What influences student persistence at two-year colleges?

The Higher Education Act of 1992 increased the availability of student loan funds dramatically. Using the National Student Postsecondary Aid Study, this study examines the difference in effects of background, achievement and aspiration, college experience, price variables, and accumulated debt in 1993 as compared to 1996 on student persistence decisions. In contrast with previous studies using NPSAS:87, the authors find that there is more financial aid available, albeit in the form of loans. Current year subsidies are positively associated with persistence, but the opposite is true for accumulated debt, except for higher debt levels in 1996. The authors provide context and explanation for these findings.

**********

What is the effect of student financial aid, expanded by the Higher Education Act Reauthorization of 1992, on persistence of students at two-year colleges? The research literature on the impact of aid at two-year schools is sparse and generally does not examine post-1992 effects. This study uses a multidisciplinary model to explore the effects of background, achievement, college experience, price, and accumulated debt on two-year student persistence in 1993 as compared to 1996.

Background

Two pieces of legislation stand out historically in the funding of colleges and students, and both take different approaches. The first concrete expression of the federal role in financing higher education, the Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862 (Pub. L. 97-98), gave public land, or its equivalent, for the "support of at least one college in every state" (Rudolph, 1990, p. 252). The Morrill Act philosophy was one of indirect benefit to students through funding institutions.

The second historic piece of legislation was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI Bill) (38 U.S.C. [subsection] 3451-4393, 38 C.F.R. 21.1020). The act included stipends for veterans attending postsecondary education institutions, tuition payments to the schools, and unemployment benefits (the 52-20 Club; veterans unemployment benefits of $20 per week for 52 weeks). The lasting legacy of the GI Bill, though, was to provide educational benefits directly to students without regard to gender, ethnicity, creed, or religion.

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 gave birth to the first large-scale student loan program. Fearful that the United States was lagging in science and technical education, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (20 U.S.C. [section] 401) which created a number of efforts to promote education in science, including the National Defense Student Loan Program (now Perkins Loans) and a fellowship program for graduate study (20 U.S.C. [subsection] 1987aa-1087hh, 34 C.F.R. Part 674).

Under the rubric of the "Great Society," the Higher Education Act (HEA) (20 U.S.C. [section] 1001 et seq.) formed the cornerstone of federal higher education policy. The Higher Education Act of 1965 consolidated several previously enacted anti-poverty measures with programs whose major intention was the provision of access to higher education for poor and talented students (Keppel, 1987; Kimberling, 1995). The Higher Education Act of 1965 merged the National Defense Education Loan Program of NDEA (20 U.S.C. [section] 401), the College Facilities Act of 1963 (20 U.S.C. [section] 701), and the College Work-Study Program (42 U.S.C. [subsection] 2751-2756(a), 34 C.F.R. (Part 675) and created two new financial aid programs: the Educational Opportunity Grant (EOG) (20 U.S.C. [subsection] 1070b-1070b-3, 34 C.F.R. Part 676) and the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSL) (20 U.S.C. [subsection] 1087aa-1087hh, 34 C.F.R. Part 674) (Kimberling, 1995).

The original legislation creating the Higher Education Act of 1965 was the result of two competing ideologies for federal funding of higher education. The first was that of assisting higher education by funneling funds directly to institutions through an all-encompassing formula based on student headcounts. The second was that of assisting needy students directly through grants to the poorest students and subsidized loans to lower middle class students. This alternative provided a system of portable aid that provided both access and choice to the student. Even though the 1965 legislation was indeed a compromise between these two competing interests, the primary objective was one of equalizing educational opportunity for socioeconomically disadvantaged students by providing equal access to higher education for all students.

While HEA `65 is the cornerstone of federal financial aid policy, it has been modified over the years, often by philosophically incongruent amendments. The 1972 amendments to HEA (Pub. L. No. 92-318) broadened the policy objectives to access and choice and established the foundational role of the federal government in student aid. Direct portable aid to needy students was introduced in the 1972 amendments through the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG, now called Pell Grants) (20 U.S.C. [subsection] 1070a-1070a-6, 34 C.F.R. Part 674).

Changes to HEA in 1972 not only broadened student choice, but also expanded eligibility for a whole new group of institutions. The access and choice question is essentially a public school and private school dichotomy. Public schools offered low tuition and very little institutional based aid; therefore, federal student aid acts to supplement the low-tuition strategy of public institutions and promote access. However, at private institutions, student aid "federalizes" some of the costs of student aid that these institutions would incur in the natural course of business. Coupled with the funding of choice, the proprietary sector developed rapidly after the change of "higher education" to "postsecondary education" in the definition of eligible training in the 1972 amendments.

During the 1970s, 76% of federal student financial aid was in the form of grants and approximately 20% in loans. By the mid-1980s, that ratio had almost reversed with loans accounting for 67% and grants 29% of federal financial aid (Hannah, 1996). Further, Pell grants paid less than 50% of the cost of education (College Board, 1992). The passage of Middle Income Student Assistance Act (MISAA) (Pub. L. No. 96-49) in 1978 represented a fundamental shift in federal financial aid policy and philosophy. Easily accessible, non-need based aid became available to large numbers of middle- and upper-income students on a quasi-entitlement basis. Federal student aid outlays increased by 59% between 1977-78 and 1980-81 (Hearn, 1993). The lower-income targeted, need-based, grant-oriented federal policy period came to an end.

By the mid-1980s, college costs were increasing and median family income was falling. The budget situation was casting a "dark shadow" over all federal programs, and expectations were not very high for the 1986 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (Pub L. No. 99-498) (Mumper, 1996). The emphasis on student financial aid at the federal level was "to put the brakes on."

The 1992 Reauthorization (Pub. L. No. 102-325) cemented the shift in federal policy from a commitment to promoting access through need-based grants to a broader strategy of loans regardless of family income or need. Congress proposed making more loans available to the middle-class student, decreasing the reliance on loans by increasing grant support, and restoring the integrity to the loan program.

The relaxed eligibility for government subsidized loans resulted in an increase of 2 million additional students receiving loans between 1990 and 1996, with a concomitant 92% increase in money borrowed. With only a 16% increase in the Pell grant program (Figure 1), the imbalance between loans and grants increased dramatically (Hartle, 1996).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Several key principles of federal student financial aid policy have evolved since HEA `65. Johnstone (1995) and McPherson, Shapiro, and Winston (1993) generally agree that these principles are that the costs of higher education should be shared by the student, the student's parents, and the taxpayer and that the ability of the parents to pay for education should be objectively measured. In addition, the federal government makes grants available to low-income students so that they can afford moderately-priced public institutions, makes loans available to middle and upper-income students so that they can afford higher-priced private institutions, and gives aid to students without regard to course of study or academic promise.

Literature Review

Many of the studies on two-year college persistence apply the work of Tinto (1975, 1982, 1990) and others at four-year institutions. Several studies (Bers & Smith, 1991; Mutter, 1992; Nora, Attinasi, & Matonak, 1990; Pascarella, Smart, & Ethington, 1990; Rendon, 1995; Rendon & Nora, 1989) have found that Tinto's notions of academic and social integration are viable and that they do influence (positively or negatively) two-year college persistence. However, other studies emphasize the unique nature of two-year colleges and find other variables that influence persistence (Campbell & Blakely, 1996; Conklin, 1995; Feldman, 1993; Grimes & Antworth, 1996; Hippensteel, St. John, & Starkey, 1994; Mohammadi, 1994; St. John & Starkey, 1995).

The research on student persistence was given a big boost by the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) of 1987. Much of the research prior to NPSAS had been at the institutional level or using small, select national samples. NPSAS provided an opportunity to study persistence using a large national sample of two-year, four-year, and graduate students with an extensive set of economic, demographic, and college experience variables. However, the previous NPSAS research on two-year college students has been sparse (Hippensteel, St. John, & Starkey, 1995).

Hippensteel, et al. (1996) used NPSAS:87 to examine the persistence of adult students in two-year colleges and found that tuition had a negative influence on within-year persistence. All of the aid combinations (any aid, grants, loans, and packages) had a negative influence on persistence. They concluded that available aid was not sufficient to promote persistence. St. John and Starkey (1994) used NPSAS:87 to study the impact of tuition charges and financial aid awards on persistence of traditional-age students in two-year colleges. They concluded that there was a strong negative relationship between tuition charges and persistence. For each $100 of tuition differential, the probability that traditional-age college students persisted decreased by 1.4% (as compared to 0.5% for traditional students in four-year colleges).

Conceptual Framework

Sociology and economics created the framework for this study. Sociological theory (Alexander & Eckland, 1975; Blau & Duncan, 1967; Coleman, 1976; Eckland & Alexander, 1980; Parsons, 1959; Sewell & Shah, 1967; Sewell & Hauser, 1975; Thomas, Alexander, & Eckland, 1979; Tseng, 1971; Trent & Medskar, 1968; Wolfle, 1985) suggests that background, family, academic ability, and aspiration variables should be included in any research on student persistence. From economic theory (Becker, 1964; Denison, 1964; McPherson, 1982; Okun, Ruehlman, Karoly, 1991; Rusbult, 1980; Schultz, 1960) comes the notion that students invest in their education. Student aid and demand studies (Corrazini, Dugan, & Grabowski, 1972; Hoenack & Weiler, 1975; Hopkins, 1974; Stafford, Lindstedt, & Lynn, 1984; Tannen, 1978) indicate that students "purchase" more education when prices are lower and less when prices are higher. Subsidies, in the form of student financial aid, lower the net cost of attendance. This conceptual framework suggests a research model that includes the factors of background, aspirations, achievement, college experiences, and prices.

Method

This section describes the sources of data, the sample for this study, the model specifications, and the statistical techniques used in the study. This study used the National Postsecondary Student Aid Surveys of 1995-96 (NPSAS:96) and 1992-93 (NPSAS:93) to explore how debtload and other variables affect within-year persistence for two-year college students, and how the effect of debtload has changed after the enactment of the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1992.

Research Questions

The following research questions were addressed in this study:

1) How do background, achievement, college experiences, price, and debtload influence within-year undergraduate persistence at two-year colleges?

2) Has the influence of background, achievement, college experiences, and price on within-year undergraduate persistence at two-year colleges changed between 1993 and 1996?

Sample

The NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96 restricted databases were used for this study. The databases were adjusted in several phases to arrive at the study sample. The first phase consisted of eliminating all graduate students and students at four-year colleges. The second phase eliminated all records that indicated a "missing value" for the total amount borrowed variable. For NPSAS:93, the sample size was 5,006 and in 1996, the sample was composed of 7,505 two-year students.

Model Specifications

The model used in this study drew on a long series of previous NPSAS research (see Andrieu & St. John, 1993; Cofer, 1998; Corer & Somers, 1998, 1999; Hippensteel et al., 1996; St. John, 1992, 1994; St. John & Starkey, 1994). The study focused exclusively on within-year progression of students from the fall to the spring semester. In addition to including the variables consistent with prior studies, the amount of debt was added to the model as three separate thresholds of debt, consistent with prior research including debt in persistence models (Cofer & Somers, 1998, 1999; DeAngelis, 1997).

Variables were carefully selected from NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96 for consistency of the models. The model was composed of five factors: background, aspirations and achievement, college experiences, current year price and subsidies, and debtload (Table 1). The variables for the factor background were: ethnicity (3 variables), gender, age, income (less than $11,000, more than $60,000, and incomes in the middle range), marital status, mother's and father's educational level, and financial dependency (as defined for financial aid purposes). The four aspiration and achievement variables indicated degree level aspirations and SAT/ACT scores. The college experience variables were type of institution, grade point average, class standing, campus residence, hours worked, and attendance intensity. The current year price and subsidy variables were: tuition and fees, grants or scholarships, loans (current year), and work study. The debtload variables indicated accumulated debtload in three ranges: less than $3,000, $3,001 - $7,000, and over $7,000.

Statistical Method

To describe the relationship between an outcome (dependent) variable and one or more explanatory (independent) variables, statistical regression methods are used. Regression techniques are used to find the "best fit" between the explanatory variables and the outcome variable. In a linear regression model, two assumptions are important. The first is that the variables are continuous. The second is that the relationship between an outcome variable and independent variables is expressed by a straight line (Figure 2). Both of these assumptions are violated when the outcome is dichotomous (Cabrera, 1994).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

For a model where the outcome variable is dichotomous, the standard OLS regression formula can seriously mis-estimate the dependent variable. Therefore, for a model where the outcome variable is dichotomous, logistic regression is used. Since a student chooses whether or not to persist, the outcomes are dichotomous: either yes or no (coded as 1 or 0). The resulting graph of the relationship is not a straight line, but a curved line bounded by 0 and 1 (Figure 3).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The basic logistic regression equation is:

P = E(Y|X) = exp([[beta].sub.0] + [[beta].sub.1][X.sub.1] + [[beta].sub.2][X.sub.2] + ... + [[beta].sub.n][X.sub.n])/ 1+ exp([[beta].sub.0] + [[beta].sub.1][X.sub.1] + [[beta].sub.2][X.sub.2] + ... [[beta].sub.n][X.sub.n])

Regardless of the values of the constants [[beta].sub.i] or the variables [X.sub.i], this equation still results in values between zero and one because of the properties of the natural logarithm. The value P can also be thought of as a probability measure that the outcome variable will be 1 (yes). This is precisely what a dichotomous model requires.

Logistic regression solutions are found indirectly through an iterative process of comparing two log-likelihood functions, beginning with a tentative solution and repeating the process with small changes to see if the solution can be improved. The process is halted when the next step in the iteration provides a negligible improvement in the solution (Menard, 1995).

The delta-P measures change in the dependent variable. The beta coefficients are converted to delta-P's using a method recommended by Peterson (1984). He uses this calculation for logistic data:

Delta P = exp([L.sub.1])/1 + exp([L.sub.1]) - exp([L.sub.0])/1 + exp([L.sub.0])

where [L.sub.0] is the logit score before the change in the ith variable, and [L.sub.1] = [L.sub.0] + [[beta].sub.i] is the logit score after the unit change in [X.sub.i]. This calculation can be done easily with a computer spreadsheet program that contains exponential functions, and a delta-P value for each independent variable in the model can be calculated. The delta P can be used as a student price response coefficient (SPRC) (Leslie & Brinkman, 1988).

For dichotomous variables, the delta-P provides a measure of the extent to which the outcome was likely to change if a student had the specified characteristic. For example, a delta-P of 0.10 for full-time students is interpreted as increasing the probability of persistence by 10 percentage points for this group. With continuous variables, the delta-P means that a change in a unit measure will change the probability of the outcome by a certain percentage. For example, a delta-P statistic of .09 per $1000 of grants for full-time students indicates that the probability of persistence of this group increases by 9.0% per $1000 of financial aid awarded. The delta-P is particularly useful in financial aid policy studies because of its ease in application.

Results

The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 2. The effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, within-year persistence, is shown as delta-P. For each variable that is reported, the reader should keep in mind that the phrase "this variable was significant when all other variables in the regression were controlled for" could be added. Indeed, even if a variable is not significant, its place in the regression is suggested by previous research and our theoretical model.

Nonfinancial Variables - 1993

In 1993, three non financial variables were significant and negatively associated with persistence, and four nonfinancial variables were significant and positively associated with persistence. Students who indicated their ethnicity as "other" were 7.3 percentage points (p.p.) more likely to persist. "Other" includes multiethnic as well as categories not included in White or African American. Students who were dependent financially were 7.9 p.p. less likely to persist than those students who were financially independent. Aspirations played a big role in persistence: Students who aspired to an advanced college degree were 10.1 p.p. more likely to persist, and aspiring to a bachelor's degree was associated with a 7.5 p.p. increase in persistence.

Three college experience variables were significant. Sophomores were 10.4 p.p. more likely to persist than first-year students. Students with low grade point averages (in the bottom one-third of the distribution) were much less likely to persist (-19.7 p.p.). Students who worked full-time were 7.7 p.p. less likely to persist.

Nonfinancial Variables - 1996

The regression analysis of the 1996 sample (Table 2) found that 10 nonfinancial variables were significantly related to within-year persistence of two-year college students. African American students were 4.4 p.p. less likely to persist than White students. Those students over the age of 30 were more likely to persist (5.8 p.p.) than younger students. Dependent students were 10.3 p.p. more likely to persist.

Degree aspirations were again significantly associated with persistence. Students aspiring to advanced degrees (9.3 p.p.) and bachelor's degrees (8.0 p.p.) were more likely to persist than students with lesser degree aspirations.

Four college experience variables were also associated with persistence. Students at the sophomore level were 17.8 p.p. more likely to persist than first-year students. Students at private institutions were 12.9 p.p. less likely to persist than those at public schools. Full-time students were 28.8 p.p. more likely to persist than part-time students. Students with both high (12.4 p.p.) and low grades (5.1 p.p.) were more likely to persist than students with "average" grades.

Financial Variables

In 1993, three of the four current year price and subsidy variables were significant and associated with persistence. Students were 0.6 p.p. less likely to persist per $1000 in tuition, 6.8 p.p. more likely to persist for every $1000 in grants received, and 2.5 p.p. more likely to persist for every $1000 of student loans received in the current year. Only one of the three levels of debt was negatively associated with persistence. Students with a high debt level (greater than $7,000) were 8.3 percentage points less likely to persist than those students with no debt.

In 1996, all of the current year price and subsidy variables were significant and associated with persistence. Students were 0.0049 p.p. less likely to persist per $1000 in tuition. The current year subsidy variables were positively associated with persistence with two-year students, 13.1 p.p. more likely to persist per $1000 in grants received, 8.0 p.p. more likely to persist for every $1000 of student loans, and 18.1 p.p. more likely to persist for every $1000 of work-study funds. Two of the three levels of debt were associated with persistence. Students with a low debt level (less than $3000) were 5.1 percentage points less likely to persist than those with no debt. However, students with high debt (over $7000) were 16.4 percentage points more likely to persist than those students without accumulated debt.

Discussion

The demographics of persistence shifted in the two-year college from 1993 to 1996. In this sample, the 1996 persisters were much more likely to be dependent, full-time students. Yet, persisters were also more likely to be over the age of 30, to be classified as nonminority, and to be attending public institutions. This suggests that there may have been a bimodal distribution of persisters: older students and dependent, full-time students of all ages. This has implications for price response which we discuss below.

The increases in grants (24.3%) and loans (77.2%) from 1993 to 1996 more than kept pace with the modest 5.7% increase in average tuition for two-year students. Additionally, the proportion of students increased at each level of debt for two-year students.

Tuition, while still negatively associated with persistence in 1996, had a significantly smaller effect. All of the subsidy variables were positively associated with persistence, with a substantially higher effect size in 1996 than 1993. We conclude that there is an interaction among these variables and that the increased availability of financial aid in all forms mitigated the effect of net price on two-year college students in 1996.

The effect of debt on two-year college students presents an interesting picture. For 1996, debt is significant and negatively associated with persistence at the low level of debt, but significant and positively associated with persistence for high levels of debt. In addition, the effect of high levels of debt on persistence is fairly high. This may reflect the bimodal distribution of persisters. Full-time, dependent students, and students who are nearing completion are more likely to incur debt in order to attend school, because of their dependency status and their limited incomes, or the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel." Thus, for these students, debt may be positively associated with persistence. However, another group of students is debt-averse. These students may be African American or private school students. In any case, a small amount of debt is enough to discourage their persistence.

In 1993, only high levels of debt were significant and had a negative effect on persistence. St. John and Starkey (1995) found a negative effect of subsidies on persistence and concluded that there was not enough financial aid available to impact the persistence decision positively. We believe that our later findings confirm that theory in part. In 1993, prior to the effective date of HEA of 1992 and the unsubsidized loan program, there may not have been enough loan funds available for two-year students. Since tuition was, and still is, fairly low for two-year students, the need-based formula limited the amount of aid available for these students. Even at high levels of unsubsidized debt, it was not enough to positively influence persistence. It appears that in 1996 the situation had changed. The unsubsidized loan program and the increasing availability of loans helped the two-year students to persist.

There is also the possibility that the "reverse transfer" phenomenon may be at work. This supposition could explain the positive high debt effects and the negative low debt effects. That is, students who are normally four-year students with higher levels of tuition and debt are dropping into two-year schools and then continuing back to the four-year campus. Students who have academic difficulty in two-year institutions are dropping out before they accumulate substantial levels of debt. Moreover, students concerned about cost and debtload may be leaving only to return when they have financial reserves.

Two-year students motivated to persist, for whatever reason, are willing to assume larger amounts of debt to meet their goal. There is also evidence that the "whatever reason" may be to return to a four-year institution.

Conclusions

Earlier work previously cited by St. John developed the "Emergent View" of the effect of financial aid on persistence, that is, there was not enough financial aid to have a positive impact on effect. We believe that there is now more financial aid available; however, it is mainly in the form of student loans. While current year subsidies have a positive influence on persistence in this study, the effect of accumulated debtload is the opposite, except at the highest level of debt.

Table 1

Model Specifications and Variable Coding Scheme

Variables/                                                 Reference
Factors              Variable Name       Coding            Criterion

Background

Ethnicity            African             0=no              Compared to
                     American            1=yes             Caucasian
                                                           students

Ethnicity            Hispanic            0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             Caucasian
                                                           students

Ethnicity            Other               0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             Caucasian
                                                           students

Gender               Gender              1=male            Compared to
                                         0=female          male
                                                           students

Age                  Under 22            0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             students
                                                           between
                                                           22 and 30

Age                  Over 30             0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             students
                                                           between
                                                           22 and 30

Income               Low income--less    0=no              Compared to
                     than $11,000        1=yes             students
                                                           with income
                                                           between
                                                           $11,000 and
                                                           $60,000

Income               High income--more   0=no              Compared to
                     than $60,000        1=yes             students
                                                           with income
                                                           between
                                                           $11,000 and
                                                           $60,000

Marital status       Married             0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             single
                                                           students

Mother's             College degree      0=no              Compared to
educational                              1=yes             degreed
achievement                                                mothers

Father's             College degree      0=no              Compared to
educational                              1=yes             degreed
achievement                                                fathers

Disability           Have any            0=no              Compared to
                     disability          1=yes             students
                                                           without
                                                           disabilities

Financially          Independent for     0=no              Compared to
independent          Financial Aid       1=yes             dependent
                                                           students

Aspirations and
Achievement

Aspirations          College Degree      0=no              Compared to
                     Expected            1=yes             students
                                                           with no
                                                           aspirations
                                                           for college
                                                           degree

Aspirations          Advanced            0=no              Compared to
                     Degree Expected     1=yes             students
                                                           with no
                                                           aspirations
                                                           for college
                                                           degree

Achievement          Low                 0=no              Compared to
                     Achievement         1=yes             test scores
                     Scores--ACT <18                       between
                     or SAT <900                           high and
                                                           low

Achievement          High                0=no              Compared to
                     Achievement         1=yes             test scores
                     Scores--ACT                           between
                     >22 or SAT                            high and
                     >1070                                 low

High School
Experience

High school          No high school      0=no              Compared to
degree               degree              1=yes             students
                                                           with a
                                                           high school
                                                           degree

High school          GED or              0=no              Compared to
degree               certificate         1 =yes            students
                                                           with a high
                                                           school
                                                           degree
College Experience

Institution          For profit          0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             students
                                                           attending a
                                                           private not
                                                           for profit
                                                           institution

Institution          Public              0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             students
                                                           attending a
                                                           private not
                                                           for profit
                                                           institution

GPA                  High GPA            0=no              Compared to
                     More than 3.00      1=yes             students
                                                           with
                                                           average GPA

GPA                  Low GPA             0=no              Compared to
                     Less than 2.50      1=yes             students
                                                           with
                                                           average GPA

Class                Sophomore           0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             freshmen

Degree               Degree seeking      0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             certificate-
                                                           seeking
                                                           students

Degree               Nondegree           0=no              Compared to
                     seeking             1=yes             certificate-
                                                           seeking
                                                           students

Resident             Live on campus      0=no              Compared to
                                         1=yes             students
                                                           living
                                                           off-campus

Work                 Work full-time
                     More than 35        0=no              Compared to
                     hours per week      1=yes             students not
                                                           working
                                                           full-time

Remediation          Did the student     0=no              Compared to
                     receive remedial    1=yes             students
                     instruction                           receiving no
                                                           remediation

Attendance           Full-time           0=no              Compared to
pattern                                  1=yes             part-time
                                                           students
Price

Tuition and fees     Tuition and fees    Actual amt.       Compared to
                     normally charged    divided by 1000   each $1000
                     for full-time                         increase in
                     full year                             tuition

Grants               Total grants and    Actual amt.       Compared to
                     scholarships--      divided by 1000   each $1000
                     current year                          increase in
                                                           grants

Loans                Total loans
                     including plus      Actual amt.       Compared to
                     loans--current      divided by 1000   each $1000
                     year                                  increase in
                                                           loans
Work study           Total work study
                     award--current      Actual amt.       Compared to
                     year                divided by 1000   each $1000
                                                           increase in
                                                           work-study
                                                           payments
Debt

Debt threshold       Low debt-less       0=no              Compared to
                     than $3000          1=yes             students
                                                           with no debt

Debt threshold       Medium debt--more   0=no              Compared to
                     than $3000 and      1=yes             students
                     less than $7000                       with no debt

Debt threshold       High debt--more     0=no              Compared to
                     than $7000          1=yes             students
                                                           with
                                                           no debt
Table 2

Analysis of Within-Year Persistence of Two-Year College Students
in 1993 and 1996

                         NPSAS:96     NPSAS:93
                         Delta P      Delta P

Background

Gender-Male              -0.0306       0.0014
Black                    -0.0438      -0.0518
Hispanic                  0.0037      -0.0007
Other                     0.0147       0.0734
Under 22                 -0.0022       0.0289
Over 30                   0.0578      -0.0383
High (>$60,000)           0.0403      -0.0262
Low (<$11,000)           -0.0187      -0.0794
Dependent                 0.1026       0.0357
Married                   0.0120      -0.0332
Mother w/ College        -0.0341       0.0127
Father w/ College         0.0403       0.0012

Aspirations &
Achievement

Advanced Degree           0.0925       0.1010
College Degree            0.0795       0.0745
High Test Scores          0.0128      -0.0112
Low Test Scores           0.0222      -0.0252

College Experience

Sophomore                 0.1777       0.1036
Live on Campus           -0.0036       0.0195
Private School           -0.1288      -0.0289
Full-Time Student         0.2882      -0.0289
High GPA                  0.1240       0.0168
Low GPA                   0.0508      -0.1967
Work Full-Time           -0.0013      -0.0773

Price & Subsidies

Tuition                -0.000049010   -0.0057
Grant Amount              0.1309       0.0684
Loan Amount               0.0797       0.0245
Work Study                0.1811       0.0064

Debt

High Debt                 0.1638      -0.0834
Medium Debt              -0.0125      -0.0468
Low Debt                 -0.0514      -0.0236

Model Statistics

Sample Size                7505         5006
Pseudo [R.sup.2]          21.06         9.63
[Chi.sup.2]                2002         533
Persisters Projected      72.06        69.63
Non-Persisters
Projected                 69.69        94.30
Overall Predicted         71.03        72.27

* Significant at p<.01

** Significant at p<.05

(1) This research was sponsored by a grant from the American Educational Research Association which received funds for its "AERA Grants Program" from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics and the

[Text incomplete in original source.]

References

Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1975). Basic attainment processes: A replication and extension. Sociology of Education, 48, 457-495.

Andrieu, S. C., & St. John, E. P. (1993). The influence of prices on graduate student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 399-425.

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to higher education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bers, T.H., & Smith, K.E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education, 32(5), 539-556.

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Cabrera, A. F. (1994). Logistic regression analysis in higher education: An applied perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 225-56). New York: Agathon Press.

Campbell, J.W., & Blakely, L.S. (1996, November). Assessing the impact of early remediation in the persistence and performance of underprepared college students. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Forum, Albuquerque, NM.

Cofer, J. (1998). Decade of Indecision: The impact of federal policy on student persistence, 1987-1996. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Cofer, J. & Somers, P. (1999). An analytical approach to understanding student debtload response. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 29(3), 25-44.

Cofer, J., & Somers, P. (1998, April). Debtload and undergraduate persistence: A comparison of public and private college students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.

Conklin, K.A. (1995). Community college students' persistence and goal attainment: A 5-year longitudinal study. Association for Institutional Research Professional file, number 55. Tallahassee, FL.

Coleman, J. (1976). State projections of low-income youth in the USA: Changes over time and a look to the future. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.

College Board. (1992). Trends in student aid: 1982 to 1992. Washington, DC: College Entrance Examination Board.

Corrazinni, A. D., Dugan, D., & Grabowski, H. (1972). Determinants of distributional aspects of enrollment in U. S. higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 43, 39-50.

DeAngelis, S. (1997). The Influence of Background, Aspirations, Financial Aid, and Expected Earnings on Within-year Persistence of Graduate Students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Denison, E. F. (1964). Measuring the contribution of education, and the residual, to economic growth. Paris: Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation.

Eaton, J. S. (1995). Investing in American higher education: An argument for restructuring. New York: Council for Aid to Education.

Eckland, B. K., & Alexander, K. L. (1980). The National Longitudinal Study of the high school class of 1972. Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization, 1, 189-222.

Feldman, M. J. (1993). Factors associated with one-year retention in a community college. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 503-512.

Grimes, S.K., & Antworth, T. Community college withdrawal decisions: Student characteristics and subsequent reenrollment patterns. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20(4), 345-361.

Hannah, S.B. (1996). The higher education act of 1992: Skills, constraints, and the politics of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 498-527.

Hartle, T. W. (1996). The Republican revolution: What it means for student aid. Educational Record, 77(1), 8-16.

Hearn, J. C. (1993). The paradox of growth in federal aid for college students: 1965-1990. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Practice (pp. 94-153). New York: Agathon.

Hippensteel, D.G., St. John, E.P., & Starkey, J.B. (1996). Influence of tuition and student aid on within-year persistence by adults in 2-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20, 233-242.

Hoenack, S. A., & Weiler, W. C. (1977). The demand for higher education and institutional enrollment forecasting. Unpublished paper, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Hopkins, T. D. (1974). Higher education enrollment demand. Economic Inquiry, 12, 53-65.

Johnstone, D. B. (1995). Starting points: Fundamental assumptions underlying the principles and policies of federal financial aid to students. Proceedings of The National Conference on the Best Ways for the Federal Government to Help Students and Families Finance Postsecondary Education. [On-line]. Available: www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/FinPostSecEd/.

Keppel, F. (1987). The higher education acts contrasted, 1965-1986: As federal policy come of age? Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 49-67.

Kimberling, C.R. (1995). Federal student aid: A history and critical analysis. In J.W. Sommer (Ed.) The academy in crisis: The political economy of higher education (pp. 69-94). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Leslie, L.L, & Brinkman, P. (1988). The economic value of higher education. New York: McMillan.

McPherson, M. S. (1982). Higher education investment or expense? In J. C. Hoy, & M. H. Bernstein, (eds.), Financing higher education: The public investment. Boston: Auburn House.

McPherson, M. S., Schapiro, M. O., & Winston G. C. (1993). Paying the piper: Productivity, incentives, and financing in the U.S. higher education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-106. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mohammadi, J. (1994). Exploring retention and attrition in a two-year public community college. Patrick Henry Community College, Martinsville, VA. (ED382257).

Mumper, M. (1996). Removing college price barriers: What government has done and why it hasn't worked. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mutter, P. (1992). Career planning and placement, Sinclair Community College. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 310-317.

Nora, A., Attinasi, L.C., Jr., & Matonak, A. (1990). Testing qualitative indicators of precollege factors in Tinto's attrition model: A community college student population. Review of Higher Education, 13(3), 337-356.

Okun, M. A., Ruehlman, L., & Karoly, P. (1991). Application of investment theory to predicting part-time community college student intent and institutional persistence/departure behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 212-220.

Parsons, T. P. (1959). The social class as a social system. Harvard Educational Review, 29, 297-318.

Pascarella, E., Smart, J., & Ethington, C. (1986). Long-term persistence of two-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24, 47-71.

Peterson, T. (1984). A comment on presenting results of logit and probit models. American Sociological Review, 50(1), 130-131.

Rendon, L.I. (1995). Facilitating retention and transfer for first-generation students in community colleges. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. ED383369.

Rendon, L.I., & Nora, A. (1989). A synthesis and application of research on Hispanic students in community colleges. Community College Review, 17(1), 17-24.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Satisfaction and commitment in friendships. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 11, 78-95.

Schultz, T. W. (1960). Capital formation by education. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 571-583.

St. John, E. P. (1992). The influence of prices on within-year persistence by traditional college-age students in four-year colleges. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 22(1), 27-38.

St. John, E. P. (1994). The influence of student aid on within-year persistence by traditional-age students in 4-year colleges. Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 455-480.

St. John, E.P., & Starkey, J.B. (1994). The influence of costs on persistence by traditional college-age students in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 18, 201-213.

St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. (1995): The influence of prices and price subsidies on within-year persistence by students in community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 149-165.

Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1975) Causes and consequences of higher education: Models of the status and attainment process. In W. H. Sewell, R. M. Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society (pp. 9-27). New York: Academic Press.

Sewell, W. H., & Shah, V. P. (1967). Socioeconomic status, intelligence, and the attainment of higher education. Sociology of Education, 40, 1-23.

Stafford, K. L., Lindstedt, S. B., & Lynn, A. D. (1984). Social and economic factors affecting participation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 55, 590-607.

Tannen, M. B. (1978). The investment motive for attending college. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 31, 489-497.

Thomas, G. E., Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1979). Access to higher education: The importance of race, sex, social class and academic credentials. School Review, 2, 133-156.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of the theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 687-700.

Tinto, V. (1990). Sociological view of student persistence. NASSGP/NCHELP Research Network Conference, Washington, DC.

Trent, J. W., & Medskar, L. L. (1968). Beyond high school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tseng, M.S. (1971). Social class, occupational aspirations, and other variables. The Journal of Experimental Education, 39(4), 88-92.

Wolfle, L. M. (1985). Postsecondary educational attainment among Whites and Blacks. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 501-525.

James Cofer is the vice president of Finance and Administration for the University of Missouri System in Columbia, Missouri.

Patricia Somers is an associate professor of Higher Education at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. [e-mail]