explore the nation's best accredited online colleges ranked based on affordability and recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

- Average tuition for a bachelor's degree: $1,985 ($7,227 less than in the U.S.)

- Average tuition for a master's degree: $2,221 ($9,950 less than in the U.S.)

- 28.3% of 25-34 year olds were college-educated in 2020

--- 19.3% points lower than OECD average

In addition to expanding sciences at its technical colleges, Italy also emphasizes humanities and culture. Living up to its historical legacy as an epicenter for the arts, Italy has a higher education system tailored for fine arts, music, and dance known as AFAM, an acronym for "Alta Formazione Artistica e Musicale . " The Italian government states that due to its efforts, these three types of institutions, both public and private, share an equally high academic standard.

Take the next step toward your future with online learning.

You might also like.

Cheapest Online Colleges that Accept FAFSA

20 Most Useless College Degrees 2024

Social Media Stats to Know in 2023

Contact information

Quick links, subscribe to our newsletter.

The cost of studying at a university in the United States

This guide outlines the cost of fees, accommodation, lifestyle and financial assistance options for international students planning to study in the united states. this is how much it costs to study in the us. .

How much does it cost to study in America? If you are interested in studying in the United States, one of the most important things you need to consider is how much university is going to cost. This essential guide breaks down the cost of every aspect of university life in the US to make sure you have everything covered.  

Note that the prices and exchange rates are correct at the time of publication and may vary from those shown here. All of the costs stated here in US dollars. 

Get free support to study in the United States

How much are tuition fees in the us.

The US is one of the world’s most popular destinations for higher education – and also one of the most expensive. Although the initial pricing may cause a sharp intake of breath, it is worth exploring all avenues of funding and financial aid before ruling the country out.

Tuition fees range from $5,000 to $50,000 per year. Most undergraduate degrees last four years.

American universities differentiate between in-state and out-of-state students when calculating tuition fees.  A typical four-year public college charged in-state students $10,200 per year while out-of-state students were charged $26,290. There are private non-profit colleges too, which charge $35,800 on average. These include universities such as Harvard, Stanford and Yale. 

How much does student accommodation cost in the US?

In general, university towns in the Midwest region of the US have lower living costs, whereas the East, North East and West Coast are more expensive. The average apartment starts at $500 per month (a one-bedroom apartment in a rural area) and goes up to $3,500 (or even more) a monthm(a one-bedroom apartment in a built-up city).

On-campus accommodation is typically in dormitories, with two or three people per room. Residents share bathrooms, toilets and showers.

On-campus dormitory rooms in the US averaged between $5,300 and $8,100 a year including all utilities and housing-related costs. The lowest prices will be found at the two-year public colleges, and the highest at the private non-profit four-year institutions.

There may specific calculators for adding up accommodation and tuition fee estimations on each university website.

How much does it cost to live in the US?

Internet provision costs roughly between $35-$70 per month, and household and monthly phone bills are around $50. Petrol costs around $0.98 per litre. Some cities and towns may offer a monthly public transport pass which can cost between $20-$60 and some areas offer discounted prices for students. The average cost of books and academic supplies per academic year is $1,170 or $390 per semester.

Another compulsory cost to consider is the student visa to study in the US. The F1 visa, which is the most common visa for students costs $510 per application. The application can be a long process and is best started about three-five months before the semester begins.

Top universities in New York Top liberal arts colleges in the US Best public universities in the United States Best universities in Los Angeles Best universities in Washington DC Best universities in Florida Best universities in the United States Best private universities in the US

What other costs are there for students?

Utilities may or may not be included in the price of rented accommodation but electricity is about $50-120 per month and heating is $50-120 per month. The costs of heating and electricity do vary across the states, so it's always worth looking up average prices of the state you are choosing to study in while creating your monthly budget.

Water, sewerage and rubbish collection contributions may be paid by the landlord, but if that responsibility lies with the tenant this will amount to $50-75 every three months.

Weekly groceries in the US cost between $20 and $70 per person depending on diet – the price of fresh fruit and vegetables varies considerably throughout the country. Some meals are included with the price of university accommodation (many prices will be room and board – which includes some meals or meal plan cards).

A meal in a restaurant costs about $20 and a trip to the cinema is about $12. A Big Mac from McDonald’s is $5.58.

The average monthly gym membership is $60. A bottle of wine costs about $15 and a pint of beer costs $6-7. Prices for a night out depend on the state and the activity, but the average event-goer in the US spends an average $80 per night depending on where you are going and the activity you've chosen to do. 

A guide to international student bank accounts in the US Video: money saving tips from university students What is the best way of transferring money as an international student? US universities that offer free and cheap tuition for international students Scholarships available in the US for international students A guide to student loans and funding university in the US Best universities in the US

What financial support is available to international students in the US?

The cost of studying in the US can seem extortionate but it’s important to look at the difference between the “sticker” price (what is advertised on university websites) and what students actually pay, once all sources of funding have been considered. It's good to remember that approximately 85 per cent of full-time undergraduate students at four-year public universities and 89 per cent at private non-profit universities benefited from some type of financial aid.

More often than not, the most prestigious universities in the US, with the highest “sticker” prices, give students the widest range of funding opportunities. For example, some 91 per cent of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology receive financial aid.

Financial aid comes in many formats: scholarships, grants, assistantships and work-study schemes. Some of these might be possible only for US citizens but there are many financial aid opportunities for international students too. For example, the University of Pennsylvania  includes students from Canada and Mexico in its needs-blind financial policy, meaning the institution will ensure that admitted students from these countries are given any and all the financial support they need to fund their studies. 

Funding information is available on each university’s website and financial aid should be applied for at the same time as a university place. For more information on scholarships visit our page on scholarships for international students looking to study in the United States . 

Several high-ranking universities in the US operate a “needs-blind” admission policy, meaning the financial background of potential students is disregarded during the admission process and the university promises to financially support students so every successful applicant can attend. 

There are also a few well-known government-funded US scholarship programmes for international students, for example, the Fulbright Foreign Student Program and the Hubert Humphrey Fellowship Program . 

Once a student has arrived at their university in the US there are also many ways in which they can keep costs down while they study abroad. As long as you have a valid student ID, you may be eligible for 10-50 per cent discounts on clothing, cinema tickets, museum entry, Greyhound coach travel and Airbnb stays. 

Read more in this series

The cost of studying at a university in Japan The cost of studying at a university in the UK The cost of studying at a university in Germany The cost of studying at a university in Canada The cost of studying at a university in France The cost of studying at a university in Australia The cost of studying at a university in the Netherlands The cost of studying at a university in New Zealand The cost of studying at a university in China The cost of studying at a university in Brazil

Register free and enjoy extra benefits

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Researchers
• Survey Respondents
• U.S. Spending on Public Schools in 2019 Highest Since 2008

• Census.gov /
• America Counts: Stories /

K-12 School Spending Up 4.7% in 2019 From Previous Year

The nation spent $752.3 billion on its 48 million children in public schools in fiscal year 2019, a 4.7% increase from the previous year and the most per pupil in more than a decade.

Instructional salaries, the largest expenditure within current spending, totaled $239.9 billion in fiscal year 2019 or 31.9% of total expenditures for public elementary-secondary education.

The Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of School System Finances tables released today show per pupil current spending for elementary and secondary public education (pre-K through 12th grade) for all 50 states and the District of Columbia increased 5.0% to $13,187 in FY 2019 from $12,559 in FY 2018 — the largest increase since 2008.

Breaking Down School Spending

Total expenditures for elementary and secondary education include FY 2019 “current” spending, capital outlay expenditures, interest on debt and payments to other governments.

Current spending, which made up $652.3 billion or 86.7% of total expenditures in FY 2019, consists of expenses for day-to-day activities, including teachers’ salaries and benefits and most other school system daily expenses.

Capital outlay, another portion of total expenditures that includes construction, large equipment expenses and improvements to existing structures, totaled $76.3 billion or 10.1% of total expenditures.

Total expenditure increased by 4.7% while total revenue increased by 4.5% from fiscal year 2018.

The data visualization below enables users to view and compare selected finance data, including revenue and expenditure, for FY 2019 by state.

In the first graphic, users can select a category of finance data from the drop down to update the statistics displayed in the map or select a state by clicking on the map.

In the second graphic, a state can also be selected from the drop down to filter by state the total revenues and expenditures for FY 2019 compared to FY 2018.

Where School Funding Comes From

In FY 2019, state governments contributed the largest share of funding to public school systems: $350.9 billion or 46.7%.

Local sources of revenue were the next largest at $342.9 billion or 45.6%, and the federal government contributed the least, $57.9 billion or 7.7%.

The 2019 Annual Survey of School System Finances includes data on revenues, expenditures, debt and assets (cash and security holdings) of elementary and secondary public school systems.

Please note that the data released today were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States. A preliminary report on 2020 fiscal year school finances data is scheduled to be released this fall.

Erika Chen is a survey statistician in the Census Bureau’s Educational Finance Branch in the Economic Reimbursable Surveys Division.

Story Ideas and Statistics

Some content on this site is available in several different electronic formats. Some of the files may require a plug-in or additional software to view.

The content on this page includes a link to a non-government website. Our linking to these sites does not constitute an endorsement of any products, services or the information found on them. Once you link to another site you are subject to the policies of the new site.

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

What are the outcomes of the education system? How much did COVID-19 disrupt learning?​

Eighth-grade math and reading proficiency fell between 2019 and 2022 to the lowest rates in at least 15 years..

The share of eighth graders at or above a proficient reading level dropped from 34% to 31%. For math, it dropped from 34% to 26%.

The public-school student-teacher ratio dropped from 15.9 in fall 2019 to 15.4 in fall 2020 and remained unchanged in 2021.

This is partly due to declining school enrollment during the pandemic . Several factors affect the student-teacher ratio, including class sizes, the number of classes educators teach, and the number of special education teachers.

Public schools spent an average of $16,280 per student in the 2020–2021 school year, more than any previous year after adjusting for inflation.

This was up 3.5% from the previous school year, the largest single-year increase since 1988-1989. Expenditures in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 included funds allocated through pandemic relief legislation such as the CARES Act . Many factors influence per-pupil spending, including salaries, benefits, and supplies across functions such as instruction, administration, and operations and maintenance.

Of the students who started high school in 2011, 24% completed a four-year college degree by 2021. Another 13% had enrolled in a four-year college within one year of high school graduation but had not completed their degree.

Among Black and Hispanic students who entered high school in 2011, the percentage who earned a four-year degree by 2021 was lower than the overall student rate — less than 15% for either group.

The median student loan balance per household decreased between 2019 and 2022, but it dropped most for Black-led households, falling 25% to $27,070 in 2022.

However, prior to 2022, it had been increasing faster for Black-led households than households overall. Black-led household student loan balances rose 66% between 2010 and 2019, compared to 41% for all families.

Forty-eight percent of the population ages 25 and older has a college degree.

Asian Americans have the nation’s highest levels of education; as of 2022, two-thirds had at least an associate degree.

Get facts first

Unbiased, data-driven insights in your inbox each week

You are signed up for the facts!

On average, people whose highest level of education is a bachelor’s degree earned $1,493 per week in 2023, roughly 66% more than workers with a high school diploma.

Earnings for workers with some college or an associate degree have fallen since 2000, while increasing for all other educational attainment categories. Earnings for people without a high school diploma are up most, $708 per week (up 11%), but remain $462 per week (39%), lower than overall median earnings.

Continue exploring the State of the Union

What is the state of the military, and how are us veterans faring.

Infrastructure

What does America spend on transportation and infrastructure? Is infrastructure improving?​

Explore more of usafacts, related articles, how many black male teachers are there in the us, how many us children receive a free or reduced-price school lunch, which states have the highest and lowest adult literacy rates, what role do schools play in addressing youth mental health, related data, head start funding.

$10.61 billion

College enrollment rate

High school dropout rate, average public school teacher salary, data delivered to your inbox.

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

Education Spending

How is education financed how much do we spend on it what are the returns.

In most countries basic education is nowadays perceived not only as a right, but also as a duty – governments are typically expected to ensure access to basic education, while citizens are often required by law to attain education up to a certain basic level. 1

This was not always the case: the advancement of these ideas began in the mid-19th century, when most of today’s industrialized countries started expanding primary education, mainly through public finances and government intervention. Data from this early period shows that government funds to finance the expansion of education came from a number of different sources, but taxes at the local level played a crucial role. The historical role of local funding for public schools is important to help us understand changes – or persistence – in regional inequalities.

The second half of the 20th century marked the beginning of education expansion as a global phenomenon. Available data shows that by 1990 government spending on education as a share of national income in many developing countries was already close to the average observed in developed countries. 2

This global education expansion in the 20th century resulted in a historical reduction in education inequality across the globe: in the period 1960-2010 education inequality went down every year, for all age groups and in all world regions. Recent estimates of education inequality across age groups suggest that further reductions in schooling inequality are still to be expected within developing countries. 3

Recent cross-country data from UNESCO tells us that the world is expanding government funding for education today, and these additional public funds for education are not necessarily at the expense of other government sectors. Yet behind these broad global trends, there is substantial cross-country – and cross-regional – heterogeneity. In high-income countries, for instance, households shoulder a larger share of education expenditures at higher education levels than at lower levels – but in low-income countries, this is not the case.

Following the agreement of the Millennium Development Goals, the first decade of the 21st century saw an important increase in international financial flows under the umbrella of development assistance. Recent estimates show that development assistance for education has stopped growing since 2010, with notable aggregate reductions in flows going to primary education. These changes in the prioritization of development assistance for education across levels and regions can have potentially large distributional effects, particularly within low-income countries that depend substantially on this source of funding for basic education. 4

When analyzing correlates, determinants and consequences of education consumption, the macro data indicates that national expenditure on education does not explain well cross-country differences in learning outcomes. This suggests that for any given level of expenditure, the output achieved depends crucially on the mix of many inputs.

Available evidence specifically on the importance of school inputs to produce education, suggests that learning outcomes may be more sensitive to improvements in the quality of teachers, than to improvements in class sizes. Regarding household inputs, the recent experimental evidence suggests that interventions that increase the benefits of attending school (e.g. conditional cash transfers) are particularly likely to increase student time in school; and that those that incentivize academic effort (e.g. scholarships) are likely to improve learning outcomes.

Policy experiments have also shown that preschool investment in demand-side inputs leads to large positive impacts on education – and other important outcomes later in life. The environment that children are exposed to early in life, plays a crucial role in shaping their abilities, behavior, and talents.

Historical perspective on financing education

When did the provision of education first become a public policy priority.

Governments around the world are nowadays widely perceived to be responsible for ensuring the provision of accessible quality education. This is a recent social achievement. The advancement of the idea to provide education for more and more children only began in the mid-19th century, when most of today’s industrialized countries started expanding primary education.

The following visualization, plotting public expenditure on education as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for a number of early-industrialized countries, shows that this expansion took place mainly through public funding. Our topic page on global education provides details regarding how this expansion in funding materialized in better education outcomes for these countries.

How did the US finance the expansion of public education?

Public schools in the US educate more than 90% of all children enrolled in elementary and secondary schools. 5

This is the result of a process of education expansion that relied heavily on public funding, particularly from local governments. The visualization shows the sources of revenues for public schools in the US over the last 120 years.

As can be seen, states and localities are – and have always been – the main sources of funding for public primary education in the US. In fact, we observe three broad periods in this graph: there is first a period of stable revenues until 1920, then a period of sharp growth and decline during the interwar years, and then a period of substantial growth since the Second World War, slowing down in the 1970s. In all these periods, federal funding was always very small.

Disaggregated data from the last couple of decades gives further insights into the specific sources of local revenues for schools in the US: the largest part comes from property taxes (about 80% of local revenues came from property taxes in 2013), while only a very small part comes from fees and donations (private funding for public schools, which is considered a local revenue, amounted to less than 2% of total public school revenues in 2013). This heavily decentralized system relying on property taxes has the potential to create large inequalities in education since public schools in affluent urban areas are able to raise more funding from local revenues. Indeed, a significant part of the debate on education inequalities in the US today focuses on the importance of increasing progressive federal spending to reduce inequalities in public school funding. 6

How did France finance the expansion of public education?

The case of the US above shows that funding for public schools has been historically a responsibility of local governments. In other countries, such as France, the expansion of public education also took place initially with resources from local governments, but relatively quickly the fiscal burden was shifted to the national level. In France, this transition was associated with a sharp jump towards universal access and a concomitant reduction in regional inequalities.

The following visualization from Lindert (2004) 7 provides evidence of the French experience. As we can see there are three distinct periods: education spending was initially low and mainly private, then in 1833 funding began growing with local resources after the introduction of a law liberating communes to raise more local taxes for schools, and finally in 1881 the national government took over most of the financial responsibility after the introduction of a new law that abolished all fees and tuition charges in public elementary schools. In the source book, Lindert (2004) provides further evidence of how this transition towards centrally funded public education reduced north-south inequalities in France.

In the US growth in education expenditure was characterized by growth specifically in the public sector

A comparison of expenditure between public and private education institutions is helpful to contextualize the role the public sector played in the process of education expansion in industrialized countries. The following graph does this using data from the National Center for Education Statistics in the US.

It shows that during the years 1950-1970 – a period of substantial growth in education expenditure in the US – expenditure grew specifically in the public sector. 9

When did the expansion of basic education become a global phenomenon?

The second half of the 20th century marked the beginning of education expansion as a global phenomenon. The visualization shows government expenditure on education as a share of national income for a selection of low and middle-income countries, together with the corresponding average for high-income countries, for more than the last half-century. As can be seen, spending on education in many developing countries has become similar to the average observed in developed countries in recent decades.

It is important to point out that the remark above makes reference to convergence in expenditure relative to income . To the extent that low-income countries remain poorer than high-income countries, gaps in levels of expenditure per pupil are persistently large. Indeed, cross-country heterogeneity in education expenditure per pupil is currently much higher than heterogeneity in expenditure as a share of GDP. 10 One factor contributing to the slower convergence of expenditure per pupil in real terms is the fact that teachers' salaries – the main component of education expenditure, as discussed below – are much higher in high-income countries because labor has a higher opportunity cost in these countries. In general, the opportunity cost of labor is a key variable that governments in developing countries should factor in when deciding whether to expand education now, rather than later.

Education inequality is falling around the world

An important consequence of the global education expansion is a reduction in education inequality across the globe. The following visualization shows this through a series of graphs plotting changes in the Gini coefficient of the distribution of years of schooling across different world regions. The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality and higher values indicate higher inequality – you can read about the definition and estimation of Gini coefficients in our related article . The time-series chart shows inequality by age group.

It can be seen that as inequality is falling over time, the level of inequality is higher for older generations than it is for younger generations. We can also see that in the reference period education inequality went down every year, for all age groups and in all world regions.

Have gains from historical education expansion fully materialized? The breakdown by age gives us a view into the future: as inequality is lower among today's younger generations, we can expect the decline of inequality to continue in the future. Thus, further reductions in education inequality are still to be expected within developing countries; and if the expansion of global education can be continued, we can speed up this important process of global convergence.

Education inequality can decline rapidly across all levels of education – South Korea is an example

The experience of South Korea shows that it is possible to reduce education inequality rapidly across all levels of education.

The following visualization shows two graphs comparing the concentration of years of education in South Korea between the years 1970 and 2010. To be precise, each of these graphs shows an education Lorenz curve: a plot showing the cumulative percentage of the schooling years across all levels of education on the vertical axis, and the cumulative percentage of the population on the horizontal axis.

As can be seen, in 2010 education was much less concentrated than in 1970, not only because there was a smaller share of individuals without schooling (shown at the bottom of the chart), but also because there was a smaller share of individuals concentrating large proportions of school-years at higher levels of education. Indeed, in only 40 years South Korea was able to double the mean years of schooling (from 6 to 12 years) and at the same time get remarkably close to the 45-degree line marking the hypothetical scenario of perfect equality of schooling.

Financing of education across the world

Is funding for education expanding.

The last two decades have not a clear trend in the share of income that countries devote to education.

The following chart plots trends in public expenditure on education as a share of GDP. We can see an upward trend in some countries, but a downward trend in others.

However, as incomes – measured by GDP per capita – are generally increasing around the world, this means that the total amount of global resources spent on education is increasing in absolute terms.

Is additional funding for education taking resources from other sectors?

The following visualization shows government expenditure on education as a share of total government expenditure. The available data also does not suggest a discernible global pattern here.

The data does suggest, however, that there is large and persistent cross-country heterogeneity in the relative importance of education vis-a-vis other sectors, even within developing countries.

European countries tend to assign a lower share of public budgets to education, relative to the amount of their income that is devoted to education

Generally speaking, countries that spend a large share of their income on education also tend to prioritize education highly within their budgets.

The following visualization presents a snapshot of government spending on education around the world. Specifically, this graph plots government expenditure on education as a share of GDP on the horizontal axis, and government expenditure on education as a share of total government expenditure on the vertical axis.

As we can see, there is a positive correlation, but regional differences are stark: for almost every level of spending as a share of GDP along the horizontal axis, countries in Europe spend a smaller budget share on education.

In European countries the weight of primary education within total education spending is lower than in other countries

In comparison to countries where education started expanding later, European countries tend to assign relatively more of their government education budgets to the secondary and tertiary levels, while at the same time devoting relatively less of their general government budgets to education as a whole.

This can be appreciated in the following visualization, where the prioritization of primary education (i.e. the share of primary education within the education budget) is plotted against the overall prioritization of education (i.e. the share of education within the entire government budget).

It can be seen that European countries are mostly located in the upper left. There is a weak positive correlation between the variables, both across all countries and across European countries.

In high-income countries, households shoulder a larger share of education expenditures at higher education levels than at lower levels – but in low-income countries, this is not the case

The following visualization shows the percentage of total education expenditures contributed directly by households in 15 high-income countries and 15 low or middle-income countries.

The top chart in this figure, corresponding to high-income countries, shows a very clear pattern: households contribute the largest share of expenses in tertiary education, and the smallest share in primary education. Roughly speaking, this pattern tends to be progressive, since students from wealthier households are more likely to attend tertiary education, and those individuals who attend tertiary education are likely to perceive large private benefits. 13

In contrast, the bottom chart shows a very different picture: in several low-income countries households contribute proportionally more to primary education than to higher levels. Such distribution of private household contributions to education is regressive.

Recent funding structures in OECD countries

Primary education continues to be publicly funded in industrialized countries.

We have already mentioned that those countries that pioneered the expansion of primary education in the 19th century – all of which are current OECD member states – relied heavily on public funding to do so. Today, public resources still dominate funding for the primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary education levels in these countries.

The visualization presents OECD-average expenditure on education institutions by source of funds. 14

Publicly funded pre-primary education is more strongly developed in the European countries of the OECD

High-income countries tend to have better-developed pre-primary education systems than lower-income countries. However, within high-income countries, there is substantial heterogeneity in the extent to which pre-primary education is publicly financed.

The visualization presents expenditure on pre-primary educational institutions as a share of GDP across the OECD.

As can be seen, publicly funded pre-primary education tends to be more strongly developed in Europe than in the non-European countries of the OECD.

Where does funding for education go to?

The largest part of funding devoted to education in OECD countries goes to finance current expenditures, mainly compensation of staff – specifically, teachers. The following two charts, taken from the OECD's report Education at a Glance (2015) , highlight the labor-intensive nature of education. In the lower levels of education (i.e. primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary) the share of current expenditure is very large and exhibits little cross-country variation – between 90 and 97 percent of total expenditure corresponds to current expenditure across all of the OECD countries. In higher levels of education (i.e. tertiary) there is more cross-country variation, but current expenditure still dominates by a large margin across all countries.

What drives current expenditure on education?

In the figures above we noted the importance of current expenditure in the production of education. The following table provides further details regarding the type of expenditures that comprise current spending. Specifically, this chart shows a breakdown of expenditure for tertiary-level institutions in the US (public and private), during the period 1980-1997. It shows that instruction accounts for almost half of expenditure; and while there are some small differences across sectors, there is a fair amount of stability in expenditures across time. This serves as a benchmark for lower education levels, where instruction takes an even larger share of expenditure. 15

International financing flows

Education financing in developing countries has been bolstered by development assistance.

Following the agreement of the Millennium Development Goals, the first decade of the 21st century saw an important increase in international financial flows under the umbrella of development assistance (often also called development aid, or simply 'aid').

The following chart shows total OECD development assistance flows for education by level, in constant 2013 US dollars, for the period 2002-2013. As it can be seen, there are two distinct periods: in 2003-2010 flows for education increased substantially, more than doubling in real terms across all levels of education; and in the years 2010-2013 funding for basic education decreased , while funding for secondary and post-secondary education remained relatively constant. For many low-income countries, where development assistance contributes a substantial share of funding for education, this marked change in trends is important. As a reference, in 2012 development assistance accounted for more than 20 percent of all domestic spending on basic education in recipient low-income countries. 17

The share of development assistance for education going to Sub-saharan Africa has decreased

The reductions in development assistance funds for primary education have been coupled with important changes in regional priorities. Specifically, the share of development assistance for primary education going to sub-Saharan Africa has been decreasing sharply since the agreement of the Millennium Development Goals.

The following chart shows this: sub-Saharan Africa’s share in total aid to primary education declined from 52 percent in 2002 to 30 percent in 2013, while the continent’s share in the total number of out-of-school children rose from 46 percent to 57 percent.

This pattern is something specific to the education sector within the broader development assistance landscape: in the healthcare sector, the overall slowdown of flows started a couple of years later, was less abrupt, and affected proportionally less the sub-Saharan countries. 18

Indeed, recent studies further highlight that development assistance for education is significantly different from assistance for healthcare in other ways: the education sector attracts less earmarked funding through multilaterals, and includes a smaller proportion of resources that developing governments can directly control for programming. 19

You can read more about development assistance for healthcare in our article on healthcare spending .

Development assistance priorities have the ability to increase or reduce expenditure inequalities

We mentioned above that public spending on education has translated, in the long run, into lower inequality in education outcomes across most of the world. But for any given country, with a given income distribution and demographic structure, the extent to which public spending on education contributes to reducing inequality depends crucially on the way in which spending is focused across education levels.

The recent UNICEF report The Investment Case for Education and Equity shows that in low-income countries, on average 46 percent of public resources are allocated to the 10 percent of students who are most educated – while this figure goes down to 26 and 13 percent in lower-middle and upper-middle income countries respectively.

The following visualization shows further details on the concentration of public spending across different countries. The vertical axis shows the percentage of public education resources going to the 10% most educated or 10% least educated students – as we can see expenditure is heavily concentrated at the top in many low-income countries.

The earlier remarks about trends in international education financing flows (namely that aid is very important in low-income countries, and that a relatively low and shrinking share of aid is going to primary levels), suggest that inequality in public spending may worsen in low-income countries. Yet development assistance priorities have the ability to change this. 20

What determines educational finance?

The big picture, why do governments finance education.

One of the reasons to justify government intervention in the market for education, is that education generates positive externalities. 21 This essentially means that investing in education yields both private and social returns. Private returns to education include higher wages and better employment prospects. Social returns include pro-social behavior (e.g. volunteering, political participation) and interpersonal trust .

The following chart uses OECD results from the Survey of Adult Skills to show how self-reported trust in others correlates with educational attainment. More precisely, this chart plots the percentage-point difference in the likelihood of reporting to trust others, by education level of respondents. Those individuals with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are taken as the reference group, so the percentage point difference is expressed in relation to this group.

As we can see, in all countries those individuals with tertiary education were by far the group most likely to report trusting others. And in almost every country, those with post-secondary non-tertiary education were more likely to trust others than those with primary or lower secondary education. The OECD's report Education at a Glance (2015) provides similar descriptive evidence for other social outcomes.

The conclusion is that adults with higher qualifications are more likely to report desirable social outcomes, including good or excellent health, participation in volunteer activities, interpersonal trust, and political efficacy. These results hold after controlling for literacy, gender, age, and monthly earnings.

Do countries that spend more public resources on education tend to have better education outcomes?

Education outcomes are typically measured via 'quantity' output (e.g. years of schooling) and 'quality' output (e.g. learning outcomes, such as test scores from the Programme for International Student Assessment – PISA).

The following visualization presents three scatter plots using 2010 data to show the cross-country correlation between (i) education expenditure (as a share of GDP), (ii) mean years of schooling, and (iii) mean PISA test scores.

At a cross-sectional level, expenditure on education correlates positively with both quantity and quality measures; and not surprisingly, the quality and quantity measures also correlate positively with each other.

But obviously correlation does not imply causation: there are many factors that simultaneously affect education spending and outcomes. Indeed, these scatterplots show that despite the broad positive correlation, there is substantial dispersion away from the trend line – in other words, there is substantial variation in outcomes that does not seem to be captured by differences in expenditure.

Does cross-country variation in government education expenditure explain cross-country differences in education outcomes?

The following visualization presents the relationship between PISA reading outcomes and average education spending per student, splitting the sample of countries by income levels.

It shows that income is an important factor that affects both expenditure on education and education outcomes: we can see that above a certain national income level, the relationship between PISA scores and education expenditure per pupil becomes virtually nonexistent.

Several studies with more sophisticated econometric models corroborate the fact that expenditure on education does not explain well cross-country differences in learning outcomes. 25

School inputs

Each education system is different, but improving teacher quality is often more effective in improving learning outcomes than increasing the number of teachers per pupil.

A vast number of studies have tried to estimate the impact of classroom resources on learning outcomes.

The following table summarizes results from the systematic review in Hanushek (2006). 26 In this table, the left-hand side summarizes results from econometric studies focusing on developing countries, while the right-hand side presents evidence from the US (where studies have concentrated extensively).

We can see that for all listed inputs and across all countries, the share of studies that have found a positive effect is small – in fact, the majority of studies find either no effect or a negative effect. This clearly does not mean that these classroom resources are not important, but rather that it is very difficult to know with confidence when and where they are a binding constraint to improve learning outcomes.

A first conclusion, therefore, seems to be that context and input mix are fundamental to improving outcomes – even in developing countries where the expected returns to additional resources is large across the board.

Taking the ratio of positive to negative effects detected in the literature as a proxy for what tends to work best, we can derive a second conclusion from the table: spending more resources on better teachers (i.e. improving teacher experience and teacher education) tends to work better to improve learning outcomes than simply increasing the number of teachers per pupil. This seems to be true both in developed and developing countries.

This last conclusion is consistent with the main message from the OECD's report Does money buy strong performance in PISA? , which points out that countries that prioritized the quality of teachers over class sizes performed better in PISA tests. 27

This is is also consistent with a recent high-quality study on the impact of teacher quality on test scores using data from the US, which suggests that improvements in teacher quality can causally raise students’ test scores. 28

Remedial teaching can yield substantial improvements in learning outcomes

Education in low-income countries is particularly difficult because there is substantial heterogeneity in the degree of preparation that children have when they enter school – much more so than in high-income countries.

Evidence from policy 'experiments' in developing countries suggests remedial teaching, in the form of assistants teaching targeted lessons to the bottom of the class, can yield substantial improvements in learning outcomes.

The following visualization summarizes the effects of four different policy treatments within the so-called Teacher Community Assistant Initiative (TCAI) in Ghana – this is an initiative that evaluated four different such remedial teaching interventions. 30

The units in this figure are standard deviations of test results. The first two sets of estimates correspond to the test-score impacts of enabling community assistants to provide remedial instruction specifically to low-performing children, either during school or after school. The third set of estimates corresponds to test-score impacts of providing a community assistant and reducing class size, without targeting instruction to low-performing pupils. The last set of results corresponds to testing the effect of training teachers to provide small-group instruction targeted at pupils’ actual learning levels.

As we can see, while all interventions had a positive effect, the lowest impacts – across all tests – come from the non-targeted 'normal curriculum' intervention that reduced class sizes, and from the intervention that provided training to teachers on how to engage in targeted remedial teaching themselves. This suggests that the improvements in outcomes were caused by the combination of targeted instruction and TCAs who, unlike teachers, were specifically dedicated to this purpose. These results are consistent with findings from across Africa, suggesting that teaching at the right level causes better learning outcomes in a cost-effective way. 31

Are pay-for-performance teacher contracts an effective instrument to improve learning outcomes?

We have already made the point that the bulk of education expenditure goes specifically towards financing teachers. We have also pointed out that improving teacher quality may be a particularly good instrument to improve teaching outcomes. This leads to a natural question: are pay-for-performance teacher contracts an effective instrument to improve learning outcomes? A growing body of literature in the economics of education has started using randomized control trials (i.e. policy 'experiments') to answer this question. Glewwe and Muralidharan (2016) provide the following account of the available evidence:

"Results suggest that even modest changes to compensation structures to reward teachers on the basis of objective measures of performance (such as attendance or increases in student test scores) can generate substantial improvements in learning outcomes at a fraction of the cost of a "business as usual" expansion in education spending. However, not all performance pay programs are likely to be effective, so it is quite important to design the bonus formulae well and to make sure that these designs reflect insights from economic theory." 33

The conclusion is that well-designed pay-for-performance contracts are a cost-effective instrument to boost test scores; but this does not mean that they are necessarily effective at achieving other – perhaps equally important – objectives of time spent in school. In simple words, it is possible that pay-for-performance yields 'teaching to the test'.

Other incentive mechanisms, such as community-based monitoring of teachers, have been proposed as an alternative. Glewwe and Muralidharan (2016) also provide a review of the – somewhat limited – available evidence on such alternative incentive mechanisms. 34

Household inputs

School attendance and student effort are responsive to incentives.

Demand-side inputs are as important as supply-side inputs to produce education. Attending school and exerting effort are perhaps the most obvious examples: without these inputs, even the best-endowed schools will fail to deliver good outcomes.

The table summarizes information on different demand-side investments that have been shown to successfully improve quality and quantity outcomes. More precisely, this table gathers evidence from randomized control trials in developing countries, as per the review in Glewwe and Muralidharan (2016). The reported figures correspond to positive/negative significant/insignificant estimates across a set of available experimental studies (bear in mind some studies estimate more than one effect – e.g. by measuring outcomes at several points in time).

As we can see, the evidence suggests interventions that increase the benefits of attending school – such as conditional cash transfers – are likely to increase student time in school. And those that increase the benefits of higher effort and better academic performance – such as merit scholarships – are likely to improve learning outcomes. 35 .

Targeting health problems can be a particularly cost-effective way of increasing school attendance

In many low-income countries, health problems are an important factor preventing children from attending school.

The following visualization presents a comparison of the impact that a number of different health interventions have achieved in different countries – together with some non-health-related interventions that serve as references. The height of each bar in this graph reflects the additional school years achieved per hundred dollars spent on the corresponding intervention; so these estimates can be interpreted as a measure of how cost-effective the different interventions are. 37

We see that treating children for intestinal worms (labeled 'deworming' in the chart) led to an additional 13.9 years of education for every $100 spent in Kenya; while a program targeting anemia (labeled 'iron fortification') led to 2.7 additional years per $100 in India. These interventions seem to be much more cost-effective in improving test scores than conditional cash transfers, free school uniforms, or merit scholarships. 38

Of course, ranking these interventions is not trivial since most programs achieve multiple outcomes – indeed, we have already discussed that remedial teaching is generally effective to increase test-scores, although here we see a particular instance where it had no impact on school attendance.

Nevertheless, health interventions seem to be particularly interesting, since they lead to substantial achievements in both education and health outcomes. 39

How important are pre-school investments?

The environment that children are exposed to early in life plays a crucial role in shaping their abilities, behavior, and talents. To a great extent, this is what drives large and remarkably persistent gaps in education achievement between individuals in the same country, but in different socioeconomic environments. Cunha et al. (2006) provide a detailed account of the theory and evidence behind this claim and discuss its implications for the design of education policies.

In the chart, we see the impacts of the Perry Preschool Program – a flagship experimental intervention study, designed to test the impact of preschool education on subsequent education outcomes. 41

The chart shows disadvantaged children participating in the preschool program (the 'treatment group') had higher grades and were more likely to graduate from high school than the reference control group. Moreover, they spent substantially less time in special education. Other programs have similarly shown evidence of very large and persistent returns to early education interventions.

Interactive Charts on Education Spending

See the Wikipedia entry on compulsory education for a table of the ages of compulsory schooling around the world.

As per estimates from Adam Szirmai, (2015) The Dynamics of Socio-Economic Development .

As per estimates of Gini coefficients for the distribution of school years in Crespo Cuaresma, J., KC, S., & Sauer, P. (2013). Age-specific education inequality, education mobility and income growth (No. 6). WWWforEurope.

As per estimates reported in Steer L. and K. Smith (2015), Financing education: Opportunities for global action . Center for Universal Education.

As per 2015 enrolment estimates from the NCES.

An article from the Huffington Post highlights this point, including interesting visualizations documenting the important role that federal funding plays in reducing expenditure inequalities.

Lindert, Peter H. Growing public: Volume 1, the story: Social spending and economic growth since the eighteenth century . Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Lindert, Peter H. Growing Public: Volume 1, the story: Social spending and economic growth since the eighteenth century . Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Bear in mind that the estimates from the National Center for Education Statistics are not broken down by source of funds. Rather, they show expenditure by type of institution – which is not equivalent, since public institutions may spend private resources, and vice versa.

In 2010, high-income countries spent 6721 US PPP dollars per primary school pupil. Low-income countries, in contrast, spent 115 US PPP dollars per pupil (UNESCO EFA Global Monitoring Report 2014).

Jesus Crespo Cuaresma, Samir K.C., and Petra Sauer (2013) – Age-Specific Education Inequality, Education Mobility and Income Growth . WWWforEurope working paper; Working Paper no 6.

Data from Petra Sauer (2016) – The Role of Age and Gender in Education Expansion . Working Paper.

Strictly speaking, for this spending pattern to be truly progressive there must be subsidies or income-contingent loans to guarantee that low-income students can also access tertiary education and reap the private benefits from this type of investment.

The OECD provides country-specific figures. However, there is relatively little variation across OECD countries in this respect. This is explained by near-universal enrolment rates at these levels of education and the demographic structure of the population.

This is a stylized fact of OECD education spending. In all the OECD countries, the share of spending devoted to the compensation of teachers is by far the largest component of current expenditure. Moreover, expenditure on teachers' compensation is larger at the combined primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education than at the tertiary level. See Table B6.2 in Education at a Glance (2015) for details on the breakdown of current expenditure across all OECD countries by education level.

Welch, F., & Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Handbook of the Economics of Education, Two Volumes. North Holland.

Steer L. and K. Smith (2015), Financing education: Opportunities for global action . Center for Universal Education. Available Online from the Brookings Institution

The share of development assistance going to sub-Saharan Africa has decreased as a whole – from 55 percent in 2002 to 40 percent in 2013 –, but as we note the drop specifically for primary education has been steeper.

Steer L. and K. Smith (2015), Financing education: Opportunities for global action . Center for Universal Education.

The conclusion from these figures is that, while public spending does reduce education inequality in low-income countries, remaining inequalities could be further reduced by shifting resources towards lower levels of education. This evidently does not mean that resources should be shifted – low-income countries and aid donors may have other objectives apart from reducing inequality. But the case for reducing inequality at the bottom is very strong, and some studies suggest that returns to education at the primary level might be higher than at post-primary levels in low-income countries (for a discussion of the vast literature on returns to education, and the ongoing debate on the validity of estimates, see Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L. J., & Todd, P. E. (2006). Earnings functions, rates of return and treatment effects: The Mincer equation and beyond. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1, 307-458. ).

That positive externalities justify government intervention in the provision of education is essentially an efficiency argument. The logic is that individuals may not spend enough on education because they fail to internalize the positive effect that their education has on other people. But there are, of course, also equity arguments to justify government intervention in the provision of education – for instance, reducing inequality in education may be of intrinsic value, or may be instrumental in reducing inequalities in other outcomes.

As per the source notes: "Percentage-point difference reflects the relative change of reporting to trust others compared to the reference category. For example, in Norway, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education reporting to trust others increases by 20 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. Similarly, after accounting for literacy proficiency, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education increases by 16 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education."

Data on expenditure corresponds to 2010 total government education expenditure across all levels, as a share of GDP (source: World Bank Education Statistics). Data on PISA scores corresponds to 2010 mean average test scores across categories – mathematics, reading, and science (source: OECD PISA). Data on years of schooling corresponds to 2010 mean years of schooling for the population aged 15 and over (source: Barro Lee Education dataset)

Does money buy strong performance in PISA? - OECD. Available online here .

For a discussion of the evidence supporting this claim, see Hanushek, E. A., (2006). School Resources. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2.

Hanushek, E. A., (2006). School Resources. Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 2. Elsevier.

This claim is clearly only descriptive since there are many underlying variables that simultaneously drive teacher characteristics and student outcomes in any particular country. Indeed, most of the available evidence on whether teacher quality and quantity matters is difficult to interpret causally, as it is hard to find instances where teacher quality/quantity varies exogenously. A recent study concludes on the topic: "teachers vary in many ways, but we found no high-quality studies that have examined the impact of teacher characteristics on student learning or time in school" (source: page 696, Glewwe, P. and Muralidharan, K. (2016) Improving Education Outcomes in Developing Countries: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Policy Implications . Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 5. )

Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff. 2014. “Measuring the Impacts of Teachers I: Evaluating Bias in Teacher Value-Added Estimates.” American Economic Review, 104(9): 2593-26

Hanushek, E. A., (2006). School Resources. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2.

Further details in Innovations for Poverty Action, 2014. I mplementation Lessons: The Teacher Community Assistant Initiative (TCAI) .

For further details, see: Glewwe, P. and Muralidharan, K. (2016) Improving Education Outcomes in Developing Countries: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Policy Implications . Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 5. Elsevier. (Link to working paper)

Innovations for Poverty Action (2014). Implementation Lessons: The Teacher Community Assistant Initiative (TCAI) .

Glewwe, P. and Muralidharan, K. (2016) Improving Education Outcomes in Developing Countries: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Policy Implications . Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 5. Elsevier.

They conclude that "evidence on the impact of monitoring on time in school is scarce and not encouraging...[while] the evidence of the impact of monitoring on student learning is only somewhat more encouraging"

See Glewwe and Muralidharan 2016 for further details on the underlying policy interventions, plus further evidence and discussion of results

Glewwe, P. and Muralidharan, K. (2016) Improving Education Outcomes in Developing Countries: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Policy Implications . Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 5. Elsevier. (Link only to working paper)

Bear in mind that the reported gains in school years are a measure of the total impact of the program across the treated population, rather than impact per treated student. Further information on cost-effectiveness analysis is available from the source of the graph.

Further details on all interventions available in: Dhaliwal, I., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Tulloch, C. (2013). Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis to inform policy in developing countries: a general framework with applications for education . Education Policy in Developing Countries, 285-338.

For an analysis of the literature on the impacts of mass deworming see: Croke, Kevin, Joan Hamory Hicks, Eric Hsu, Michel Kremer, and Edward Miguel. 2016. “ Does Mass Deworming Affect Child Nutrition? Meta-analysis, Cost-effectiveness, and Statistical Power .” Working Paper.

Dhaliwal, I., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Tulloch, C. (2013). Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis to inform policy in developing countries: a general framework with applications for education . Education Policy in Developing Countries, 285-338.

More specifically, the Perry preschool 'experiment' consisted of enrolling 65 randomly selected black children in a pre-school program, and comparing their outcomes later in life against those achieved by a control group of roughly the same size. The treatment consisted of a daily 2.5-hour classroom session on weekday mornings and a weekly 90-minute home visit by the teacher on weekday afternoons to involve the mother in the child's educational process. More information and details on the intervention are available in Cunha et al. (2006).

Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. V. (2006). Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation . Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1, 697-812.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Why Is College So Expensive?

Experts say reduced state funding and how colleges spend tuition dollars contribute to the high costs.

Tuition and fees at Columbia University in New York total more than $61,000 for the 2019-2020 academic year. While its tuition makes it the most expensive private university in the nation, according to U.S. News data, Columbia is just one of many institutions that may leave prospective students and their families baffled by the cost of a college education. But why is college so expensive in the first place?

Getty Images

While the sticker price is rarely what students actually pay after grants and scholarships, researchers at The New Center, a bipartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., set out to understand the root cause of the rising cost of tuition and the student debt crisis facing the U.S. in a report released in August.

It's easy to see why there tends to be a reliance on student loans to pay for college: Tuition prices increased 36% from 2008 to 2018, while the real median income in the U.S. grew just over 2.1% in the same period, according to data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To afford college, many students take on debt, resulting in more than 1 million people defaulting on their student loans every year, with average monthly payments close to $400.

Zane Heflin, policy analyst at The New Center and author of the report titled "The New American Dream: Alleviating the Student Debt Crisis," says the ramifications of the 2008 Great Recession are still hitting the higher education world, and students are paying the price.

"The two main drivers of the rising cost of tuition are reduced state funding and the incentive for tuition raises as an unrestricted revenue to benefit colleges," meaning colleges can choose to spend tuition money however they wish, Heflin says. "States and local communities are spending less per student. Someone has to take on that cost, and unfortunately it's been the student."

His report outlines a few other reasons why college is so expensive, including a need for schools to devote more money and staff toward complying with regulations set by the U.S. Department of Education; high prices at for-profit colleges; and a competitive drive among some colleges to raise prices to create a perception of quality – a sort of marketing technique, Heflin says.

Find the Best Student Loans for You

Advertiser Disclosure

"These colleges are trying to raise tuition to appeal to a broader group of students by allowing that to take the place of actual quality," Heflin says. "It's one of those situations where there are a lot of perverse incentives on the part of the colleges to raise their sticker price."

The cost issue has been tracked, too, on an international level by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. had an average tuition price of nearly $9,000 per year at public institutions in 2017-2018 – the second highest in the world after England. The differences reflect the different investments in postsecondary education and the various systems in practice globally, according to OECD's "Education at a Glance 2019" report .

Some countries, like Denmark, charge no tuition for bachelor's degrees at public universities and offer substantial aid to students that can help pay for living costs. Others, like the U.S., charge high tuition and fees but also provide well-developed financial aid programs.

"Countries may have different approaches to tuition fee policy and, more generally, to sharing the cost of education between governments, students and other private entities," Manon Costinot, a statistician at the Directorate for Education and Skills at the OECD, wrote in an email. "More than the level of tuition fees, what matters most is countries' ability to ensure that the cost of education does not hinder access, for instance by offering financial support mechanisms, and that educational institutions equip students with the necessary skills to succeed in a fast-changing society."

Financial aid can help students afford to go to college, despite the rising prices. But in the U.S., options like the Pell Grant , a form of need-based federal financial aid, for example, haven't kept pace with inflation or the cost of college, says Mamie Voight, vice president of policy research at the Institute for Higher Education Policy in Washington, D.C.

"Costs are going up for students, and that pressure is falling most heavily on low-income students who are trying to access college and succeed in college," she says. More need-based financial aid from states would help ease this burden, she says, along with changes at the federal level currently being discussed as part of the potential Higher Education Act reauthorization .

While Voight says those changes are deeply needed, she urges families to avoid being deterred by surging sticker prices.

"College is worth it," Voight says. "Students and families should not be focusing on sticker price; they should be looking at net price. There are some tools out there that allow students to explore the net prices out there, and every college is required to have a net price calculator on their websites."

The Department of Education's College Navigator and College Scorecard are two options for finding net prices, which is the amount a family actually pays after factoring in grants and scholarships.

Before choosing a college and taking out a loan to pay for it, students should do their homework, says Ryan Clancy, senior adviser at The New Center.

"Kids think, 'College is good, I'm going to take this loan out that I won't have to think about for five years.' But remember that even though that loan is going to come due in the future, it's real. You are going to have to pay for it."

Trying to fund your education? Get tips and more in the U.S. News Paying for College center.

Tags: paying for college , students , student loans , student debt , colleges , financial aid , education

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

Paying for College

College Financial Aid 101

College Scholarships

College Loan Center

College Savings Center

529 College Savings Plans

Get updates from U.S. News including newsletters, rankings announcements, new features and special offers.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

Fafsa delays alarm families, colleges.

Sarah Wood March 25, 2024

Help Your Teen With the College Decision

Anayat Durrani March 25, 2024

20 Lower-Cost Online Private Colleges

Sarah Wood March 21, 2024

How to Avoid Scholarship Scams

Cole Claybourn March 15, 2024

What You Can Buy With a 529 Plan

Emma Kerr and Sarah Wood March 1, 2024

What Is the Student Aid Index?

Sarah Wood Feb. 9, 2024

Affordable Out-of-State Online Colleges

Sarah Wood Feb. 7, 2024

The Cost of an Online Bachelor's Degree

Emma Kerr and Cole Claybourn Feb. 7, 2024

How to Use Scholarship Money

Rebecca Safier and Cole Claybourn Feb. 1, 2024

FAFSA Deadlines You Should Know

Sarah Wood Jan. 31, 2024

What's New on the 2024-2025 FAFSA

College Financial Planning for Parents

Cole Claybourn Jan. 29, 2024

How to Find Local Scholarships

Emma Kerr and Sarah Wood Jan. 22, 2024

Help for Completing the New FAFSA

Diona Brown Jan. 11, 2024

Aid Options for International Students

Sarah Wood Dec. 19, 2023

10 Sites to find Scholarships

Cole Claybourn Dec. 6, 2023

A Guide to Completing the FAFSA

Emma Kerr and Sarah Wood Nov. 30, 2023

Are Private Student Loans Worth It?

Erika Giovanetti Nov. 29, 2023

Colleges With Cheap Out-of-State Tuition

Cole Claybourn and Travis Mitchell Nov. 21, 2023

Steps for Being Independent on the FAFSA

Emma Kerr and Sarah Wood Nov. 17, 2023

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

MIT announces financial aid and tuition rates for the 2024–25 academic year

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

MIT’s commitment to undergraduate financial aid will remain strong for the 2024-25 academic year, increasing to an estimated budget of $167.3 million. The increase will more than offset a 3.75 percent percent rise in tuition, to $61,990 ($62,396 including fees), and other living expense increases. The estimated average MIT scholarship for students receiving financial aid next year is $63,146.

Moreover, for students coming from families with incomes of $75,000 and less, their parents will not be expected to contribute to the cost of attendance, which includes tuition, housing, food, and personal expenses.

“MIT takes enormous pride in ensuring that any student who attends can dive into all the things that make our educational experience special, both our rigorous academic programs and the ‘secret sauce’ experiences — like experiential learning, social impact opportunities, study abroad, and team and club sports and other activities,” says Ian A. Waitz, vice chancellor for undergraduate and graduate education and the Jerome C. Hunsaker Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

The 2024-25 undergraduate financial aid program will continue prior enhancements, including making MIT tuition-free for families who have typical assets and whose incomes are below $140,000, and providing additional financial aid dollars that will reduce the amount paid by most families.

Last year, more than 39 percent of MIT undergraduates received aid sufficient to allow them to attend the Institute tuition-free. MIT is one of only eight U.S. colleges with a fully need-blind undergraduate admissions policy that meets the full financial need of all students, and it continues to be focused on making the cost of an MIT education more affordable. The new financial aid enhancement also made it possible to admit more students through the QuestBridge match this year (56), increasing access for low-income students.

“In parallel with increasing access, we are also ramping up our resources for academic success. The Undergraduate Advising Center (UAC) was recently launched as part of a long-standing effort supported by students and faculty. We envision the UAC as the anchor office of a future advising hub, integrating academic advising and support, financial services, experiential learning, and career development. The UAC is already supporting first-years to seniors and has revitalized and expanded the MIT First Generation/Low Income Program ,” adds Waitz.

While the Institute’s financial aid program primarily supports students from lower- and middle-income households, even families earning more than $250,000 may qualify for financial aid based on their circumstances, such as if two or more children are in college at the same time.

About 58 percent of MIT’s undergraduates receive need-based financial aid from the Institute, and about 20 percent receive federal Pell Grants, typically awarded to undergraduate students who display exceptional financial need. MIT treats the Pell Grant in a unique way to further support low-income students. Unlike most other colleges and universities, MIT allows students to use the Pell Grant to offset what they are expected to contribute through work during the semester and the summer. MIT also recently changed its financial aid policies to provide more support for U.S. veterans and veterans’ dependents.

When measured in real dollars, the average cost of an MIT education for those who receive financial aid has been reduced by almost 25 percent over the past two decades.

For undergraduates not receiving any need-based financial aid, tuition and fees will be (as noted earlier) $62,396 for the 2024-25 academic year. Including housing and dining costs, the total cost of attendance will come to $85,960 (based upon residing in a Tier 1 double room for the year, being on a full meal plan, and taking into account books and estimated personal expenses). Expenses may vary depending upon a student’s choices.

In 2023, 86 percent of MIT seniors graduated with no debt; of the 14 percent who did assume debt to finance their education, the median indebtedness at graduation was $14,844. Furthermore, graduating MIT students report some of the highest starting salaries across a range of industries relative to their peers.

“It’s critical that students are well-positioned when they graduate and benefit from a whole student education, especially as technology and innovation advances, from generative AI to addressing climate change to fundamental science. So, we are exploring how our academic programs can be improved and enhanced to meet students where they are and to prepare them to be nimble and always curious,” says Waitz.

For more detailed information regarding the cost of attendance, including specific costs for tuition and fees, books and supplies, housing and food, as well as transportation, please visit the Student Financial Services website.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• MIT Admissions
• MIT Student Financial Services
• MIT Undergraduate Advising Center
• MIT First Generation/Low Income Program
• MIT Task Force on the Undergraduate Academic Program

Related Topics

• Financial aid
• Undergraduate
• Vice Chancellor
• School of Architecture and Planning
• MIT Sloan School of Management
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

3 Questions: Diep Luu on MIT’s new Undergraduate Advising Center

MIT announces financial aid and tuition rates for the 2023–24 academic year

MIT announces increase to undergraduate financial aid for 2022–23 academic year

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

New software enables blind and low-vision users to create interactive, accessible charts

Read full story →

Engineers find a new way to convert carbon dioxide into useful products

Unlocking mRNA’s cancer-fighting potential

A revolutionary, bold educational endeavor for Belize

MIT-derived algorithm helps forecast the frequency of extreme weather

Artificial reef designed by MIT engineers could protect marine life, reduce storm damage

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

More From Forbes

Student loan crisis grows as families could take on record debt in 2024.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

US President Joe Biden speaks about student loan cancellation and support for students and ... [+] borrowers, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2023. Biden is announcing an additional $9 billion in student debt relief for 125,000 more Americans, bringing the total debt relief to $127 billion for nearly 3.6 million Americans, according to a statement from the White House. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

Despite all the student loan forgiveness news in the past year, a simple trend continues to plague America’s higher education system: No matter how much money we forgive, millions of new students will borrow.

While FAFSA delays have made it so fewer students have applied for financial aid for the 2024-25 academic year so far, it’s just the start of the college enrollment season. Now is the time students figure out what school they will attend, how much financial aid they'll receive and how they'll fill any funding gaps that remain.

This brings us to the crux of the problem when it comes to America's crushing student loan debt issue. Collectively, students and their families are borrowing way too much money to pursue college degrees that don't always have the best return on investment.

Case in point: Recent data on Statista shows that almost $100 billion new student loans will be issued in 2024 for the 2024-25 academic year, compared to $98 billion in 2023.

That may not seem like a huge increase, but to put this into context, the most recent press release from the Biden administration highlights that the president has forgiven $138 billion in student loans during his entire presidency.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, rising higher education costs.

One of the biggest factors driving students to borrow more for college is the rising cost of attendance at various colleges and universities, plus the cost of room and board. CollegeBoard data shows that, for the 2023-24 academic year, average in-state costs to attend a public four-year institution came in at $11,260. This is $270 higher than the 2022-23 year.

But, public four-year institutions aren't necessarily driving up student debt rates as much as out-of-state schools and private institutions of higher education. The fact is, CollegeBoard figures show out-of-state tuition and fees for public four-year schools came in at $29,150 this year, or $850 higher than last year.

Meanwhile, average tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year schools came in at $41,450 for the 2023-24 academic year — or $1,600 more than the 2022-23 academic year. And remember, these costs are for average tuition and fees only. So, they don't include room and board.

Other Reasons Why Students Borrow Too Much

High costs aside, students also can go about choosing a school in the worst possible way — at least in a financial sense. For example, some might make a list of dream schools, apply for several, get accepted to one or two, and then figure out how they'll be able to afford it.

Chris Keaveney, CEO of a student loan company called Meritize , says this scenario is common since so many families make college decisions based on emotion instead of investment value. This means they pursue whatever field of study fits their area of interest at whatever school they want. From there, they borrow whatever it takes to graduate regardless of how much financial sense it makes.

Ultimately, this is why Keaveney argues that the real challenge facing students and families is the fact they borrow more than their anticipated earnings should really allow.

"Higher education faces a repayment and ROI crisis, not necessarily a student loan crisis," Keaveney says.

While some experts would say our student debt crisis is about much more than that, it's easy to understand the core of Keaveney’s perspective. After all, someone who graduates with $100,000 in student loans and goes on to earn $500,000 per year within a few years shouldn't struggle to pay the money back.

Unfortunately, borrowing too much for college can lead to an array of consequences that hurt worse than just having less discretionary income to spend on food and fun.

Patricia Roberts, chief operating officer at Gift of College — a giving platform for higher education costs — and a college savings expert, says graduates who start their adult life with crushing student debt have difficulty pursuing typical life milestones like living on their own, saving for retirement or starting a family. Other family members can suffer as well.

"When parents take out substantial educational loans on behalf of their children, their later years may be impacted adversely," Roberts says. "Retirement may need to be delayed or not able to be pursued at all."

How To Borrow Less For College

While student loan borrowing trends for the 2024-25 academic year don't look good for families, there are steps you can take to borrow less for college no matter what others are doing.

Economist Peter C. Earle of the American Institute for Economic Research says families who want to pay less for college (and borrow less) should start by researching schools and college costs intensively. Then, create a budget for school and consider alternative funding sources outside of loans (grants, scholarships and more).

Another option is attending community college for a year or two before transferring to a four-year school, Earle adds. Most importantly, he says you have to learn to look at college degrees as a transaction to get you where you want to be instead of a "coming-of-age ceremony."

Your degree should lead to more competitiveness in the employment markets along with higher lifetime earnings and greater fulfillment.

"College is a means to an end, not an end in itself," Earle says.

Roberts also says saving as much for college as soon as possible can also make a difference. Ideally, you'll save for school in a 529 college savings plan that lets your funds grow tax-free and allows tax-free distributions when money is used for eligible higher education expenses.

"The earlier you can begin, the better," Roberts says. "After all, whatever you can save is that much less that your child will need to borrow and repay with interest."

On top of that, you can also politely ask friends and family to skip gifts that are quickly outgrown and consider a contribution to your child's 529 plan for birthdays and other holidays.

"With 18 birthdays and at least 18 holidays between birth and college, these contributions can really add up," Roberts adds.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What the Data Says About Pandemic School Closures, Four Years Later

The more time students spent in remote instruction, the further they fell behind. And, experts say, extended closures did little to stop the spread of Covid.

By Sarah Mervosh ,  Claire Cain Miller and Francesca Paris

Four years ago this month, schools nationwide began to shut down, igniting one of the most polarizing and partisan debates of the pandemic.

Some schools, often in Republican-led states and rural areas, reopened by fall 2020. Others, typically in large cities and states led by Democrats, would not fully reopen for another year.

A variety of data — about children’s academic outcomes and about the spread of Covid-19 — has accumulated in the time since. Today, there is broad acknowledgment among many public health and education experts that extended school closures did not significantly stop the spread of Covid, while the academic harms for children have been large and long-lasting.

While poverty and other factors also played a role, remote learning was a key driver of academic declines during the pandemic, research shows — a finding that held true across income levels.

Source: Fahle, Kane, Patterson, Reardon, Staiger and Stuart, “ School District and Community Factors Associated With Learning Loss During the COVID-19 Pandemic .” Score changes are measured from 2019 to 2022. In-person means a district offered traditional in-person learning, even if not all students were in-person.

“There’s fairly good consensus that, in general, as a society, we probably kept kids out of school longer than we should have,” said Dr. Sean O’Leary, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who helped write guidance for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which recommended in June 2020 that schools reopen with safety measures in place.

There were no easy decisions at the time. Officials had to weigh the risks of an emerging virus against the academic and mental health consequences of closing schools. And even schools that reopened quickly, by the fall of 2020, have seen lasting effects.

But as experts plan for the next public health emergency, whatever it may be, a growing body of research shows that pandemic school closures came at a steep cost to students.

The longer schools were closed, the more students fell behind.

At the state level, more time spent in remote or hybrid instruction in the 2020-21 school year was associated with larger drops in test scores, according to a New York Times analysis of school closure data and results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress , an authoritative exam administered to a national sample of fourth- and eighth-grade students.

At the school district level, that finding also holds, according to an analysis of test scores from third through eighth grade in thousands of U.S. districts, led by researchers at Stanford and Harvard. In districts where students spent most of the 2020-21 school year learning remotely, they fell more than half a grade behind in math on average, while in districts that spent most of the year in person they lost just over a third of a grade.

( A separate study of nearly 10,000 schools found similar results.)

Such losses can be hard to overcome, without significant interventions. The most recent test scores, from spring 2023, show that students, overall, are not caught up from their pandemic losses , with larger gaps remaining among students that lost the most ground to begin with. Students in districts that were remote or hybrid the longest — at least 90 percent of the 2020-21 school year — still had almost double the ground to make up compared with students in districts that allowed students back for most of the year.

Some time in person was better than no time.

As districts shifted toward in-person learning as the year went on, students that were offered a hybrid schedule (a few hours or days a week in person, with the rest online) did better, on average, than those in places where school was fully remote, but worse than those in places that had school fully in person.

Students in hybrid or remote learning, 2020-21

80% of students

Some schools return online, as Covid-19 cases surge. Vaccinations start for high-priority groups.

Teachers are eligible for the Covid vaccine in more than half of states.

Most districts end the year in-person or hybrid.

Source: Burbio audit of more than 1,200 school districts representing 47 percent of U.S. K-12 enrollment. Note: Learning mode was defined based on the most in-person option available to students.

Income and family background also made a big difference.

A second factor associated with academic declines during the pandemic was a community’s poverty level. Comparing districts with similar remote learning policies, poorer districts had steeper losses.

But in-person learning still mattered: Looking at districts with similar poverty levels, remote learning was associated with greater declines.

A community’s poverty rate and the length of school closures had a “roughly equal” effect on student outcomes, said Sean F. Reardon, a professor of poverty and inequality in education at Stanford, who led a district-level analysis with Thomas J. Kane, an economist at Harvard.

Score changes are measured from 2019 to 2022. Poorest and richest are the top and bottom 20% of districts by percent of students on free/reduced lunch. Mostly in-person and mostly remote are districts that offered traditional in-person learning for more than 90 percent or less than 10 percent of the 2020-21 year.

But the combination — poverty and remote learning — was particularly harmful. For each week spent remote, students in poor districts experienced steeper losses in math than peers in richer districts.

That is notable, because poor districts were also more likely to stay remote for longer .

Some of the country’s largest poor districts are in Democratic-leaning cities that took a more cautious approach to the virus. Poor areas, and Black and Hispanic communities , also suffered higher Covid death rates, making many families and teachers in those districts hesitant to return.

“We wanted to survive,” said Sarah Carpenter, the executive director of Memphis Lift, a parent advocacy group in Memphis, where schools were closed until spring 2021 .

“But I also think, man, looking back, I wish our kids could have gone back to school much quicker,” she added, citing the academic effects.

Other things were also associated with worse student outcomes, including increased anxiety and depression among adults in children’s lives, and the overall restriction of social activity in a community, according to the Stanford and Harvard research .

Even short closures had long-term consequences for children.

While being in school was on average better for academic outcomes, it wasn’t a guarantee. Some districts that opened early, like those in Cherokee County, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, and Hanover County, Va., lost significant learning and remain behind.

At the same time, many schools are seeing more anxiety and behavioral outbursts among students. And chronic absenteeism from school has surged across demographic groups .

These are signs, experts say, that even short-term closures, and the pandemic more broadly, had lasting effects on the culture of education.

“There was almost, in the Covid era, a sense of, ‘We give up, we’re just trying to keep body and soul together,’ and I think that was corrosive to the higher expectations of schools,” said Margaret Spellings, an education secretary under President George W. Bush who is now chief executive of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Closing schools did not appear to significantly slow Covid’s spread.

Perhaps the biggest question that hung over school reopenings: Was it safe?

That was largely unknown in the spring of 2020, when schools first shut down. But several experts said that had changed by the fall of 2020, when there were initial signs that children were less likely to become seriously ill, and growing evidence from Europe and parts of the United States that opening schools, with safety measures, did not lead to significantly more transmission.

“Infectious disease leaders have generally agreed that school closures were not an important strategy in stemming the spread of Covid,” said Dr. Jeanne Noble, who directed the Covid response at the U.C.S.F. Parnassus emergency department.

Politically, though, there remains some disagreement about when, exactly, it was safe to reopen school.

Republican governors who pushed to open schools sooner have claimed credit for their approach, while Democrats and teachers’ unions have emphasized their commitment to safety and their investment in helping students recover.

“I do believe it was the right decision,” said Jerry T. Jordan, president of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, which resisted returning to school in person over concerns about the availability of vaccines and poor ventilation in school buildings. Philadelphia schools waited to partially reopen until the spring of 2021 , a decision Mr. Jordan believes saved lives.

“It doesn’t matter what is going on in the building and how much people are learning if people are getting the virus and running the potential of dying,” he said.

Pandemic school closures offer lessons for the future.

Though the next health crisis may have different particulars, with different risk calculations, the consequences of closing schools are now well established, experts say.

In the future, infectious disease experts said, they hoped decisions would be guided more by epidemiological data as it emerged, taking into account the trade-offs.

“Could we have used data to better guide our decision making? Yes,” said Dr. Uzma N. Hasan, division chief of pediatric infectious diseases at RWJBarnabas Health in Livingston, N.J. “Fear should not guide our decision making.”

Source: Fahle, Kane, Patterson, Reardon, Staiger and Stuart, “ School District and Community Factors Associated With Learning Loss During the Covid-19 Pandemic. ”

The study used estimates of learning loss from the Stanford Education Data Archive . For closure lengths, the study averaged district-level estimates of time spent in remote and hybrid learning compiled by the Covid-19 School Data Hub (C.S.D.H.) and American Enterprise Institute (A.E.I.) . The A.E.I. data defines remote status by whether there was an in-person or hybrid option, even if some students chose to remain virtual. In the C.S.D.H. data set, districts are defined as remote if “all or most” students were virtual.

An earlier version of this article misstated a job description of Dr. Jeanne Noble. She directed the Covid response at the U.C.S.F. Parnassus emergency department. She did not direct the Covid response for the University of California, San Francisco health system.

How we handle corrections

Sarah Mervosh covers education for The Times, focusing on K-12 schools. More about Sarah Mervosh

Claire Cain Miller writes about gender, families and the future of work for The Upshot. She joined The Times in 2008 and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. More about Claire Cain Miller

Francesca Paris is a Times reporter working with data and graphics for The Upshot. More about Francesca Paris

Watch CBS News

Biden administration forgives $6 billion in student debt. Here's who qualifies for forgiveness.

By Aimee Picchi

Edited By Anne Marie Lee

Updated on: March 21, 2024 / 10:31 AM EDT / CBS News

The Biden administration on Thursday said it is forgiving almost $6 billion in student debt for 77,700 borrowers, with those recipients scheduled to receive an email from President Joe Biden alerting them about their debt cancellation. 

The people who qualify for the latest round of student loan forgiveness are public service employees, such as teachers, nurses, social workers and firefighters, the White House said in a statement.  On a per-person basis, the forgiveness amounts to about $77,000 per person.

Ever since the Supreme Court last year  invalidated  the Biden administration's plan for broad-based student loan forgiveness, the Biden administration has sought to rely on existing and new loan repayment plans to provide debt relief to almost 4 million people. Americans are carrying about $1.77 trillion in student debt, a financial burden that some college grads say has made it tougher to achieve financial milestones like buying a home. 

The Biden administration has sought to fix problems in the nation's student loan repayment system by rolling out a new program called SAVE and making it easier for public servants to get their debt erased.

"For too long, our nation's teachers, nurses, social workers, firefighters and other public servants faced logistical troubles and trapdoors when they tried to access the debt relief they were entitled to under the law," said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. "With this announcement, the Biden-Harris Administration is showing how we're taking further steps not only to fix those trapdoors, but also to expand opportunity to many more Americans."

Who qualifies for student loan forgiveness? 

The Biden administration said 77,700 borrowers who are enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program will receive debt forgiveness. 

Those who are receiving debt forgiveness include public servants who enrolled in the Biden administration's limited PSLF waiver , which allows public sector workers who haven't previously qualified for loan relief to receive credit for past repayments, the administration said. 

What were the prior problems with the PSLF program?

The PSLF program, which has been around since 2007, had the lofty goal of forgiving the student debt of Americans who work in public sector jobs, such as teachers or government employees, for at least 10 years.

But its notoriously Byzantine regulations and misleading guidance from some loan-servicing companies meant that few public servants managed to get debt relief. In fact, only 7,000 people received forgiveness through the PSLF prior to the Biden administration. 

Since the White House made changes to PSLF, about 871,000 Americans have received student loan forgiveness through the program, the Biden administration said.

How will I know if I got PSLF debt forgiveness?

The 77,700 borrowers who qualify will receive a letter from President Biden next week congratulating them on their relief. 

I'm enrolled in PSLF. Will I get loan forgiveness, too?

Another 380,000 people enrolled in PSLF will receive an email from Biden next week letting them know they are within one to two years of qualifying for debt forgiveness through the program. 

According to a sample email, Biden will congratulate them and urge them to continue working in public service to qualify for forgiveness. One email reads, "I hope you continue the important work of serving your community — and if you do, in less a year you could get your remaining student loans forgiven through Public Service Loan Forgiveness."

• Biden Administration
• Student Debt
• Student Loan

Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.

More from CBS News

Trump urging Michigan GOP leaders to ramp up outreach to Black voters in Detroit

Ortonville Village Council rejects pride festival permit for a second time

Michigan names Florida Atlantic's Dusty May new basketball coach

$1M winning Mega Millions ticket sold in Michigan

• Condition of Education Digest of Education Statistics Projections of Education Statistics Topical Studies
• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)
• International Activities Program (IAP)
• Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) National Household Education Survey (NHES)
• Common Core of Data (CCD) Secondary Longitudinal Studies Program Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) more...
• Library Statistics Program
• Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) Career/Technical Education Statistics (CTES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) more...
• Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) National Forum on Education Statistics Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program - (SLDS) more...
• Distance Learning Dataset Training National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) Statistical Standards Program more...
• Assessments K-12 Students K-12 Teachers and Faculty K-12 Schools College Students College Faculty College Institutions Mapping
• Delta Cost Project IPEDS Data Center How to apply for Restricted Use License Online Codebook
• ACS-ED Tables Data Lab Elementary Secondary Information System International Data Explorer IPEDS Data Center NAEP Data Explorer
• ACS Dashboard College Navigator Private Schools Public School Districts Public Schools Search for Schools and Colleges
• NAEP State Profiles (nationsreportcard.gov) Public School District Finance Peer Search Education Finance Statistics Center IPEDS Data Center
• NAEP Question Tool NAAL Questions Tool
• ACS-ED Dashboard ACS-ED Maps Locale Lookup MapEd SAFEMap School and District Navigator
• Bibliography ED Data Inventory
• Assessments Early Childhood Elementary and Secondary Postsecondary and Beyond Resources Special Topics
• Search for Schools and Colleges College Navigator Other Search Tools Public Schools Public School Districts Private Schools
• NCES Blog What's New at NCES Conferences/Training NewsFlash Funding Opportunities Press Releases StatChat
• Search Publications and Products Annual Reports Restricted-use Data Licenses Recent Publications By Subject Index A-Z By Survey & Program Areas Data Products Last 6 Months
• About NCES Commissioner Contact NCES Staff Help

Annual Reports and Information Staff (Annual Reports)

Coe indicators, family characteristics.

• Characteristics of Children’s Families
• Family Involvement in Education-Related Activities Outside of School
• Children in Rural Areas and Their Family Characteristics
• Educational Expectations and Involvement of Parents in Rural Areas

Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education

Preprimary education (4).

• Early Childhood Care Arrangements: Choices and Costs
• Home Literacy Activities With Young Children
• Enrollment Rates of Young Children
• Early Childhood Care and Education Programs in Rural Areas

Elementary and Secondary Enrollment (9)

• Public School Enrollment
• Public Charter School Enrollment
• English Learners in Public Schools
• Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools
• Private School Enrollment
• Homeschooled Children and Reasons for Homeschooling
• Students With Disabilities
• Enrollment and School Choice in Rural Areas
• English Learners and Students with Disabilities in Rural Public Schools

Schools and Districts (2)

• Characteristics of Elementary and Secondary Schools
• Concentration of Public School Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

School Crime and Safety

Violent deaths (1).

• Violent Deaths at School and Away From School, School Shootings, and Active Shooter Incidents

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization (4)

• Incidence of Nonfatal Victimization at School and Away From School
• Prevalence of Criminal Victimization at School
• Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property
• Teachers Threatened With Injury or Physically Attacked by Students

School Environment (6)

• Criminal Incidents Recorded by Public Schools and Those Reported to Sworn Law Enforcement
• Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools
• Students’ Reports of Gangs at School
• Students’ Reports of Hate-Related Words and Hate-Related Graffiti
• Bullying at School and Electronic Bullying
• Teachers’ Reports of Disruptive Student Behaviors and Staff Rule Enforcement

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances (4)

• Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere
• Students Carrying Weapons and Students’ Access to Firearms
• Students’ Use of Alcohol
• Marijuana Use and Illegal Drug Availability

Fear and Avoidance (2)

• Students’ Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School
• Students’ Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Classes or Specific Places in School

Discipline, Safety, and Health Practices (4)

• Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools
• Safety and Security Practices at Public Schools
• Students’ Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School
• Prevalence of Mental Health Services Provided by Public Schools and Limitations in Schools’ Efforts to Provide Mental Health Services

Technology (3)

• Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on the Elementary and Secondary Education System
• Children’s Internet Access at Home
• Rural Students’ Access to the Internet

Teachers and Staff (10)

• Characteristics of Public School Teachers
• Characteristics of Traditional Public, Public Charter, and Private School Teachers
• Characteristics of Public School Teachers Who Completed Alternative Route to Certification Programs
• Teacher Openings in Elementary and Secondary Schools
• Characteristics of Public and Private School Principals
• Teacher Turnover: Stayers, Movers, and Leavers
• Principal Turnover: Stayers, Movers, and Leavers
• Staff in Rural Public Elementary and Secondary School Systems
• Characteristics, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Principals in Rural Schools
• Characteristics, Credentials, and Experiences of Teachers in Rural Schools

Student Learning

Assessments (8).

• Reading Performance
• Mathematics Performance
• Science Performance
• Technology and Engineering Literacy
• Reading and Mathematics Score Trends
• International Comparisons: Reading Literacy at Grade 4
• International Comparisons: Mathematics and Science Achievement at Grades 4 and 8
• International Comparisons: Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy of 15-Year-Old Students

Courses and School Supports (3)

• Recovery From the Coronavirus Pandemic in K–12 Education
• High School Mathematics and Science Course Completion
• Career and Technical Education Programs in Rural High Schools

High School Persistence and Completion (3)

• Status Dropout Rates
• Public High School Graduation Rates
• Public High School Graduation Rates in Rural Areas

Finances and Governance (2)

• Public School Revenue Sources
• Public School Expenditures

Postsecondary Education

Postsecondary students (8).

• Immediate College Enrollment Rate
• College Enrollment Rates
• Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Fall Plans for Postsecondary Education
• Undergraduate Enrollment
• Postbaccalaureate Enrollment
• Characteristics of Postsecondary Students
• College Student Employment
• Postsecondary Enrollment Status of Youth From Rural Areas

Institutions (1)

• Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions

Campus Crime and Safety (2)

• Criminal Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions
• Hate Crime Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions

Faculty and Staff (1)

• Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty

Completions and Graduation Rates (5)

• Postsecondary Certificates and Degrees Conferred
• Undergraduate Degree Fields
• Graduate Degree Fields
• Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates
• Postsecondary Outcomes for Nontraditional and Traditional Undergraduate Students

Finances and Resources (6)

• Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution
• Loans for Undergraduate Students and Debt for Bachelor’s Degree Recipients
• Sources of Financial Aid
• Trends in Student Loan Debt for Graduate School Completers
• Postsecondary Institution Revenues
• Postsecondary Institution Expenses

Population Characteristics and Economic Outcomes

Population characteristics (3).

• Educational Attainment of Young Adults
• Nondegree Work Credentials and Work Experience Programs
• Educational Attainment in Rural Areas

Economic Outcomes (5)

• Employment and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment
• Employment Outcomes of Bachelor’s Degree Holders
• Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment
• Young Adult Educational and Employment Outcomes by Family Socioeconomic Status
• Young Adults Neither Enrolled in School nor Working

International Comparisons

Assessments (3), enrollment and attainment (2).

• Enrollment Rates by Country
• International Educational Attainment

Finances (1)

Education expenditures by country, nonfatal student and teacher victimization (4), education across america, family characteristics (3), educational experiences (4), school resources and staffing (3), educational outcomes (3), 2023 spotlights (2), spotlight archive, related sites, condition of education at a glance, reader’s guide, guide to sources, go to the organization for economic cooperation and development (oecd) website, digest tables, annual reports publications & products.

Select a subgroup characteristic from the drop-down menu below to view relevant text and figures.

—Not available.

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

1 Methodology and/or data sources have been revised between 2010 and 2019. As a result, percentage changes in expenditures between 2010 and 2019 are not comparable.

2 Elementary and secondary education expenditures exclude postsecondary nondegree programs. Postsecondary nondegree figures are treated as negligible.

3 Elementary and secondary education expenditures include preprimary education (for children ages 3 and older).

4 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries (including those that had been invited to become members and were under review, referred to as the accession process), to which each country reporting data contributes equally.

5 Postsecondary nondegree programs included in both secondary and postsecondary programs.

6 Methodology has been revised due to a large GDP increase in 2015, resulting in a break in trend expenditure data for years prior to 2015.

NOTE: Costa Rica and Switzerland are excluded from this figure because data on expenditures were unavailable for 2010 and 2019. All education expenditure data in this figure were calculated using International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. Expenditures for ISCED level 4 (postsecondary nondegree programs) are included in elementary and secondary education expenditures unless otherwise noted. Data adjusted to U.S. dollars using the purchasing power parity (PPP) index. Constant dollars based on national gross domestic product deflators and PPP indexes, available in the OECD database cited in the SOURCE note below. Data are collected for the financial year ending in the reported year for each country. For more information on the financial year reported by OECD countries, see Annex Table X1.3 here: https://stat.link/3ha7ok . Includes only data that had been validated for consistency and accuracy by OECD and the relevant country as of January 19, 2023. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Online Education Database. Retrieved January 19, 2023, from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx . See Digest of Education Statistics 2022 , table 605.10 .

• higher than in 2010 in 20 countries, including the United States (ranging from less than one-half of 1 percent higher in Belgium to 51 percent higher in Chile); and
• lower than in 2010 in 6 countries (France, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Slovenia, and Denmark).

2 Postsecondary nondegree programs included in both secondary and postsecondary programs.

3 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries (including those that had been invited to become members and were under review, referred to as the accession process), to which each country reporting data contributes equally.

4 Methodology has been revised due to a large GDP increase in 2015, resulting in a break in trend expenditure data for years prior to 2015.

5 Includes public institutions only.

NOTE: Switzerland is excluded from this figure because data on expenditures were unavailable for 2010 and 2019. All education expenditure data in this figure were calculated using International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. Includes both government and private expenditures. Includes expenditures on both public and private institutions unless otherwise noted. Data adjusted to U.S. dollars using the purchasing power parity (PPP) index. Constant dollars based on national gross domestic product deflators and PPP indexes, available in the OECD database cited in the SOURCE note below. Data are collected for the financial year ending in the reported year for each country. For more information on the financial year reported by OECD countries, see Annex Table X1.3 here: https://stat.link/3ha7ok . Includes only data that had been validated for consistency and accuracy by OECD and the relevant country as of January 19, 2023. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.

• higher than in 2010 in 16 countries, including the United States (ranging from 3 percent higher in Japan to 91 percent higher in Estonia); and
• lower than in 2010 in 9 countries (the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, France, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Finland, and Mexico).

– Linear relationship between spending and country wealth for 36 OECD countries reporting data (elementary/secondary): R 2 = .76; slope = 0.18; intercept = 2,075.

NOTE: Costa Rica and Switzerland are excluded from this figure because data on expenditures were not available for 2019. All education expenditure data in this figure were calculated using International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. Expenditures for ISCED level 4 (postsecondary nondegree programs) are included in elementary and secondary education expenditures except for Canada, Colombia, and Greece. Data on expenditures for Canada include preprimary education. In Japan, postsecondary nondegree programs were included in both secondary and postsecondary programs. Data adjusted to U.S. dollars using the purchasing power parity (PPP) index. Constant dollars based on national gross domestic product deflators and PPP indexes, available in the OECD database cited in the SOURCE note below. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries (including those that had been invited to become members and were under review, referred to as the accession process), to which each country reporting data contributes equally. Data are collected for the financial year ending in the reported year for each country. For more information on the financial year reported by OECD countries, see Annex Table X1.3 here: https://stat.link/3ha7ok . Includes only data that had been validated for consistency and accuracy by OECD and the relevant country as of January 19, 2023.

• 15 countries also had elementary/secondary education expenditures per FTE student that were higher than the $11,300 average of OECD countries (the 15 countries were France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Finland, Belgium, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Austria, Iceland, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United States, Norway, and Luxembourg); and
• 1 country (Ireland) had lower elementary/secondary expenditures per FTE student ($10,000) than the average of OECD countries.
• 19 countries also had elementary/secondary education expenditures per FTE student that were lower than the average of OECD countries in 2019 (the 19 countries were Colombia, Mexico, Türkiye, Chile, Greece, Latvia, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Estonia, Lithuania, Israel, Slovenia, Japan, Spain, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, and Italy); and
• 1 country (the Republic of Korea) had higher elementary/secondary expenditures per FTE student ($15,900) than the average for OECD countries.

– Linear relationship between spending and country wealth for 37 OECD countries reporting data (postsecondary): R 2 = .71; slope = 0.39; intercept = -696.

NOTE: Switzerland is excluded from this figure because data on expenditures were not available for 2019. All education expenditure data in this figure were calculated using International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. Includes both government and private expenditures. Includes expenditures on both public and private institutions except for Costa Rica. Data on expenditures for Costa Rica include public institutions only. Data on expenditures for Japan include ISCED level 4 (postsecondary nondegree programs), which were also included in secondary education expenditures. Data adjusted to U.S. dollars using the purchasing power parity (PPP) index. Constant dollars based on national gross domestic product deflators and PPP indexes, available in the OECD database cited in the SOURCE note below. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries (including those that had been invited to become members and were under review, referred to as the accession process), to which each country reporting data contributes equally. Data are collected for the financial year ending in the reported year for each country. For more information on the financial year reported by OECD countries, see Annex Table X1.3 here: https://stat.link/3ha7ok . Includes only data that had been validated for consistency and accuracy by OECD and the relevant country as of January 19, 2023.

• 19 countries also had postsecondary education expenditures per FTE student that were lower than the average of OECD countries; and
• 2 countries had expenditures per FTE student that were higher than the average of OECD countries: New Zealand ($19,000), and Japan ($19,900).

1 Refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (including those that had been invited to become members and were under review, referred to as the accession process), to which each country reporting data contributes equally.

2 Includes expenditures that could not be reported by level of education.

NOTE: Data for Costa Rica and Switzerland are not available for 2019. All data in this table were calculated using International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011. Expenditures for ISCED level 4 (postsecondary nondegree programs) are included in elementary and secondary education expenditures. Data are collected for the financial year ending in the reported year for each country. For more information on the financial year reported by OECD countries, see Annex Table X1.3 here: https://stat.link/3ha7ok . Includes only data that had been validated for consistency and accuracy by OECD and the relevant country as of October 19, 2022. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Online Education Database. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx . See Digest of Education Statistics 2022 , table 605.20 .

• 4.0 percent or more in 7 countries (highest in Israel at 4.8 percent);
• 3.5 percent in the United States;
• 3.4 percent on average across OECD countries; and
• 2.3 percent (lowest) in Ireland.
• 2.7 percent (highest) in Chile;
• 2.5 percent (second highest) in the United States;
• 1.5 percent on average across OECD countries; and
• 0.5 percent (lowest) in Luxembourg.

1 Gross domestic product deflators and purchasing power parity indexes are available at the OECD Online Education Database ( https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx ). The data used for this indicator can be found in the “CPIs and weights by COICOP by country” and “PPPs and exchange rates” tables. For more information on GDP deflators and PPP indexes, please see https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/ce188438-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/ce188438-en&_csp_=f8e326092da6dbbbef8fbfa1b8ad3d52&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#section-d1e199-6539cc9538 and https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm .

2 Costa Rica and Switzerland are excluded from analyses of expenditures per FTE student at the elementary/secondary level because 2019 expenditure data at this education level were not available for these countries.

3 Throughout this indicator, the “average of OECD countries” refers to the simple average of the individual country values for all reporting OECD countries (including those that had been invited to become members and were under review, referred to as the accession process), to which each country reporting data contributes equally. Countries excluded from some analyses in this indicator may be included in the OECD average.

4 See Digest of Education Statistics , table 236.75 for more information on current expenditures on elementary/secondary education by state and jurisdiction.

5 Switzerland is excluded from analyses of expenditures per FTE student at the postsecondary level because 2019 expenditure data at this education level were not available.

6 The 2010 average of OECD countries is based on 28 countries with available data, and the 2019 average of OECD countries is based on 36 countries. Users should exercise caution when comparing averages because of the impact of the inclusion or exclusion of countries from the calculations due to available data. The 2019 average of the 28 OECD countries with data available for both 2010 and 2019 is $11,200.

7 The 2010 average of OECD countries is based on 26 countries with available data, and the 2019 average of OECD countries is based on 37 countries. Users should exercise caution when comparing averages because of the impact of the inclusion or exclusion of countries from the calculations due to available data. The 2019 average of the 26 OECD countries with data available for both 2010 and 2019 is $18,100.

8 In addition to these 16 countries, Switzerland also had a higher GDP per capita than the OECD average, but it is excluded from this analysis because it did not report data for elementary/secondary education expenditures per FTE student.

9 In addition to these 20 countries, Costa Rica also had a lower GDP per capita than the OECD average, but it is excluded from this analysis because it did not report data for elementary/secondary education expenditures per FTE student.

10 In addition to these 16 countries, Switzerland also had a higher GDP per capita than the OECD average, but it is excluded from this analysis because it did not report data for postsecondary education expenditures per FTE student.

Supplemental Information

Related indicators and resources, data sources, reference tables, glossary terms, previous versions of this indicator, suggested citation.

• Publications
• IES Centers
• Data Training
• School Search
• IES Policies and Standards
• ED Data Inventory
• IES Diversity Statement
• NCES Statistical Standards
• Peer Review Process
• Privacy and Security Policies
• Public Access Policy
• U.S. Department of Education
• Additional Resources
• Organizational Chart

Why Earn Your Master of Arts in Teaching Online?

Teachers play a pivotal role in shaping young minds. They guide instruction and shepherd learning, but that’s just one part of their impact: they also facilitate socialization, communication, collaboration, and critical thinking. It is hard to overestimate the value of an effective teacher.

Whether new to teaching or a seasoned educator, earning your Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) can help you strengthen your skills and expand your impact in the classroom. The program can elevate you to become the best teacher possible..

Returning to school as an adult can present challenges, but schools do their best to provide convenient options. They offer MAT programs in various formats, including full- or part-time, on-campus, hybrid, and online. Online programs—like the Online Master of Arts in Teaching from American University —deliver numerous benefits to busy professionals seeking an advanced degree. This article summarizes the most compelling advantages of online study.

Choose an Online MAT Program Rooted in Social Justice

Explore the progressive curriculum at american university, why earn an mat.

An MAT degree equips educators with the pedagogical knowledge, instructional strategies, and assessment competencies to foster student success. With a focus on practice-based learning and subject-specific content, MAT programs help educators build the skills to support diverse student populations. 

By earning this degree, educators improve their teaching skills as they increase their earning potential. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, teachers with master’s degrees earn approximately 24 percent more than teachers with bachelor’s degrees. Many school districts award bonuses, stipends, or higher salaries to teachers who complete a master’s program. 

Some states and teaching specialties require a master’s degree. In New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, teachers must have a master’s to renew their teaching licenses. Educators in special education, ESL/TESOL, or gifted student programs may also need an MAT degree. 

However, MAT degrees aren’t just for teachers. Earning a master’s in teaching can help professionals pursue careers as tutors, academic specialists, educational consultants, and even educational software developers. 

Why Earn Your MAT Online?

Online programs have gained popularity because of the benefits they offer diverse learners. These advantages include convenience, cost savings, technology integration skills, professional networking, and self-discipline. 

Convenience

Commuting to school can occupy a significant amount of your day. A 30-minute commute can add hours of idle time to your week. Online programs can save time by eliminating commutes and enabling you to take classes from anywhere. 

Cost Savings

Online programs typically charge the same tuition as on-campus programs; however, you will save on transportation and student housing expenses as an online student. The time saved by not having to commute also frees up time to study or take care of other items on your to-do list.

Technology Integration Skills

Today’s teaching technology includes learning management systems, video conferencing platforms, and digital assessments. Online degree programs provide ample opportunities to familiarize yourself with these new tools before using them in the classroom. 

For example, American University’s Online Master of Arts in Teaching program incorporates Mursion avatar technology throughout the curriculum. This immersive technology combines human interaction and artificial intelligence to create low-stakes opportunities to practice challenging teaching scenarios before working with real students. 

Professional Networking

Online programs foster collaboration and camaraderie among students from diverse backgrounds and geographic locations. In American University’s Online MAT program, students complete their studies as part of a cohort. By attending classes and working on projects with the same group of peers, you’ll build meaningful connections and learn from each other. You’ll also broaden your professional network through interactions with faculty and other educators during your field placements.

Self-Discipline

Independent learning plays a critical role in online education. Online learners must develop strong time-management and self-motivation skills. American University assigns student success coaches to Online MAT students for support, but you’ll still be managing your schedule. As a student in this program, you’ll build the self-discipline needed to succeed in the program and your teaching career.

Why Earn Your Online MAT From American University?

American University’s Online Master of Arts in Teaching program offers a progressive curriculum grounded in equity, community, diversity, and excellence. The cohort model encourages collaboration and peer learning, helping you foster lasting connections with your classmates from around the country. 

Designed for current and aspiring elementary school educators, the program leverages the latest advancements in neurodevelopment and socio-emotional interventions so you’re prepared to support individual student needs. After completing your 600-hour field placement with a teacher in your community, you’ll build the confidence and skills to lead your own classroom. 

In less than two years, you can earn your MAT degree and develop the skills to help ensure all students receive the high-quality education they deserve. Ready to pursue your master’s in teaching? Take the first step by contacting an enrollment advisor to learn more about the admissions process , program tuition , and student experience . If you’ve decided the program is right for you, start your application today.

Prepare to Turn Learning Differences into Learning Strengths

Earn your master’s in teaching online from american university.

Request Information