Realizing Your College Potential? Impacts of College Board's RYCP Campaign on Postsecondary Enrollment. EdWorkingPaper No. 19-40
Gurantz, Oded; Howell, Jessica; Hurwitz, Michael; Larson, Cassandra; Pender, Matea; White, Brooke (2019). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618300
-
examining785,752Students, grades11-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for College Board's Realize Your College Potential (RYCP) Campaign)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
College Board's Realize Your College Potential (RYCP) Campaign vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
64.50 |
64.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College selectivity-Barron's top rating (1) |
College Board's Realize Your College Potential (RYCP) Campaign vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
4.40 |
4.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College enrollment - 2 year college |
College Board's Realize Your College Potential (RYCP) Campaign vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
11.70 |
11.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of SAT score sends |
College Board's Realize Your College Potential (RYCP) Campaign vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.71 |
3.65 |
No |
-- |
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: 55%
Male: 46% -
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
Midwest, Northeast, South, West
-
Race Asian 13% Black 10% Other or unknown 30% White 47% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 23% Not Hispanic or Latino 78%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted using data collected by the College Board on over 785,000 10th and 11th grade students in 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years.
Study sample
The assigned sample included 785,752 students: 691,454 students in the intervention group and 94,298 students in the comparison group. Of the students in the study sample, approximately 55 percent were female, 10 percent were Black, 13 percent were Asian, and 47 percent were White. Almost a quarter (23 percent) were Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The study included 3 interventions: (1) delivery of three mailers (e.g., brochures) sent to students at their homes; (2) mailers plus, which added outreach help with college applications and small financial incentives (e.g., free SAT score sends to colleges); and (3) biweekly emails along with links to College Board’s BigFuture website that provides advice and guidance on the college application process. Students in the 2015-16 cohort in interventions #1 and #2 above received the first of three mailings in May 2015 prior to the start of 11th grade for the 10th grade sample or prior to 12th grade for the 11th grade sample. The mailer encouraged students to use the BigFuture website, provided a personalized list of 12 of appropriate colleges, and provided information students could use to assess the college “fit.” The second mailer sent in September focused on the details of the college application process. The third mailer sent in January 2016 described the steps to complete the FAFSA application. Students in the 2016-17 cohort in the two mailer interventions received two mailers; the September mailer was excluded.
Comparison Group
The students assigned to the comparison conditions did not receive any of the intervention's mailings or emails but may have received outreach information from selective colleges.
Support for implementation
No further details were provided.
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).