An Integrated Model of Application, Admission, Enrollment, and Financial Aid

DesJardins, Stephen L.; Ahlburg, Dennis A.; McCall, Brian P.

doi:10.1080/00221546.2006.11778932

Cited by 56 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As previously mentioned, "winners" of this system include athletic recruits, legacies, wealthy applicants, and applicants with exceptional talents, among others; this affirms prior research that preference is often afforded to wealthy applicants, as well as legacies, thereby perpetuating the status quo (DesJardins et al, 2006;Golden, 2006;Killgore, 2009). It also confirms colleges' athletic preferences (Golden, 2006;Karabel, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Who Gets In and Why? An Examination of Admissions to America’s Most Selective Colleges and Universities

Rubin¹

2014

IER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study advances our understanding of admissions practices at selective colleges and universities in the United States. An usually high survey response rate (82%, n=63) and in-depth interviews capture more selective institutions of higher education than prior research. Moreover, this study's mixed-methods approach makes it the most comprehensive analysis of elite admissions practices to date.Findings reveal that elite institutions commonly group applicants into "pools" and that applications are compared within, but not across, pools. Certain pools receive preference, largely as a result of the perceived benefits of a particular applicant's background, academic characteristics, and exceptional talents, and their relationship with a university's needs. Other findings suggest that institutional "fit" is often more important than academic merit, that the rigor of high school courses is the most important indicator in determining an applicant's merit, and that money remains a tiebreaker.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Who Gets In and Why? An Examination of Admissions to America’s Most Selective Colleges and Universities

Rubin¹

2014

IER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, little advancement has been made on this topic. DesJardins et al (2006) note that "less progress has been made in another key area: the assumption, explicit or implicit, that financial aid is exogenous" (p. 384). Because of the complex interplay of privilege, opportunity, and conditioned action in society, the question of endogeneity bias becomes an inherent controversy in the study of financial aid and persistence in college.…”

Section: The Endogeneity Of Aid Eligibility and Loansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Aid and Its Role in Encouraging Persistence

Hossler

Ziskin

Gross

et al. 2009

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The random utility approach is commonly used in economics and provides a basis for estimating equation [1] using a probit model of the discrete choice to enroll or not at the UO based upon the aforementioned controls (Curs & Singell, 2002;DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 2006).…”

Section: Empirical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A handful of multiple stage empirical models show that price responsiveness measures may be understated when an analysis exclusively focuses on the enrollment stage because price can also affect aspirations and application decisions (Abraham & Clark, 2006;Curs & Singell, 2002;DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 2006). The multi stage sticker shock phenomenon is expected to yield a larger effect on the aspirations, application and college choice behavior of low-and middle-income families where cost is a larger determinant of the college-going decision (Kane, 1999;King, 1999;McPherson & Schapiro, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aim High or Go Low? Pricing Strategies and Enrollment Effects When the Net Price Elasticity Varies with Need and Ability

Curs

Singell

2010

The Journal of Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detailed data on individual applicants to a large public university are used to demonstrate that net price responsiveness decreases with need and ability. Enrollment effects are simulated and show a movement towards a high tuition/high aid (low tuition/low aid) policy significantly lowers (raises) tuition revenue with a modest increase (decrease) in the number of aid-eligible students. Aim High or Go Low? Pricing Strategies and Enrollment Effects when the Net Price Elasticity Varies with Need and AbilityThere is a broad national consensus among academics, policy makers, and college administrators that expanding college access to higher education for low-income students is crucial to developing an effective U.S. poverty policy (St. John, 2003). Education policy pundits disagree, however, on whether the most auspicious tuition policy to expand access should follow a high tuition/high aid (HH) model that targets aid or a low tuition/low aid (LL) model that provides universal aid (Mumper, 2003). Specifically, HH proponents contend that on efficiency and equity grounds list tuition should reflect the true cost of college, but that the actual price net of aid should reflect one's ability to pay (Mortenson, 1993;Schorr, 1988). Conversely, LL advocates argue that college subsidies should be spread more evenly over the student population, because targeted aid programs are unable to attract the necessary long-term popular support and funding (Wilson, 1987;Johnstone, 1997).Implicit in both the HH and LL models are some form of subsidy motivated by the notion that higher education has a public as well as a private return. Moreover, de facto public policy has led to the real cost of college net of aid increasing for all students (i.e., a higher real tuition, lower real aid) with the rationale that the return to college has increased in recent decades and is primarily private in nature (Card, 1999). Thus, the largely theoretical debate regarding the efficacy of the HH versus LL pricing strategies on access takes place in the context of an increasing public expectation that students are, and should be, responsible for covering the lion's share of the cost of college (Heller, 2001). 4This paper enters the HH-LL debate in the context of a single large public university, the University of Oregon (UO), by examining the access, quality, and revenue consequences of moving away or towards their explicit LL-mission for (needy) in-state students and implicit HH-policy for (able) out of state students. The UO is an ideal setting to study differences in price responsiveness by need and ability because prior work suggests that net price variation (i.e., tuition minus aid) is largely determined at the institution level and because flagship public institutions tend to attract a deep and heterogeneous pool of freshman applicants (Curs & Singell, 2002). On the other hand, McMillen, Singell, and Waddell (2007) find that there is a hierarchy of institutions that compete across different applicant pools comprised of students who likely d...

show abstract

An Integrated Model of Application, Admission, Enrollment, and Financial Aid

Cited by 56 publications

References 50 publications

Who Gets In and Why? An Examination of Admissions to America’s Most Selective Colleges and Universities

Who Gets In and Why? An Examination of Admissions to America’s Most Selective Colleges and Universities

Student Aid and Its Role in Encouraging Persistence

Aim High or Go Low? Pricing Strategies and Enrollment Effects When the Net Price Elasticity Varies with Need and Ability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About