Closing the Gap: The Effect of a Targeted, Tuition-Free Promise on College Choices of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students. NBER Working Paper No. 25349
Dynarski, Susan; Libassi, C. J.; Michelmore, Katherine; Owen, Stephanie (2018). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594348
-
examining1,026Schools, grades12-PS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2019
- Single Study Review (findings for TARGETED, TUITION-FREE PROMISE)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Application to UM |
TARGETED, TUITION-FREE PROMISE vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
67.20 |
25.90 |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Admission to UM |
TARGETED, TUITION-FREE PROMISE vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
31.20 |
14.90 |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Enrolled at UM |
TARGETED, TUITION-FREE PROMISE vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
25.80 |
11.70 |
Yes |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 59%
Male: 41% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Michigan
-
Race Black 9% Other or unknown 7%
Study Details
Setting
The study is conducted in Michigan. All high school seniors in the state in each of 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years that met study eligibility requirements are included in the intervention and study. The two eligibility requirements are that the students 1) had free or reduced-price lunch status in their junior year, and 2) and met academic eligibility criteria set by the University of Michigan that were based on college entrance exam (SAT and ACT) scores and GPAs. Students who met basic University of Michigan admission criteria are the focus of the study. The study examined whether these students enrolled at the University Michigan, as well as whether they applied to other colleges.
Study sample
The treatment (control) sample is 57 (61) percent female; 83 (84) percent white or Asian, 9 (9) percent black, and 7 (7) percent other; and 71 (69) percent free lunch eligible, and 29 (31) percent reduced-price lunch eligible. Free or reduced price lunch eligibility was a condition of the study.
Intervention Group
In the treatment condition, eligible students received a large, glossy recruitment mailer that included an information packet and a High Achieving Involved Leader (HAIL) scholarship commitment conditioned only on acceptance to the University of Michigan. Principals of the schools assigned to the treatment condition receive a letter explaining the scholarship offered and identifying the eligible students; they are encouraged to discuss the opportunity with the students.
Comparison Group
Control students received a postcard with information on application deadlines.
Support for implementation
The University of Michigan admission and recruiting staff worked closely with the study authors to design and implement the intervention.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).