Marginal Effects of Merit Aid for Low-Income Students. Working Paper 27834
Angrist, Joshua; Autor, David; Pallais, Amanda (2020). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED608519
-
examining6,485Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Merit Aid)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attainment of any postsecondary degree within six years |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Students in the 2012 and 2013 cohorts who selected four-year college as their target school.;
|
76.20 |
70.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Attainment of any postsecondary degree within six years |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Students in the 2012 and 2013 cohorts who selected two-year college as their target school.;
|
79.80 |
77.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Attainment of bachelor's degree after six years |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Students in the 2012 and 2013 cohorts who selected four-year college as their target school.;
|
71.30 |
62.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of bachelor's degree after six years |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Students in the 2012 and 2013 cohorts who selected two-year college as their target school.;
|
26.70 |
23.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attainment of an associate degree within 6 years |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Students in the 2012 and 2013 cohorts who selected two-year college as their target school.;
|
53.10 |
54.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attainment of an associate degree within 6 years |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Students in the 2012 and 2013 cohorts who selected four-year college as their target school.;
|
4.90 |
7.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
college enrollment in any college |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in all cohorts (2012-2016) who selected four-year college as their target school.;
|
98.70 |
96.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
college enrollment in any college |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in all cohorts (2012-2016) who selected two-year college as their target school.;
|
95.70 |
89.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in all cohorts (2012-2016) who selected four-year college as their target school.;
|
93.70 |
83.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in all cohorts (2012-2016) who selected two-year college as their target school.;
|
9.80 |
6.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College enrollment - 2 year college |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in all cohorts (2012-2016) who selected two-year college as their target school.;
|
84.40 |
83.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 2 year college |
Merit Aid vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in all cohorts (2012-2016) who selected four-year college as their target school.;
|
2.80 |
9.50 |
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: 62%
Male: 38% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Nebraska
-
Race Asian 5% Black 6% Other or unknown 24% White 66% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted with a sample of students attending public four-year and two-year colleges in Nebraska.
Study sample
The sample demographics are as follows: 66% White, 6% Black, 5% Asian, and 24% of another race. 62% were female, 20% were Hispanic, and 74% were eligible for a Pell Grant.
Intervention Group
The intervention is the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (STBF) program which offers scholarships on a competitive basis to qualified first-time freshmen in Nebraska who plan to attend a public college in Nebraska and who graduated from a high school in Nebraska. There are several eligibility requirements for participation in the program including: (1) students’ high school GPA must be at least 2.5; and (2) financial need is demonstrated based on the FAFSA expected family contribution. The scholarship funds are offered for up to five years and can be used for a variety of expenses in addition to tuition including books, room and board, transportation and personal expenses. Continued financial support requires that students maintain a 2.0 or higher GPA.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition experience did not receive the STBF program scholarship but could participate in other financial aid programs.
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).