NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report March 2001

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Undergraduates Enrolled 

With Higher Sticker Prices 

John B. Lee, Ed.D.

JBL Associates, Inc.

C. Dennis Carroll, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2001-171
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips 

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, 

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional 

mandate to collect, collate, analyze and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in 

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of 

such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review 

and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful and high quality 

data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information 

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we 

would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

March 2001

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Undergraduates Enrolled With 

Higher Sticker Prices. NCES 2001–171, by John Lee. Project Officer, C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 

2001. 

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS or go to the Internet: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

Content Contact:

Aurora D’Amico
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report investigates the reasons fulltime, first-year undergraduates gave for

choosing to enroll at higher sticker prices, how

they paid their expenses, and the educational

experiences associated with attendance. It

also reviews how satisfied they were with their

choice, how they rated their educational experience, how they paid for the education and

their first-year persistence.

The tables provide data on full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker prices.

Comparisons are made with undergraduates

attending public research universities with

sticker prices below $12,000. Undergraduates

in public research universities with sticker

prices below $12,000 were chosen as a comparison because many of these students show

signs of being able to enroll at higher sticker

prices. A third group of undergraduates attended other 4-year public institutions and private institutions with sticker prices below

$12,000. This third group is included in the

tables, but not in the analysis.

Most of the institutions attended by undergraduates with higher sticker prices were private, not-for-profit, but some attended public

institutions as out-of-state students. Twentyone percent of all full-time, first-year undergraduates who attended 4-year institutions

faced higher sticker prices (figure A).

Figure A–Percentage distribution of full-time, firstyear undergraduates in 4-year 

institutions by sticker price and Carnegie 

classification: 1995-96 

NOTE: The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable 

groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one 

of three unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher 

sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who 

faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees before any 

tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 

1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or 

Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker 

prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending 

public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I 

or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” 

Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in 

the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are 

the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis 

System. 

Undergraduates with 

sticker prices

below 

$12,000 

Undergraduates 

in other 4-year 

institutions 

56.9%

Undergraduates 

with higher 

sticker prices 

20.9% 

Undergraduates in 

public research 

universities 

22.2%
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv

Public research universities include Research I and II universities as defined in the

Carnegie Classification system. Twenty-two

percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates that attended 4-year institutions enrolled

in public research universities with sticker

prices below $12,000. In many states, public

research universities with sticker prices below

$12,000 represent the most prestigious institutional choice available.

The primary source of data for this analysis was the National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96). This data set provides a nationally representative sample of

undergraduates enrolled in accredited postsecondary institutions. NPSAS:96 provides

information about expenses and financial aid

along with characteristics that distinguish undergraduates with higher sticker prices from

those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities.

In addition, the report provides information about student characteristics associated

with full-time undergraduate persistence in the

first year of enrollment. Persistence is defined

as attending full-time at the same campus for

at least eight months during the year.

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Nearly all of the full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced higher sticker prices

or sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities can be classified as traditional. Characteristics of traditional students

include being single, younger than 24, or financially dependent on their parents. Also,

the family incomes of the undergraduates attending institutions in the two institutional

groups did not differ statistically (table A).

The percent of full-time, first-year undergraduates attending college out-of-state, and

the percent living on-campus differentiated

those who enrolled with higher sticker prices

from those enrolling with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. Fiftyfive percent of full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices enrolled in

institutions out-of-state compared with 19 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. Further, 92 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices lived

on-campus compared with 74 percent of those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities.

FINANCES

Financial aid, work and parental support

are the three major sources of financial support for undergraduates in both groups. Financial aid was received by 79 percent of the

full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices compared with 69 percent

of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

v

Table A–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected student

characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Marital status

 Not married 99.9 99.8 97.1

 Married 0.1 0.2 2.6

 Separated # # 0.3

Age

 23 or younger 99.7 99.0 95.2

 24-30 0.2 0.6 3.1

 31-39 0.1 0.2 1.2

 40 or older # 0.2 0.5

Dependency status

 Dependent 98.4 98.2 91.1

 Independent 1.6 1.8 8.9

Income and dependency level

 Dependent

 Less than $20,000 9.6 14.0 17.7

 $20,000-$39,999 15.9 17.4 22.6

 $40,000-$59,999 21.5 22.1 21.2

 $60,000-$79,999 18.9 17.1 14.8

 $80,000 or more 32.5 27.6 14.8

 Independent

 Less than $5,000 1.1 0.7 3.2

 $5,000-$9,999 0.1 0.8 2.4

 $10,000-$19,999 0.3 0.3 1.8

 $20,000 or more 0.1 0.1 1.6

Student attended institution in state of legal residence

 Student attended institution in-state 44.8 80.8 81.1

 Student attended institution out-of-state 55.2 19.2 18.9

Student housing status, 1995-96

 On-campus 92.4 73.6 55.7

 Off-campus 2.2 14.4 15.3

 With parents or relatives 5.4 12.0 29.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

Table A–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected student

characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

First generation student

 Student was first generation 18.8 24.3 39.8

 Student was not first generation 81.2 75.7 60.2

*The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three unique categories.

First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees

before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie

classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

#Estimate too small to report.

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

public research universities (table B). Part of

the difference can be accounted for by the difference in probability of receiving federally

provided financial aid. Sixty-one percent of

the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices received federal financial

aid compared with 48 percent of those with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices were more likely to have

received grants, loans, or work-study than

were those with sticker prices below $12,000

in public research universities. The most

striking difference is noted for college workstudy, which one-third of the full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker prices

received, compared with 7 percent of those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities.

The majority of full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups worked while they

attended school. Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were more

likely to work one to 14 hours a week, and

those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities were more likely

to work 15 hours or more per week. Thirtyseven percent of those with higher sticker

prices worked between one and 14 hours per

week during the school year compared with 18

percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. Onequarter of the full-time, first-year undergradu-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vii

Table B–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to type of aid and

average hours worked while enrolled, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total aid

 Did receive aid 78.5 68.6 75.2

 Did not receive aid 21.5 31.4 24.8

Federal aid (except VA/DOD)2

 Did receive federal aid 60.8 48.0 59.2

 Did not receive federal aid 39.2 52.0 40.8

Grant aid

 Did receive grant aid 72.1 53.3 61.4

 Did not receive grant aid 27.9 46.7 38.6

Loan (except PLUS)3

 Did receive loan 58.2 41.6 45.7

 Did not receive loan 41.8 58.4 54.3

Work-study

 Did receive work-study 32.9 6.5 11.4

 Did not receive work-study 67.1 93.5 88.6

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Did not work 40.9 46.4 36.9

 Worked 1-14 hours or less while enrolled 36.8 18.3 16.4

 Worked 15-29 hours while enrolled 15.8 25.2 29.0

 Worked 30 or more hours while enrolled 6.5 10.1 17.7

Parents helped with direct contribution

 Student did receive direct contribution from parent 91.9 79.6 70.8

 Student did not receive direct contribution from parent 8.1 20.4 29.2

1

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three unique categories.

First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees

before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie

classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 2

Veterans Administration/Department of Defense.

3

PLUS loans are unsubsidized variable-interest rate loans awarded to parents of dependent students who are able to meet criteria for credit worthiness.

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

ates with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities worked 15 to 29

hours compared with 16 percent of those

with higher sticker prices. Ten percent of

the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public re-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

search universities worked 30 hours or more

compared with 7 percent of those with

higher sticker prices.

Parents also provided financial support.

Ninety-two percent of the full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker

prices received parental help compared with

80 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities.

INFLUENCES

Four influences differentiated full-time,

first-year undergraduates with higher sticker

prices from those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities (table

C). First, one-half of the full-time, first-year

undergraduates with higher sticker prices

indicated that institutional reputation was a

reason for enrolling compared with 41 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. The

second factor was receiving more financial

aid. Twelve percent of the full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker

prices indicated that the receipt of more financial aid was a reason for enrolling compared with 6 percent of those with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Third, faculty reputation was

identified as an influence by 7 percent of the

full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices compared with 2 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. The

fourth influence was the job placement rate.

Five percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices said

job placement was an important consideration compared with 1 percent of those with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Four influences differentiated full-time,

first-year undergraduates with sticker prices

below $12,000 in public research universities from those with higher sticker prices.

First, 31 percent of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities indicated that being close to home was an important influence compared with 17 percent

of those with higher sticker prices. The second factor was low tuition. Ten percent of

the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities indicated that low tuition

was important compared with 1 percent of

those with higher sticker prices. Third, 8

percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities indi-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

Table C–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected

undergraduates’ reasons for attendance, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Institution has good reputation

 Institution reputation was a reason for attendance 50.4 41.1 28.4

 Institution reputation was not a reason for attendance 49.6 58.9 71.6

Received more financial aid

 Received more financial aid was a reason for attendance 12.3 5.5 6.4

 Received more financial aid was not a reason for attendance 87.7 94.5 93.6

Faculty reputation

 Faculty reputation was a reason for attendance 7.0 2.2 3.9

 Faculty reputation was not a reason for attendance 93.0 97.8 96.1

Institution job placement rate

 Job placement rate was a reason for attendance 4.6 1.2 2.2

 Job placement rate was not a reason for attendance 95.4 98.8 97.8

Institution close to home

 Institution close to home was a reason for attendance 17.4 30.8 36.3

 Institution close to home was not a reason

 for attendance 82.6 69.2 63.7

Low tuition2

 Low tuition was a reason for attendance 0.8 9.8 5.4

 Low tuition was not a reason for attendance 99.2 90.2 94.6

Friends or spouse attend institution

 Friends or spouse attending was a reason for

 attendance 3.3 7.5 7.0

 Friends or spouse attending was not a reason

 for attendance 96.7 92.5 93.0

Could live at home if attended

 Could live at home was a reason for attendance 1.8 4.5 6.0

 Could live at home was not a reason for attendance 98.2 95.5 94.0

1

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three unique categories.

First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees

before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie

classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 2

“Low” as interpreted by the respondent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x

cated that friends or a spouse attending the

school influenced their decision to enroll

compared with 3 percent of those with

higher sticker prices. The fourth factor was

the option to live at home, which was a reason given by 5 percent of the full-time, firstyear undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities

compared with 2 percent of those with

higher sticker prices.

ACADEMIC DIFFERENCES

One measure of academic preparation,

having SAT scores of 1,300 or more, differentiated full-time, first-year undergraduates

with higher sticker prices from those with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Seventeen percent of the

full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices achieved SATs of 1,300

or more compared with 10 percent of those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities. Another difference

noted was the distribution of undergraduates

by their undergraduate grade point averages

(GPA). Eighteen percent of the full-time,

first-year undergraduates with sticker prices

below $12,000 in public research universities achieved a 2.00 or lower compared with

9 percent of those with higher sticker prices.

Two other measures of academic preparation, the percentage of full-time, first-year

undergraduates taking advanced placement

tests or taking remedial classes, were not

significantly different between the two

groups (table D).

The mix of academic majors chosen by

full-time, first-year undergraduates differed

between the two undergraduate categories.

Forty-two percent of the full-time, first-year

undergraduates with higher sticker prices

majored in humanities, social, behavioral

and life sciences compared with 32 percent

of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities. Twenty-one

percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000

in public research universities majored in

physical sciences, engineering, computer

sciences or mathematics compared with 13

percent of those with higher sticker prices.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices were also more likely to

report that they often had social contact with

the faculty than were those with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

SATISFACTION

Nearly all full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups were satisfied with

the social and extracurricular activities and

the sports and recreation programs on their

campus. Satisfaction with the academic experience was higher for full-time, first-year
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xi

Table D–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected

undergraduates’ academic differences, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score, combined verbal and mathematics

 Less than 1,000 33.0 40.4 73.5

 1,000-1,299 50.3 50.1 23.5

 1,300-1,600 16.7 9.5 3.0

Grade point average

 Less than 2.00 9.1 17.6 24.9

 2.00-3.49 67.6 60.7 62.0

 3.50 or higher 23.2 21.7 13.2

Number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken

 Student took one or more placement tests 48.0 44.2 18.6

 Student took no placement test 52.0 55.8 81.4

Remedial courses

 Did take remedial courses 6.8 9.8 20.8

 Did not take remedial courses 93.2 90.2 79.2

Undergraduate field of study

 Humanities, social, behavioral, life sciences 42.2 32.3 33.3

 Physical sciences, engineering, computer science,

 mathematics 12.7 21.1 15.6

 Education 7.3 6.4 11.6

 Business, management 17.9 15.6 18.5

 Health, other 19.8 24.7 21.1

Have social contact with faculty

 Never 33.9 50.1 44.9

 Sometimes 49.9 42.2 42.3

 Often 16.2 7.7 12.8

*The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three unique categories.

First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees

before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie

classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xii

undergraduates with higher sticker prices

than it was for those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

The three academic characteristics that fulltime, first-year undergraduates with higher

sticker prices were more likely to report as

satisfactory than were those with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities included availability of courses,

instructors’ ability and class size (table E).

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were more likely to be

satisfied with social life and the sports and

recreation programs on-campus (94 and 96

percent, respectively) than were those with

higher sticker prices (90 and 92 percent, respectively).

Table E—Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected

undergraduates’ satisfaction characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Course availability

 Satisfied with course availability 83.2 70.2 75.4

 Not satisfied with course availability 16.8 29.8 24.6

Instructors' ability to teach

 Satisfied with instructors' ability to teach 95.2 86.9 88.1

 Not satisfied with instructors' ability to teach 4.8 13.1 11.9

Class size

 Satisfied with class size 96.6 78.0 93.5

 Not satisfied with class size 3.4 22.0 6.5

Social life

 Satisfied with social life 89.9 93.6 90.4

 Not satisfied with social life 10.1 6.4 9.6

Sports and recreational activities2

 Satisfied with sports and recreational activities 91.7 96.4 92.7

 Not satisfied with sports and recreational activities 8.3 3.6 7.3

1

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three unique categories.

First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees

before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie

classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 2

Includes only respondents who participated in sports and recreational activities.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xiii

PERSISTENCE

Multivariate analysis techniques were

used to find that full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were

more likely to persist in their first year than

were those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities.

Further, the multivariate statistical techniques found that student characteristics did

not explain the difference in persistence.

Persistence is defined as attending full-time

at the same campus for at least eight months

during the year.

CONCLUSIONS

Undergraduates attending institutions

with sticker prices of $12,000 or more and

those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities include a higher

proportion of younger and academically prepared undergraduates. Differences in family

incomes of full-time, first-year undergraduates in the two groups were not significantly

different.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates in

the two groups had different reasons for attending. For example, a larger percentage of

full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices indicated factors such

as institutional reputation, financial aid, and

job placement as reasons for attending compared with those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
xv

FOREWORD

This report examines the differences between undergraduates who attended postsecondary institutions by the sticker price levels they faced. Specifically, the tables present information describing personal characteristics, academic preparation, financial aspects of attending a

postsecondary institution, expectation, satisfaction and persistence. The analysis examines the

relationship between these variables and higher sticker prices, sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities, or sticker prices below $12,000 in other 4-year institutions for new

college entrants.

The report uses data from the 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96). NPSAS:96 is the fourth in a series of surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of

Education. NPSAS:96 represents students of all ages and backgrounds at all types of postsecondary institutions (from less-than-2-year institutions that provide short-term vocational training to

4-year colleges and universities) who were enrolled during the 1995-96 academic year. The

NPSAS surveys provide information about the price of postsecondary education and how students pay those prices.

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:96 Data Analysis

System (DAS). The DAS is a microcomputer application that allows users to specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS data. It produces the design-adjusted standard errors that

are necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences shown in the tables. For more

information regarding the DAS, readers should consult appendix B of this report.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing these reports is very much a team effort. Thanks go to all that helped during the

various phases of developing this report. Suzanne Clery, Barry Christopher and Monika HibbertFlagg of JBL Associates produced and formatted tables, checked statistical statements and edited

text. Laura Horn of MPR Associates, as always, had good ideas that helped shape the issues, and

provided diligent technical support. Dennis Carroll of NCES provided the guidance and recommendations that come from many years of experience. Final reviews were provided by Paula

Knepper and Roslyn Korb of NCES. In addition, the adjudication reviews helped improve the

report. Special thanks to Carol Fuller, Assistant Vice President for Research and Policy Analysis, National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities, and Bruce Taylor and Dawn

Nelson of NCES for their careful and thoughtful suggestions. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
xix

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................iii

Student Characteristics...........................................................................................iv

Finances..................................................................................................................iv

Influences .............................................................................................................viii

Academic Differences .............................................................................................x

Satisfaction..............................................................................................................x

Persistence............................................................................................................xiii

Conclusions ..........................................................................................................xiii

FOREWORD................................................................................................................... xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................xvii

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................xxi

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................xxiv

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

Data and Variable Definitions................................................................................. 2

Definition of Sticker Price Groups.......................................................................... 3

UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................. 10

UNDERGRADUATE FINANCES ................................................................................ 17

Student Financial Aid............................................................................................ 17

Working................................................................................................................. 20

Parental Support .................................................................................................... 21

Amount of Aid ...................................................................................................... 21

INFLUENCES ................................................................................................................. 23

ACADEMIC DIFFERENCES ....................................................................................... 26

EXPECTATIONS AND GOALS................................................................................... 29

SATISFACTION............................................................................................................. 32
CONTENTS

xx

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ............................................................................... 35

PERSISTENCE ............................................................................................................... 37

Multivariate Analysis of Persistence..................................................................... 39

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................ 44

REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 46

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY .......................................................................................... 48

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES ......................................................................... 71
xxi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

A Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected student characteristics, by sticker price and

Carnegie classification: 1995-96......................................................................................... v

B Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to type of aid and average hours worked while enrolled, by

sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96............................................................vii

C Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected undergraduates’ reasons for attendance, by

sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96............................................................. ix

D Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected undergraduates’ academic differences, by sticker

price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96 ........................................................................ xi

E Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to selected undergraduates’ satisfaction characteristics, by

sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96............................................................xii

1 Public 4-year institutions with out-of-state sticker prices of $12,000 or more

for full-time undergraduates: 1995-96 ................................................................................ 6

2 Number of 4-year institutions and enrollment distribution of full-time, firstyear undergraduates by sticker price reported on the Integrated Postsecondary

Education Data System’s Institutional Characteristics datafile, and Carnegie

classification: 1995.............................................................................................................. 9

3 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to undergraduate characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96 ................................................................................................ 13
LIST OF TABLES

xxii

Table Page

4 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to type and source of aid, and type of aid package received,

by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96....................................................... 18

5 Average amount of aid received by full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-

year institutions according to type or source of aid, and average sticker price,

by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96....................................................... 22

6 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to undergraduates’ reasons for attendance, by sticker price

and Carnegie classification: 1995-96 ................................................................................ 24

7 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to undergraduates’ academic differences and undergraduates’ social contact with faculty, by sticker price and Carnegie classification:

1995-96.............................................................................................................................. 27

8 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to highest level of education ever expected to complete,

long-term goals as reasons for attendance and important personal goals, by

sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96............................................................ 29

9 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to undergraduates’ satisfaction, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96 ................................................................................................ 33

10 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to undergraduates’ community participation, by sticker price

and Carnegie classification: 1995-96 ................................................................................ 36

11 Percentage distribution of first-year undergraduates who started full-time in

the fall term in 4-year institutions according to attendance pattern for the academic year, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96 ................................... 39

12 Percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions who

persisted full-time at the same institution for the full year in 1995-96, and the

adjusted percentage after controlling for the covariation of the variables listed

in the table ......................................................................................................................... 41
LIST OF TABLES

xxiii

Table Page

B1 Standard errors for table 5: Average amount of aid received by full-time, firstyear undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to type or source of aid,

and average sticker price, by sticker price and Carnegie classification:

1995-96.............................................................................................................................. 72
xxiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

A Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96............................................iii

1 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96............................................. 4

2 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker

prices of $12,000 or more by institutional control: 1995-96............................................... 5

3 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker

prices of $12,000 or more by Carnegie classification: 1995-96.......................................... 7

4 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker

prices below $12,000 in other 4-year institutions by Carnegie classification:

1995-96................................................................................................................................ 8

5 Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker

prices below $12,000 in other 4-year institutions by institutional control:

1995-96................................................................................................................................ 9
1

INTRODUCTION

American postsecondary institutions provide diverse educational opportunities and experiences to undergraduates. Examples of the institutional attributes that can vary include educational mission, enrollment size, control and price of attendance. At a more personal level, colleges present diverse mixes of academic, social, and prestige qualities. These differences represent important educational options that are available to entering undergraduates. Price is an important part of the mix, but does not necessarily correlate with other attributes that may be important to undergraduates. Realizing these limitations, this report describes the reasons given by

entering full-time undergraduates for choosing higher sticker prices, how they paid their expenses, the educational experiences associated with attendance, and persistence in the first year,

and compares them with those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Sticker price is the published tuition and fees. This is the price prior to any financial aid

awards, tuition remission or discounts being taken. According to the College Board (1998), the

average sticker price for an undergraduate attending a public 4-year institution in 1998-99 was

$3,243 compared with an average of $14,508 for an undergraduate attending a private, not-forprofit, 4-year institution.1

 At the high end, about 20 percent of the undergraduates attending private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions faced sticker prices of $20,000 or more. However, less

than 4 percent of all undergraduates had sticker prices of $20,000 or more.

The relative difference in the sticker price among institutions is a factor in student choice,

especially for lower-income undergraduates. The consensus among researchers is that the sticker

price affects enrollment. Researchers found increases in tuition or declines in student aid lead to

enrollment declines. Lower-income undergraduates are more sensitive to changes in tuition and

aid than are undergraduates who are from middle- and upper-income families. In addition to being an important consideration for undergraduates, the price of attendance, which includes tuition

and fees and living and incidental costs, is related to the award of student financial aid (e.g.,

 

1

An analysis of IPEDS 1995-96 Institutional Characteristics datafile showed the average sticker price for an undergraduate attending a public 4-year institution in 1995-96 was $2,808 compared with an average of $9,433 for an undergraduate attending a private, not-for-profit, 4-year institution.
INTRODUCTION

2

Heller, 1997). Undergraduates who face higher sticker prices may receive more financial aid

than they would if they attended lower-priced institutions.

The College Board (1999) reported that the ratio of price of attendance to the family income has increased from 37 percent to 44 percent over the last decade for a middle-income family sending a child to a private, not-for-profit institution. Public concern about the affordability

of higher education was reflected in Straight Talk About College Costs and Prices, which was

the report of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education (January 1998). The

Commission was concerned that unless academic institutions solved the problem of increasing

tuition, policy makers at both the state and federal levels might impose unilateral solutions that

are likely to be heavy-handed and regulatory. This concern about price of attendance is one of

the reasons for analyzing who enrolls in institutions with higher sticker prices.

Although the financial effort required to attend a private, not-for-profit, postsecondary institution2

 has increased, enrollment has kept pace. According to NCES data (1999), 21.8 percent

of students enrolled in private, not-for-profit institutions in 1980, 21.5 percent in 1990, and 22.4

percent in 1995. Thus, the historical results suggest that many students and their families continue to be willing to consider a sticker price that represents an increasing share of their income.

It may be that student aid has offset some of this increase.

DATA AND VARIABLE DEFINITIONS

The primary source of data for this analysis was the National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:96). This data set provides a nationally representative sample of full-time, firstyear undergraduates enrolled in accredited postsecondary institutions. In the NPSAS:96, firstyear undergraduates were asked a series of questions about their reasons for choosing their institutions and evaluations of their postsecondary experiences.

NPSAS:96 data are used to analyze first-year persistence of undergraduates who started

their education in different types of institutions. In this report, persistence is defined as attending

full-time for at least eight months at the same institution during 1995-96. A non-persisting student is one who left the institution, or enrolled less than full-time in the same institution during

the year.

 

2

Not all private, not-for-profit institutions qualify as having higher sticker prices.
INTRODUCTION

3

The population was limited to undergraduates who attended full-time in September of

1995. Defining the population this way provides assurance that every undergraduate in the sample could have received student aid if they had applied and were eligible.

DEFINITION OF STICKER PRICE GROUPS

Given the complex institutional attributes that students may consider when choosing an

institution, the price of attendance represents an important consideration. The price of attendance

includes tuition and fees (sticker price) and other living costs associated with attending a postsecondary institution. Sticker price can vary more across institutions than the estimated living

expenses that comprise the price of attendance. Reported student living costs may not be the

actual costs because they are estimated. These are the reasons sticker price before remissions or

discounts has been used to define undergraduates with higher sticker prices in the tables used in

this report.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates who attended 4-year institutions were divided into

three groups: those with higher sticker prices ($12,0003

 or more, with an average of $16,293 in

table 5), those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities (average tuition

of $4,054), and those with sticker prices below $12,000 in other 4-year institutions. The latter

group included all full-time, first-year undergraduates that were left after accounting for the previous two categories (average tuition of $4,192).

In some cases, full-time first-year undergraduates attending the same institution may have

sticker prices above and below $12,000. An example would be a student attending a public research university as an out-of-state student with a sticker price in excess of $12,000, while a student attending the same institution in-state would be classified as having a sticker price below

$12,000 in a public research university. Twenty-one percent of all full-time, first-year undergraduates who attended 4-year institutions in the NPSAS:96 sample faced sticker prices of

$12,000 or more (figure 1).

 

3

A $12,000 sticker price in 1995-96 is approximately comparable to $18,500 in 1998-99.
INTRODUCTION

4

Most undergraduates with higher sticker prices attended institutions with private, not-forprofit tax status. Full-time, first-year undergraduates enrolled in private, not-for-profit institutions comprise 95 percent of this group; 5 percent enrolled in public institutions (figure 2). Seventy-three percent of that 5 percent with sticker prices above $12,000 were in public research

universities out-of-state. These full-time, first-year undergraduates probably faced out-of-state

Figure 1–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions by 

sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96 

Undergraduates in 

other 4-year 

institutions

56.9%

Undergraduates in 

public research 

universities

22.2%

Undergraduates with 

higher sticker prices 

20.9%

NOTE: The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into

one of three unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year 

undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or 

financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. 

Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities 

with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, 

undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are 

the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System. 

Undergraduates 

with sticker prices 

below $12,000 
INTRODUCTION

5

tuition to attend these public institutions. A list of public 4-year institutions with out-of-state

sticker prices of $12,000 or more in 1995-96 can be found in table 1.

Figure 3 shows that 26 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher

sticker prices enrolled in research universities, 10 percent were in doctoral institutions, 20 percent were in comprehensive institutions, 40 percent were in baccalaureate institutions, and the

remaining 5 percent attended other types of institutions.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities were used as the comparison group. Twenty-two percent of the full-time, first-year

Figure 2–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices of $12,000 or 

more by institutional control: 1995-96 

NOTE: “Undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition 

and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of 

institution control or Carnegie classification. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System. 

Public 

institutions 

4.5% 

Private, not-for-profit 

institutions 

95.3% 

Private, for-profit 

institutions 

0.2% 
INTRODUCTION

6

Table 1—Public 4-year institutions with out-of-state sticker prices of $12,000 or more for full-time

undergraduates: 1995-96

State Sticker price

Institution

 University of California-Berkeley CA $12,053

 Colorado School of Mines CO 13,326

 University of Colorado at Boulder CO 13,838

 University of Colorado Health Sciences Center CO 14,938

 University of Connecticut CT 12,800

 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor MI 17,671

 University of New Hampshire-Main Campus NH 13,711

 Cornell University-NY State Statutory Colleges NY 16,526

 University of Rhode Island RI 12,096

 University of Vermont and State Agricultural College VT 16,578

 College of William and Mary VA 14,428

 University of Virginia-Main Campus VA 14,010

 Virginia Military Institute VA 12,040

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Data Analysis System Institutional Characteristics datafile, 1995-96.

undergraduates who attended 4-year institutions enrolled with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities. The decision to use public research universities with sticker prices

below $12,000 as the comparison group was based on two premises. First, in many states a public research university represents the most prestigious public institutional choice available. Second, attendance at a public research university is generally related to parents’ incomes, as is attendance at private, not-for-profit institutions (McPherson and Schapiro, 1998, p. 45). This

similarity between the incomes of undergraduates attending major research universities and private, not-for-profit institutions was also reported in the Washington Post (Cooper, 1999). Many

undergraduates who attended these institutions could attend institutions with higher tuition.

Public research universities include Research Universities I or II according to the Carnegie Classification system.4

 Even though these institutions share the same Carnegie Classification, they

differ on other characteristics including student selectivity (Barrons, 1994).

 

4

Institutions in this category award at least 50 graduate degrees annually and receive at least $15.5 million in external

research funds annually.
INTRODUCTION

7

The third group included in the tables is called undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in other 4-year institutions. This group includes all full-time, first-year undergraduates

who did not attend institutions in either of the other two groups. Overall, 57 percent of full-time,

first-year undergraduates were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in other 4-year institutions. One-half of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in

the other 4-year institutions group attended comprehensive universities and colleges. The next

largest group, 23 percent, attended baccalaureate colleges followed by 18 percent that attended

doctoral universities (figure 4). Most of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker

prices below $12,000 in other 4-year institutions attended public institutions (69 percent), and 29

percent attended private, not-for-profit institutions (figure 5). Even though the information describing first-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in other 4-year

institutions is included in the tables, it is not discussed further in the text.

Figure 3–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices of $12,000 or 

more by Carnegie classification: 1995-96 

NOTE: “Undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least 

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 

academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System. 

Other colleges 

4.9% 

Baccalaureate 

colleges 

39.7% 

Comprehensive universities 

and colleges 

19.6% 

Research universities 

I and II 

25.6% 

Doctoral universities 

I and II 

10.2% 
INTRODUCTION

8

As a comparison to the results reported using NPSAS data, table 2 provides a summary of

the number of institutions, and the number of full-time, first-year undergraduates attending institutions in each of the groups, as reported in Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS). The undergraduate tuition reported in table 2 includes only in-state tuition. The

NPSAS:96 data includes the higher out-of-state tuition that public university undergraduates,

who are residents of a state other than the one in which the institution is located, may be charged.

For this reason, the distribution of undergraduates by the published institutional sticker price reported to IPEDS may differ from the distribution reported using NPSAS data.

Figure 4–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in 

other 4-year institutions by Carnegie classification: 1995-96 

*These are private research I and II universities. 

NOTE: Undergraduates in other 4-year institutions with sticker prices below $12,000 are those who faced sticker prices below 

$12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year and attended institutions other than public universities with Carnegie classification of 

Research I or II. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System. 

Baccalaureate

colleges

23.3%

Other colleges

7.3%

Comprehensive universities

and colleges

49.6%

Research

universities

I and II*

1.6%

Doctoral universities

I and II

18.2%
INTRODUCTION

9

Table 2—Number of 4-year institutions and enrollment distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates by

sticker price reported on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System’s Institutional

Characteristics datafile, and Carnegie classification: 1995

Number of 4-year

institutions Enrollment

 Total 2,829 1,363,795

Sticker price reported on IPEDS and Carnegie classification

 Higher sticker prices* 418 206,359

 Public research universities with in-state sticker

 prices below $12,000 85 260,058

 Other 4-year institutions with sticker prices below $12,000 2,326 897,378

*

In-state sticker price was used here; out-of-state sticker price was not. This definition resulted in the inclusion of only private,

not-for-profit 4-year institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System, Institutional Characteristics and Enrollment datafiles, 1995.

Figure 5–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in 

other 4-year institutions by institutional control: 1995-96 

NOTE: Undergraduates in other 4-year institutions with sticker prices below $12,000 are those who faced sticker prices below 

$12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year and attended institutions other than public universities with Carnegie classification of 

Research I or II. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System. 

Public 

institutions 

68.7% 

Private, for-profit 

institutions 

2.0% 

Private, not-for-profit 

institutions 

29.3% 
10

UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS

Ninety-five percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices

enrolled in private, not-for-profit institutions (figure 2) and, by definition, all the full-time, firstyear undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were in

public institutions. This comparison was chosen because it is assumed that the two groups of

undergraduates will have many similar attributes. This analysis is not the same as contrasting

and comparing undergraduates in public and private, not-for-profit institutions. Not all not-forprofit institutions have sticker prices of $12,000 or more. Twenty-nine percent of the full-time,

first-year undergraduates enrolled in other 4-year institutions with sticker prices below $12,000

attended private, not-for-profit institutions (figure 5).

Because 95 percent of full-time, full-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices enrolled in private, not-for-profit institutions (figure 2), examining the differences between undergraduates in private and public 4-year institutions found in previous research helps develop a list

of characteristics that might typify full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices.

Horn and Berktold (1998) found that, on average, full-time, first-year undergraduates enrolled in

private, not-for-profit and public 4-year institutions differ in several ways:

• Undergraduates in private, not-for-profit institutions were younger, on average, than

those in public 4-year institutions.

• Undergraduates in private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to be dependent

on their parents for financial support than those in public 4-year institutions.

• Undergraduates in private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to live oncampus than those in public 4-year institutions.

• Undergraduates in private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to attend fulltime than those in public 4-year institutions.
UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS

11

• Undergraduates in private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to consider the

graduation rate and the crime rate when choosing a school than those who attended

public 4-year institutions.

Limiting the comparison to full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices

and those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities will refine these comparisons. The following questions structured the analysis.

1. Did full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices differ in their backgrounds or demographic characteristics from those with sticker prices below $12,000

in public research universities? For example, did a larger percentage of higherincome full-time, first-year undergraduates face higher sticker prices than sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities?

2. How did the percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates who attended institutions in one of the two groups differ in their readiness to participate in their postsecondary education? This set of comparisons will include measures of academic

grades, test scores, and participation in school and community activities.

3. Did the percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates in the two groups differ in

attitudes, goals and aspirations? Examples of measures that will be included are the

anticipated final degree and long-term life goals.

4. What percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates in the two institutional categories received financial aid, support from parents and income from their own work?

5. Did the educational experience differ among the full-time, first-year undergraduates

who attended institutions in each of the two groups? This set of indicators will include measures of first-year persistence. It will also show the percentage of full-time,

first-year undergraduates enrolled in different academic majors and the percentage indicating satisfaction with different aspects of their educational experience.

Nearly all the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices or those with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities can be classified as traditional.

Characteristics of traditional students include being single, younger than 24, and financially dependent on parents. Table 3 shows that almost all of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with
UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS

12

higher sticker prices or those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities

were not married, were 23 years of age or younger, and were dependent on their parents. Finally,

the percentage of dependent full-time, first-year undergraduates attending institutions in the two

groups did not differ statistically by family income categories.

The majority of both groups were not first-generation students. Eighty-one percent of the

full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices had parents with college experience, as did 76 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities,

which was not statistically different.

Horn and Premo (1996, p. 20) developed a risk index that has proven to be a good predictor of student persistence. The index includes the following student characteristics as risk

factors associated with dropping out: being older than the typical age for year in school, being

financially independent, having dependents, working full-time while enrolled, being a single parent, having a General Education Development (GED) certificate or high school equivalency certificate instead of a diploma, and enrolling part-time.

The percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates with no risk factors was not significantly different between the two groups. Over four-fifths of the full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups had none of the risk factors that predict dropping out of school. One risk

factor, attending part-time, is excluded by definition of the population. Two of the risk factors,

age and dependency, were reported earlier in this section. Ninety-nine percent of the full-time,

first-year undergraduates in both categories had high school diplomas. One percent of the fulltime, first-year undergraduates attending institutions in each of the groups were independents

with dependents. Only one of the risk factors was statistically significant. Full-time, first-year

undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were more

likely to work full-time (more than 30 hours per week while in school) than were those with

higher sticker prices, 10 percent compared with 7 percent (table 4).

Being black, non-Hispanic was the only racial/ethnicity category for which there was a

statistically significant difference between the two groups of full-time, first-year undergraduates.

Three percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were black,

non-Hispanic compared with 7 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.
UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS

13

Some measures characterized the average full-time, first-year undergraduates who enrolled with higher sticker prices that were less likely to apply to those enrolling with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities. For example, 55 percent of full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker prices enrolled in institutions out-of-state compared with

19 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were more likely to live oncampus than were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Ninety-two percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices lived oncampus compared with 74 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities. Fourteen percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities lived off-campus compared with 2 percent of those

with higher sticker prices and 12 percent lived with parents or relatives compared with 5 percent

of those with higher sticker prices.

By these measures, undergraduates with higher sticker prices and those with sticker prices

below $12,000 in public research universities were comparable on several key demographic and

family characteristics. The results suggest that these two groups of undergraduates were more

similar than they were different. Later sections expand the comparison of full-time, first-year

undergraduates by academic attributes.

Table 3–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduate characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Marital status

 Not married 99.9 99.8 97.1

 Married 0.1 0.2 2.6

 Separated # # 0.3

Age

 23 or younger 99.7 99.0 95.2

 24-30 0.2 0.6 3.1

 31-39 0.1 0.2 1.2

 40 or older # 0.2 0.5
UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS

14

Table 3–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduate characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Dependency status

 Dependent 98.4 98.2 91.1

 Independent 1.6 1.8 8.9

Income and dependency level

 Dependent

 Less than $20,000 9.6 14.0 17.7

 $20,000-$39,999 15.9 17.4 22.6

 $40,000-$59,999 21.5 22.1 21.2

 $60,000-$79,999 18.9 17.1 14.8

 $80,000 or more 32.5 27.6 14.8

 Independent

 Less than $5,000 1.1 0.7 3.2

 $5,000-$9,999 0.1 0.8 2.4

 $10,000-$19,999 0.3 0.3 1.8

 $20,000 or more 0.1 0.1 1.6

First generation student

 Student was first generation 18.8 24.3 39.8

 Student was not first generation 81.2 75.7 60.2

Number of risk factors

 No risk factors 88.1 83.8 71.9

 One to three risk factors 11.4 15.7 25.3

 Four or more risk factors 0.5 0.5 2.8

High school degree or equivalent

 High school diploma 99.5 99.1 96.6

 GED or other equivalent 0.4 0.4 2.7

 Certificate of high school completion 0.1 0.4 0.5

 No high school degree or certificate # 0.1 0.2

Number of dependents, independent student

 Student had one or more dependents 0.7 0.6 4.4

 Student had no dependents 99.3 99.4 95.6

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Did not work 40.9 46.4 36.9

 Worked 1-14 hours while enrolled 36.8 18.3 16.4

 Worked 15-29 hours while enrolled 15.8 25.2 29.0

 Worked 30 or more hours while enrolled 6.5 10.1 17.7
UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS

15

Table 3–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduate characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 80.3 72.4 68.1

 Black, non-Hispanic 3.4 7.2 14.3

 Hispanic 4.3 7.1 12.1

 Asian/Pacific Islander 9.5 11.4 4.7

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.3 0.7 0.5

 Other 2.2 1.2 0.3

Student attended institution in state of legal residence

 Student attended institution in-state 44.8 80.8 81.1

 Student attended institution out-of-state 55.2 19.2 18.9

Student housing status, 1995-96

 On-campus 92.4 73.6 55.7

 Off-campus 2.2 14.4 15.3

 With parents or relatives 5.4 12.0 29.0

Gender

 Male 42.6 47.4 45.1

 Female 57.4 52.6 54.9

Single parent, independent student

 Student was a single parent 0.6 0.5 2.4

 Student was not a single parent 99.4 99.5 97.6

Income percentile rank, 1994 (all students)

 25th or less 14.3 19.3 28.5

 26th - 50th 20.7 19.9 25.5

 51st - 75th 25.4 25.4 26.0

 76th - 100th 39.5 35.4 20.0

Degree program

 Certificate degree 3.4 2.4 1.4

 Associate’s degree 3.0 0.8 9.1

 Bachelor’s degree 93.6 96.4 89.0

 Undergraduate, non-degree program 0.1 0.5 0.5
UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS

16

Table 3–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduate characteristics, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Delayed enrollment

 Did delay enrollment 6.9 8.1 17.5

 Did not delay enrollment 93.1 91.9 82.5

*The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

#Estimate too small to report.

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
17

UNDERGRADUATE FINANCES

Financial aid is an important part of the postsecondary finance picture. Other contributions to student support include student work and parental contribution, which are reported after

the section on student financial aid. Table 4 provides detailed information on the relationship

between financial aid and enrollment in an institution in the two categories of interest.

STUDENT FINANCIAL AID

Seventy-nine percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices

received student financial aid, compared with 69 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. Federal, state, institutional and employer aid were the

aid sources analyzed in this report.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were more likely to receive

federal financial aid, institutional aid or employer aid than were those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. Only the percentage receiving state-provided financial

aid was not significantly different between full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker

prices or those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Sixty-one percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices received federal student

financial aid compared with 48 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Two-thirds of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices received

institutional student financial aid, as did 30 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities. This is consistent with other research (Lee and Clery, 1999) that

found that undergraduates in private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to receive institutional aid than were those in public 4-year institutions. Lee and Clery found that 18 percent of

the full-time undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions received institutional aid, as did

47 percent of those who attended private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions.

Employer aid is more frequently awarded to undergraduates who attended part-time rather

than full-time (Lee and Clery, 1999). The results of this analysis found a small, but statistically
UNDERGRADUATE FINANCES

18

significant difference in the probability of receiving employer aid between the two groups of fulltime, first-time undergraduates. Employer aid was received by 4 percent of the full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker prices and 2 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were more likely to receive

grants, loans or work-study awards than were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities. Seventy-two percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher

sticker prices received grants compared with 53 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. Fifty-eight percent of those with higher sticker prices

received loans compared with 42 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were more likely to receive

aid packages that included multiple types of aid than were those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities. Full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices

below $12,000 in public research universities were more likely to receive loans or grants with no

other types of aid than were those with higher sticker prices. Eight percent of those with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities received loans only compared with 3 percent

of those with higher sticker prices. Twenty-three percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities received grants only compared with 16 percent of those

with higher sticker prices. Forty-two percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices received combinations of loans, work-study, grants, and other types of aid

compared with 20 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Table 4–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

type and source of aid, and type of aid package received, by sticker price and Carnegie classification:

1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total aid

 Did receive aid 78.5 68.6 75.2

 Did not receive aid 21.5 31.4 24.8
UNDERGRADUATE FINANCES

19

Table 4–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

type and source of aid, and type of aid package received, by sticker price and Carnegie classification:

1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Federal aid (except VA/DOD)2

 Did receive federal aid 60.8 48.0 59.2

 Did not receive federal aid 39.2 52.0 40.8

Institutional aid

 Did receive institutional aid 65.7 30.3 31.3

 Did not receive institutional aid 34.3 69.7 68.7

Employer aid

 Did receive employer aid 3.9 2.2 2.4

 Did not receive employer aid 96.1 97.8 97.6

State aid

 Did receive state aid 24.6 21.0 23.7

 Did not receive state aid 75.4 79.0 76.3

Grant aid

 Did receive grant aid 72.1 53.3 61.4

 Did not receive grant aid 27.9 46.7 38.6

Loan (except PLUS)3

 Did receive loan 58.2 41.6 45.7

 Did not receive loan 41.8 58.4 54.3

Work-study

 Did receive work-study 32.9 6.5 11.4

 Did not receive work-study 67.1 93.5 88.6

Parents helped with direct contribution

 Student did receive direct contribution from parent 91.9 79.6 70.8

 Student did not receive direct contribution from parent 8.1 20.4 29.2

Other type of aid (including assistantship and PLUS)3

 Did receive other type 16.0 14.8 12.5

 Did not receive other type 84.0 85.2 87.5

Other source of aid (including VA/DOD)2

 Did receive other source of aid 28.0 21.8 17.7

 Did not receive other source of aid 72.0 78.2 82.3
UNDERGRADUATE FINANCES

20

Table 4–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

type and source of aid, and type of aid package received, by sticker price and Carnegie classification:

1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Aid package

 Loans and grants 16.6 18.1 21.4

 Loans only 3.0 7.7 8.0

 Grants only 16.4 23.0 23.4

 Work-study only 0.1 0.2 0.2

 Other aid combination4 42.4 19.6 22.2

 No aid received 21.5 31.4 24.8

1

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 2

Veterans Administration/Department of Defense.

3

PLUS loans are unsubsidized variable-interest rate loans awarded to parents of dependent students who are able to meet criteria

for credit worthiness.

4

Examples of other aid combinations are: loans, grants and work-study; work-study and grants; work-study and loans.

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

WORKING

The majority of full-time, first-year undergraduates attending colleges or universities in

both groups worked while attending school. Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher

sticker prices were more likely to work between one and 14 hours a week while they were in

school than were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities, but

were less likely to work more hours per week. Thirty-seven percent of the full-time, first-year

undergraduates with higher sticker prices who worked did so for less than 15 hours a week compared with 18 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities

(table 3). Full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were more likely to work 15 to 29 hours per week or 30 or more hours a week

while they attended classes than were those with higher sticker prices. Sixteen percent of those

in institutions with higher sticker prices worked 15 to 29 hours compared with 25 percent of
UNDERGRADUATE FINANCES

21

those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Ten percent of the fulltime, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities

worked 30 or more hours per week compared with 7 percent of those with higher sticker prices.

The percent of full-time, first-year undergraduates who did not work while attending school did

not differ between the two groups.

One-third of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices participated

in college work-study programs compared with 7 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities.

PARENTAL SUPPORT

As noted earlier, 98 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates in both sticker

price groups were financially dependent on their parents. The results indicate that parents were

more likely to provide financial support to full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker

prices compared with those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Parents provided direct support5

 to full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices

in 92 percent of the cases (table 4). Eighty percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities received direct financial help

from their parents.

AMOUNT OF AID

The average amount of aid received by full-time, first-year undergraduates was higher for

full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices compared with the amount received

by those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. In fact, financial aid

recipients with higher sticker prices received more than twice as much financial aid6

 (including

institutional aid) on average than did those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities, $12,678 compared with $5,766 (table 5).

 

5

Direct support from the parents can include payment for any one or combination of tuition, housing, meals or books.

Parents may provide incidental money for other student expenditures, which is not included in direct support from

parents.

6

Total aid includes all sources (federal, state, institutional and other) and types (loan—including PLUS loans, grant,

work-study and other) of aid.
UNDERGRADUATE FINANCES

22

Table 5–Average amount of aid received by full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to type

or source of aid, and average sticker price, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Total State Institutional Federal Grant

aid aid aid aid aid Loan Sticker Non-tuition

amount amount amount amount1 amount amount2 price costs3

 Total $7,035 $1,931 $4,409 $4,734 $4,570 $3,092 $6,697 $6,753

Sticker price and Carnegie classification4

 Undergraduates with higher sticker

 prices 12,678 2,230 7,490 6,253 8,420 3,703 16,293 7,292

 Undergraduates in public research

 universities with sticker prices

 below $12,000 5,766 2,231 2,805 4,718 3,657 2,788 4,054 7,385

 Undergraduates in other 4-year

 institutions with sticker prices

 below $12,000 5,317 1,712 2,630 4,165 3,214 2,913 4,192 6,307

1

Indicates the total amount of federal financial aid, excluding Veterans Administration/Department of Defense (VA/DOD).

2

Indicates the total amount of all loans (federal, state, institutional, and private sector) except PLUS. PLUS loans are unsubsidized variableinterest rate loans awarded to parents of dependent students who are able to meet criteria for credit worthiness.

3

Non-tuition costs include books and supplies, room and board, transportation and personal expenses.

4

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three unique categories.

First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required

fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie

classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities with

Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices

below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
23

INFLUENCES

Four factors were positively associated with undergraduates with higher sticker prices

when compared with those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities (table 6). One-half of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices indicated

that the school’s good reputation was a reason for enrolling compared with 41 percent of those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. The second factor was receiving more student financial aid. Twelve percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices indicated that the receipt of more financial aid was a reason for enrolling

compared with 6 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. The third factor was faculty reputation. Seven percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices said that faculty reputation was a reason for attending compared with 2 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

The final factor was job placement. Five percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices indicated that the job placement rate was a reason to enroll in the institution

compared with 1 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities indicated a different set of factors they considered in making their selection than

those with higher sticker prices. First, 31 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities indicated that being able to live close

to home was a consideration in their enrollment. Seventeen percent of those with higher sticker

prices said that living close to home was a factor in their enrollment decision. The second factor

was low tuition. Ten percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates in public universities indicated that low tuition was important compared with 1 percent of those with higher sticker

prices. The third factor was the attendance of friends or spouses. Eight percent of the full-time,

first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities indicated this as a reason for enrolling compared with 3 percent of those with higher sticker prices.

The fourth factor was the option to live at home, which was a reason given by 5 percent of the

full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities compared with 2 percent of those with higher sticker prices.
INFLUENCES

24

Table 6–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduates’ reasons for attendance, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Institution has good reputation

 Institution reputation was a reason for attendance 50.4 41.1 28.4

 Institution reputation was not a reason for attendance 49.6 58.9 71.6

Received more financial aid

 Received more financial aid was a reason for

 attendance 12.3 5.5 6.4

 Received more financial aid was not a reason for

 attendance 87.7 94.5 93.6

Faculty reputation

 Faculty reputation was a reason for attendance 7.0 2.2 3.9

 Faculty reputation was not a reason for attendance 93.0 97.8 96.1

Institution job placement rate

 Job placement rate was a reason for attendance 4.6 1.2 2.2

 Job placement rate was not a reason for attendance 95.4 98.8 97.8

Institution close to home

 Institution close to home was a reason for attendance 17.4 30.8 36.3

 Institution close to home was not a reason for

 for attendance 82.6 69.2 63.7

Low tuition2

 Low tuition was a reason for attendance 0.8 9.8 5.4

 Low tuition was not a reason for attendance 99.2 90.2 94.6

Friends or spouse attend institution

 Friends or spouse attending was a reason for

 attendance 3.3 7.5 7.0

 Friends or spouse attending was not a reason

 for attendance 96.7 92.5 93.0

Could live at home if attended

 Could live at home was a reason for attendance 1.8 4.5 6.0

 Could live at home was not a reason for attendance 98.2 95.5 94.0
INFLUENCES

25

Table 6–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduates’ reasons for attendance, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—

Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Parent(s) want student to attend

 Parent(s) wanting student to attend was a reason for

 attendance 0.8 2.3 1.0

 Parent(s) wanting student to attend was not a reason

 for attendance 99.2 97.7 99.0

Shorter time to finish

 Shorter time to finish was a reason for attendance 0.3 0.1 0.3

 Shorter time to finish was not a reason for attendance 99.7 99.9 99.7

Teacher or guidance counselor recommendation

 Teacher or guidance counselor recommendation

 was a reason for attendance 1.0 0.4 1.1

 Teacher or guidance counselor recommendation

 was not a reason for attendance 99.0 99.6 98.9

Liked the campus

 Campus was a reason for attendance 23.4 19.4 12.6

 Campus was not a reason for attendance 76.6 80.6 87.4

Other reputation reason

 Other reputation reasons were reasons for

 attendance 37.2 22.7 28.2

 Other reputation reasons were not reasons for

 attendance 62.8 77.3 71.8

Parent(s) attended the institution

 Parent(s) attended the institution was a reason for

 attendance 2.5 3.2 2.5

 Parent(s) attended the institution was not a reason

 for attendance 97.5 96.8 97.5

1

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 2

“Low” as interpreted by the respondent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
26

ACADEMIC DIFFERENCES

Two measures of academic preparation, needing to take remedial classes and having

taken Advanced Placement (AP) tests, indicate that both full-time, first-year undergraduates attending institutions with higher sticker prices, and those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities, are likely to be academically prepared (table 7). Ten percent or less

of the full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups took remedial classes.

The College Board sponsors AP tests in 32 subject areas. Compared with regular high

school courses, AP preparation courses are usually more demanding. Over forty percent of the

full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups took at least one AP test. This result suggests

that a high number of entering undergraduates in both categories made this extra educational effort to prepare for college and perhaps to complete college work early.

One indicator of academic potential that did discriminate between undergraduates in the

two groups was the percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates who had Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of 1,300 or higher (out of a maximum of 1,600). Seventeen percent of

the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices had SAT scores of 1,300 or

higher compared with 10 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities7

.

Another academic variable that differentiated between the two groups of undergraduates

was undergraduate grade point average (GPA). Nine percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices reported GPAs of less than 2.00 on a 4.00 point scale. That

compares with 18 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Sixty-one percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities obtained GPAs between 2.00 and 3.49, compared with 68

 

7

Although differences were seen in the percentages of full-time, first-year undergraduates with SAT scores of 1,300

or higher, SAT of 1,300 was the threshold of this difference. A higher percentage of those with higher sticker prices

had SAT scores of 1,300 or higher than those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities; however, the percentages of full-time, first-year undergraduates with SAT scores of 1,200 or higher in the two groups

were not statistically different (NPSAS:96 DAS, not in table).
ACADEMIC DIFFERENCES

27

percent of those with higher sticker prices. There was no difference in the percent of full-time,

first-year undergraduates receiving GPAs of 3.5 or higher.

The results show that the academic majors pursued by full-time, first-year undergraduates

in the two groups differed. Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were

more likely to major in humanities, social, behavioral, and life sciences than were those with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Forty-two percent of the full-time,

first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices majored in these fields compared with 32

percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. On the other

hand, 21 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities majored in physical science, engineering, computer science, or

mathematics compared with 13 percent of those with higher sticker prices.

Kuh and Vesper (1997) found an attribute of good educational practice is the amount of

interaction out of class between students and teachers. One of the research questions is whether

full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices had more interactions with faculty

members than those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. The data

show that full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were more likely to have

social contact with faculty members than were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities. One-half of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker

prices indicated that they sometimes had social contact with faculty members compared with 42

percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Sixteen percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices said that they often had

social contact with faculty members, compared with 8 percent of those with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities.

Table 7–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduates’ academic differences and undergraduates’ social contact with faculty, by sticker

price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Remedial courses

 Did take remedial courses 6.8 9.8 20.8

 Did not take remedial courses 93.2 90.2 79.2
ACADEMIC DIFFERENCES

28

Table 7–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduates’ academic differences and undergraduates’ social contact with faculty, by sticker

price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken

 Student took one or more placement tests 48.0 44.2 18.6

 Student took no placement test 52.0 55.8 81.4

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score, combined verbal and mathematics

 Less than 1,000 33.0 40.4 73.5

 1,000-1,299 50.3 50.1 23.5

 1,300-1,600 16.7 9.5 3.0

Grade point average

 Less than 2.00 9.1 17.6 24.9

 2.00-3.49 67.6 60.7 62.0

 3.50 or higher 23.2 21.7 13.2

Undergraduate field of study

 Humanities, social, behavioral, life sciences 42.2 32.3 33.3

 Physical sciences, engineering, computer science,

 mathematics 12.7 21.1 15.6

 Education 7.3 6.4 11.6

 Business, management 17.9 15.6 18.5

 Health, other 19.8 24.7 21.1

Have social contact with faculty

 Never 33.9 50.1 44.9

 Sometimes 49.9 42.2 42.3

 Often 16.2 7.7 12.8

* The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
29

EXPECTATIONS AND GOALS

The educational goals of full-time, first-year undergraduates did not differ significantly

between those with higher sticker prices and those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities (table 8). One-half of the undergraduates in both groups expected to obtain

master’s degrees or post-baccalaureate certificates. About one in three of the undergraduates in

each group expected doctoral or first-professional degrees as their highest degrees, and approximately one in six expected to stop their education at the bachelor’s degree level.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices and those with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities held similar personal goals in several areas.

For example, there were no differences between undergraduates with higher sticker prices or

those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities with regard to: wanting to

become authorities in their field, being leaders in the community, influencing the political structure, having leisure time, succeeding in their careers, or raising families. In fact, only one personal goal differentiated full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices from those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Sixty-nine percent of the undergraduates with higher sticker prices indicated the long-term goal of financial wealth as a reason for attendance, compared with 78 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Table 8–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

highest level of education ever expected to complete, long-term goals as reasons for attendance and

important personal goals, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Highest level of education ever expected to complete

 Less than Bachelor’s degree 0.6 0.6 3.0

 Bachelor’s degree 14.2 16.1 26.7

 Master’s degree or post-baccalaureate program 50.2 50.3 50.2

 Advanced degree-doctoral or first-professional 35.1 33.1 20.2
EXPECTATIONS AND GOALS

30

Table 8–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

highest level of education ever expected to complete, long-term goals as reasons for attendance and

important personal goals, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Important personal goals:

 Becoming an authority in a field

 Becoming an authority in a field was an important

 personal goal 77.6 78.2 78.5

 Becoming an authority in a field was not an

 important personal goal 22.4 21.8 21.5

Be a leader in the community

 Being a leader in the community was an important

 personal goal 68.6 68.3 66.6

 Being a leader in the community was not an

 important personal goal 31.4 31.7 33.4

Influence political structure

 Influencing political structure was an important

 personal goal 36.0 33.7 36.2

 Influencing political structure was not an

 important personal goal 64.0 66.3 63.8

 Have leisure time

 Having leisure time was an important personal goal 98.0 97.6 97.5

 Having leisure time was not an important personal 

 goal 2.0 2.4 2.5

Succeed in career

 Succeeding in my career was an important

 personal goal 97.9 98.0 97.7

 Succeeding in my career was not an important

 personal goal 2.1 2.0 2.3

Raise a family

 Raising a family was an important personal goal 89.1 90.7 89.7

 Raising a family was not an important personal

 goal 10.9 9.3 10.3

Important personal goals:

Succeed in own business

 Succeeding in my own business was an

 important personal goal 61.8 66.4 68.8

 Succeeding in my own business was not an

 important personal goal 38.2 33.6 31.2
EXPECTATIONS AND GOALS

31

Table 8–Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

highest level of education ever expected to complete, long-term goals as reasons for attendance and

important personal goals, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Long-term goals as reasons for attendance:

 Financial wealth

 Financial wealth reason for attendance 69.2 77.8 79.3

 Financial wealth not reason for attendance 30.8 22.2 20.7

 Leaving home

 Leaving home reason for attendance 30.2 32.4 39.6

 Leaving home not reason for attendance 69.8 67.6 60.4

 Offer better opportunities to children

 Chances for better opportunities to children

 reason for attendance 88.5 90.5 93.8

 Chances for better opportunities to children

 not reason for attendance 11.5 9.5 6.2

*The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
32

SATISFACTION

Knox, Lindsay and Kolb (1992) found only weak direct effects of college characteristics

on student satisfaction. There was also no systematic pattern to these findings. They found that

the larger the student enrollment, the greater the odds of being satisfied with recreation and

sports facilities, and the higher the percentage of undergraduates attending an institution fulltime, the higher were the odds of being satisfied with the social life on the campus. While the

percentage of undergraduates living on-campus did not have any significant effect on student

satisfaction with the academic life of the campus, it did have a positive relationship with satisfaction with social life and the prestige of the school. They found no significant differences

among undergraduates in different majors in their satisfaction with their education. Undergraduates who obtained higher grades were more satisfied with their academic experience than were

those with lower grades.

Table 9 provides information on several measures of undergraduate satisfaction that include items connected with academic offerings, extra-curricular opportunities, and cost of attendance. Three measures of satisfaction with the academic program suggest that full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker prices are more satisfied with the academic program than

are those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Eighty-three percent

of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were satisfied with availability of courses compared with 70 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. In 95 percent of the cases, full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher

sticker prices were satisfied with their instructors’ ability to teach. That compared with 87 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities who were similarly satisfied. Ninety-seven percent of the full-time, first-year

undergraduates with higher sticker prices were satisfied with class size compared with 78 percent

of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Nearly all full-time, first-year undergraduates were satisfied with the prestige of their

school whether they attended institutions with sticker prices of $12,000 or more or with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Ninety-three percent of those with higher

sticker prices and 92 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were satisfied with the prestige of their institution.
SATISFACTION

33

Most full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups were satisfied with the social and

extracurricular activities, and the sports and recreational programs on their campuses. Ninety

percent of full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were satisfied with the

social life of the institutions, while 94 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities indicated that they were satisfied.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were also more likely to be satisfied with sports and recreational programs on campuses

than were those with higher sticker prices. Ninety-six percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were satisfied with

the sports and recreational programs on campus compared with 92 percent of those with higher

sticker prices.

Participation in varsity sports was more likely for full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices than it was for those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities. Twenty percent of those with higher sticker prices said they participated often compared with 7 percent of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities were more likely to report that they were satisfied with the cost of attendance than

were those with higher sticker prices. Seventy-four percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were satisfied with

the cost of attendance compared with 48 percent of those with higher sticker prices.

Table 9—Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduates’ satisfaction, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Course availability

 Satisfied with course availability 83.2 70.2 75.4

 Not satisfied with course availability 16.8 29.8 24.6

Instructors' ability to teach

 Satisfied with instructors' ability to teach 95.2 86.9 88.1

 Not satisfied with instructors' ability to teach 4.8 13.1 11.9
SATISFACTION

34

Table 9—Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduates’ satisfaction, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96—Continued

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

Class size

 Satisfied with class size 96.6 78.0 93.5

 Not satisfied with class size 3.4 22.0 6.5

Prestige of school

 Satisfied with prestige of school 93.1 92.2 84.3

 Not satisfied with the prestige of school 6.9 7.8 15.7

Social life

 Satisfied with social life 89.9 93.6 90.4

 Not satisfied with social life 10.1 6.4 9.6

Sports and recreational activities2

 Satisfied with sports and recreational activities 91.7 96.4 92.7

 Not satisfied with sports and recreational activities 8.3 3.6 7.3

Participated in varsity sports

 Never 75.1 90.8 83.8

 Sometimes 4.8 2.7 4.6

 Often 20.2 6.5 11.7

Cost of attendance

 Satisfied with cost of attendance 47.9 73.8 72.6

 Not satisfied with cost of attendance 52.1 26.2 27.4

Cultural activities

 Satisfied with cultural activities 96.5 97.9 96.1

 Not satisfied with cultural activities 3.5 2.1 3.9

1

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
35

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Two measures of full-time, first-year undergraduates’ public involvement are the propensity to participate in the political life of the community and the willingness to volunteer time to

community service projects (table 10). Political participation did not differ between full-time,

first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices and those with sticker prices below $12,000

in public research universities. Nearly one-third participated in political activities and over 80

percent said that they would vote in the 1996 presidential election8

.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices were more likely to volunteer9

 than were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Fortythree percent of those with higher sticker prices volunteered once compared to 36 percent of the

full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities, and 20 percent of those with higher sticker prices volunteered for two or more activities,

compared to 15 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities.

 

8

Respondents may have been interviewed prior to the 1996 election; thus, they were asked to indicate if they did or

would vote in the 1996 presidential election.

9

Types of volunteer work include such things as working with children as a coach or in a scouting troop, volunteering at a hospital, nursing home, group home, volunteering at an adult literacy project, working with children as tutor

or mentor, volunteering for neighborhood improvement and cleanup projects, working at a telephone crisis center,

raising money for non-political purpose, raising money or volunteering for political campaign, participating in other

type of community service, or working at a shelter or soup kitchen.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

36

Table 10—Percentage distribution of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions according to

undergraduates’ community participation, by sticker price and Carnegie classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more* Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Participation in political activities, 1995-96

 Did participate in political activities 31.7 26.5 21.4

 Did not participate in political activities 68.3 73.5 78.6

Will vote in 1996 presidential election

 Will vote in 1996 presidential election 86.9 82.8 80.3

 Will not vote in 1996 presidential election 13.1 17.2 19.7

Number of community service or volunteer activities participated in

 None 36.5 48.9 59.2

 One 43.2 36.4 30.2

 Two or more 20.3 14.8 10.6

*The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
37

PERSISTENCE

Research on student persistence in the first year suggests that first-year persistence (attending full-time for the first year at the same institution) predicts longer-term persistence. In a

previous study by Horn (1998), it was found that 16 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates who started in 4-year institutions interrupted their enrollment in the first year. Although some of these early dropouts returned or re-enrolled in other institutions, early departure

was a good predictor of longer-term non-persistence. Forty-two percent of those who left their

first institution by the end of their first year had not received a degree or continued their enrollment by the end of the study in 1994. In comparison, 17 percent of those who continued past

their first year failed to receive a degree or continue their enrollment.

Other research by Tinto (1998) confirms the importance of persisting in the first year.

One-half of the full-time, first-year undergraduates who are going to drop out do so in the first

year.

Horn and Premo (1996, p. 20) developed a risk index that has proven to be a good predictor of student persistence. The index includes the following student characteristics: being

older than the typical age for year in school, being financially independent, having dependents,

working full-time while enrolled, being a single parent, having a General Education Development (GED) certificate or high school equivalency certificate instead of a diploma, and enrolling

part-time. Ottenger (1991) reported that the following factors were associated with persistence

for full-time, first-year undergraduates: being Asian or white rather than Hispanic or AfricanAmerican, being from a high socio-economic status (SES) background rather than from a lower

SES background, and having higher measured academic ability.

Mortenson (1997) investigated the relationship of institutional control with persistence.

He used American College Testing data to document 5-year institutional graduation rates. He

found that the average institutional graduation rate for private, not-for-profit institutions was 57

percent compared with 44 percent for public 4-year institutions. Mortenson found that the more

selective an institution’s admission standards, the higher the graduation rate. Public institutions

had a lower graduation rate than private, not-for-profit institutions at each level of Carnegie clas-
PERSISTENCE

38

sification. Cuccaro-Alamin (1997, p. 13) indicates that undergraduates in public 4-year institutions take longer to complete their bachelor’s degrees than do undergraduates at private, not-forprofit institutions: fifty-three percent of those who started at private, not-for-profit institutions

received their degrees in four years compared with 28 percent of those in public institutions.

In this analysis, persistence is not defined as continuing enrollment until an undergraduate

obtains a degree. Rather, full-time persistence is defined as enrolling full-time in the same institution for the first academic year. Undergraduates who leave the initial institution, even if they

enroll in another institution, or those who continue at the same institution, but enroll less than

full-time in the first year, are not counted as persisting undergraduates.

By this measure of persistence, full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker

prices were more likely to persist than were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

research universities. Table 11 shows the different enrollment sequences for full-time, first-year

undergraduates. The results show that 97 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with

higher sticker prices continued full-time in the same institution through their first year (also

shown on table 12). Eighty-four percent of those who enrolled with sticker prices below $12,000

in public research universities continued their enrollment full-time for the first year.

The largest group of non-persisting first-year undergraduates who began in the fall fulltime with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities, attended part-year (9 percent, table 11). This compared with 1 percent of those with higher sticker prices. Another 3 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities started full-time, but did not complete the fall term as a full-time student10

compared with less than 1 percent of the full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker

prices.

 

10In this report, the definition of a full-time, first-year student is one who was enrolled full-time as of September

1995. However, a student could have reduced his or her hours, or dropped out sometime during the fall term, after

September 1995.
PERSISTENCE

39

Table 11–Percentage distribution of first-year undergraduates who started full-time in the fall term in 4-year

institutions according to attendance pattern for the academic year, by sticker price and Carnegie

classification: 1995-96

Sticker price $12,000 or more1 Sticker price below $12,000

Undergraduates Undergraduates in Undergraduates in

with higher public research other 4-year

sticker prices universities institutions

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Attendance pattern, 1995-962

 Full-time, full-year, 1 institution 96.7 84.2 76.6

 Full-time, full-year, more than 1 institution 1.8 3.2 3.1

 Full-time, part-year 0.9 9.3 16.6

 Part-time, full-year, 1 institution 0.5 2.9 2.6

 Part-time, full-year, more than 1 institution 0.2 0.2 0.3

 Part-time, part-year # 0.3 0.7

1

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 2

The definition of a full-time, first-year student is one who was enrolled full-time as of September 1995. However, a student

could have reduced his or her hours, or dropped out sometime during the fall term, after September 1995. Thus, this student’s

enrollment pattern for the academic year (a separate, retrospective, variable) would not be considered full-time for the 1995 fall

term.

#Estimate too small to report.

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF PERSISTENCE

Table 12 shows the relationship between individual student characteristics and the probability of persisting full-time, followed by a multivariate analysis that includes consideration for

the interaction among characteristics that are associated with persistence. The analysis will help

determine if the greater probability of persisting demonstrated by first-year, full-time undergraduates with higher sticker prices compared with those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities can be explained by differences in student characteristics of those in

the two sticker price groups.
PERSISTENCE

40

The data in table 12 represent the cases in all three groups of undergraduates. The first

column shows the percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates who persisted for their first

year in the same institution. Undergraduates in each of the three groups (those with higher

sticker prices, those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities, and those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in other 4-year institutions) are included as row variables.

Both institutional and student characteristics are related to the probability that full-time,

first-year undergraduates will persist full-time through their first year of enrollment. Because

these student characteristics are related to one another—for example, older full-time, first-year

undergraduates are more likely to be independent, be married or work more while enrolled—the

tables before the percentages were adjusted cannot reveal the unique relationship that each one of

these variables has on persistence. Because undergraduate characteristics vary systematically by

the sticker price they face, it is important to make the comparison of persistence between the two

groups without the confounding influence of other related variables. Table 12 displays information about how certain characteristics are related to persistence after controlling for the other

factors reported in table 12.

The results show that after adjusting for other related variables, persistence is positively

related to having sticker prices of $12,000 or more. The adjusted percentage of full-time, firstyear undergraduates with higher sticker prices who persisted is 90 percent, compared to the adjusted 82 percent for full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities.
PERSISTENCE

41

Table 12—Percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions who persisted full-time at

the same institution for the full year in 1995-96, and the adjusted percentage after controlling for

the covariation of the variables listed in the table

 Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

 percentages1 percentages2 coefficient3 error4

 Total 82.5 82.5 37.7 6.0

Sticker price and Carnegie classification5

 Undergraduates in public research universities with

 sticker prices below $12,000 84.2 * 82.0 * -8.2 1.9

 Undergraduates in other 4-year institutions with

 sticker prices below $12,000 76.6 * 79.9 * -10.3 1.6

 Undergraduates higher sticker prices6 96.7 90.2 † †

Student attended institution in state of legal residence

 Student attended institution out-of-state 86.3 * 81.8 -1.0 1.3

 Student attended institution in-state 81.1 82.8 † †

Institution required test scores

 Institution did not require test scores 65.2 * 75.9 * 7.1 2.4

 Institution did require test scores 83.5 82.9 † †

Dependency status

 Dependent 84.5 * 82.0 -8.8 4.3

 Independent 50.5 90.8 † †

Age

 24-30 42.7 * 62.9 * -20.1 5.2

 31-39 51.8 * 79.9 -3.1 7.3

 40 or more -- 72.1 -10.9 9.6

 23 or younger 83.7 83.0 † †

Marital status7

 Married 57.9 * 85.2 2.7 5.6

 Not married 82.9 82.5 † †

Number of dependents

 No dependents 83.6 * 82.5 -2.3 6.4

 Student had one or more dependents 44.7 84.8 † †

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay enrollment 86.5 * 81.3 * -9.6 2.6

 Did delay enrollment 57.1 90.9 † †

Number of risk factors

 No risk factors 89.9 * 91.0 * 70.3 7.6

 One to three risk factors 58.2 * 55.1 * 34.5 6.9

 Four or more risk factors 34.6 20.7 † †
PERSISTENCE

42

Table 12—Percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions who persisted full-time at

the same institution for the full year in 1995-96, and the adjusted percentage after controlling for

the covariation of the variables listed in the table—Continued

 Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

 percentages1 percentages2 coefficient3 error4

Gender

 Male 80.4 * 81.9 -1.1 1.1

 Female 84.3 83.0 † †

Income percentile rank, 1994 (all students)

 25th or less 76.5 * 79.8 * -5.7 1.7

 26th - 50th 81.3 * 81.4 * -4.1 1.6

 51st - 75th 83.3 * 82.9 -2.7 1.5

 76th or higher 88.0 85.5 † †

First generation student

 Student was first generation 79.3 * 83.1 0.8 1.2

 Student was not first generation 84.0 82.3 † †

Grade point average

 2.00-3.49 87.2 * 85.8 * 15.1 1.4

 3.50-4.00 88.4 * 84.3 * 13.6 1.9

 Less than 2.00 67.4 70.8 † †

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score, combined verbal and mathematics

 1,000-1,299 89.9 * 84.5 * 3.3 1.3

 1,300-1,600 92.8 * 83.8 2.5 2.5

 Less than 1,000 80.0 81.3 † †

Number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken

 Student took one or more placement tests 90.3 * 84.0 2.1 1.3

 Student took no placement tests 79.7 81.9 † †

Remedial courses

 Did take remedial courses 79.3 85.8 * 3.8 1.5

 Did not take remedial courses 83.0 82.0 † †

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Worked 1-14 hours 91.1 * 83.0 1.5 1.4

 Worked 15-29 hours 80.6 80.2 -1.3 1.3

 Worked 30 hours or more 67.1 * 89.2 * 7.7 2.0

 Did not work 84.3 81.5 † †

Loan (except PLUS)8

 Did not receive loan 80.5 81.7 -1.8 1.2

 Did receive loan 84.8 * 83.5 † †
PERSISTENCE

43

Table 12—Percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year institutions who persisted full-time at

the same institution for the full year in 1995-96, and the adjusted percentage after controlling for

the covariation of the variables listed in the table—Continued

 Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

 percentages1 percentages2 coefficient3 error4

Grant aid

 Did not receive grant aid 77.8 * 79.3 * -5.3 1.3

 Did receive grant aid 85.4 84.6 † †

Enrollment at institution

 1,000-2,499 84.4 82.5 1.0 3.0

 2,500-4,999 83.0 81.6 0.0 3.1

 5,000-7,499 81.9 83.6 2.0 3.2

 7,500-9,999 82.6 84.1 2.6 3.3

 10,000 or more 81.8 82.4 0.8 2.9

 Less than 1,000 86.0 81.6 † †

Race/ethnicity

 Black, non-Hispanic 76.3 84.1 2.0 1.9

 Hispanic 79.5 85.1 2.9 1.9

 Asian/Pacific Islander 83.2 80.9 -1.3 2.1

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 83.4 88.6 6.4 7.3

 Other 76.2 78.9 -3.3 5.6

 White, non-Hispanic 83.8 82.2 † †

--Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

*p < .05.

†Not applicable for the reference group.

1

The estimates are from the NPSAS:96 Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

2

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B).

3

Least squares coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

4

Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 5

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three

unique categories. First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least

$12,000 in tuition and required fees before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year,

regardless of institution control or Carnegie classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the

1995-96 academic year attending public universities with Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in

public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending

all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.” 6

The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. 7

The “separated” category is not reported due to a very low number of observations. Because of differences between undergraduates who are separated and those married or not married, separated undergraduates were not combined with either married

or not married undergraduates.

8

PLUS loans are unsubsidized variable-interest rate loans awarded to parents of dependent students who are able to meet criteria

for credit worthiness.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
44

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Institutions with high tuition play an important role in higher education. Newspaper articles often refer to institutions with high tuition as examples of the rising price of higher education, although lower sticker prices have increased at the same or higher rate. Undergraduates attending these higher-priced institutions fulfill the popular image of residential college campus

youth.

Undergraduates attending institutions with sticker prices of $12,000 or more and those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities include younger and financially

comparable undergraduates. Based on the income distribution of the full-time, first-year undergraduates enrolled in both groups, it is reasonable to assume that many of those with sticker

prices below $12,000 in public research universities could afford to attend institutions with

higher sticker prices. Most full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups are single, 23

years of age or younger, and financially dependent on their parents. The measures of academic

preparation also suggest that most of the full-time, first-year undergraduates in both groups were

well-qualified. The two exceptions were the larger percent of those with SAT scores over 1,300

with higher sticker prices and the greater propensity of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in

public research universities to have undergraduate grade point averages below 2.00.

Full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices’ reasons for attending were

different on several measures than those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research

universities. A larger percentage of full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices

indicated factors such as reputation, financial aid, and job placement as reasons for attending

compared with those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. A larger

percentage of those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities indicated

that low tuition, being close to home and parents’ wishes influenced them to enroll, compared

with those with higher sticker prices.

Satisfaction with the college experience was high for full-time, first-year undergraduates

attending in both categories. Full-time, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below

$12,000 in public research universities were less satisfied with class availability, instructors’
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

45

ability to teach and class size compared with those attending with higher sticker prices. Fulltime, first-year undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities

were more likely to be satisfied with the campus social life, and sports and recreational programs

than were those with higher sticker prices.

The results suggest that full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices

were more likely to enroll in liberal arts majors such as humanities, social sciences, and life sciences than were those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. Those

with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities were more likely to be enrolled

in physical sciences, engineering, computer sciences or mathematics than those with higher

sticker prices.

Even after student characteristics are taken into consideration, persistence in the first year

of enrollment was higher for full-time, first-year undergraduates with higher sticker prices compared with those with sticker prices below $12,000 in public research universities. The results

suggest the need for more research on the factors that might explain the difference in first-year

persistence reported in this report.
46

REFERENCES

Barrons. Profile of American Colleges, 20th edition. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, 1994.

College Board, The. Trends in College Pricing. Washington, DC: 1999.

College Board, The. Trends in College Pricing. Washington, DC: 1998.

Cooper, K. J. “The Well-to-Do at the Public U.” The Washington Post, pp. A3, A20. November

25, 1999.

Cuccaro-Alamin, S. Findings from the Condition of Education 1997: Postsecondary Persistence

and Attainment. National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education

(NCES 97-371). Washington, DC: July 1997.

Digest of Education Statistics, 1998. NCES 99-036, National Center for Education Statistics:

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 1999.

Heller, D. “Student Price Response in Higher Education, an Update to Leslie and Brinkman.”

Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68, No. 6, pp. 624-659. November/December 1997.

Horn, L. Stopouts or Stayouts? Undergraduates who Leave College in Their First Year. NCES

1999-087, National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC: 1998.

Horn, L. and Berktold, J. Profile of Undergraduates in U. S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1995-96. NCES 98-084, National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department

of Education. Washington, DC: 1998.

Horn, L. and Premo, M. Profile of Undergraduates in U. S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1992-93. NCES 96-237, National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 1996.

Knox, W. E., Lindsay, P. and Kolb, M. “Higher Education, College Characteristics, and Student

Experiences: Long-term Effects on Educational Satisfactions and Perceptions.” Journal

of Higher Education, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 303-328. May/June 1992.
REFERENCES

47

Kuh, G. and Vesper, N. “A Comparison of Student Experiences with Good Practices in Undergraduate Education between 1990 and 1994.” The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 21,

No. 1, pp. 43-61. Fall 1997.

Lee, J. and Clery, S. Employer Aid for Postsecondary Education. NCES 1999-181, National

Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 1999.

McPherson, M. S. and Schapiro, M. O. The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding

Talent in American Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. 

Mortenson, T. Postsecondary Education Opportunity. No. 63. Oskaloosa, IA: September

1997.

Ottenger, C. “College Going, Persistence, and Completion Patterns in Higher Education: What

do we Know?” American Council on Education Research Briefs, Vol. 2, No. 3. 1991.

Straight Talk about College Costs and Prices. National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. Washington, DC: 1998

Tinto, V. “Colleges as Communities: Taking Research on Student Persistence Seriously.” The

Review of Higher Education, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.167-177. Winter 1998.
48

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the NCES

NPSAS:96 Undergraduate Data Analysis System (DAS). This is an NCES software application that generates tables

from the NPSAS:96 data. A description of the DAS software can be found in appendix B. The variables used in this

analysis were either items taken directly from the surveys or derived by combining one or more items in these surveys.

The variables listed in the index below are in the order they appear in the report; the glossary is in alphabetical order

by DAS variable name (displayed along the right-hand column).

INTRODUCTION VARIABLES

Attendance intensity...................................ATTEND2

First-time beginner 1995-96....................... FTBTYPE

Institution level 1995-96 ................................ LEVEL

Comparative tuition level...........................PRESTIG2

Institutional control...................................CONTROL

Carnegie classification .............................CARNEGIE

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Marital status ...........................................SMARITAL

Age as of 12/31/95...............................................AGE

Dependency status ......................................DEPEND

Income and dependency level ..................... INCOME

First generation student............................. PAREDUC

Number of risk factors ..............................RISKINDX

High school degree or equivalent................... HSDEG

Number of dependents .............................. NDEPEND

Race/ethnicity of student .................................. RACE

Student attended institution in

state of legal residence ....................SAMESTAT

Student housing status, 1995-96 ............. LOCALRES

Single parent, independent student .......... SINGLPAR

Grade point average...........................................GPA2

Delayed enrollment................................... DELAYED

Gender of student.........................................GENDER

Degree program ........................................DEGFIRST

Income percentile rank, 1994

(all students) ........................................PCTALL2

AID VARIABLES

Total aid .......................................................TOTAID

State aid ................................................. STATEAMT

Federal aid (except VA/DOD)....................TFEDAID

Institutional aid .........................................INSTAMT

Employer aid ............................................ EMPLYAMT

Other type of aid .......................................... TOTOTHR

Grant................................................................TOTGRT

Loan (except PLUS).....................................TOTLOAN

Work-study ..................................................TOTWKST

Other source of aid .....................................OTHERSCR

Average hours worked per week

while enrolled .....................................HRSWORK

Parents helped with direct

contribution 1995-96...............................PARPDIR

REASONS FOR ATTENDANCE

Institution has good reputation ...................REPUTATN

Received more financial aid ......................... MOREAID

Faculty reputation........................................PROFESOR

Institution job placement rate .................... PLACEMNT

Institution close to home..............................SCHCLOSE

Low tuition ................................................... TUITLESS

Friends or spouse attend institution ............. FRIENDAT

Could live at home if attended....................LIVEHOME

Parent(s) attended the institution .................. PARNATT

Parent(s) want student to attend....................... PARENT

Shorter time to finish .....................................SHORTER

Teacher or guidance counselor

recommended ........................................ TEACHER

Liked the campus.......................................SURROUND

Other reputation reason ............................... INFLUNCE

ACADEMIC DIFFERENCES

Remedial courses............................................ANYREM

Number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests

taken.......................................................... APTEST

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score,

combined verbal and mathematics........TESATCRE
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

49

Undergraduate field of study...................... MAJORS3

Highest level of education ever expected to complete............................SBHIGHED

SOCIAL CONTACT WITH FACULTY

Have social contact with faculty ................SISOCIAL

LONG-TERM GOALS AS REASONS FOR ATTENDANCE

Becoming an authority in a field................... SIAUTH

Be a leader in the community.........................SILEAD

Influence political structure ............................ SIINFL

Have leisure time .......................................... SILEISR

Succeed in career ..................................... SISUCCAR

Raise a family ........................................... SIFAMILY

Financial wealth.............................................. SIFINC

Leaving home...............................................SIAWAY

Offer better opportunities to children........ SIBTROPP

Succeed in own business.............................. SIBUSIN

STUDENT SATISFACTION

Course availability ......................................SICOURS

Instructors’ ability to teach .........................SITEACH

Class size........................................................SICLSIZE

Prestige of school ............................................SIPRSTG

Social life........................................................SISOCLIF

Sports and recreational activities...................... SPORTS

Participated in varsity sports ....................... SIVARSTY

Cost of attendance .............................................SICOST

Cultural activities.............................................CULTUR

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Participation in political activities, 1995-

96.............................................................. POLACT

Will vote in ’96 presidential election ..........SQVOTE96

Number of community service or volunteer activities participated in...............COMMNUM

INSTITUTION CHARACTERISTICS

Sticker price.................................................... TUITION

Institution required test scores......................ADMREQ3

Enrollment.................................................... ENRLSIZE

PERSISTENCE

Attendance pattern...................................... ATTNSTAT
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

50

VARIABLE LIST

Institution required test scores ADMREQ3

Indicates whether the NPSAS institution required test scores.

Institution required test scores

Institution did not require test scores

Age as of 12/31/95 AGE

23 or younger

24-30

31-39

40 or older

Remedial courses ANYREM

Indicates whether the student reported ever having taken any remedial or developmental courses in language, math,

reading, writing, or study skills. The question was worded as follows: During 1995-96, did you take remedial or

developmental courses?

Did take remedial courses

Did not take remedial courses

Number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken APTEST

This variable represents a count of advanced placement tests student reported having taken. The question was

worded as follows: Did you take any AP tests (advanced placement)? Which ones did you take and what was your

score? Art, history of art; Art-studio (drawing/general portfolio); biology; chemistry; computer science; microeconomics and/or macroeconomics; English language composition and/or literature and composition; French language

and/or literature; German language; government and politics-comparative; U.S. government and politics; European

history; U.S. history; Latin language and/or literature; calculus; music theory; physics; psychology; Spanish language

and/or literature. AP test variables recoded to zero if student reported taking no AP tests. This variable applies to

telephone respondents.

Student took one or more placement tests

Student took no placement test

Attendance intensity ATTEND2

Student's attendance status in September 1995 as defined by the institution.

Full-time

Part-time
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

51

Attendance pattern ATTNSTAT

Indicates a student's attendance intensity and persistence during 1995-96. Intensity refers to the student's full- or

part-time attendance while enrolled. Persistence refers to the number of months a student was enrolled during the

year. Students were considered to have enrolled for a full year if they were enrolled 8 or more months during the

NPSAS year. Students did not have to be enrolled for a full month in order to be considered enrolled for that month.

Full-time, full year Enrolled 8 or more months full-time during 1995-96 at one institution.

Additional months enrolled could be part-time enrollment.

Other Any other enrollment pattern.

Carnegie classification CARNEGIE

Carnegie classification code for student’s institution.

Research Universities I These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to

graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research.

They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. In addition, they receive

$40 million or more annually in federal support.

Research Universities II These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to

graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research.

They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year and receive $15.5 to $40

million in federal support annually.

Doctoral Universities I These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at least 40 doctoral

degrees in 5 or more disciplines annually.

Doctoral Universities II These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at least 10 doctoral

degrees in 3 or more disciplines annually, or 20 or more doctoral degrees in one

or more disciplines.

Comprehensive I These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 40 or more

master’s degrees annually in three or more disciplines.

Comprehensive II These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 20 or more

master’s degrees annually in one or more disciplines.

Liberal Arts Colleges I These institutions are primarily undergraduate schools with major emphasis on

baccalaureate degree programs. They award 40 percent or more of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields and are restrictive in admissions.

Liberal Arts Colleges II These institutions are primarily undergraduate schools with major emphasis on

baccalaureate degree programs. They award less than 40 percent of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields or are less restrictive in admissions.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

52

Number of community service or volunteer activities participated in COMMNUM

Indicates the number of community service or volunteer activities the student reported participating in. One of a series of variables examining the types of community service the student reported participating in during 1995-96. Applies to telephone respondents. The question was worded as follows: Did you do any community service or volunteer work during the past year, other than court-ordered service? What did you do? (What was the community service/work?)

Types of community service include: worked with kids as a coach/scouting, volunteered at hospital, nursing home,

group home, volunteered at an adult literacy project, worked with kids as tutor/mentor, volunteered for neighborhood

improvement/cleanup projects, worked at a telephone crisis center, raised money for non-political purpose, raised

money or volunteered for political campaign, participated in other type of community service, worked at a shelter/soup kitchen.

None

One

Two or more

Institutional control CONTROL

Indicates the control of the NPSAS institution where the student was sampled.

Public

Private not-for-profit

Private for-profit

Cultural activities CULTUR

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the cultural activities at the institution.

Satisfied with cultural activities

Not satisfied with cultural activities
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

53

Degree program DEGFIRST

Degree program during the first term at the NPSAS institution.

Certificate or award

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Undergraduate, non degree program

Delayed enrollment DELAYED

Indicates whether the student delayed entry by one or more years into postsecondary education for students with high

school diplomas. Assumed high school graduation takes place in May or June. If the student entered postsecondary

education in the summer or fall subsequent to high school graduation (in the same calendar year) then student is not

considered delayed. Students with no high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) or certificate

of completion are considered to have delayed.

Did not delay

Delayed

Dependency status DEPEND

Student’s dependency status.

Dependent Students were financially dependent if they did not meet any of the criteria for independence (see below).

Independent A student was considered independent by meeting one of the following criteria:

• Was 24 or older as of 12/31/95.

• Was a veteran.

• Was an orphan or ward of the court.

• Had legal dependents, other than spouse.

• Was married, and not claimed by parents on 1995 tax returns.

• Was a graduate student and not claimed as a dependent by parents on 1995 tax return.

Employer aid EMPLYAMT

Total amount of employer aid the student received. Employer aid is aid received from the business, corporation,

institution, or individual by whom the student is employed. Includes tuition waivers for employees of postsecondary

institutions and their dependents. The percentage of students with employer aid is the percentage with positive

amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received employer aid.

Did receive employer aid

Did not receive employer aid
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

54

Enrollment ENRLSIZE

This variable indicates the enrollment at the NPSAS institution during 1995-96. This variable is the sum of the

number of undergraduate, graduate, and first professional students.

Less than 1,000

1,000-2,499

2,500-4,999

5,000-7,499

7,500-9,999

10,000 or more

Friends or spouse attend institution FRIENDAT

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because friends or spouse attend the institution. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could

respond to why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Friends or spouse attending was a reason for attendance

Friends or spouse attending was not a reason for attendance

First-time beginner 1995-96 FTBTYPE

This variable indicates whether the student was a first-time beginner in 1995-96.

First-time beginner

Not a first-time beginner

Gender of student GENDER

Male

Female

Grade point average GPA2

Student’s grade point average during 1995. The grade point average format used by each institution was identified

and converted to the 0.0-4.0 scale.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

55

Average hours worked per week while enrolled HRSWORK

Indicates the average hours the student worked per week while enrolled during 1995-96. This variable is based on

the student's report of the average hours worked per week while enrolled during 1995-96. Students with zero jobs

during 1995-96 were recoded to 0 on HRSWORK. Average hours greater than 60 were recoded to 60.

Did not work

Worked 1-14 hours or less while enrolled

Worked 15-29 hours while enrolled

Worked 30 or more hours while enrolled

High school degree or equivalent HSDEG

Indicates type of high school degree reported by sample institution. If not available, student-reported data were

used.

High school diploma

General Education Development (GED) certificate or other equivalent

Certificate of high school completion

No high school degree or certificate

Income and dependency level INCOME

Income level and dependency status for the student. Parents’ or guardians’ income is the income source for dependent students; the source of independent students' income combines their own earnings and those of their spouse, if

married.

Dependent student:

Less than $20,000 Income of less than $20,000 in 1994.

$20,000 to 39,999 Income between $20,000 and $39,999 in 1994.

$40,000 to 59,999 Income between $40,000 and $59,999 in 1994.

$60,000 to 79,999 Income between $60,000 and $79,999 in 1994.

$80,000 or more Income of $80,000 or higher in 1994.

Independent student:

Less than $5,000 Income of less than $5,000 in 1994.

$5,000 to 9,999 Income between $5,000 and $9,999 in 1994.

$10,000 to 19,999 Income between $10,000 and $19,999 in 1994.

$20,000 or more Income of $20,000 or higher in 1994.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

56

Other reputation reason INFLUNCE

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because of other reputation

reasons. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond to

why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Other reputation reasons were reasons for attendance

Other reputation reasons were not reasons for attendance

Institutional aid INSTAMT

Indicates the total amount of institutional aid the student received. Institutional aid includes grants and loans from

the institution attended, institution-sponsored work-study, and all other institutional aid, including research and

teaching assistantships. Institutional aid also includes assistantships funded by federal research grants. The percentage of students with institutional aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average

amount received is the average of all students who received institutional aid.

Did receive institutional aid

Did not receive institutional aid

Institution level 1995-96 LEVEL

This variable indicates the level of the NPSAS institution, where the student was sampled. This is not necessarily

where the student received aid.

4-year

Less than 4-year

Could live at home if attended LIVEHOME

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because the student could live

at home. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond to

why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Could live at home was a reason for attendance

Could live at home was not a reason for attendance
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

57

Student housing status, 1995-96 LOCALRES

Indicates housing status as reported either by the NPSAS institution or the student.

On-campus

Off-campus

With parents or relatives

Undergraduate field of study MAJORS3

This variable indicates the student's major/field of study at the NPSAS institution during 1995-96. The major/field

of study was coded into one of the following twelve groups: humanities, social/behavioral sciences, life sciences,

physical sciences, mathematics, computer/information science, engineering, education, business/management, health,

vocational/technical, other technical/professional.

Humanities, social behavioral, life sciences

Physical sciences, engineering, computer science, mathematics

Education

Business, management

Health, other

Received more financial aid MOREAID

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because he or she received

more financial aid. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could

respond to why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Received more financial aid was a reason for attendance

Received more financial aid was not a reason for attendance

Number of dependents NDEPEND

For independent students, the number of the student’s non-spouse dependents. Refers to student's own family, rather

than parent's family, regardless of whether the student is dependent or independent. Does not include spouse or student.

Student had one or more dependents

Student did not have dependents
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

58

Other source of aid (including VA/DOD) OTHERSCR

For students who received aid, total aid from sources that could not be classified as federal, state, or institutional.

Includes employer aid, veteran’s benefits, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA program funds. The percentage of

students with other aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received aid from these sources

Did receive other source

Did not receive other source

First generation student PAREDUC

The highest level of education completed by the parent with the highest education. This was used to determine

whether the student was a first generation student.

Student was first generation: Parent with highest education had less than a high school education, or

a high school diploma.

Student was not first generation: Parent with highest education had any one of the following as highest

degree:

• less than one year occupational\trade\technical school

• one-year, but less than two years occupational\trade\technical school

• two or more years of occupational\trade\technical school

• less than two years of college

• two or more years of college including AA

• bachelor’s degree (4-5 years)

• master’s degree or equivalent

• first-professional degree

• doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D.).

Parent(s) want student to attend PARENT

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because the parents wanted the

student to attended the institution. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the

student could respond to why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Parent(s) wanting student to attend the institution was a reason for attendance

Parent(s) wanting student to attend the institution was not a reason for attendance
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

59

Parent(s) attended the institution PARNATT

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because the student’s parent(s)

attended the institution. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student

could respond to why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Parent(s) attended the institution was a reason for attendance

Parent(s) attended the institution was not a reason for attendance

Parents helped with direct contribution 1995-96 PARPDIR

Indicates whether parents reported making a direct contribution to the institution to pay for tuition, housing, meals,

or books. If not available, student's report of direct payment for tuition, room & board, or books was used.

Student did receive direct contribution from parent

Student did not receive direct contribution from parent

Income percentile rank, 1994 (all students) PCTALL2

This variable indicates income percentiles for all students. Equal to the proportion of the sample who had an income

lower than that recorded for the student in question. The percentile is calculated separately for dependent and independent students; thus, each ranking compares a student only to other students of the same dependency status. If a

student is dependent, the parents’ income is used; if the student is independent, the student's own income is used.

Institution job placement rate PLACEMNT

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because of the institution’s job

placement rate. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond to why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Institution’s job placement rate was a reason for attendance

Institution’s job placement rate was not a reason for attendance

Participation in political activities, 1995-96 POLACT

Indicates whether student reported participating in political meetings/rallies/dinners or writing letters to public officials to express opinions. The question was worded as follows: In the last two years, did you...Go to political meetings, rallies, or dinners (or things like that)? (Campus elections were not counted). Write letters to any public official to express your opinion?

Did participate in political activities

Did not participate in political activities
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

60

Comparative tuition level PRESTIG2

This variable groups undergraduates into three distinct categories based on sticker price and Carnegie classification

of the institution. This variable is created only for undergraduates who attended 4-year institutions and is defined as

follows:

Undergraduates with sticker prices $12,000 or more

• Undergraduates with higher sticker prices Undergraduates with sticker prices of $12,000 or more in

the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institutional control or Carnegie classification.

Sticker prices below $12,000

• Undergraduates in public research universities Undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in public

4-year institutions with Carnegie classifications of Research

Universities I and Research Universities II.

• Undergraduates in other 4-year institutions Undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 enrolled

in all other 4-year institutions.

Faculty reputation PROFESOR

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because of faculty reputation.

See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond to why he or

she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Faculty reputation was a reason for attendance

Faculty reputation was not a reason for attendance

Race/ethnicity of student RACE

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the Asian or Pacific Islander original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent,

or Pacific Islands. This includes people from China, Japan, Korea,

the Philippine Islands, Samoa, India and Vietnam.

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa,

and not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,

North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).

Other A person not in one of the above categories.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

61

Institution has good reputation REPUTATN

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because of the institution’s

reputation. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond to

why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Institution’s reputation was a reason for attendance

Institution’s reputation was not a reason for attendance

Number of risk factors RISKINDX

This variable represents an index of risk from 0 to 7 related to 7 characteristics known to adversely affect persistence

and attainment. Characteristics include delayed enrollment, no high school diploma—including GED recipients,

part-time enrollment, financial independence, having dependents other than spouse, single parent status, and working

full-time while enrolled. Information on student employment is only available for those interviewed. Note: If 3 or

more indicators were missing, this variable was set to missing.

No risk factors

One to three risk factors

Four or more risk factors

Student attended institution in state of legal residence SAMESTAT

Indicates whether the student attended school in the same state (in-state) as his/her state of legal residence.

Student attended institution in-state

Student attended institution out-of-state

Highest level of education ever expected to complete SBHIGHED

This variable indicates the student’s response to the question, what is the highest level of education you ever expect

to complete? This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Less than bachelor’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree or post-baccalaureate program

Advanced degree-doctoral or first-professional
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

62

Institution close to home SCHCLOSE

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because the institution was

close to home. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond

to why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Institution close to home was a reason for attendance

Institution close to home was not a reason for attendance

Shorter time to finish SHORTER

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because of a shorter time to

finish. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond to why

he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Shorter time to finish was a reason for attendance

Shorter time to finish was not a reason for attendance

Becoming an authority in a field SIAUTH

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether becoming an authority in a field was an important personal

goal.

Each first-time beginner was asked the question as follows: Are the following personal goals very important to you?

• Becoming an authority in a field.

• Influencing the political structure.

• Being very well off financially.

• Becoming successful in your own business.

• Being successful in a particular career.

• Being a leader in the community.

• Living close to your parents and relatives.

• Getting away from the area where you were raised.

• Having leisure time to enjoy personal interests.

• Raising a family.

• Being able to give your children better opportunities than you had.

Becoming an authority in a field was an important personal goal

Becoming an authority in a field was not an important personal goal
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

63

Leaving home SIAWAY

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she attended the institution because of a long-term

goal to leave home.

Leaving home reason for attendance

Leaving home not reason for attendance

Offer better opportunities to children SIBTROPP

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she attended the institution because of a long-term

goal to offer better opportunities to children.

Chances for better opportunities to children for attendance

Chances for better opportunities to children not reason for attendance

Succeed in own business SIBUSIN

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether succeeding in his or her own business was an important

personal goal. See SIAUTH for the complete survey question.

Succeeding in my own business was an important personal goal

Succeeding in my own business was not an important personal goal

Class size SICLSIZE

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the class sizes at the institution.

Satisfied with class size

Not satisfied with class size

Cost of attendance SICOST

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the institution’s cost.

Satisfied with institution’s cost

Not satisfied with institution’s cost
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

64

Course availability SICOURS

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the course availability at the

institution.

Satisfied with course availability

Not satisfied with course availability

Raise a family SIFAMILY

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether raising a family was an important personal goal. See

SIAUTH for the complete survey question.

Raising a family was an important personal goal

Raising a family was not an important personal goal

Financial wealth SIFINC

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she attended the institution because of a long-term

goal to be well off financially.

Financial wealth reason for attendance

Financial wealth not reason for attendance

Influence political structure SIINFL

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether influencing political structure was an important personal

goal. See SIAUTH for the complete survey question.

Influencing political structure was an important personal goal

Influencing political structure was not an important personal goal

Be a leader in the community SILEAD

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether being a leader in the community was an important personal

goal. See SIAUTH for the complete survey question.

Being a leader in the community was an important personal goal

Being a leader in the community was not an important personal goal
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

65

Have leisure time SILEISR

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether having leisure time was an important personal goal. See

SIAUTH for the complete survey question.

Having leisure time was an important personal goal

Having leisure time was not an important personal goal

Single parent, independent student SINGLPAR

Identifies independent students who were single parents. Students were considered to be single parents if they had

dependents, and were not married. Because the number of dependents does not distinguish between dependent children and other dependents such as parents or relatives, single parent is best interpreted as single caretaker.

Student was a single parent

Student was not a single parent

Prestige of school SIPRSTG

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the institution’s prestige.

Satisfied with institution’s prestige

Not satisfied with institution’s prestige

Have social contact with faculty SISOCIAL

This variable indicates the student response to the question, please tell me how often you participated in the following activity: Have social contact with faculty?

Never

Sometimes

Often

Social life SISOCLIF

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the social life at the institution.

Satisfied with social life

Not satisfied with social life
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

66

Succeed in career SISUCCAR

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether succeeding in his or her career was an important personal

goal. See SIAUTH for the complete survey question.

Succeeding in my career was an important personal goal

Succeeding in my career was not an important personal goal

Instructors’ ability to teach SITEACH

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the institution’s instructors’

ability to teach.

Satisfied with instructors’ ability to teach

Not satisfied with instructors’ ability to teach

Participated in varsity sports SIVARSTY

This variable indicates the student response to the question, please tell me how often you participated in the following activity: Participated in varsity sports?

Never

Sometimes

Often

Marital status SMARITAL

The student’s marital status on the date the student applied for financial aid (based on the FAFSA), or if the student

did not apply for financial aid, marital status as reported by the institution.

Not married

Married

Separated

Sports and recreational activities SPORTS

This variable indicates the student’s response to whether he or she was satisfied with the sports and recreational activities at the institution.

Satisfied with sports and recreational activities

Not satisfied with sports and recreational activities
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

67

Will vote in ’96 presidential election SQVOTE96

This variable indicates where the student reported that he or she would, or did, vote in 1996 presidential election.

Applies to telephone respondents who were U.S. citizens.

Will vote in ’96 presidential election

Will not vote in ’96 presidential election

State aid STATEAMT

Indicates the total amount of state aid received. State aid includes state grants, loans, state-sponsored work-study,

and all other state financial aid. The percentage of students who received state aid is the percentage with positive

amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received state

aid.

Did receive state aid

Did not receive state aid

Liked the campus SURROUND

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because he or she liked the

campus. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Other potential reasons include the following:

Location-related reasons: Close to home

Close to job

Could live at home

Other location reason

Liked the campus

Reputation/school-related reasons: Facilities/equipment

School had a good reputation

Job placement

Faculty reputation

Other reputation-related reason

Cost-related reasons: Tuition was low

Other living costs were less

Got more financial aid

Shorter time to finish

Other cost-related reason
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

68

Influence-related reasons: Friends/spouse attended the school

Parent(s) wanted student to attend

Parent(s) attended the school

Teacher/guidance counselor recommended

Other influence factors

Campus was a reason for attendance

Campus was not a reason for attendance

Teacher or guidance counselor recommended TEACHER

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because a teacher or guidance

counselor recommended the institution. See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons

the student could respond to why he or she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Teacher or guidance counselor recommended was a reason for attendance

Teacher or guidance counselor recommended was not a reason for attendance

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score, combined verbal and mathematics TESATCRE

The sum of reported SAT verbal and math scores. Constructed from agency-reported, institution-reported, or student-reported SAT scores in the following order of precedence: 1) agency-reported (ETS) SAT verbal and math

scores; 2) Institution-reported SAT verbal and math scores; 3) Student-reported SAT verbal and math scores. This

variable applies to cases having any reported SAT verbal and math scores.

Less than 1,000

1,000-1,299

1,300-1,600

Federal aid (except VA/DOD) TFEDAID

The total amount of federal financial aid, including loans, grants, work-study, and all other federal aid the student

received, excluding VA/DOD aid. The percentage of students who received any federal aid is the percentage with

positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received

federal aid.

Did receive federal aid

Did not receive federal aid
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

69

Total aid TOTAID

The total amount of financial aid received from all sources in 1995-96, including federal, state, institution, and other

sources received by the student. The percentage of students who received any financial aid is the percentage with

positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received

any financial aid.

Did receive aid

Did not receive aid

Grant TOTGRT

The total amount of all grants and scholarships, federal, institutional and other received by the student. Grants are a

type of student financial aid that does not require repayment or employment. Grants include scholarships and fellowships. Tuition waivers and employer aid are considered grant aid. The percentage of students with grants is the

percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received grants.

Did receive grant aid

Did not receive grant aid

Loan (except PLUS) TOTLOAN

Indicates the total amount of loans the student received, regardless of the source. Loans are a type of student financial aid that advance funds and are evidenced by a promissory requiring the recipient to repay the specified amounts

under prescribed conditions. The percentage of students with loans is the percentage with positive amounts recorded

for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received loans.

Did receive loan

Did not receive loan

Other type of aid (including assistantship and PLUS) TOTOTHR

Indicates the total amount of aid received that was not classified as grants, loans, or work-study. It also includes

teaching and research assistantships. This is the sum of other federal amounts, other state amounts and other institutional amounts. The percentage of students with other type of aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded

for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who received aid from these sources.

Did receive other type of aid

Did not receive other type of aid
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

70

Work-study TOTWKST

Indicates the total amount of all work-study awards received. It is the sum of federal work-study amount, state workstudy amount, institutional work-study amount and other unclassified work-study amount. Total work-study is one

component of total amount of all aid, along with total grant amount, total loan amount, and total other amount. The

percentage of students with work-study aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The

average amount received is the average of all students who received work-study aid.

Did receive work-study

Did not receive work-study

Sticker price TUITION

Sticker price of the student for the terms attended. If tuition amounts were not reported, they were estimated based

on the average per credit or per term charges for other students at the institution according to their class level, degree

program and attendance status.

Low tuition TUITLESS

This is one of a series of variables indicating student-reported reasons for choosing to attend the NPSAS institution.

This variable indicates whether the student reported attending the NPSAS institution because the tuition was low.

See variable SURROUND, or liked the campus, for other potential reasons the student could respond to why he or

she chose the institution. This variable applies to telephone respondents.

Low tuition was a reason for attendance

Low tuition was not a reason for attendance
71

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

THE 1995-96 NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY (NPSAS:96)

The 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96) is a comprehensive

nationwide study conducted by the Department of Education’s National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education.

It also describes demographic and other characteristics of students enrolled. The study is based

on a nationally representative sample of approximately 41,400 undergraduates (including 27,000

student interviews) enrolled in more than 830 postsecondary education institutions. Students

attending all types and levels of institutions are represented in the sample, including public and

private institutions and less-than-2-year institutions, 2-year institutions, and 4-year colleges and

universities. The weighted effective response rate for the telephone interviews was 76.2 percent.

The study is designed to address the policy questions resulting from the rapid growth of financial

aid programs, and the succession of changes in financial aid program policies since 1986. The

first NPSAS study was conducted in 1986-87, then again in 1989-90, and 1992-93.1

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because

observations are made only on samples of students, not on entire populations. Nonsampling

errors occur not only in sample surveys, but also in complete censuses of entire populations.

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete

information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct

information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing,

sampling, and imputing missing data.

 

1

For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, Methodology Report for the 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES 98-0783)

(Washington, D.C.: 1998).
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

72

DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:96 Data Analysis

Systems (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own

tables from the NPSAS:96 data. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables

presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard

errors2 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B1 contains standard

errors that correspond to table 5, and was generated by the DAS. If the number of valid cases is

too small to produce a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “lowN” instead of the estimate.

Table B1—Standard errors for table 5: Average amount of aid received by full-time, first-year undergraduates in 4-year

institutions according to type or source of aid, and average sticker price, by sticker price and Carnegie

classification: 1995-96

Total State Institutional Federal Grant

aid aid aid aid aid Loan Sticker Non-tuition

amount amount amount amount1 amount amount2 price costs3

 Total 178.6 67.1 190.6 93.9 152.1 39.9 224.6 72.8

Sticker price and Carnegie classification3

 Undergraduates with higher sticker

 prices 365.2 178.7 356.5 179.7 345.1 89.3 257.5 191.9

 Undergraduates in public research

 universities with sticker prices

 below $12,000 231.3 158.9 174.0 169.6 179.9 67.9 153.4 120.0

 Undergraduates in other 4-year

 institutions with sticker prices

 below $12,000 169.4 65.6 136.4 117.8 114.0 48.9 178.2 83.4

1

Indicates the total amount of federal financial aid, excluding Veterans Administration/Department of Defense (VA/DOD).

2

Indicates the total amount of all loans (federal, state, institutional, and private sector) except PLUS. PLUS loans are unsubsidized variableinterest rate loans awarded to parents of dependent students who are able to meet criteria for credit worthiness.

3

The sticker price and Carnegie classification variable groups undergraduates attending 4-year institutions into one of three unique categories.

First, “undergraduates with higher sticker prices” are full-time, first-year undergraduates who faced at least $12,000 in tuition and required fees

before any tuition remission, discounts, or financial aid award in the 1995-96 academic year, regardless of institution control or Carnegie

classification. Second, undergraduates with sticker prices below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending public universities with

Carnegie classification of Research I or II, are the “undergraduates in public research universities.” Third, undergraduates with sticker prices

below $12,000 in the 1995-96 academic year attending all other institutions are the “undergraduates in other 4-year institutions.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

 

2

The NPSAS:96 sample is not a simple random sample and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for

estimating sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the

sampling procedures and calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing

sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series

expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series method.
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

73

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables

to be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the NPSAS:96 stratified sampling

method. (See discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the adjustment procedure.)

The DAS can be accessed electronically at www.PEDAR-DAS.org. For more

information about the NPSAS:96 Data Analysis System contact:

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Postsecondary and Educational Outcomes Longitudinal Studies

1990 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 502-7334

Internet address: Adamico@ed.gov

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic.

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error, or significance

level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the

differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published

tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing.

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the

following formula:

E1 – E2

t = (1)

se1

2

 + se2

2

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding

standard errors. Note that this formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the

estimates were not independent (for example, when comparing the percentages across a

percentage distribution), a covariance term was added to the denominator of the t-test formula.

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading, since
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

74

the magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or

percentages but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison.

Hence, a small difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t

statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making

paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more

than one difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” is tested for statistical

significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those

comparisons taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p<=.05/k for a particular pairwise

comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that

the individual comparison would have p<=.05 and that for k comparisons within a family of

possible comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p<=.05.3

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of males and females who enrolled in

postsecondary education only one comparison is possible (males versus females). In this family,

k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the significance level. When

students are divided into five racial-ethnic groups and all possible comparisons are made, then

k=10 and the significance level of the each test must be p<=.05/10, or p<=.005. The formula for

calculating family size (k) is as follows:

k = [ j * ( j – 1 ) ] / 2 (2)

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race-ethnicity,

there are five racial-ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander,

black, non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and white, non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 2,

k = [ ( 5 ) ( 5 – 1 ) ] / 2 = 10 (3)

 

3

The standard that p<=.05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the

comparisons should sum to p<=.05. For tables showing the t statistics required to ensure that p<=.05/k for a

particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,”

Journal of the American Statistical Association 56: 52-64.
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

75

ADJUSTMENT OF MEANS TO CONTROL FOR BACKGROUND VARIATION

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional

factors that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example, when

examining the percentages of those who completed a degree, it is impossible to know to what

extent the observed variation is due to low-income status differences and to what extent it is due

to differences in other factors related to income, such as type of institution attended, parents’

education, and so on. However, if a nested table were produced showing income within type of

institution and within parent’s education, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the

patterns. When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level of

variation, one must use other methods to take such variation into account.

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that

were adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables.4 Adjusted means for subgroups

were obtained by regressing the dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as

gender, race-ethnicity, etc. Substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup characteristic(s) of

interest and the mean proportions for the other variables results in an estimate of the adjusted

proportion for the specified subgroup, holding all other variables constant. For example,

consider a hypothetical case in which two variables, age and gender, are used to describe an

outcome, Y (such as completing a degree). The variables age and gender are recoded into a

dummy variable representing age and a dummy variable representing gender:

Age A

24 years or older 1

23 or younger 0

Gender G

Female 1

Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output

from the DAS:

Y = a + ß1A + ß2G (4)

 

4

For more information about least squares regression, see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression: An

Introduction, vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980) and William D. Berry and Stanley Feldman,

Multiple Regression in Practice, vol. 50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1987).
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

76

where Y is the adjusted mean (or percentage); a is the intercept from the regression model; ß1 is

the regression coefficient of the dummy variable representing age; and ß2 is the regression

coefficient representing gender. To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the

mean of all other variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy

variables (1 or 0) and the mean for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For

example, suppose Y represents degree attainments and is being described by age (A) and gender

(G), with means as follows:

Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

Next, suppose the regression equation results in:

Y = 0.15 + (0.17)A + (0.01)G (5)

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter

estimates and variable values into equation 5.

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.15 --

A 0.17 1.000

G 0.01 0.521

This results in:

Y = 0.15 + (0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325 (6)

In this case, the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 and represents the expected

chance of the outcome (in this example, attaining a degree) for older students who look like the

average student across the other variables (in this example, gender). In other words, the adjusted

percentage of older students who attained a degree is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for conversion to

a percentage).

One can produce a multivariate model using the DAS, since one of the output options of

the DAS is a correlation matrix, computed using pairwise missing values and weighted to
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

77

account for sampling design and nonresponse.5 This matrix can be used by most statistical

software packages as the input data for least-squares regression. That is the approach used for

this report, with an additional adjustment to incorporate the complex sample design into the

statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular

presentation, parameter estimates and standard errors were multiplied by 100 to match the scale

used for reporting unadjusted and adjusted percentages.

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing

standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for

NPSAS, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to

multiply each standard error by the average design effect associated with the dependent variable

(DEFT),6 where the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error computed

under the assumption of simple random sampling. It is calculated by the DAS and is part of the

correlation matrix output file.

 

5

Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts

who wish to use other than pairwise treatment of missing values to estimate probit/logit models (which are the most

appropriate for models with categorical dependent variables) can apply for a restricted data license from NCES. See

John H. Aldrich and Forrest D. Nelson “Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models,” Quantitative Applications in

the Social Sciences, vol. 45. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage University Press, 1984). 6

The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C. J. Skinner, D. Hold, and T. M. F. Smith (eds.).

Analysis of Complex Surveys. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).