Student aid can expand college access or direct students toward
higher-earning fields. I quantify this tradeoff in a life-cycle
model in which individuals choose schooling, borrowing,
repayment, and a major, trading earnings against field of study
preferences. I evaluate reforms to credit access, tuition,
grants, and repayment, financing each through taxes. Universal
free tuition raises Bachelor attainment and welfare more than
STEM-contingent free tuition, with consumption-equivalent gains
of 4.1 and 3.4 percent. The field condition generates more STEM
graduates, and the two policies produce similar earnings values
of human capital. Access to loans remains valuable when tuition
is free, and modest loan expansions improve completion with
little additional public financing. Benefits also depend on
the form of assistance: last-dollar tuition subsidies favor
high-resource entrants in percentage welfare terms, whereas
flat grants favor those with fewer family resources.
Abstract:
I calculate the marginal propensity to consume student debt
relief in a quantitative precautionary savings model. The fiscal
expense of debt forgiveness is large and immediate, while the
benefits free resources from recurring future debt payments,
which reduces stimulus effects. By contrast, temporary
forbearance that suspends current payments delivers immediate
liquidity and produces MPCs close to those of cash transfers.
Targeting a one-time transfer to indebted individuals rather
than to all individuals raises the MPC by about 50 percent.
The MPCs from debt relief are less than one third that of one
time cash transfers, and less than one fifth that of cash
transfers to indebted individuals, while forbearance nearly
matches the effectiveness of transfers to indebted households.