Postsecondary Educational Attainment:
Proposal for Reform
Prepared for Policy Solutions Challenge USA
By
Ellie Bruecker
Adam Johnson
February 2016
Introduction
Since 1950, the proportion of the U.S. population with at least a Bachelor’s degree has risen
from 6% to 32%. Associate’s degree attainment has also risen, adding an additional 9.9% to the
share of the U.S. with a college degree. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). However, despite the
substantial rise in attainment of higher education over this time period, tremendous gaps limit
future growth. Individuals on the margins for acceptance at traditional four-year universities are
unlikely to attain college degrees despite the societal gains at large, and increasing educational
attainment, particularly for low-income and minority groups, has remained an enduring
challenge in the United States. Currently, the timing of when institutions admit and award aid to
students plays a crucial role in determining eventual attainment. By the time these decisions are
typically made, students are relatively unable to adjust their academic trajectory to respond to or
change their college options. We recommend a policy aimed at increasing enrollment in public
two-year colleges and four-year universities through a combination of earlier interaction with the
college admissions process, earlier commitment of financial aid, and enhanced dual enrollment
opportunities for prospective students.
Literature Review
The likelihood of postsecondary success is shaped by many factors, both institutional and
individual. Adelman (1999) introduced the concept of academic momentum as one of the most
salient predictors of degree completion. Academic momentum broadly refers to the early
postsecondary choices that students make, which set them on a particular positive or negative
trajectory with regard to their academic success. Students’ decisions about advanced coursework
in high school, timing of college matriculation, credit load in early college semesters, and first
year performance in higher education can define their path to degree completion or dropout.
(Adelman, 1999; Adelman, 2006). In practice, this means that students’ academic choices, even
early in high school, have significant impacts on their probability of success in higher education.
Placing these decisions in the context of college success while students are making them could
encourage students to make better decisions about their academic trajectory.
Research has found that earlier notification of admission and financial aid can improve the
likelihood of enrollment. Particularly at the community college level, states have implemented
pilot programs that guarantee financial aid to low-income students through Promise programs.
Students participating in these programs have not only shown higher rates of college
matriculation, but have also outperformed their peers while in high school--reinforcing
Adelman’s theory of academic momentum (Pathways to College Network, 2009). Looking
beyond these pledge-style programs, researchers have determined that the current process of
awarding financial aid notifies students of their eligibility for grants and loans far too late.
Granting students their financial aid packages earlier in high school can encourage higher rates
of college enrollment and success in higher education. (Kelchen & Goldrick-Rab, 2015;
Dynarski & Wiederspan, 2012; Heller, 2006). Dynarski and Wiederspan (2015) have suggested
that a simplification of the financial aid application process could allow IRS data to
automatically determine financial aid eligibility using “prior-prior” year tax information. For
example, a student expecting to begin college in Fall 2015 would use 2013 tax returns to
complete the FAFSA--a change which has been found to have little to no negative effect on the
amount of aid awarded (Dynarski & Wiederspan, 2015). Amending the process in this way
would not only make applying for financial aid easier or even unnecessary for students, but it
would also allow for financial aid packages to be distributed to students much earlier in the
college decision-making process. Research has also suggested that early admission is an
important factor related to college choices, and it is correlated with increased college success.
Unfortunately, early admissions policies are overwhelmingly utilized by white, affluent students.
(Park & Eagan, 2011).
Consistent with the academic momentum theory, research has also demonstrated a positive
relationship between participation in dual enrollment programs and both high school and college
success (Allen & Dadgar, 2012; Kim & Bragg, 2008; An, 2013; Wang et al., 2015). Dual
enrollment programs that allow high school students to enroll in higher education courses and
earn college credits can provide students with many positive outcomes, including greater college
preparedness, lower incidence of remedial coursework in college, and increased likelihood of
completing college within four years. The Early College High School Initiative, which allowed
students from low-income areas to earn college credits while completing a high school diploma,
showed that participating students were more likely to finish high school, enroll in higher
education programs, and graduate with a degree (American Institutes for Research, 2013).
A+: Admissions, Aid, Attainment Program Structure
Providing information and accelerating academic momentum earlier in a student’s educational
history is strongly supported by the aforementioned research. This leads us to three essential
components of a successful intervention to improve college attainment:
1. Early college admission
2. Early notification of financial aid package
3. Early enrollment in college-level or college credit-bearing courses
These three reforms comprise the A+ program: Admissions, Aid, Attainment, wherein the earlier
notification of admission and financial aid and attainment through dual enrollment will increase
rates of college attendance and graduation. A+ shifts the timeline of the college decision-making
process to give students crucial information earlier in their high school careers. This will allow
students, especially those who are underrepresented in the current system, to make educational
choices that advance academic momentum and increase the likelihood of success in higher
education.
Early College Admission
Under A+, public university systems would be required to provide admissions decisions to high
schools students during their sophomore year. Based on a student’s current academic success and
progress, the system would grant conditional acceptance to a university or set of universities. At
this time, all students would also be notified of their eligibility to attend open access two-year
institutions, conditional on the completion of a high school diploma. If students are not accepted
to attend the particular university of their choice, the structure of A+ facilitates the advancement
of academic momentum; students can improve academic performance, standardized test scores,
or extra-curricular involvement in an effort to earn acceptance to a more selective university in
the system. As incoming high school seniors, students would again submit these application
materials and be notified of their final acceptance to a college or university in the public higher
education system. At this time, students could also choose to apply for acceptance at a private or
out-of-state institution.
Early Notification of Financial Aid
During their junior year of high school, institutions would provide a commitment of financial aid
to prospective students. Using prior-prior year tax information, colleges and universities can
determine students’ financial aid eligibility, and unlike currently available tools that help
students estimate their financial assistance for college, institutions would guarantee financial aid
packages to conditionally admitted students. Today, students at most colleges receive financial
aid offers in March or April, just a few months before their first tuition payments will be due
(Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000). This gives students very little time to accurately plan how they will
finance their degree. By providing financial aid guarantees much earlier in the process, students
will be able to adequately plan for paying for college with a concrete understanding of the
financial assistance they will receive. Furthermore, for students who may see college as
unaffordable or inaccessible because of financial constraints, early notification of financial aid
can demonstrate that higher education is indeed an option with need-based aid and can encourage
traditionally underserved populations to pursue a postsecondary degree.
Early Enrollment in College Coursework
The academic momentum concept stresses the importance of the rigor of high school
coursework, but even high schools in the same state offer widely different access to advanced
courses like AP and dual enrollment options. Through A+, students’ early admission to state
colleges and universities will also create an avenue for high school students to pursue collegelevel coursework prior to matriculation. Institutions would permit admitted students to take
courses for credit, either in person or remotely through online course options. In addition to
increasing academic momentum and improving access to educational opportunities, this
component of A+ can help many students get a head start on their degree requirements. This can
be particularly beneficial to the large group of students in the current system who enter higher
education unprepared and must take remedial, non-credit-bearing courses during the first year.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
In order to address the feasibility of A+, we estimate the cost effectiveness using information
from established literature and applying those estimates to our model. Cost-effectiveness analysis
is more appropriate than cost-benefit analysis for inspecting the merits of A+ because the
empirical dollar value of increased degree attainment is difficult and controversial to measure.
By using cost-effective analysis, we can simply determine the marginal cost of an additional
degree which can help inform policy-makers who are interested in achieving the maximum
return on the financial investment.
C𝑜𝑠𝑡/𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Simply, our model for estimating the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of our policy is Total Cost
divided by Total Attainment. Each variable is broken down as follows.
𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = (𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡) ∗ (𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒)
Identifying enrolled students who would not otherwise enroll in a higher education institution is
a key challenge. In addition to determining the effects on enrollment, we included a variable to
help us estimate the number of those newly enrolled students who would go on to attain a degree.
Our estimate of total enrolled students for our baseline calculation is 20.2 million based on
information from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) (NCES, 2015). The
enrollment variable (𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡) allows us to estimate the number of students who enroll in
the college or university who would not have previously enrolled compared to the status quo.
Over the last 15 years, enrollment growth has averaged 1.55% year over year (NCES, 2015).
Despite this trend of perpetually increasing enrollment, high school graduation rates are expected
to decrease over the next decade which will decrease the number of new enrollees in higher
education (NCES, 2014). To account for this trend, we assume the historical baseline of 1.55%
growth will diminish to 0% growth halfway through the next decade to represent the status quo.
Research on providing early financial aid information allows us to estimate total increased
enrollment. Kelchen and Goldrick-Rab’s research suggests a 4% increased enrollment which
incorporates the historical growth trend (2015). We feel this estimate is high for a light-touch
program such as A+ and use the lower bound of Kelchen and Goldrick-Rab’s sensitivity analysis
of 2% as our estimated A+ effect on increased enrollment.
The estimate for completion (𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒) is 50% of enrolled students who eventually
graduate with a degree. This figure is a conservative estimate that comes from early financial aid
information alone and not early admission information (Kelchen & Goldrick-Rab, 2015).
10
C𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟1 + ∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑁
𝑁=2
Broadly, our total cost is the sum of each year’s cost. In our central analysis, we assume that the
A+ program will follow the same processes currently in place at many universities which will
simply move up a year in execution. To simplify our cost estimates, we anticipate the first year
of the program to incur twice the cost-per-student compared to the current system due to the
financial aid office performing two years of financial aid packages at once. In years two through
ten, we estimate the cost will regress to the current mean. These estimates are additionally
multiplied by our estimate of additional student enrollees to separate existing costs from those
associated with increased enrollment under A+.
Aside from the central cost of conducting the program, which is comparatively low, we feel it is
important to consider the cost of providing additional financial aid packages to the additional
enrollees since roughly 85% of students receive financial aid when enrolling at a higher
education institution (NCES, 2015). The additional enrollees due to A+ are sorted into four-year
and two-year institutions according to data from the NCES (2015). These numbers are then
multiplied by the average financial aid package for students at these institutions that the NCES
provides (2015). The inclusion represents the single largest cost in our estimate.
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟1 = 2 ∗ (𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∗ 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 ) + 2 ∗ (𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑖𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∗ (𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1
∗ 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑖𝑑 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡))
10
∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑁 = (𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∗ 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑁 ) + (𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑖𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∗ (𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑁
𝑁=2
∗ 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑖𝑑 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡))
We do not anticipate additional costs, other than those associated with increased enrollment and
providing those individuals financial aid, because the marginal cost of providing financial aid per
student is likely to be very low at most institutions. Many institutions already offer prospective
students calculators to estimate their likely financial aid package based on user inputs that filter
through the university’s set algorithms. It is a reasonable assumption that the process is similar
on the administrative end using data received via the FAFSA so the marginal cost of providing
additional information is very low. The additional cost during the first year is associated solely
with the timeline compression of providing financial aid package information to two classes of
students instead of the typical one.
Expected Results
Bringing attainment and cost together, our final CEA estimate is $18,528 per additional degree.
Our results are included in Appendix A. We feel that this is a responsible estimate that accurately
includes the cost of providing additional financial aid resources to the newly enrolled A+
students. It is not accurate to only consider the administrative and programmatic costs of A+
because they distort the true cost of additional enrollment and suggest a CER that is misleadingly
small.
Our CER is a conservative estimate and would realistically be lower. The chief cost associated
with the program and the primary driver of our CER number is including the cost of supplying
financial aid to every student (according to the formula discussed in the previous section) when
we estimate only 50% of students who enroll via A+ will eventually receive a degree which is
consistent with existing research (Kelchen & Goldrick-Rab, 2015). If we adjust the formula to
discount the 50% of students who do not graduate, the CER is effectively cut in half as well.
According to our conservatively estimated model, 1,675,205 additional degrees will be conferred
after 10 years compared to the status quo without A+. The anticipated cost for implementing the
program is largely the cost of including increased financial aid packages in our analysis
including for students who do not finish their programs.
Using existing research estimates, we conducted sensitivity analysis at 2%, 4%, and 7%
enrollment growth (Kelchen & Goldrick-Rab, 2015). Additionally, for our recommended growth
rate of 2% we conducted a sensitivity analysis of the program if the enrollment growth due to A+
decreased to 0% after 5 years to mirror the status quo enrollment trend. Overall, while degree
conferral rates fluctuate between 1.3 and 6.9 million additionally A+ degrees, the CER remains
the same due to the costs scaling linearly in nature.
Conclusion
Our primary conclusion is that the A+ program is a flexible, adaptable, and administratively
inexpensive program with costs that scale linearly. An individual university or state could adopt
our recommendations and increase their enrollment for a similar CER as a national program. It is
truly and one-size-fits-all program.
However, A+ is not the stand-alone solution to achieving an educated and equitable population.
It is a flexible and adaptable foundation that can be strengthened and built upon. Providing early
financial aid information and early admissions decisions is a prudent first step that utilizes
existing resources, structures, and programs to reduce fiscal and political impact while
maximizing benefits. Using A+ as a platform, public universities can improve attainment results
and boost enrollment without inventing new programs from scratch.
Appendix A: Cost-Effectiveness Tables and Sensitivity Analysis
2% Increased Enrollment
Baseline
Year Students Enrolled
A+ Students
0
20200000
1
20513100
2
20769514
3
20977209
4
21082095
5
21082095
6
21082095
7
21082095
8
21082095
9
21082095
10
21082095
0
112822
181733
209772
316231
421642
421642
421642
421642
421642
421642
Totals
*Base enrollment is
2015 baseline
growing at 1.55%
NCER predicted rate
decreasing to 0% in
year 5
*A+ Student totals are
the difference between
the estimated 2% annual
growth rate and the
1.55% NCER predicted
growth rate
Total Enrollment
Degrees Conferred A+ Degrees Conferred CER
Financial Aid Packages Processing Fees Per Person Total Costs Incurred
20200000
3733000
0
0
0
0
0
20625922
3811711
56411
18534
1044960648
187285
1045522501
20951247
3871832
90867
18527
1683217861
301677
1683519539
21186981
3915396
104886
18527
1942914331
348222
1943262553
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
21503737
3973933
210821
18527
3905257806
699926
3905957732
21503737
3973933
210821
18527
3905257806
699926
3905957732
21503737
3973933
210821
18527
3905257806
699926
3905957732
21503737
3973933
210821
18527
3905257806
699926
3905957732
21503737
3973933
210821
18527
3905257806
699926
3905957732
21503737
3973933
210821
18527
3905257806
699926
3905957732
1675205
18528
31031583033
5561681
31037519283
*TE multiplied by
2015 rates of degree
*TE is 2015 baseline conferrance of
growing at estimated 18.48% of total
2% annually
enrollment annually
*A+ degrees calculated
by multiplying A+
students by estimated
graduation rate.
*$1.66 is per person
processing fee based on each
person requiring 5 minutes of
review and the reviewer
earning $20 an hour in
wages
4% Increased Enrollment
Baseline
Year Students Enrolled
A+ Students
0
20200000
1
20513100
2
20769514
3
20977209
4
21082095
5
21082095
6
21082095
7
21082095
8
21082095
9
21082095
10
21082095
0
502571
571162
629316
737873
843284
843284
843284
843284
843284
843284
Total Enrollment
Degrees Conferred A+ Degrees Conferred CER
Financial Aid Packages Processing Fees Per Person Total Costs Incurred
20200000
3733000
0
0
0
0
0
21015671
3883738
251285
18534
4654824703
834268
4657327507
21340675
3943799
285581
18527
5290113279
948128
5291061407
21606525
3992929
314658
18527
5828742994
1044665
5829787659
21819968
4032373
368937
18527
6834201161
1224870
6835426031
21925379
4051853
421642
18527
7810515612
1399851
7811915464
21925379
4051853
421642
18527
7810515612
1399851
7811915464
21925379
4051853
421642
18527
7810515612
1399851
7811915464
21925379
4051853
421642
18527
7810515612
1399851
7811915464
21925379
4051853
421642
18527
7810515612
1399851
7811915464
21925379
4051853
421642
18527
7810515612
1399851
7811915464
3750312
18528
69470975812
12451037
69485095385
Year Students Enrolled
A+ Students
0
20200000
1
20513100
2
20769513.75
3
20977208.89
4
21082094.93
5
21082094.93
6
21082094.93
7
21082094.93
8
21082094.93
9
21082094.93
10
21082094.93
0
1138477
1194247
1258633
1370336
1475747
1475747
1475747
1475747
1475747
1475747
Total Enrollment
Degrees Conferred A+ Degrees Conferred CER
Financial Aid Packages Processing Fees Per Person Total Costs Incurred
20200000
3733000
0
0
0
0
21651577
4001254
569239
18534
10544602899
1889872
10550272515
21963761
4058946
597124
18527
11061145946
1982450
11063128397
22235841
4109228
629316
18527
11657485989
2089330
11659575319
22452431
4149254
685168
18527
12692087870
2274758
12694362628
22557842
4168734
737873
18527
13668402322
2449739
13670852061
22557842
4168734
737873
18527
13668402322
2449739
13670852061
22557842
4168734
737873
18527
13668402322
2449739
13670852061
22557842
4168734
737873
18527
13668402322
2449739
13670852061
22557842
4168734
737873
18527
13668402322
2449739
13670852061
22557842
4168734
737873
18527
13668402322
2449739
13670852061
6908086
18528
127965736636
22934847
127992451226
Year Students Enrolled
A+ Students
0
20200000
1
20513100
2
20769514
3
20977209
4
21082095
5
21082095
6
21082095
7
21082095
8
21082095
9
21082095
10
21082095
0
112822
181733
209772
316231
316231
316231
316231
316231
316231
316231
Total Enrollment
Degrees Conferred A+ Degrees Conferred CER
Financial Aid Packages Processing Fees Per Person Total Costs Incurred
20200000
3733000
0
0
0
0
0
20625922
3811711
56411
18534
1044960648
187285
1045522501
20951247
3871832
90867
18527
1683217861
301677
1683519539
21186981
3915396
104886
18527
1942914331
348222
1943262553
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
21398326
3954453
158116
18527
2928943355
524944
2929468299
1358974
18528
25173696323
4511793
25178582685
Totals
7% Increased Enrollment
Baseline
Totals
2% Increased Enrollment Decreasing To 0%
Baseline
Totals
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and
bachelor’s degree attainment. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox
/toolbox.html.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf.
Allen, D., & Dadgar, M. (2012). Does dual enrollment increase students’ success in college?:
Evidence from a quasi-experimental analysis of dual enrollment in New York City. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2012(158), 11-19.
American Institutes for Research. (2013). Early college, early success: Early college high school
initiative impact study. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved
from
http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/ECHSI_Impact_Study_Report_Fi
nal1_0.pdf.
An, B.P. (2013). The influence of dual enrollment on academic performance and college
readiness: Differences by socioeconomic status. Research in Higher Education, 54(4),
407-432.
Pathways to College Network (2009). State and community-based promise programs: Early
commitments of financial assistance for college. Washington, D.C.: Cheryl D. Blanco
Cabrera, A.F., & La Nasa, S.M. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 5–22.
Dynarski, S. & Wiederspan, M. (2015). Revisiting FAFSA simplification: Expanding access to
the IRS data retrieval tool (EPI Policy Brief #1). University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI.
Dynarski, S., & Wiederspan, M. (2012). Student aid simplification: Looking back and looking
ahead (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17834). Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Heller, D.E. (2006). Early commitment of financial aid eligibility. American Behavioral
Scientist, 49(12), 1719-1738.
Kelchen, R., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2015). Accelerating college knowledge: A fiscal analysis of a
targeted early commitment Pell grant program. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(2),
199-232.
Kim, J., & Bragg, D.D. (2008). The impact of dual and articulated credit on college readiness
and retention in four community colleges. Career and Technical Education Research,
33(2), 133-158.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2014menu_tables.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) Projections of Education Statistics. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014051
Park, J.J., & Eagan, M.K. (2011). Who goes early?: A multi-level analysis of enrolling via early
action and early decision admissions. Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2345-2373.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Educational attainment in the United States: 2014 (CB15-TPS.03).
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/.
Wang, X., Chan, H., Phelps, L.A., & Washbon, J.I. (2015). Fuel for success: Academic
momentum as a mediator between dual enrollment and educational outcomes of two-year
technical college students. Community College Review, 43(2), 165-190.