Search News


Browse Archives

News

More Aid ≠ More Graduates

September 14, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

After years of stagnation, the U.S. government has significantly increased its spending on need-based financial aid and is poised to pour billions of dollars more into the Pell Grant Program. The aid is seen both as removing a major hurdle that keeps many students from low-income families out of college and as potentially helping more students stay in college and on track to graduation.

A new study being released today examines the impact that a government's significant infusion of need-based aid had on college enrollment, persistence and graduation of citizens from low-income families. It suggests that the money bolstered access to college and improved students' persistence, but did not increase the proportion of students who graduated within four years.

The study, released by the Measuring the Effectiveness of Student Aid Project, focuses not on the United States but on Canada's Quebec province, which drastically revamped its financial aid formulas in 2001-2 so that students from low-income families were required to contribute less to their educations and eligible in turn for significantly more grant aid in place of loan funds.

The study, by Matthieu Chemin, assistant professor of economics at the University of Quebec in Montreal, compares the behavior of students from families with incomes under $20,000 before and after the policy changes; it also compares their behavior with Quebeçois students with higher incomes as well as those from other Canadian provinces, notably British Columbia, where student aid policies did not change.

The change in student aid policy in Quebec resulted in a 5-7 percentage point increase in the likelihood that students from low-income families would receive grant aid, Chemin's study found. That increase translated, he found, into a 4-6 percentage point increase in the likelihood of students' entering postsecondary education -- especially important in Quebec, whose enrollment rates lagged significantly those elsewhere in Canada.

Access alone isn't enough, of course, Chemin notes, but some aspects of postsecondary performance appeared to improve, too, because of the Quebec government's changes. "Exit rates" -- defined as a student's enrolling in but dropping out of a university -- dropped by 3 percentage points more than did those in British Columbia during the comparable period, and persistence rates increased by 6 percentage points, "again indicating that Quebec students stayed enrolled longer" in postsecondary education because of the financial aid reforms, Chemin writes.

But on one important indicator, the changes in Quebec's student aid policies seems not to have had a beneficial effect. The data compiled by Chemin show that "the evolution of Quebec graduation rates did not outperform the evolution of graduation rates in British Columbia or the rest of Canada," he writes.

"This finding might indicate that some individuals who accessed postsecondary education had not yet graduated by the end" of four years," a finding that would resonate particularly in the U.S., where the average time to a bachelor's degree is well over four and a half years even for those who don't stop out for a major period of time. Another possible explanation, Chemin speculates, "is that students attracted [to postsecondary education] by the availability of these grants were less likely to graduate, a hypothesis that raises doubts about the efficacy of this reform."

He concludes: "These results therefore cast doubt on the efficacy of this reform in particular, and of needs-based grants in general, to improve graduation rates."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on More Aid ≠ More Graduates

  • does not follow
  • Posted by random thoughts on September 14, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • This finding would be significant -- if supported by the data. As reported, however, the datado not support the stated conclusion: "that students attracted [to postsecondary education] by the availability of these grants were less likely to graduate, a hypothesis that raises doubts about the efficacy of this reform." The data do demonstrate that these students were "less likely to graduate" but only that they were no more likely to graduate within four years with the additional aid.

    There is a big difference between "not graduating" and "not graduating within four years." The study focuses on lower-income students. In my experience, such students often fact significant challenges in completing their education, including weak academic preparation, complex life challenges (economic, family, health, etc.), and lack of understanding of educational choices (resulting in changes in major). I believe the good news cited above -- decreased dropout rates, increased persistence rates -- will translate into improved graduation rates when five- and six-year data are examined. The four-year rate is the wrong yardstick to use for evaluating the success of these students. Every disadvantaged student who graduates in any reasonable time frame represents a success with the promise of a better life for the student and his/her family, as well as for the society that benefits from their increased contributions (social as well as economic). I hope we can look at longer term data before making important, and possibly ill-founded, policy decisions.

  • How long does it take to see results
  • Posted by Professor Student on September 14, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • The author leaves much to be desired in terms of understanding why rates didn't improve significantly. The short time horizon that is mentioned is certainly one issue that ought to be considered further. For one, there is no comparative data on average rates for low-income students, which seems pertinent to this particular region. Additional contextual information like this should be presented.

    Second, persistence and retention research seems to imply that students need multiple supports (e.g., academic, social, psychological, AND financial) to reach completion, so the fact that financial aid isn't enough is a great message for practitioners and scholars. Clearly there is more work to be done on how to help students, all students, persist to graduation.

    Overall, it seems that suggesting or implying that financial aid isn't necessary and/or effective may be a little premature.

  • not promising
  • Posted by TH4 on September 14, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I went to the MESA website to see if the actual study is really as obtuse as this article implies. But it's not up yet. There's no question that defining four-year graduation as a benchmark will skew findings about a low-income population. Low-income students are more likely to work full-time than other students, and more likely to marry and bear children younger. As a result, they enroll for fewer hours, sometimes stop out for a semester or two, and take longer to graduate. If the Quebec study failed to adjust for these factors, it would indeed be quite embarrassing.

  • IS 4 years the "normal" time in Quebec?
  • Posted by Chris Green on September 14, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • When I attended university in Quebec (20+ years ago), the normal time to graduation in universities was 3 years, not 4 as in the US. This was because high school only went to grade 11, then one went to a (publicly-funded) 2-year college (CEGEP) prior to going to university. (So, the total number of years of education to a BA was the same as in the US, but it was broken up differently.) I am not sure whether the system is the same there now as it was when I attended but, if so, then it should be noted that the researchers did allow a year beyond "normal" graduation time before finalizing their study, contrary to what some of the commenters here had inferred.

  • financial need and academic preparedness
  • Posted by DS on September 14, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • It sounds as though there are a few holes in this study, but even if there hadn't been, there's the inescapable fact that students from financially needy families/backgrounds/cities/neighborhoods are far less likely than their wealthier counterparts to be academically prepared for postsecondary education. There's loads of data to support this, from the correlation between family income and SAT scores to the lower participation and graduation rates among inner city students. But in my experience, the financially needy students are also less likely to be mentally prepared as well; as first-generation college students they aren't as savvy at navigating processes, and they're more likely to study part-time, with other demands on their time that prevent college from being the top priority in their lives. Those with fewer financial worries can stay better focused on their studies and enhance them with internships, cultural enrichment, etc, while needy students must often work menial jobs and chip in with household responsibilities just to keep food on the table and a roof over everyone's heads.

    And let's not lose sight of the fact that some college is better than no college, even if the student doesn't graduate in 4 or 5 or 6 years. Some of these students whose academic careers have been interrupted now will return to college later and complete their degrees.

  • the full study ...
  • Posted by Doug Lederman , Editor at Inside Higher Ed on September 14, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • can be found here:
    http://mesa-project.org/abstracts.php#2009-6

    Doug Lederman

  • Shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
  • Posted by DFS on September 14, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • What do you mean that, if you throw more money at something it doesn't improve?

    Shocked! Please pass the All Fruit! I feel the vapors coming on!

  • Posted by DS on September 14, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • So DFS, your solution then is to cut or eliminate need-based financial aid? Go back to the good old days, when college was for those who could afford it and the underclass could stick to flipping burgers and scrubbing floors? Financial aid creates access, and nobody's ever earned a degree unless they got access to an education to begin with.

  • Come on
  • Posted by Really? , Research on September 15, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Inside Higher Ed you should be ashamed of yourself. Running with such a headline during times like these is irresponsible. The data and the research do not support the chosen headline neither do they support some of the conclusions included in the paper. For a great analysis of thisInside Higher Ed article and the study please go here: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/More-Money-No-More-Grads-Hmm/8036/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

    We should expect and deserve more.