Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 489–518 | Cite as

Tuition-Setting Authority and Broad-Based Merit Aid: The Effect of Policy Intersection on Pricing Strategies

  • Dennis A. KramerIIEmail author
  • Justin C. Ortagus
  • T. Austin Lacy
Article

Abstract

The notion of merit-aid is not a new development in higher education. Although previous researchers have demonstrated the impact of state-adopted merit-aid funding on student decision-making, fewer studies have examined institutional pricing responses to broad-based merit-aid policies. Using a generalized difference-in-difference approach, we extend previous empirical work by examining the impact of merit-aid on institutional pricing strategies while considering both the institution’s tuition-setting authority and the relative strength of the merit-aid program. In this study, we find that colleges and universities with the authority to set their own tuition increased their in-state tuition and fees following broad-based merit-aid policy adoption; however, institutions with state-controlled tuition-setting authority respond to broad-based merit-aid policies by lowering their in-state tuition and fees. Our findings suggest that the incentives and dynamics of each state’s policy environment are significant determinants of institutional responses to state-level policy adoptions.

Keywords

Merit aid Tuition decentralization Pricing strategy Policy interaction Higher education finance Financial aid 

References

  1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baum, S., & Lapovsky, L. (2006). Tuition discounting: not just a private college practice. New York: College Board.Google Scholar
  3. Belasco, A. S., Rosinger, K. O., & Hearn, J. C. (2015). The test-optional movement at America’s selective liberal arts colleges: A boon for equity or something else? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, A. C., Carnahan, J., & L’Orange, H. P. (2011). State tuition, fees, and financial assistance policies: For public colleges and universities, 2010–11. State higher education executive officers.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, W. J. (1987). Our greedy colleges. The New York times. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html.
  6. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettinger, E., Gurantz, O., Kawano, L., & Sacerdote, B. (2016). The long run impacts of merit aid: Evidence from California’s Cal Grant (No. w22347). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  8. Bradbury, J. C., & Campbell, N. D. (2003). Local lobbying for state grants: Evidence from Georgia’s HOPE scholarship. Public Finance Review, 31(4), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breneman, D. W., & Finney, J. E. (1997). The changing landscape: Higher education finance in the 1990s. Public and private financing of higher education (pp. 30–59).Google Scholar
  10. Bruce, D. J., & Carruthers, C. K. (2014). Jackpot? The impact of lottery scholarships on enrollment in Tennessee. Journal of Urban Economics, 81, 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cellini, S. R., & Goldin, C. (2014). Does federal student aid raise tuition? New evidence on for-profit colleges. American Economic Journal, 6(4), 174–206.Google Scholar
  12. Cohodes, S. R., & Goodman, J. S. (2014). Merit-aid, college quality, and college completion: Massachusetts’ Adams scholarship as an in-kind subsidy. American Economic Journal, 6(4), 251–285.Google Scholar
  13. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1986). The causal assumptions of quasi-experimental practice. Synthese, 68(1), 141–180.Google Scholar
  14. Cornwell, C., Mustard, D., & Sridhar, D. (2006). The enrollment effects of merit-based financial aid: evidence from Georgia’s HOPE program. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 761–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creech, J. D. (1998). State-funded merit scholarship programs: why are they popular? Can they in-crease participation in higher education?. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.Google Scholar
  16. Curs, B. R., & Dar, L. (2010). Do institutions respond asymmetrically to changes in state need-and merit-based aid? Available at SSRN 1702504.Google Scholar
  17. Deaton, R. (2006). Policy shifts in tuition setting authority in the American States: An events history analysis of state policy adoption. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  18. Delaney, J. A., & Doyle, W. R. (2011). State spending on higher education: Testing the balance wheel over time. Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 343–368.Google Scholar
  19. Delaney, J. A., & Ness, E. C. (2013). Creating a merit aid typology. Merit aid reconsidered, new directions in institutional research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2006). The effects of interrupted enrollment on graduation from college: Racial, income, and ability differences. Economics of Education Review, 25(6), 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doyle, W. R. (2006). Policy adoption of state merit aid programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doyle, W. R. (2010). Does merit-based aid “crowd out” need-based aid? Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Doyle, W. R. (2012). The politics of public college tuition and state financial aid. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 617–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. Stata Journal, 3(2), 168–177.Google Scholar
  25. Dynarski, S. (2000). Hope for whom? Financial aid for the middle class and its impact on college attendance. National Tax Journal, 53, 629–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dynarski, S. (2002). The behavioral and distributional implications of aid for college. American Economic Review, 92(2), 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dynarski, S. (2004). The new merit aid. College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 63–100). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2002). Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fitzpatrick, M. D., & Jones, D. (2016). Post-baccalaureate migration and merit-based scholarships. Economics of Education Review, 54, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fulton, M. (2015). Community colleges expanded role into awarding bachelor’s degrees. ECS education policy analysis. Education commission of the States. Google Scholar
  31. Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Griffith, A. L. (2011). Keeping up with the Joneses: Institutional changes following the adoption of a merit aid policy. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 1022–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrington, J. R., Muñoz, J., Curs, B. R., & Ehlert, M. (2016). Examining the impact of a highly targeted state administered merit aid program on brain drain: Evidence from a regression discontinuity analysis of Missouri’s Bright flight program. Research in Higher Education, 57(4), 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hauptman, A. (1990). The tuition dilemma: Assessing new ways to pay for college. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  35. Hawley, Z. B., & Rork, J. C. (2013). The case of state funded higher education scholarship plans and interstate brain drain. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 43(2), 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hearn, J. C., Griswold, C. P., & Marine, G. M. (1996). Region, resources, and reason: A contextual analysis of state tuition and student aid policies. Research in Higher Education, 37(3), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heller, D. E. (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  38. Heller, D. E. (2002). The policy shift in state financial aid programs. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 221–261). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Heller, D. E. (2004). NCES research on college participation: A critical analysis. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Readings on equal education: Vol. 19, Public policy and college access: Investigating the federal and state roles in equalizing postsecondary opportunity (pp. 29–64). New York: AMS Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (Eds.). (2004). State merit scholarship programs and racial inequality. Cambridge: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.Google Scholar
  41. Heller, D., & Rasmussen, C. (2001). Merit scholarships and college access: Evidence from two states. State merit aid programs: College access and equity. Cambridge: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.Google Scholar
  42. Heller, D. E., & Rogers, K. R. (2006). Shifting the burden: Public and private financing of higher education in the United States and implications for Europe. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(2), 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Henry, G. T., Rubenstein, R., & Bugler, D. T. (2004). Is HOPE enough? Impacts of receiving and losing merit-based financial aid. Educational Policy, 18(5), 686–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. P. (2014). Market-based higher education: does Colorado’s voucher model improve higher education access and efficiency? Research in Higher Education, 55(6), 601–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hoxby, C. M. (1997). How the changing market structure of US higher education explains college tuition (No. w6323). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hu, S., Trengove, M., & Zhang, L. (2012). Toward a greater understanding of the effects of state merit aid programs: Examining existing evidence and exploring future research direction. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 291–334). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Jaquette, O., & Parra, E. E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 467–533). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. John, E. P. S. (1992). Changes in pricing behavior during the 1980s: An analysis of selected case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 165–187.Google Scholar
  49. Kim, J., & Stange, K. (2016). Differential pricing in the wake of tuition deregulation at Texas public universities. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(1), 112–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lan, Y., & Winters, J. V. (2011). Did the DC tuition assistance grant program cause out-of-state tuition to increase? Economics Bulletin, 31(3), 2444–2453.Google Scholar
  51. Long, B. (2004). How do financial aid policies affect colleges? The Institutional impact of the Georgia HOPE scholarship. The Journal of Human Resources, 39, 1045–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lowry, R. C. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 845–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lyall, K. C., & Sell, K. R. (2006). The de facto privatization of American public higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(1), 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Hammond, R. G. (2013). Pricing the flagships: The politics of tuition setting at public research universities. Retrieved from: http://www.4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/Pricing_the_Flagships.pdf.
  55. McLendon, M. K., Tandberg, D. A., & Hillman, N. W. (2014). Financing college opportunity: Factors influencing state spending on student financial aid and campus appropriations, 1990 through 2010. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of business and economic statistics, 13(2), 151–161.Google Scholar
  57. Mumper, M. (2001). State efforts to keep public colleges affordable in the face of fiscal stress. In M. Paulsen & J. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 321–395). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ness, E. C. (2010). The politics of determining merit aid eligibility criteria: An analysis of the policy process. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paulsen, M. B. (1991). College tuition: Demand and supply determinants from 1960 to 1986. The Review of Higher Education, 14(3), 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ringquist, E. J., & Garand, J. C. (1999). Policy change in the American States. In R. E. Weber & P. Brace (Eds.), American state and local politics (pp. 268–299). New York: Catham House Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Rizzo, M. J., & Ehrenberg, R. (2004). Resident and non-resident tuition and enrollment at state flagship universities. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.), College Choices: The Economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 303–354). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rogers, K. & Heller, D.E. (2003) Moving on: State policies to address academic brain drain in the south. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting November 12–16, Portland.Google Scholar
  63. Rothschild, M., & White, L. J. (1995). The analytics of the pricing of higher education and other services in which the customers are inputs. Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 573–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rusk, J. J., & Leslie, L. L. (1978). The setting of tuition in public higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 49(6), 531–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). On money and motivation a quasi-experimental analysis of financial incentives for college achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 614–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shadish, W. R., Clark, M. H., & Steiner, P. M. (2008). Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assignments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(484), 1334–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Singell, L. D., Jr., Waddell, G. R., & Curs, B. R. (2006). HOPE for the Pell? Institutional effects in the intersection of merit-based and need-based aid. Southern Economic Journal, 73, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Singell, L. D., & Stone, J. A. (2007). For whom the Pell tolls: The response of university tuition to federal grants-in-aid. Economics of Education Review, 26(3), 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sjoquist, D. L., & Winters, J. V. (2014). Merit aid and post-college retention in the state. Journal of Urban Economics, 80, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sjoquist, D. L., & Winters, J. V. (2015). State merit aid programs and college major: A focus on STEM. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), 973–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (2008). Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. Econometrica, 76(1), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The conditioning role of state higher education governance structures. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 506–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Titus, M. A., Vamosiu, A., & Gupta, A. (2015). Conditional convergence of nonresident tuition rates at public research universities: a panel data analysis. Higher Education, 70(6), 923–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Turner, L. J. (2012). The incidence of student financial aid: Evidence from the Pell grant program. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.columbia.edu/~ljt2110/LTurner_JMP.pdf.
  75. Warne, T. R. (2008). Comparing theories of the policy process and state tuition policy: Critical theory, institutional rational choice, and advocacy coalitions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Columbia).Google Scholar
  76. Wellman, J. (1999). The tuition puzzle: Putting the pieces together: The new millennium project on higher education costs, pricing, and productivity.Google Scholar
  77. Wooldridge, M. (2009). An introduction to multiagent systems. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  78. Zhang, L. (2011). Does merit-based aid affect degree production in STEM Fields? Evidence from Georgia and Florida. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 389–415.Google Scholar
  79. Zhang, L., Hu, S., & Sensenig, V. (2013). The effect of Florida’s Bright Futures program on college enrollment and degree production: An aggregated-level analysis. Research in Higher Education, 54(7), 746–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhang, L., & Ness, E. (2010). Does state merit-based aid stem brain drain. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zinth, K., & Smith, M. (2012). Tuition-setting authority for public colleges and universities. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/04/71/10471.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis A. KramerII
    • 1
    Email author
  • Justin C. Ortagus
    • 1
  • T. Austin Lacy
    • 2
  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.RTI InternationalDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations