This study uses web sphere analysis to examine the usability and usefulness of information that selected 4-year colleges and universities are providing about the costs of attendance via their net price calculators and cost-related websites. Using compliance with current and proposed federal requirements for net price calculators as a starting point, we draw on prior research to identify and explore indicators of the cost-related information that prospective students need, and the extent to which the 80 sampled institutions are providing it. The analyses show that some colleges and universities are not only failing to comply with federal mandates concerning net price calculators but also ignoring their ethical responsibility, as noted by the National Association of College Admission Counseling, “to provide complete, factual, and readily accessible information that will allow students and their counselors to make informed college comparisons and choices.”
AbdullahF.WardR.AhmedE. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 75-90.
2.
AnthonyA. M.PageL. C.SeldinA. (2016). In the right ballpark? Assessing the accuracy of net price calculators. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 46, 25-50.
3.
PernaL.W.Wright-KimJ. (2018, June). The role of institutional characteristics in the bachelor’s degree completion of Pell grant recipients. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Student Financial Aid Research Network (SFARN), Austin, TX.
4.
BelascoA.TrivetteM. (2015). Aiming low: Estimating the scope and predictors of postsecondary undermatch. Journal of Higher Education, 86, 233-263.
BirdK.CastlemanB. L. (2016). Here today, gone tomorrow? Investigating rates and patterns of financial aid renewal among college freshman. Research in Higher Education, 57, 295-422.
CahalanM.PernaL. W.YamashitaM.WrightJ.SantillanS. (2018). 2018 indicators of higher education equity in the United States: Historical trend report. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD).
10.
CastlemanB. L.PageL. C. (2015). Summer nudging: Can personalized text messages and peer mentor outreach increase college going among low-income high school graduates?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115, 144-160.
11.
ChengD.AsherL.AbernathyP.CochraneD.ThompsonJ. (2012). Adding it all up 2012: Are college net price calculators easy to find, use, and compare?Oakland, CA: The Institute for College Access and Success. Retrieved from http://www.ticas.org/files/pub/Adding_It_All_Up_2012.pdf
12.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
DavisL. A.WolniakG. C.GeorgeC. E.NelsonG. (2019). Demystifying tuition? A content analysis of the information quality of public college and university websites. AERA Open, 5(3), 1-27. doi: 10.1177/2332858419867650
DesJardinsS. L.ToutkoushianR. K. (2005). Are students really rational? The development of rational thought and its application to student choice. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 20, pp. 191-240). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
17.
FeeneyM.HeroffJ. (2013). Barriers to need-based financial aid: Predictors of timely FAFSA completion among low-income students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 43, 65-85.
18.
George-JacksonC.Jones GastM. (2015). Addressing information gaps: Disparities in financial awareness and preparedness on the road to college. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 44, 202-234.
19.
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 (2008).
20.
HoxbyC.TurnerS. (2013). Informing students about their college options: A proposal for broadening the expanding college opportunities project. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2013-03.
21.
IfillN. (2016). Undergraduates who do not apply for financial aid. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016406.pdf
22.
JankowskiN.FootK.KluverR.SchneiderS. (2005). The web and the 2004 EP election: Comparing political actor web sites in 11 EU states. Information Polity, 10, 165-176.
23.
JaquetteO. (2013). Why do colleges become university? Mission drift and the enrollment economy. Research in Higher Education, 54, 514-544.
24.
JaquetteO. (2015). Creating the out-of-state university: Do public universities increase nonresident freshman enrollment in response to declining state appropriations?Research in Higher Education, 56, 535-556.
25.
KelchenR.Goldrick-RabS.HoschB. (2017). The costs of college attendance: Examining variation and consistency in institutional living cost allowances. Journal of Higher Education, 88, 947-971.
26.
LevineP. B. (2014). Transparency in college costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Economics Working Paper.
27.
MaJ.PenderM.WelchM. (2016). Education pays. Washington, DC: College Board.
28.
MartorellP. (2018). Money left on the table: An analysis of Pell Grant receipt among financially-eligible community college students in California (Research Brief). Davis: Center for Community College Leadership and Research, University of California Davis.
29.
McClureK.RyderA.MaukA. (2017). It all adds up: Examining and enhancing campus climate for affordability at a four-year university. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47, 23-45.
30.
MuseusS.NicholsA.LambertA. (2008). Racial differences in the effects of campus racial climate on degree completion: A structural equation model. Review of Higher Education, 32, 107-134.
31.
National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2017a). Barriers to successfully financing a college education—And how to overcome them. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2017b). State of college admission 2017. Washington, DC: Author.
ParkS. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 150-162.
37.
PaulsenM. B.St. JohnE. P. (2002). Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 189-236.
38.
PegoranoA. L. (2006). Using university websites for student recruitment: A study of Canadian University home pages examining relationship marketing tactics and website usability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
39.
PernaL. W. (2010). Toward a more complete understanding of the role of financial aid in promoting college enrollment: The importance of context. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Volume XXV (pp. 129-180). New York, NY: Springer.
40.
PernaL. W.Lundy-WagnerV.YeeA.BrillL.TeranT. (2011). Showing them the money: The role of institutional financial aid policies and communication strategies in attracting low-income students. In KezarA. (Ed.), Recognizing social class and serving low-income students in higher education: Institutional policies, practices, and culture (pp. 72-96). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
PernaL. W.Rowan-KenyonH.ThomasS. L.BellA.AndersonR.LiC. (2008). The role of college counseling in shaping college opportunity: Variations across high schools. Review of Higher Education, 31, 131-160.
42.
PorterS.SwingR. (2006). Understanding how first-year seminars affect persistence. Research in Higher Education, 47, 89-109.
43.
PoutréA.RorisonJ.VoightM. (2017). Limited means, limited options: College remains unaffordable for many Americans. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
SaichaieK.MorphewC. C. (2014). What college and university websites reveal about the purposes of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 85, 499-530.
47.
SchneiderS. M.FootK. A. (2004). The web as an object of study. New Media & Society, 6, 114-122.
48.
SchwartzR.McMahonS.BroadnexJ. (2015). A review of sexual assault information on college web sites. Health & Social Work, 40, 275-282.
49.
SelimH. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40, 343-360.
50.
ShiremanR. (2015). The covert for-profit: How college owners escape oversight through a regulatory blind spot. Washington, DC: The Century Foundation.
51.
St. JohnE. P.PaulsenM. B.CarterD. (2005). Diversity, college costs, and postsecondary opportunity: An examination of the financial nexus between college choice and persistence for African Americans and whites. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 545-569.
52.
TsatsouP. (2016). Internet studies: Past, present, and future directions. London, England: Routledge.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Key policy letters from the education secretary or deputy secretary: Shopping sheet. Retrieved from https://collegecost.ed.gov/shopping_sheet.pdf
56.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Digest of education statistics 2016. Washington, DC: Author.
57.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Net price calculator quick start guide. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary Education.
VelezE. D.HornL.ChristopherE. M. (2018). What high schoolers and their parents know about public 4-year tuition and fees in their state (Stats in Brief, NCES 2019-404). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
