|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Low-income students are substantially less likely than higher-income students to attend a selective university. In part, this is due to inadequate academic preparation. But even among students who are extremely well-prepared for college, there are substantial income differences in the probability of attending a selective institution (Hoxby and Avery 2012). In Michigan, the pattern is similar. While one in five higher-income students attended a university at least as competitive as the University of Michigan, only one in ten similarly-achieving low-income students did so. Previous research has demonstrated that the college choice decisions of high-achieving, low-income students can be affected by an informational intervention (Hoxby and Turner 2013). We test the effect of delivering information about the state flagship, including an early commitment of financial aid, to high-achieving students in Michigan. In the first set of interventions, which ran for four years, we delivered a simplified message of financial aid via a student packet, principal letter and email, and parent letter to student's home addresses and school addresses. In the fifth year, we construct a second treatment arm that varies the language and the promise of financial aid.
|
After
Low-income students are substantially less likely than higher-income students to attend a selective university. In part, this is due to inadequate academic preparation. But even among students who are extremely well-prepared for college, there are substantial income differences in the probability of attending a selective institution (Hoxby and Avery 2012). In Michigan, the pattern is similar. While one in five higher-income students attended a university at least as competitive as the University of Michigan, only one in ten similarly-achieving low-income students did so. Previous research has demonstrated that the college choice decisions of high-achieving, low-income students can be affected by an informational intervention (Hoxby and Turner 2013). We test the effect of delivering information about the state flagship, including an early commitment of financial aid, to high-achieving students in Michigan. In the first set of interventions, which ran for four years, we delivered a simplified message of financial aid via a student packet, principal letter and email, and parent letter to student's home addresses and school addresses. In the fifth year, we construct a second treatment arm that varies the language and the promise of financial aid. In the sixth year, we scaled the HAIL treatment to all schools. We randomized the HAIL test-score cutoff by school, evaluating the effects of lowering the test score cutoff. We set two score cutoffs: one low and one high cutoff. A school in the control group had any student above the high cutoff receive a HAIL packet, with students between the low and high cutoff not receiving the intervention. A school in the treatment group had any student with score above the lower cutoff receive a HAIL packet.
In the seventh and eighth years, the treatment arms once again differed from past years. The initial HAIL intervention involved mailings to students, parents, and principals. In these cohorts, all schools were eligible for the HAIL Scholarship. Students in the control group receive the student and parent letters, but not the principal letter, and students in the treatment group receive the full HAIL treatment.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
May 31, 2022
|
After
May 31, 2026
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
August 02, 2019 10:24 AM
|
After
April 18, 2023 09:26 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
In the first four years of the intervention, we had one treatment arm and one control arm. The intervention for the first four years consists of sending materials to the students, their parents, and their school principals. The materials promise four years of free tuition and fees, conditional on acceptance to the Flagship University, and also provide information about the Flagship and the application process. Mailings are delivered in the late summer and early fall of senior year.
In the fifth year, we introduced a second treatment arm, which consisted of a personalized message informing students about the "Go Blue Guarantee", a financial aid policy the University of Michigan introduced in 2017 that provides one year of free tuition and fees (renewable for up to four years if students maintain family income eligibility) for students whose family income is below $65,000, the median for the state of Michigan. In contrast to the HAIL promise, Go Blue Guarantee does not guarantee financial aid for all four years up front, though students can continue to receive the Go Blue Guarantee for up to four years, assuming their family income circumstances do not change. Additionally, while HAIL is awarded unconditional of filling out financial aid forms, the Go Blue Guarantee is only awarded after the FAFSA and CSS profile are filled out.
For all cohorts, we randomized at the school level. That is, every student in a school who meets the sample criteria is assigned the same treatment status. We also stratified randomization by the number of students eligible in each school, so that randomization took place within each of four school size groups (schools with one, two, three, or four or more students meeting our sample inclusion criteria). Assignment to treatment was done once per stratum (pure randomization within strata).
For the second through fourth years of randomization, all schools that had been treated in year one continued to be treated, while all control schools from year one were maintained as control schools in subsequent years. Because many schools only had one or two students eligible to receive HAIL in each year, each year of the intervention there were schools that dropped out of the sample because they had no eligible students, and there were schools that entered the sample because they didn't have a HAIL eligible student in a previous year, but had one in the current year. For all new schools entering the sample in years 2 through 4, we randomized according to the same cluster-stratified method as the first cohort.
In year five, because we introduced a second treatment arm, all schools with eligible students in that year were newly randomized. We stratified on number of HAIL students in the school (1,2-3, 4+) as well as by region of the state (Southeast region, non-Southeast region).
|
After
In the first four years of the intervention, we had one treatment arm and one control arm. The intervention for the first four years consists of sending materials to the students, their parents, and their school principals. The materials promise four years of free tuition and fees, conditional on acceptance to the Flagship University, and also provide information about the Flagship and the application process. Mailings are delivered in the late summer and early fall of senior year.
In the fifth year, we introduced a second treatment arm, which consisted of a personalized message informing students about the "Go Blue Guarantee", a financial aid policy the University of Michigan introduced in 2017 that provides one year of free tuition and fees (renewable for up to four years if students maintain family income eligibility) for students whose family income is below $65,000, the median for the state of Michigan. In contrast to the HAIL promise, Go Blue Guarantee does not guarantee financial aid for all four years up front, though students can continue to receive the Go Blue Guarantee for up to four years, assuming their family income circumstances do not change. Additionally, while HAIL is awarded unconditional of filling out financial aid forms, the Go Blue Guarantee is only awarded after the FAFSA and CSS profile are filled out.
For all cohorts, we randomized at the school level. That is, every student in a school who meets the sample criteria is assigned the same treatment status. We also stratified randomization by the number of students eligible in each school, so that randomization took place within each of four school size groups (schools with one, two, three, or four or more students meeting our sample inclusion criteria). Assignment to treatment was done once per stratum (pure randomization within strata).
For the second through fourth years of randomization, all schools that had been treated in year one continued to be treated, while all control schools from year one were maintained as control schools in subsequent years. Because many schools only had one or two students eligible to receive HAIL in each year, each year of the intervention there were schools that dropped out of the sample because they had no eligible students, and there were schools that entered the sample because they didn't have a HAIL eligible student in a previous year, but had one in the current year. For all new schools entering the sample in years 2 through 4, we randomized according to the same cluster-stratified method as the first cohort.
In year five, because we introduced a second treatment arm, all schools with eligible students in that year were newly randomized. We stratified on number of HAIL students in the school (1,2-3, 4+) as well as by region of the state (Southeast region, non-Southeast region).
In the sixth cohort, we scaled the intervention to all schools in the state of Michigan. That is, there were no true “control” and “treatment” schools. In this cohort, we varied the test score cutoff, evaluating the effects of lowering the test score cutoff for scholarship eligibility. We set a low and a high test score cutoff. All students, across treatment & control schools who were above the high cutoff received the HAIL Scholarship. In treatment schools, students between the low and high test score cutoff received the HAIL Scholarship. In control schools, students between the low and high test score cutoff did not receive the HAIL Scholarship. Schools were randomized within four strata based on region (Southeast or not) and whether the school was assigned HAIL treatment in at year 4 or year 5 (recently HAIL vs. not). Schools were assigned to treatment within strata, assigning schools to each treatment arm with a probability of ½.
In the seventh and eighth cohorts, we randomized whether principals were contacted. In the control group, only the student and their parent received a letter. In the treatment group, principals, students, and parents were contacted. We assigned students to one of two strata based on region (Southeast or not). We then assigned treatment within strata, re-randomizing each year, assigning schools to each treatment arm with a probability of ½.
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
September 30, 2020
|
After
September 30, 2024
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
Randomization in the first four years was 50/50 by school. Sample sizes as follows: Year 1: 1,057 treated students in 262 schools and 1,051 control students in 267 schools. Year 2: 1,806 students from 498 schools, with 879 treated students in 239 schools and 927 control students in 259 schools. Year 3: 3,516 students from 666 schools, with 1,833 students treated in 349 schools and 1,683 control students from 317 schools. Year 4: 1,181 students from 324 schools, with 737 treated students from 199 schools, and 444 control students from 125 schools.
In Year 5, a second treatment arm was introduced and schools were randomly assigned to three equally-sized groups. There were roughly 160 schools in each category (treatment 1, treatment 2, control), and roughly 600 students in each category.
|
After
Randomization in the first four years was 50/50 by school. Sample sizes as follows: Year 1: 1,057 treated students in 262 schools and 1,051 control students in 267 schools. Year 2: 1,806 students from 498 schools, with 879 treated students in 239 schools and 927 control students in 259 schools. Year 3: 3,516 students from 666 schools, with 1,833 students treated in 349 schools and 1,683 control students from 317 schools. Year 4: 1,181 students from 324 schools, with 737 treated students from 199 schools, and 444 control students from 125 schools.
In Year 5, a second treatment arm was introduced and schools were randomly assigned to three equally-sized groups. There were roughly 160 schools in each category (treatment 1, treatment 2, control), and roughly 600 students in each category.
In year 6, we were back to 2 treatment arms. There were 545 schools randomized, with approximately 270 schools (with 1850 students) in each treatment group.
In year 7, we were back to 2 treatment arms. There were 452 total schools, randomized into two treatment arms with 226 in each treatment arm (and roughly 730 students in each).
In year 8, there were 397 eligible schools, randomized into two treatment arms with roughly 200 schools in each (with 560 students in each).
|
|
Field
Keyword(s)
|
Before
Education
|
After
Education
|
|
Field
Building on Existing Work
|
Before
|
After
No
|