This article exploits a natural experiment to estimate the effects of need-based aid policies on first-year college persistence rates. In fall 2006, Ohio abruptly adopted a new state financial aid policy that was significantly more generous than the previous plan. Using student-level data and very narrowly defined sets of students, I estimate a difference-in-differences model to identify the program effects. Students who benefited from the program received awards about US$800 higher than they would have received under the prior program. These students’ drop-out rates fell by 2% as a result of the program. The new program also increased the likelihood that students attend 4-year campuses and increased their first-year grade point averages. The program may not have been cost-effective given the combination of its generosity and inability to target the marginal students who would be most sensitive to financial aid.
ArumR.RoksaJ. (2010). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BertM. (2013). Evaluating the impact of Ohio’s college opportunity grant on first-year student success (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
3.
BettingerE. (2004). Is the finish line in sight? Financial aid’s impact on retention and graduation. In HoxbyC. M. (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 207–238). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BettingerE. (2012). Financial aid: A blunt instrument for increasing degree attainment. In KellyA.SchneiderM. (Eds.), Getting to graduation: The completion agenda in higher education (pp. 157–174). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
5.
BettingerE.WilliamsB. (2015). Federal and state financial aid during the great recession. In BrownJ.HoxbyC. (Eds.), How the financial crisis and great recession affected higher education (pp. 235–262). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BoundJ.LovenheimM.TurnerS. (2010). Why have college completion rates declined: Marginal students or marginal college?American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 129–157.
7.
CastlemanB.LongB. T. (2013, August). Looking beyond enrollment: The causal effect of need-based grants on college access, persistence, and graduation (NBER Working Paper No. 19306). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19306
DemmingD.DynarskiS. (2008). The lengthening of childhood. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(3), 71–92.
10.
DynarskiS. (2003). Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on college attendance and completion. American Economic Review, 93, 279–288.
11.
DynarskiS. (2004). The new merit aid. In HoxbyC. (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 63–100). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
DynarskiS. (2008). Building the stock of college-educated labor. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 576–610.
13.
DynarskiS.Scott-ClaytonJ. (2006). The cost of complexity in federal student aid: Lessons from optimal tax theory and behavioral economics. National Tax Journal, 59, 319–356.
14.
DynarskiS.Scott-ClaytonJ. (2013). Financial aid policy: Lessons from research. Future of Children, 23, 67–92.
15.
EhrenbergR.ShermanD. (1984). Optimal financial aid policies for a selective university. Journal of Human Resources, 19, 202–230.
HansenW. L. (1983). The impact of student financial aid on access. In FroomkinJ. (Ed.), The crisis in higher education (pp. 84–96). New York, NY: Academy of Political Science.
18.
HellerD. (1997). Student price response in higher education: An update to Leslie and Brinkman. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 624–659.
19.
HerzogS. (2005). Measuring determinants of student return VS. dropout/stopout VS. transfer: A first-to-second year analysis of new freshmen. Research in Higher Education, 46, 883–928.
20.
JamelskeE. (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student GPA and retention. Research in Higher Education, 57, 373–391.
21.
KaneT. J. (1996). Lessons from the largest school voucher program: Two decades of experience with Pell Grants. In FullerB.ElmoreR. (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 84–96). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22.
KaneT. J. (1999). The price of admission: Rethinking how Americans pay for college. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
23.
KaneT. J. (2003). A quasi experimental estimate of the impact of financial aid on college-going (NBER Working Paper). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9703
24.
LeslieL. L.BrinkmanP. T. (1987). Student price response in higher education: The student demand studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58, 181–204.
25.
LongB. T. (2010). Making college affordable by improving aid policy (Issues in Science and Technology). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
26.
ManskiC.WiseD. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007). Education at a glance, 2007.
29.
SchanzenbachD. (2007). What have researchers learned from Project STAR? In LovelessT.HessF. (Eds.), Brookings papers on education policy 2006/2007 (pp. 205–228). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
SeftorN.TurnerS. (2002). Back to school: Federal student aid policy and adult college age enrollment. Journal of Human Resources, 37, 336–352.
31.
StinebricknerR.StinebricknerT. (2003). Working during school and academic performance. Journal of Labor Economics, 21, 473–491.
32.
StinebricknerR.StinebricknerT. (2008). The effect of credit constraints on the college drop-out decision: A direct approach using a new panel study. American Economic Review, 98, 2163–2184.
33.
St. JohnE. P.CabreraA. F.NoraA.AskerE. H. (2000). Economic influences on persistence reconsidered: How can finance research inform the reconceptualization of persistence models? In BraxtonJ. M. (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 29–47). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
34.
TurnerS. (2004). Going to college and finishing college: Explaining different educational outcomes. In HoxbyC. (Ed.), College decisions: How students actually make them and how they could (pp. 13–62). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Digest of education statistics, 2007 (NCES Publication 2008022). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf
36.
WeiC. C.HornL.CarrolC. D. (2002, May). Persistence and attainment of beginning students with Pell Grant (Statistical Analysis Report, NCES 2002-169). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
