NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report September 1997

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Institutional Aid

1992-93

John B. Lee, Ed.D.

Suzanne B. Clery

JBL Associates, Inc.

C. Dennis Carroll

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Education Research and Improvement NCES 98-104
ii

Foreword

This report describes undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary education for the

academic year 1992-93. It relies on data from the 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS: 93), the third in a series of surveys conducted by the U. S. Department of

Education. The NPSAS surveys provide representative information describing all postsecondary

students enrolled during the survey year and include detailed information about the cost of

postsecondary education and how students pay those costs.

The report begins with an essay that reviews the context in which institutional aid became

more prevalent and how characteristics of both students and the institutions they attend relate to

receipt of institutional aid. Tables follow the essay to provide detailed information about the

awarding of institutional aid. These tables describe packaging of institutional aid, those who

receive it and average award size.

Estimated values provided in the report were produced using the NPSAS: 93 Data

Analysis System (DAS). The DAS is a microcomputer application that allows users to specify

and generate their own tables from the NPSAS: 93 data. This software system produces designadjusted standard errors necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences shown in

the tables. For more information about the DAS, readers should consult appendix B of this

report.
iii

Highlights

This report examines institutional aid awards among students who were enrolled in

postsecondary education in 1992-93, using nationally representative data on student financial aid

and background characteristics. Features of the institutions that these students attended, as well

as characteristics of the students themselves, were examined in relation to the presence and size of

institutional aid awards they received. The highlights here summarize the results of these

analyses.

Context:

• Institutional aid has increased at a faster rate since 1985 than any other source of student

financial aid, while the real value of government aid awards declined, real tuition costs

rose, and family income remained about the same.

• Institutional aid provided $7.5 billion to students in 1992-93. Twelve percent of all

undergraduates received institutional aid in 1992-93 (table 2, table 16).

Relationship between institutional characteristics and receipt of institutional aid:

• Receipt of institutional aid varied by the level of the institution attended: undergraduates

in less-than-4-year public and private, not-for-profit institutions were less likely to receive

institutional aid than those in similar 4-year institutions (table 2).

• Receipt and amount of institutional aid also varied by the control of the institution

attended. Full-time undergraduates in private 4-year institutions were more than twice as

likely to receive institutional aid as undergraduates in public 4-year institutions. Students

attending private, for-profit institutions were less than half as likely to receive aid as

students at public 4-year institutions (table 2). The average institutional aid award to

undergraduates who received this type of aid in public 4-year institutions was $1,755,

compared to $4,658 to students at private 4-year institutions (table 4).

• The size of institutional aid awards received varied by the Carnegie classification of the

school attended among students at both public and private institutions. Undergraduates

attending public research and doctoral granting institutions received larger average

institutional aid awards than those attending public comprehensive and specialized

institutions. Students attending private research and doctoral granting institutions

received larger average institutional aid awards than those attending institutions in all

other Carnegie Code categories (table 5).

• The average institutional aid award received by full-time undergraduates in 4-year

institutions increased as tuition increased in both public and private, not-for profit

institutions (table 18, table 21).
iv

• There was no significant difference in the proportion of full-time undergraduates receiving

institutional aid in private 4-year institutions with low or high endowment levels; the

average amount of institutional aid increased with endowment (table 7).

Student characteristics of institutional aid recipients in 4-year institutions:

• Several characteristics associated with “traditional” undergraduates were also associated

with a greater likelihood of receiving institutional aid. Part-time undergraduates were less

likely to receive institutional aid than those attending full time (table 2). Full-time

undergraduates who were less than 24 years old were more likely to receive institutional

aid than those in any other age bracket. Full-time undergraduates living on campus were

more likely to receive institutional aid than those living off campus or with their parents

(table 12).

• In both public and private 4-year institutions, full-time undergraduates with a 3.50 or

higher grade point average were more likely to receive institutional aid than

undergraduates with a GPA below 3.50 (table 11).

• Black, non-Hispanic, but not Hispanic, full-time undergraduates in public institutions were

more likely to receive institutional aid than white, non-Hispanic undergraduates (table 13).

 Neither black, non-Hispanic nor Hispanic full-time undergraduates in private, not-for

profit, 4-year institutions differed significantly in their probability of receiving institutional

aid compared to white, non-Hispanic undergraduates.

Student income and packaging of aid:

• Full-time undergraduates in the lowest income quartile attending public 4-year institutions

were more likely to receive institutional aid than undergraduates in higher income

quartiles. Comparable students attending private 4-year institutions were significantly

more likely to receive this aid than those in the highest income quartile (table 8).

• Eighteen percent of the full-time undergraduate institutional aid recipients in private 4-

year institutions received institutional aid alone and 32 percent received it with a Pell

Grant. Thirty-five percent of the undergraduates in public 4-year institutions received

institutional aid by itself and 38 percent received it with a financial aid package that

contained a Pell Grant (table 10).
v

Acknowledgments

Writing these reports is a team effort. Our thanks go to all the individuals who helped

produce this report. Robert Harmon, Barry Christopher, and Mary Lee of JBL Associates

formatted tables, checked statistical statements and edited text. Dennis Carroll of NCES provided

the guidance and recommendations that come from long years of experience. Laura Horn of

MPR Associates, as always, had good ideas that helped shape the issues and tables. Ken Redd of

NAICU was an able reviewer and critic. Special thanks to Mary Frase of NCES for her diligent

edit and review efforts that greatly improved this report. Ellen Bradburn of the Education

Statistics Services Institute also provided technical review. Final reviews were furnished by

Robert Burton of NCES, Melanie Esten of NAICU, Dan Madzelan of OPE, John Oberg of

OLCA, and Linda Zimbler of NCES.
vi

Table of Contents

Foreword ....................................................................................................................................ii

Highlights...................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................v

List of Tables............................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................x

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Structure of Report ...............................................................................................................2

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

Focus of Analysis.............................................................................................................4

Linear Regression Models................................................................................................5

Economic and Institutional Context of Institutional Aid .........................................................6

Categories of Possible Institutional Aid Recipients...........................................................6

Financial Issues and Institutional Characteristics ..............................................................7

Growth of Institutional Aid..............................................................................................8

Results from NPSAS: 93 Data...................................................................................................12

Institutional Perspective.......................................................................................................12

Institutions by Carnegie Classification............................................................................13

Financial Characteristics of Institutions..........................................................................14

Tuition.....................................................................................................................14

Endowment .............................................................................................................15

Student Characteristics........................................................................................................16

Student Income .............................................................................................................16

Packaging of Student Financial Aid................................................................................18

Grade Point Average .....................................................................................................19

Traditional Undergraduates............................................................................................20

Race/Ethnicity of Undergraduates and Institutional Aid..................................................22

Award by Academic Year..............................................................................................22

Analysis of Institutional Aid after Controlling for Background Variation..............................23

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................29

Institutional Aid Associated with Undergraduate Characteristics..........................................29

Institutional Aid and Institutional Characteristics.................................................................30

Table Compendium ...................................................................................................................31

Appendix A: Glossary ...............................................................................................................52

Appendix B: Technical Notes and Methodology........................................................................59

Bibliography..............................................................................................................................69
vii

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Percentage of undergraduates who received different types of aid and average award:

1992-93 ....................................................................................................................... 4

2 Percentage of all undergraduates who received institutional aid according to type

and control of institution, by attendance patterns: 1992-93 ........................................... 5

3 Number of states where students were eligible for institutional aid in public

institutions, by student type: 1993 ...............................................................................12

4 Average institutional aid awarded to all undergraduate recipients according to type

and control of institution, by attendance patterns: 1992-93 ..........................................13

5 Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid and average

award amount per recipient according to institutional control, by Carnegie code:

1992-93 ......................................................................................................................14

6 Percentage of full-time undergraduates in private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

who received institutional aid and average award per recipient, by tuition and fees:

1992-93 ......................................................................................................................15

7 Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid in private,

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions and average award per recipient by institutional

endowment per full-time equivalent student enrollment: 1992-93.................................15

8 Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid at 4-year

institutions and average award per recipient, according to institutional control, by

income quartiles: 1992-93 ...........................................................................................17

9 Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid, and average

award per recipient according to institutional control, by dependency status and

income level: 1992-93 .................................................................................................18

10 Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates and average award per recipient

according to type of aid package, by institutional control: 1992-93..............................19

11 Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid and average

award per recipient according to institutional control, by cumulative grade point

average: 1992-93 ........................................................................................................20
viii

List of Tables--Continued

Table Page

12 Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid according to

institutional control, by selected student characteristics: 1992-93.................................21

13 Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid according to

institutional control, by race/ethnicity: 1992-93 ...........................................................22

14 Percentage of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions who received

institutional aid, and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the

covariation of the variables listed in the table: 1992-93 ................................................25

15 Percentage of full-time undergraduates at private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

who received institutional aid, and the adjusted percentage after taking into account

the covariation of the variables listed in the table: 1992-93 ..........................................27

16 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to receipt of institutional aid

and average award per recipient, by selected student characteristics: 1992-93..............35

17 Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at private, not-for-profit, 4-year

institutions according to receipt of institutional aid, by selected student and

institutional characteristics: 1992-93............................................................................37

18 Average institutional aid award to full-time undergraduates in private, not-forprofit, 4-year institutions according to aid package, by selected student and

institutional characteristics: 1992-93............................................................................40

19 Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates in private, not-for-profit, 4-year

institutions according to institutional aid package, by selected student and

institutional characteristics: 1992-93............................................................................42

20 Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions

according to receipt of institutional aid, by selected student and institutional

characteristics: 1992-93...............................................................................................44

21 Average institutional aid award to full-time undergraduates at public 4-year

institutions according to institutional aid package, by selected student and

institutional characteristics: 1992-93............................................................................46

22 Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions

according to institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional

characteristics: 1992-93...............................................................................................49
ix

List of Tables--Continued

Table Page

B-1 Standard errors for Table 19: Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates in

private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions according to institutional aid package, by

selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93.......................................... 66
x

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Median family income, federal grants, and average tuition and fees at private, notfor-profit and public 4-year institutions (in constant 1994 dollars) as a percent of the

same for 1985: 1985-1994........................................................................................... 8

2 Grant awards to undergraduates as a percent of 195 grant awards (in constant 1994

dollars), by source: 1985-1994 .................................................................................... 9

3 Full-time enrollment as a percent of 1985 full-time enrollment in public and private,

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions: 1985-1993 ............................................................ 11
1

Introduction

While the economic landscape for postsecondary institutions and individuals has shifted

over the last decade, institutional aid has become an increasingly prevalent part of the

postsecondary student financial aid package. During this decade college and university tuition

increased faster than family income and federal student aid.1 During the same period, grant aid

from institutional sources increased. Colleges and universities provided $7.5 billion in

institutional aid to undergraduates in 1992-93. By 1995-96, the total had increased to $10

billion.2 This report focuses on the relationship between receipt of institutional aid and the

characteristics of undergraduates and the institutions they attend. Understanding who received

this type of aid helps to illuminate its place in the financial aid package and the cost-benefit

assessment made by students attending postsecondary institutions.

Government regulations do not limit or constrain institutional aid awards, so they can be

made with more institutionally specific discretion than any other type of student financial aid. 

Institutions may award aid to help achieve any number of educational or enrollment goals. 

However, the data used for this report do not allow for definition of institutional motives. 

Instead, its focus is on the characteristics of the recipients of aid, following a discussion of the

economic trends accompanying the rise in institutional aid awards and the institutional context in

which these awards take place.

Because of its discretionary nature, institutional aid can raise policy questions. It is,

simultaneously, an educational investment and a price discount.3 Small, tuition-dependent

institutions may offer tuition discounts to fill their entering classes. Highly selective institutions,

on the other hand, can fill their classes at full tuition, but may offer institutional aid to certain

students to assure a diverse student body. Colleges and universities may also use offers of meritbased aid to increase the enrollment of talented undergraduates. There is heated competition for

these student stars. For example, National Merit Scholar finalists report receiving unsolicited

offers of institutional aid from institutions they have not even contacted.4

Institutional aid can pose a difficult financial problem for private, not-for-profit colleges

and universities. Every time an institution raises tuition, a larger share of their increased income

must be dedicated to institutional aid to help the expanding number of students who otherwise

could not afford to enroll. In 1988, the median discount package in private, not-for-profit

institutions was 14 percent of tuition. By 1993 it had grown to 18 percent.5 As noted later,

tuition in these institutions was increasing faster than the cost of living during this period. This

tuition/aid spiral may have affected the long-term financial health of some of these institutions.

 

1

 The College Board. Trends in Student Aid: 1986 to 1996. (Washington, D.C.: 1996).

2

Ibid.

3

Bowen, W. and Breneman, D. “Student Aid: Price Discount or Educational Investment?” Finance in Higher

Education. (Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, 1992). pp. 303-307.

4

Richard Moll, “The Scramble to Get the New Class,” Change, (March/April 1994), p. 11.

5

Davis, J. College Affordability, A Closer Look at the Crises. (Washington, D.C.: Sallie Mae Foundation, 1997).
2

The claim has been made, most often to document the negative effects of insufficient

federal aid, that awarding too much institutional aid can undercut an institution’s operating

budget. Insufficient aid may drive potential students away. Increasing student loans as a source

of financial aid for most middle-income students runs the risk of increasing their debt to an

unacceptable level. There may be a psychological ceiling beyond which the requirement for more

borrowing will drive students away from the institution. Excessive use of institutional aid to

attract students may be evidence of an institution in trouble and not the cause of that trouble.

On the other hand, tuition discounts in the form of institutional aid can fill otherwise

empty slots with students who pay at least the marginal cost of their education. If the semester

starts with empty seats, the tuition income is lost for the year. From this perspective, strategic use

of institutional aid is a rational response to difficult market conditions.

Public colleges and universities that have traditionally offered low tuition to all students

also give tuition discounts and institutional aid to some undergraduates. As tuition in public

colleges and universities has increased, institutional aid has become a more important part of the

student aid package. However, public colleges and universities do not have as much institutional

autonomy to define tuition and institutional aid awards as do private, not-for-profit institutions.6

Given these differences, most of the relationships in this report are examined separately for public

and for private, not-for-profit institutions. Undergraduates attending public and private, not-forprofit institutions were found to differ in the probability and amount of institutional aid they

received (table 2, table 4). Undergraduates attending private, not-for profit 4-year institutions

were more likely to receive institutional aid than those attending institutions in other sectors (table

2).

Structure of Report

This section describes features of the data employed in the report, limits subsequent

analyses to certain segments of the undergraduate population, and identifies multivariate models

used later in the report. Next, the economic and institutional context surrounding the rise in

institutional aid over the past decade is discussed. Then, relationships of the receipt of

institutional aid to characteristics of students and the institutions they attended among full-time

undergraduates attending 4-year institutions in 1992-93 are illuminated. Finally, multivariate

analyses are conducted to further explore these relationships. A detailed table compendium

follows the main text.

Data and Definitions

This report uses data from the 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS: 93) which is based on a representative sample of students enrolled during that academic

year. Those data are used to profile the use of institutional aid by this student population. 

Institutional aid may be in the form of work, loans, fellowship scholarships, or tuition discounts.

 

6

 Stine, Glen R. “Financial Aid Tuition Trends in the 1980's: A Review.” Finance in Higher Education. 

(Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, 1991), p. 356.
3

Eighty-nine percent of institutional aid is in the form of grants. Of the remaining 11 percent, 4

percent is in the form of loans and 7 percent is in the form of work-study. 7

Several new definitions of student financial aid packages have been added to the

NPSAS: 93 Data Analysis System (DAS) to complete this analysis. A variable distinguishing

among the following student financial aid packages containing institutional aid has been added:

• Institutional aid only;

• Institutional aid and Pell (with Pell Grant in any combination with other Title IV and nonTitle IV aid);

• Institutional aid and Title IV, no Pell (with any other Title IV and non-Title IV aid and no

Pell Grant);

• Institutional aid and other, no Title IV.

These newly defined student aid packages describe combinations of institutional aid with

other types of aid. (For a comprehensive review of student aid packaging, see National Center for

Education Statistics [NCES], Packaging of Undergraduate Student Financial Aid: 1989-90,

NCES 95-313.) An additional variable identifies the total amount, in dollars, of institutional aid

received.

Two other variables have been added to the NPSAS: 93. First, participating institutions

have been classified by their Carnegie Classification code, which divides higher education

institutions into eleven general categories.8 These categories reflect the admission selectivity of

institutions and their educational objectives. Using these categories provides greater sensitivity to

an institution’s mission than type and control designations by themselves. Second, endowment

per full-time equivalent (FTE) student was constructed using Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System (IPEDS) data and added to the list of institutional characteristics. Endowment per

FTE student is a measure of institutional strength for private, not-for-profit institutions. The

endowment per FTE student variable provides an institutional characteristic that might be

associated with the receipt of institutional aid in the private, not-for profit sector. Endowment

provides institutions with income resources beyond tuition. This may give highly endowed

institutions more financial flexibility than those with lower endowment. Roughly one-third of the

undergraduates sampled attended private, not-for-profit institutions.

It should be noted that data for this report were collected just before the changes in

student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act took effect in 1993-94. 

Among the results of these changes were that more students became eligible to borrow and the

amounts students could borrow increased. These legislative changes may affect the use and

packaging of institutional aid in ways that are not reflected by the data used herein.

 

7

Calculation done using the 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93) Undergraduate Data

Analysis System.

8

 Carnegie Foundation. A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (Princeton, NJ, 1987).
4

Focus of Analysis

Institutional aid is a major source of grant assistance. Among all sources of student aid

included in this study, it is the third most utilized, ahead of state aid and federal work/study (table

1). According to the College Board, $6.2 billion were awarded in Pell Grants and $7.5 billion

were awarded in institutional aid in 1992-93. Assuming that 89 percent of institutional aid is in

the form of grants, $6.7 billion dollars would be grant aid. Twelve percent of all undergraduates

received institutional aid in 1992-93 (table 2).

Table 1--Percentage of undergraduates who received different types of aid and average award: 1992-93

Percent Average award

Type of aid

 Federal grants 22.6 $1,915

 Federal loans 19.2 3,311

 Institutional aid 12.1 2,833

 State aid 10.4 1,371

 Federal work-study 3.1 1,275

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 1992-93, National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Institutional aid recipients were concentrated in only a few enrollment categories. This

made institutional aid statistically unimportant in some institutions, but very important in others.

For each sector,9 undergraduates in less-than-4-year institutions were less likely to receive

institutional aid than undergraduates in 4-year institutions (table 2). For example, institutional aid

was less common for students in public community colleges (public, less-than-4-year) than in

public 4-year institutions. Eight percent of the full-time undergraduates in public, less-than-4-year

institutions received institutional aid, compared to 18 percent of full-time undergraduates in public

4-year schools.

Private, for-profit institutions are limited in their use of institutional aid by their accrediting

standards. According to accreditation standards in this sector, any tuition discount of institutional

aid must be announced publicly in advance along with the rules for its award. These institutions

cannot use last minute offers of institutional aid to adjust tuition as a strategy for increasing

enrollment. This requirement may help explain the limited use of institutional aid in the private,

for-profit sector. Five percent of the full-time undergraduates in private, for-profit institutions

received institutional aid. For-profit institutions are generally excluded from the remainder of the

analyses in this report.

 

9

 There were not enough students in for-profit institutions to report separately by level.
5

Table 2--Percentage of all undergraduates who received institutional aid according to type and control of

institution, by attendance patterns: 1992-93

Public Private, not-for-profit

Less-than- Less-than- Private, All

4-year 4-year 4-year 4-year for-profit institutions

 Total 4.5 13.6 17.7 36.6 4.4 12.1

Attendance patterns, fall 1992

 Full-time 8.1 17.5 23.1 47.1 5.3 20.4

 Part-time 3.3 6.1 14.8 13.3 3.0 5.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Table 2 also shows that part-time undergraduates were less likely to receive institutional

aid than those attending full-time do. On average, 5 percent of part-time undergraduates received

institutional aid. Thus, given the concentration of aid recipients in certain categories of

institution, most of the later tables do not include part-time undergraduates.

Institutional aid is received by more than 1 in 6 students in private, less-than-4-year, notfor-profit institutions. However, relatively few students are represented by this category:

according to IPEDS, 0.6 percent of students were enrolled in private, not-for-profit, less-than 4-

year institutions.10 This small number makes it difficult to draw any precise conclusions about

their use of aid or to explore variations in institutional aid by other characteristics within this

category. The rest of the report concentrates on full-time undergraduates attending public or

private 4-year institutions. 11

Most of the tables in this report present two types of information. The first is the percent

share of undergraduates receiving institutional aid, and the second is the average amount of

institutional aid awarded to recipients with different characteristics. Besides institutional traits,

relevant student and family attributes such as race/ethnicity, sex, age, dependency, income, year in

school, and grade point average (GPA) are included. Examining these student characteristics

helps to shed light on how different types of students receive institutional aid.

Linear Regression Models

According to the cross tabulations in this report, receipt of institutional aid is related to a

variety of institutional and student characteristics. This report's approach to controlling for group

differences by cross tabulation has certain limitations. For example, sample size limits the number

of cells into which data can be grouped usefully. Also, interrelationships exist among the

variables that cannot be accounted for in cross tabulations.

 

10 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest Education Statistics, 1995.

(Washington, D.C. : 1995). 

11 Because for-profit institutions are not analyzed in detail in this report, private, not-for-profit institutions are

referred to simply as “private institutions” hereafter.
6

Linear models allow analysts to examine several variables simultaneously while controlling

for the overlapping effects of interrelated variables. One such model, linear regression, was used

in this report to estimate these effects (adjusted means).12 To control interrelationships that may

be overlooked in the tabular analysis, the regression model takes the effects of all variables into

account simultaneously. By estimating the interrelatedness of several variables, regression models

can test individual parameters while holding the influence of other variables constant. The results

of the linear model are presented after the tabular analysis.

 Economic and Institutional Context of Institutional Aid

Institutional aid can play two roles: educational benefit and marketing tool. This dual

character distinguishes it from student aid provided by outside, disinterested parties. In addition,

institutional aid does not have the specific public mission of federal aid to improve educational

opportunity for low-income students. The ambiguous character of institutional aid and the nature

of the available data limit conclusions regarding institutional goals. However, we can consider

possible recipients of this type of aid as part of the context in which the increase in awards of

institutional aid has occurred.

Categories of Possible Institutional Aid Recipients

Colleges and universities may help assure the economic or cultural diversity of their

student body by providing extra financial incentives to low-income or minority undergraduates.

Most institutions make a good-faith effort to increase the economic and cultural diversity of their

student body. With this goal they may offer institutional aid to low-income or minority

undergraduates.

Institutions may also wish to use institutional aid to increase the affordability of their

schools for both low- and middle-income prospective students. For low-income students, such

institutional aid might be packaged with need-based federal aid. For middle-income

undergraduates, institutional aid might be awarded to undergraduates who did not receive Pell

Grants.

Another possible use of institutional aid involves making an attractive first-year offer of

aid. It may be that colleges and universities provide larger institutional aid packages to first year

undergraduates and reduce the aid when the students return for their second year. The current

analysis found limited evidence of this front-loading of institutional aid. More detail on this

subject is provided later in this report.

Finally, institutional aid may be used to attract outstanding scholars, athletes or artists to

an institution. This report explores this issue, although the data do not provide information to

identify outstanding athletes or artists. As will be shown later, institutional aid appears to have

rewarded academically superior undergraduates, and these undergraduates tended to receive

institutional aid regardless of need.

 

12 Appendix B contains a description of the means adjustment method.
7

There is evidence that some private colleges and universities have used institutional aid to

maximize enrollment at the minimum institutional cost. An article in the Wall Street Journal

describes the use of statistical models in structuring institutional aid offers to students. 13 These

offers are based on two factors: the probability that the student will enroll and the attractiveness

of the student to the institution. For example, early admission students may receive a less

generous aid offer than those who apply later because students who apply early are more likely to

attend. The article suggests that 60 percent of the private institutions use statistical models to

help maximize enrollment. Most families do not know about these models or how they work. 

For this reason, families with a similar financial profile may have a different net cost of attendance

at the same institution.

While these possible uses of institutional aid may suggest characteristics to explore in

relation to the receipt of such aid, the data used in this report cannot shed light on whether

institutions actively engage in such strategies. NPSAS: 93 data do not provide any direct

information about institutional motives or strategies. A given student might be targeted for

institutional aid for more than one of the above reasons. For example, a student could have a high

grade point average and financial need simultaneously. Further, these are cross-sectional data for

students at the institutions they actually attended, rather than evidence of the array of awards

made by institutions to different students, or the choices of financial aid packages available to

each student before selecting an institution to attend. Thus, while possible institutional motives

might suggest student characteristics of interest, this report does not evaluate the strategies, if

any, of institutions in their awards of institutional aid.

Financial Issues and Institutional Characteristics

Tuition in 4-year institutions has been growing faster than family income or federal grants.

 Figure 1 shows the relationship between trends in federal grants, tuition in public and private

institutions, and median family income. Between 1985 and 1994 tuition increased faster than

inflation, while family income and federal grants per full-time equivalent (FTE) student in 1994

were close to 1985 levels.14

Increasing the number or size of institutional aid awards per aided student raises different

financial issues depending on the wealth of an institution. In a study of the effects of student aid

on small private institutions, the authors found “significant annualized real increase in unrestricted

financial aid.”15 They interpret their results as follows:

These institutions seem to be directing their discretionary income, generated

principally through tuition increases, into financial aid for the purpose of

replacing lost government aid. (p. 10)

 

13 Stecklow, S. "Expensive Lessons." The Wall Street Journal. (New York: April 1, 1996), p. 1.

14 This was calculated by dividing the aggregate dollar amount of federal grant aid awarded by the U.S.

Department of Education by the annual FTE enrollment.

15 Warne, T. and Kern, K. Federal Student Aid and the Financing of Colleges and Universities: Some Impacts on

Small Private Colleges in the 1980s. (Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Research on Higher Education, University

of Pennsylvania, 1989).
8

Figure 1--Median family income, federal grants, and average tuition and fees at private, not-for-profit and

public 4-year institutions (in constant 1994 dollars) as a percent of the same for 1985: 1985-1994

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Academic year ending

Percentage of base year 1985

Median Family Income Federal Grants per FTE

Average Private Tuition & Fees Average Public Tuition & Fees

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

System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” survey, various years. U. S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995, 115th edition. (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

It is also possible that competitive pressures will force financially weak institutions to

commit an expanding share of their income to institutional aid to the point where they face

financial difficulties. The wealth of private institutions is indicated in analyses below by tuition

and by endowment per full-time equivalent student.

Growth of Institutional Aid

Figure 2 shows that the amount of institutional aid awarded has grown faster over the last

ten years than any other source of undergraduate grant aid. According to The College Board,

institutional aid provided $7.5 billion in student aid in 1992-93. That represents nearly 20 percent

of all student aid awarded in the year.16 Institutional aid grew by 121 percent in constant dollars

between 1985 and 1994, over eight times as much as the 15 percent increase in federal grant aid. 

State grants increased faster than federal grants, but fell well short of the increase in institutional

aid (detailed tables with dollar amounts are included in the table compendium).

 

16 The College Board. Trends in Student Aid 1984 to 1994, and Trends in Student Aid 1986-1996. (Washington

D.C. : 1994 and 1996).
9

Figure 2--Grant awards to undergraduates as a percent of 1985 grant awards (in constant 1994 dollars), by

source: 1985-1994

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Academic year ending

Percentage of base year 1985

Total federal grants State grants Institutional grants

SOURCE: The College Board. Trends in Student Aid, 1985 to 1995. (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

Including loans and College Work-Study as part of the federal share changes the trends

somewhat. Federal aid increased by 66 percent in constant dollars between 1985 and 1994.

Comparing this increase to the 23 percent increase for tuition at private institutions (figure 1) is

misleading. Liberalized eligibility has expanded the number of awards, but the purchasing power

of maximum awards has declined. According to The College Board, the constant dollar value of

the maximum Pell Grant dropped from $2,864 in 1985 to $2,268 in 1994, while the number of

awards increased by 32 percent. The number of Stafford loans increased by 49 percent, but the

maximum award slipped by $119 in constant dollars.17

Administrators at private postsecondary institutions have expressed concern about

declines in the three federal campus-based financial aid programs (College Work Study,

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant [SEOG], and Perkins Loans).18 These programs do

not provide as many aid dollars as the Pell Grant and Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL)

programs, but they allow greater latitude in selecting recipients. The combined constant value of

campus-based program awards dropped from $2.3 billion to $2.2 billion between 1984 and 1993.

The number of awards grew from 2.1 million to 2.4 million and average award size declined from

$1,095 to $917. (The SEOG program accounted for all the increases in the number of awards.)19

 

17 The College Board. Trends in Student Aid 1985 to 1995. (Washington D.C.: 1995).

18 St. John, E. "Changes in Pricing Behavior During the 1980's." Journal of Higher Education. (1992). p. 63.

19 The College Board. Trends in Student Aid 1984 to 1994. (Washington, D.C.: 1994).
10

Besides the declining value of maximum student financial aid awards, family income and

wages have not kept pace with the increased cost of undergraduate education, nor has the

minimum wage kept up with increases in the price of education. As seen in figure 1, inflation

adjusted median family income (in families with children 6 to 17 years old) only gained 1.5

percent between 1985 and 1994. Undergraduates cannot meet the same share of their education

costs by working at minimum wage jobs as they could in the past. In 1980 the minimum wage

was $3.10, and it took 504 hours of work to pay the average tuition of $1,562. The minimum

wage was $4.25 in 1991, and it took 850 hours to pay the average tuition of $3,613 (the average

tuition combines public and private institutions reported in the Higher Education General

Information System [HEGIS] or IPEDS for that year).

These financial trends have combined to increase the demand for institutionally funded

student aid. While family ability to pay has not increased, there has been a decline in the value of

maximum federal student aid awards and tuition increases have exceeded inflation. One result of

these intersecting trends is an increasing unmet need among enrolled undergraduates. The major

resource available to fill the resulting gap is institutional aid.

Despite the fact that the purchasing power of maximum student aid awards declined,

family income was nearly constant, and tuition and postsecondary enrollment increased. The

share of high school graduates who enrolled in colleges and universities in the fall following

graduation increased from 52.7 percent in 1983 to 61.9 percent in 1992. This growing

participation rate more than offset the 8.4 percent decline in the number of high school graduates

between 1983 and 1992.20 Enrollment of full-time undergraduates in private institutions increased

from 1.75 million in 1985 to 2.0 million in 1993. By 1993, this rate of increase outstripped the

percent increase in full-time undergraduates in public 4-year institutions (figure 3). In total, over

700,000 more undergraduates in 1992 enrolled in 4-year institutions than in 1983. Strategic use

of institutional aid may have stimulated enrollment in the face of accelerating tuition by selectively

reducing the cost of attendance for applicants who were reluctant or unable to pay the full tuition.

 

20 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics, 1993. 

(Washington, D.C.: 1993).
11

Figure 3--Full-time enrollment as a percent of 1985 full-time enrollment in public and private, not-for-profit,

4-year institutions: 1985-1993

100

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

1985 1986* 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Academic year ending

Percentage of base year 1985

Private, not-for-profit Public

*No data reported for 1986.

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

System. “Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” survey, various years.
12

Results from NPSAS: 93 Data

Institutional Perspective

Institutional aid raises different questions in public and private institutions. In part, this

difference is due to the fact that states often control tuition policy and monitor expenditures of

public institutions. Several states make tuition waivers or institutional aid awards available to

specific categories of undergraduates, often with no institutional discretion (table 3). None of

these categories account for many awards by themselves, but in combination they could result in a

sizable share of the institutional awards given in a public institution.

Table 3--Number of states where students were eligible for institutional aid in public institutions, by

 student type: 1993

 Student type Number of states

 Dependents of deceased police officers and fire fighters 25

 Senior citizens 22

 Veterans, National Guard 21

 Institutional faculty/staff 19

 Graduate teaching assistants 17

 Students who qualify for need-based aid 13

 Students who qualify for merit aid 12

 Dependents of faculty/staff 11

 Student athletes 8

 State employees or dependents 8

 Other types 17

SOURCE: Lenth, C. The Tuition Dilemma- State Policies and Practices in Pricing Public Higher Education. State Higher

Education Executive Officers. (Denver, CO: 1993).

Another way in which public and private institutions differ is their dependence on tuition. 

Public 4-year institutions are generally less dependent on tuition as a source of revenue than

private 4-year institutions. As discussed above, undergraduates attending public 4-year colleges

and universities were less likely to receive institutional aid than undergraduates in private 4-year

institutions (table 2). Thirty-seven percent of the undergraduates in private 4-year colleges and

universities received institutional aid compared to 14 percent of those in public 4-year institutions.

 The dollar amount of awards received also varied by school type and control. The average

institutional aid award to students in public 4-year institutions was $1,755, compared to $4,658 in

private 4-year institutions (table 4). Both the share of the undergraduate student body receiving

institutional aid and the amount of the awards is larger in private 4-year institutions than in public

4-year institutions.
13

Table 4--Average institutional aid awarded to all undergraduate recipients according to type and control of

institution, by attendance patterns: 1992-93

Public Private, not-for-profit

Less-than- Less-than- Private, All

4-year 4-year 4-year 4-year for-profit institutions

 Total $843 $1,755 $1,107 $4,658 $1,605 $2,832

Attendance intensity-fall 1992

 Full-time 983 1,871 1,304 4,969 1,671 3,271

 Part-time 835 1,054 1,065 2,920 699 1,410

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Institutions by Carnegie Classification

The Carnegie Classification system provides a standardized method for classifying colleges

and universities with some consideration for their educational mission. A detailed listing of the

different Carnegie Codes and their meaning is provided in the glossary. To make comparisons

possible, table 5 consolidates the detailed categories into four groups of institutions: universities,

comprehensive, liberal arts, and specialized. The listing does not include any less-than-4-year

institutions. To be classified as a university, an institution must award at least ten doctoral

degrees a year. Comprehensive institutions award at least 20 master’s degrees a year. Liberal

arts colleges are primarily undergraduate programs with at least 40 percent of their programs in

liberal arts. Specialized institutions offer at least 50 percent of their degrees in one field.

The results show there was no significant difference in the proportion of undergraduates

receiving institutional aid in the different types of institutions, but there was a difference in the

average amount of institutional aid awarded to recipients. Undergraduates attending public

research and doctoral granting institutions received larger awards than undergraduates attending

public comprehensive and specialized institutions. Full-time undergraduates attending private

research and doctoral granting institutions received larger awards than those attending institutions

in all other Carnegie Code categories (table 5). Research and doctoral institutions in both sectors

provide their undergraduates with larger institutional aid amounts than other types of institutions.

 Overall, undergraduates attending private institutions received an average award 2.6 times larger

than undergraduates attending public institutions.
14

Table 5--Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid and average award amount

per recipient according to institutional control, by Carnegie code: 1992-93

Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit, 4-year

Percent Average award Percent Average award

 Total 17.5 $1,871 47.1 $4,969

Carnegie code

 Research I and II/ Doctoral granting I and II 18.9 2,148 45.1 6,703

 Comprehensive I and II 15.2 1,573 46.5 4,189

 Liberal arts I and II 23.1 1,153 53.0 4,528

 Religious and specialized schools 18.9 1,146 45.5 3,297

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Financial Characteristics of Institutions

As noted earlier, institutional aid is a significant and growing share of the budget in private

4-year institutions. Financially weaker institutions may try to help low-income students enroll by

offering more institutional aid than they can afford. It is not possible to use student data to draw

conclusions about institutional strength. However, as far as institutional characteristics were

associated with student receipt of institutional aid, it is possible to identify some relationships that

could be useful when considering this issue.

Tuition

In 1988 the proportion of tuition revenue dedicated to institutional aid was 14 percent in

private 4-year institutions. In 1992-93, institutional aid in these institutions represented an

estimated 18 percent of tuition.21 This represents a 29 percent increase in 5 years. 

An indicator of the relationship between tuition paid by undergraduates in private 4-year

institutions and receipt of institutional aid can be seen in table 6.22 Fifty-eight percent of the

undergraduates attending institutions in the middle tuition range received institutional aid

compared to 49 percent in the higher and 33 percent in the lower tuition group. The average

award increased as tuition increased. Private 4-year institutions with tuition of $12,500 or more

provided an average institutional award of $7,368 to half the full-time undergraduates. Private

institutions in the middle tuition range appeared to provide more undergraduates with institutional

aid, but those with the highest tuition offered the largest average awards.

 

21 Davis, J. College Affordability, A Closer Look at the Crises

22 The sample divides roughly into thirds, with one-third of the private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions having

tuition below $7,500, one-third falling between $7,500 and $12,499 and the final third $12,500 or more.
15

Table 6--Percentage of full-time undergraduates in private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions who received

 institutional aid and average award per recipient, by tuition and fees: 1992-93

Percent Average award

 Total 47.1 $4,969

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,500 33.0 2,535

 $7,500-$12,499 58.0 4,146

 $12,500 or more 49.4 7,368

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Endowment

One measure of a private institution’s ability to absorb the cost of awarding institutional

aid is the amount of endowment available to the school. Endowment dollars provide a source of

aid funds outside of tuition revenues. Endowment per FTE student for private institutions

attended by students in this sample was grouped into three categories: $500 or less, $501 to

$4,500, and $4,501 or more (table 7). These endowment levels divided private 4-year institutions

into three groups of about equal size. While there was no significant difference in the proportion

of full-time undergraduates receiving institutional aid in private 4-year institutions by endowment

level, the average amount of institutional aid increased with endowment. Higher-endowment

institutions offered their undergraduates larger award amounts than lower-endowment

institutions. Lowest endowment schools offered smaller awards than schools in the middle range;

those in the top range offered larger average awards than institutions in the middle.

These results suggest that smaller endowments in tuition-dependent private 4-year

institutions did not stop them from making institutional aid awards but may have constrained the

average size of an award.

Table 7--Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid in private, not-for-profit,

4-year institutions and average award per recipient by institutional endowment per full-time

equivalent student enrollment: 1992-93

Percent Average award

 Total 47.1 $4,969

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 50.2 2,904

 $501-$4,500 47.4 4,197

 $4,501 or more 50.9 5,773

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
16

It is not possible to conclude from the results shown in table 7 that the award of

institutional aid threatened the financial well being of any set of institutions. However, wealthier

institutions, as identified by this indicator, provided larger average institutional aid awards than

those institutions with more limited financial resources.

Student Characteristics

Student Income

Most federal and state student financial aid is awarded based on need. This policy

represents the public interest in equalizing opportunity to attend a postsecondary institution. 

Because an institution has discretion in the award of institutional aid, it may or may not award aid

based on family income. In both public 4-year and private, not-for profit, 4-year institutions there

was a relationship between income and receipt of institutional aid. 

In this report income is discussed in terms of quartiles and ranges, which are calculated

separately based on students’ dependency status. The income quartiles then combine dependent

and independent undergraduates in one income variable. Income ranges are reported separately

according to dependency status. Dependent undergraduates’ income is based on family income. 

Independent undergraduates are ranked according to student income. Stating the differences in

terms of income ranges rather than income quartiles permits a more detailed exploration of the

relationship of income to institutional aid awards.

Review of the percent of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid by

income quartiles23 shows that undergraduates in the lowest income quartile attending public 4-

year institutions were more likely to receive institutional aid than those in higher income groups

(table 8). Undergraduates in the lowest income quartile who attended private 4-year institutions

were not significantly more or less likely to receive institutional aid than undergraduates in any

except the highest income quartile. Students in the highest income quartile at these institutions

were less likely to receive institutional aid than undergraduates in any of the lower three quartiles.

 

23 Income quartiles include all undergraduates regardless of type of institution. 
17

Table 8--Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid at 4-year institutions and

average award per recipient, according to institutional control, by income quartiles: 1992-93

Percent Average award

 Total 27.0 $3,609

Public 4-year

 Income quartiles

 0-24 23.8 1,563

 25-49 19.2 1,894

 50-74 15.3 2,248

 75-100 12.3 2,022

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year

 Income quartiles

 0-24 52.8 4,607

 25-49 59.8 5,209

 50-74 54.9 5,636

 75-100 35.0 4,616

NOTE: Income quartiles were calculated based on all undergraduates regardless of type of institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

The lowest two income ranges (under $40,000) of dependent undergraduates at public 4-

year institutions were more likely to receive institutional aid than those in the next higher two

ranges (above $40,000) (table 9). The award size for these low-income undergraduates was

smaller than for undergraduates in the higher ranges. The independent undergraduates with the

lowest incomes were more likely to receive institutional aid than independent undergraduates with

higher incomes. Both dependent and independent undergraduates in the lowest income range

attending public 4-year institutions were more likely to receive institutional aid than those with the

highest income.

The story is different for private institutions. Dependent undergraduates in the lowest

income range showed no significant difference in probability of receiving institutional aid than

those in other income ranges; although, those in the middle two ranges were more likely to

receive aid than undergraduates in the highest income range.24 Independent undergraduates with

income below $5,000 were more likely to receive institutional aid than those with income of

$20,000 and above. There was no significant difference between the lowest income independent

undergraduates and those with income between $5,000 and $19,999.

 

24 The apparent difference in the likelihood of receiving aid, between the lowest and highest income ranges of

 dependent undergraduates, was not statistically significant.
18

Table 9--Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid, and average award per

 recipient, according to institutional control, by dependency status and income level: 1992-93

Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit, 4-year

Percent Average award Percent Average award

 Total 17.5 $1,871 47.1 $4,969

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 26.6 1,525 52.6 4,809

 $20,000-$39,999 23.0 1,789 66.8 5,556

 $40,000-$69,999 15.8 2,391 56.6 5,549

 $70,000 or more 12.8 2,110 32.9 4,736

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 24.7 1,561 48.8 3,892

 $5,000-$19,999 16.2 1,378 40.9 3,565

 $20,000-$49,999 11.3 1,119 24.0 2,641

 $50,000 or more 5.5 --- 25.5 2,887

--- Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

1

 Family income

2

Student income

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Packaging of Student Financial Aid

The relationship between other forms of student financial aid and institutional aid provides

another way to describe the use of institutional aid. Recipients of Pell Grants receive this aid on

the basis of financial need. Other Title IV aid excluding Pell Grants is awarded to recipients who

lack financial resources to pay the full cost of education at an institution. Still other students may

be awarded no need-based federal or state aid. Table 10 describes the percentage of full-time

undergraduates who received institutional aid who also received other types of aid.

Eighteen percent of the undergraduate institutional aid recipients in private 4-year

institutions received institutional aid alone. About 82 percent received institutional aid in a

package that included other aid (32 percent institutional and Pell, 40 percent institutional and Title

IV, no Pell, 10 percent institutional and other, no Title IV). Undergraduates who received

institutional aid were more likely to receive it in combination with either a Pell Grant or other

Title IV aid rather than by itself.

The packaging of institutional aid in public institutions differed from that observed in

private 4-year institutions. Thirty-five percent of the undergraduates in public 4-year institutions

with institutional aid received no other aid. Another 38 percent received institutional aid as part

of a package containing a Pell Grant. The remaining 27 percent received institutional aid with

other aid, but no Pell Grant (17 percent institutional and Title IV, no Pell, 10 percent institutional
19

and other, no Title IV). Public 4-year undergraduates were nearly twice as likely to receive

institutional aid by itself as undergraduates in private 4-year institutions.

Table 10--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates and average award per recipient according to

type of aid package, by institutional control: 1992-93

Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit, 4-year

Percentage Average award Percentage Average award

 Total 17.5 $1,871 47.1 $4,969

Type of aid package

 Institutional aid only 34.8 2,402 18.2 5,938

 Institutional and Pell 37.7 1,427 31.7 4,234

 Institutional and Title IV, no Pell 17.3 1,617 40.0 5,101

 Institutional and other, no Title IV 10.3 2,124 10.1 5,007

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

The differences between the two sectors in the packaging of institutional aid with other aid

reflect the dissimilarities in their use of student financial aid and their cost of attendance. The

differences in the receipt of institutional aid between undergraduates in public 4-year and private

4-year institutions are discussed in the table compendium. More detailed information about

packaging of institutional aid with other aid is provided in tables 18, 19, 21 and 22.

Grade Point Average

Earlier it was suggested that institutional aid may be used by institutions to attract and

retain outstanding undergraduates. College and university grade point average (GPA) is the only

academic achievement measure reported in this study. In public 4-year institutions,

undergraduates with a 3.50 or higher grade point average were more likely to receive institutional

aid than those in the lower GPA ranges (table 11). Thirty-two percent of the higher GPA

undergraduates received institutional aid compared to 16 percent of the middle GPA

undergraduates. In private 4-year institutions there was also a significant difference in the

probability of receiving institutional aid between undergraduates with the highest grade point

averages and those with 2.00 to 3.49 GPAs. Full-time undergraduates with a GPA of 3.50 or

higher, who attended either public or private institutions, were more likely to receive institutional

aid than undergraduates with a GPA between 2.00 and 3.49.
20

Table 11--Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid and average award per

 recipient according to institutional control, by cumulative grade point average: 1992-93

Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit

Percent Average award Percent Average award

 Total 17.5 $1,871 47.1 $4,969

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 13.0 2,108 45.6 4,606

 2.00-3.49 16.2 1,824 47.0 4,749

 3.50 or higher 31.6 1,976 56.3 5,335

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Traditional Undergraduates

Several other student characteristics, in addition to income and grade point average, were

associated with the receipt of institutional aid. One-third of undergraduates could be classified as

“traditional” in 1993.25 This means that in addition to being enrolled full-time in a 4-year college

or university, they had the following attributes:

• under 24 years old;

• dependent on their parents for support;

• single; and

• living on campus.

The undergraduate population with these attributes represented a minority of the enrolled

postsecondary population, but the results reported in the following sections suggest that in most

cases, undergraduates with each of these attributes had a higher probability of receiving

institutional aid than undergraduates without them.

The probability of receiving institutional aid varied by age. In both public and private 4-

year institutions, full-time undergraduates who were 23 years or younger were more likely to

receive institutional aid than undergraduates in the next two higher age groups (table 12). In

private 4-year institutions, full-time undergraduates 23 years or younger were more likely to

receive institutional aid than all older age groups; 50 percent of the full-time undergraduates 23

years or younger, compared to 34 percent of undergraduates between 24 and 31 years old, 32

percent of those aged 32 to 39, and 29 percent of those aged 40 or older. In public 4-year

institutions, 18 percent of those under 24 received institutional aid compared to 15 percent of

those between 24 and 31 years old and 11 percent of those aged 40 and older.

In private 4-year institutions, full-time dependent undergraduates were more likely to

receive aid than independent undergraduates, 50 percent compared to 37 percent. The proportion

 

25 Horn, L. and Preno, M. National Center for Education Statistics. Profile of Undergraduates in U.S.

Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1992-93. U.S. Department of Education. (Washington, D.C. : 1995).
21

receiving institutional aid was not significantly different when comparing these two groups of

undergraduates in public 4-year institutions. Eighteen percent of the dependent and 17 percent of

the independent full-time undergraduates received institutional aid.

The results also reveal that married undergraduates in private 4-year institutions were less

likely to receive institutional aid than undergraduates who were single. Fifty percent of the

unmarried undergraduates in private 4-year institutions received institutional aid compared to 35

percent of those who were married. Marital status did not make a significant difference in public

4-year institutions: 18 percent of married undergraduates and 16 percent of the unmarried

undergraduates received institutional aid.

The last characteristic that describes traditional undergraduates is that they lived on

campus. In both sectors, undergraduates living on campus were more likely to receive

institutional aid than those living off campus or with relatives.

Table 12--Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid according to institutional

control, by selected student characteristics: 1992-93

Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit, 4-year

 Total 17.5 47.1

Dependency status

 Dependent 17.7 49.9

 Independent 16.8 37.3

Marital Status

 Not married 15.9 49.5

 Married 17.9 35.4

 Separated 11.9 23.7

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 18.2 50.1

 24-31 14.6 34.0

 32-39 15.0 32.0

 40 or more 11.4 29.0

Local residence

 On campus 24.3 57.3

 Off campus 15.8 38.4

 With parents or other relative 13.0 36.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

The comparisons in table 12 show that the characteristics defining a traditional, 4-year,

full-time undergraduate tended to be associated with a higher probability of receiving institutional

aid than those who did not possess each of the characteristics. Living on campus and being

younger were associated with higher probability of receiving institutional aid in both public and
22

private 4-year institutions. The difference in probability of receiving institutional aid extended to

marital status and dependency in private but not public institutions.

Race/Ethnicity of Undergraduates and Institutional Aid

If institutional aid was being used to help enroll more underrepresented minorities such as

black, non-Hispanic or Hispanic undergraduates, such students would be more likely to have

received institutional aid than white, non-Hispanic undergraduates. This was observed in public

4-year colleges and universities, but not in private 4-year institutions (table 13). Sixteen percent

of the white26 undergraduates in public 4-year colleges and universities received institutional aid

compared to 24 percent of the black and 27 percent of the Hispanic undergraduates, although

only the difference between white and black undergraduates was significant. In private 4-year

institutions, 50 percent of the white undergraduates received institutional aid compared to 37

percent of Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduates. The proportion receiving institutional aid was

not significantly different between white undergraduates and either black or Hispanic

undergraduates in private 4-year institutions.27

Table 13--Percentage of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid according to institutional

control, by race/ethnicity: 1992-93

Public 4-year Private, not-for-profit, 4-year

 Total 17.5 47.1

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 16.1 50.5

 Black, non-Hispanic 23.9 39.3

 Hispanic 27.3 30.0

 Asian/Pacific Islander 15.3 37.3

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 27.1 36.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Award by Academic Year

As noted earlier, there is a possibility that colleges and universities offer institutional aid to

attract undergraduates but withdraw the aid in subsequent years. No significant difference was

found in the receipt of institutional aid between undergraduates in their first year compared to

those in subsequent academic years in private or public 4-year institutions (tables 17, 20). The

multivariate analysis reported later suggests that first-year undergraduates in private institutions

may be more likely to have received institutional aid than undergraduates in later academic years. 

The evidence that institutions systematically offered undergraduates institutional aid packages in

their first year of attendance and then deny them aid in later years is mixed.

 

26 The terms “white” and “black” are used to refer to white, non-Hispanic and black, non-Hispanic students.

27 Some of the apparent differences in the tables are not statistically significant.
23

Analysis of Institutional Aid after Controlling for Background Variation

The results reported in the descriptive tables suggest that some attributes of full-time

undergraduates were associated with a higher probability of receiving institutional aid in both

public and private 4-year institutions. Those attributes include being under 24 years of age, living

on campus, and having a grade point average of 3.50 or higher. Other undergraduate

characteristics were associated with receiving institutional aid in one of the sectors:

• Undergraduates in public 4-year colleges and universities from the lowest income quartile

were more likely to receive institutional aid than those in other income quartiles. Among

students at private 4-year institutions, undergraduates in the lowest income quartile were

significantly more likely to receive institutional aid than those in the highest quartile (table

8).

In private 4-year institutions, dependent undergraduates were more likely to receive institutional

aid than independent undergraduates. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of

receiving institutional aid in public 4-year institutions by dependency status (table 9).

• Unmarried undergraduates attending private 4-year institutions were more likely to receive

institutional aid than those who were married. This was not the case in public 4-year

institutions where unmarried undergraduates were not significantly more or less likely than

married ones to receive institutional aid (table 12).

• In public institutions, black, non-Hispanic undergraduates were more likely to receive

institutional aid than white, non-Hispanic undergraduates (table 13). These groups of

undergraduates were not significantly different in this respect in private 4-year institutions.

The cross tabulations show the simple relationships between pairs of variables, but do not

control for associations between several variables simultaneously. Multivariate analysis, as

discussed previously, permits estimation of the same relationships controlling for the effects of

other variables. In these analyses, adjusted percentages of students who received institutional aid

are estimated using the results of a linear regression model, which is discussed in detail in

appendix B.

The linear regression model was applied separately to full-time undergraduates who

attended public and private 4-year institutions. Table 14 displays the adjusted percentages for

full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid at public 4-year institutions. Table 15

shows the adjusted percentages of full-time undergraduates who received institutional aid at

private 4-year institutions.

The linear regression results are consistent with some findings reported in the cross

tabulations, but change the interpretation of other relationships. Differences between the cross

tabulation and linear regression findings arise because linear regression controls for

interrelationships among variables. Several characteristics associated with being a “traditional”

undergraduate – age, dependency status, living on campus, and marital status – were related to

the probability of receiving institutional aid in the tables shown above for at least one sector. 
24

After adjusting for background variation, being under 24 years of age was associated with a

greater likelihood of receiving institutional aid in both public and private 4-year institutions

compared to two of three older age groups. After adjusting the means, undergraduates at both

public and private institutions who lived on campus were also more likely to have received

institutional aid than were those who lived off campus or with relatives. However, marital status

no longer was associated with the likelihood of receiving institutional aid for undergraduates in

private 4-year institutions, nor was being a dependent undergraduate.

The finding from the cross tabulations that white, non-Hispanic undergraduates in private

4-year institutions did not receive institutional aid at a rate significantly different from blacks and

Hispanics (table 13) also differed after controlling for interrelationships among variables. The

adjusted means suggest that blacks at these institutions were less likely to receive aid than whites.

 Consistent with the earlier finding, Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduates were also less likely

than white students to receive institutional aid at private institutions.

In public 4-year institutions, the adjusted percentages confirm that black, non-Hispanic

undergraduates were more likely to receive institutional aid than white non-Hispanics. The

multivariate model also found that Hispanic and American Indian/Alaskan Native undergraduates

were more likely than white, non-Hispanic undergraduates to receive institutional aid in public 4-

year institutions.

Another change from the cross tabulations was the finding that undergraduates in the

second income quartile in private 4-year institutions were more likely to receive institutional aid

than the lowest income quartile undergraduates (table 8). Also, undergraduates in the third

income quartile were less likely to receive institutional aid than those in the lowest quartile. The

adjusted means confirm that being in the lowest income group in public 4-year institutions was

associated with a greater likelihood of receiving institutional aid compared with all three of the

higher quartile income groups.

In the cross tabulations, there was no significant difference in the probability of receiving

institutional aid between first year undergraduates and those in later years (table 17, table 20). 

After adjusting the means, first year undergraduates in private institutions were more likely to

receive institutional aid than second, third and fourth year undergraduates at those institutions. 

The adjusted means for public institutions indicate that fourth year undergraduates were more

likely to receive institutional aid than first year undergraduates.

Finally, those full-time undergraduates having a GPA of 3.50 or higher were more likely to

have received institutional aid than undergraduates with GPAs below 2.00. This result was also

consistent with the earlier results.
25

Table 14--Percentage of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions who received institutional aid,

 and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the

 table: 1992-931

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage2percentage3coefficient4error

5

 Total 17.5 17.5 0.094 0.000

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 18.2 18.4 + +

 24-31 14.6 * 13.0 * -0.054 0.015

 32-39 15.0 14.0 -0.044 0.025

 40 or more 11.4 * 11.0 * -0.074 0.031

Dependency status

 Dependent 17.7 17.7 + +

 Independent 16.8 16.8 -0.009 0.016

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 15.4 15.9 + +

 $501-$4,500 19.2 * 19.4 0.035 0.023

 $4,501 or more 18.8 18.8 0.029 0.047

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 6.0 8.3 + +

 1,000-2,499 30.7 29.3 0.211 0.189

 2,500-4,999 19.1 * 19.2 0.109 0.268

 5,000-7,499 19.9 * 19.3 0.110 0.265

 7,500-9,999 14.7 15.9 0.076 0.305

 10,000 or more 16.8 * 16.8 0.085 0.293

Gender

 Male 16.9 17.4 + +

 Female 18.1 17.5 0.001 0.005

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 13.0 14.1 + +

 2.00-3.49 16.2 15.7 0.016 0.009

 3.50 or higher 31.6 * 31.3 * 0.172 0.011

Local residence

 On campus 24.3 23.8 + +

 Off campus 15.8 * 16.4 * -0.074 0.009

 With parents or other relative 13.0 * 12.3 * -0.114 0.016

Income quartiles

 0-24 23.8 23.8 + +

 25-49 19.2 19.6 * -0.042 0.007

 50-74 15.3 * 14.9 * -0.089 0.007

 75-100 12.3 * 10.7 * -0.131 0.012

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 16.1 16.4 + +

 Black, non-Hispanic 23.9 * 22.6 * 0.063 0.027

 Hispanic 27.3 27.0 * 0.106 0.030

 Asian/Pacific Islander 15.3 15.5 -0.009 0.018

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 27.1 27.5 * 0.111 0.043
26

Table 14--Percentage of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions who received institutional aid,

 and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed in the

 table: 1992-931--Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage2percentage3coefficient4error

5

Marital status

 Not married 17.9 17.3 + +

 Married 15.9 19.2 0.019 0.012

 Separated 11.9 11.2 -0.062 0.055

Tuition and fees

 Less than $1,000 11.8 11.9 + +

 $1,000-$1,999 16.2 16.6 * 0.047 0.024

 $2,000-$7,499 18.8 * 18.5 * 0.066 0.026

 $7,500-$12,499 21.0 * 19.6 * 0.078 0.033

 $12,500 or more 24.6 * 25.1 0.133 0.096

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 18.5 16.9 + +

 2nd year-sophomore 16.4 15.9 -0.010 0.007

 3rd year-junior 17.5 17.9 0.010 0.007

 4th year or more-senior 17.4 18.7 * 0.018 0.009

*p<=.05

+Not applicable to reference group.

1 The first group in each category is the reference group for comparison.

2

 Estimates from NPSAS: 93 Data Analysis System.

3

 Percentages adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B for details)

4

 Weighted least squares (WLS) coefficient (see appendix B for details).

5

 Standard error of WLS coefficient, adjusted for design effect (see appendix B for details).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
27

Table 15--Percentage of full-time undergraduates at private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions that received

 institutional aid, and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the

 variables listed in the table: 1992-931

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage

2

percentage3coefficient4error

5

 Total 47.1 47.1 0.572 0.000

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 50.1 48.9 + +

 24-31 34.0 * 37.5 * -0.114 0.035

 32-39 32.0 * 39.7 * -0.092 0.041

 40 or more 29.0 * 39.9 -0.090 0.048

Dependency status

 Dependent 49.9 47.7 + +

 Independent 37.3 * 45.1 -0.025 0.041

Endowment per full-time enrollment categories

 $500 or less 50.2 45.9 + +

 $501-$4,500 47.4 46.6 0.007 0.067

 $4,500 or more 50.9 47.5 0.016 0.070

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 44.7 50.3 + +

 1,000-2,499 54.1 52.3 0.020 0.065

 2,500-4,999 50.5 48.6 -0.017 0.059

 5,000-7,499 38.0 40.4 -0.099 0.059

 7,500-9,999 43.7 43.7 -0.066 0.069

 10,000 or more 39.6 40.0 -0.103 0.062

Gender

 Male 46.5 46.7 + +

 Female 47.6 47.4 0.007 0.010

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 45.6 44.6 + +

 2.00-3.49 47.0 45.1 0.005 0.018

 3.50 or higher 56.3 55.1 * 0.105 0.021

Local residence

 On campus 57.3 54.2 + +

 Off campus 38.4 * 43.8 * -0.103 0.017

 With parents or other relative 36.0 * 34.3 * -0.198 0.029

Income quartiles

 0-24 52.8 56.0 + +

 25-49 59.8 59.3 * 0.033 0.013

 50-74 54.9 42.7 * -0.033 0.016

 75-100 35.0 * 29.3 * -0.267 0.024

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 50.5 49.9 + +

 Black, non-Hispanic 39.3 39.4 * -0.105 0.048

 Hispanic 30.0 36.2 -0.137 0.100

 Asian/Pacific Islander 37.3 * 39.5 * -0.104 0.025

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 36.1 45.8 -0.041 0.088
28

Table 15--Percentage of full-time undergraduates at private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions that received

 institutional aid, and the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the

 variables listed in the table: 1992-931--Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage2percentage3coefficient4error

5

Marital status

 Not married 49.5 46.9 + +

 Married 35.4 * 50.3 0.034 0.027

 Separated 23.7 * 35.8 -0.111 0.079

Tuition and fees (amount for terms attended)

 Less than $7,500 33.0 34.4 + +

 $7,500-$12,499 58.0 * 56.4 * 0.219 0.035

 $12,500 or more 49.4 * 49.5 * 0.151 0.052

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 52.1 49.8 + +

 2nd year-sophomore 48.9 46.7 * -0.031 0.013

 3rd year-junior 45.1 45.5 * -0.043 0.013

 4th year or more-senior 42.6 * 46.0 * -0.037 0.011

*p<=.05

+Not applicable to reference group.

1

 The first group in each category is the reference group for comparison.

2

 Estimates from NPSAS: 93 Data Analysis System.

3

 Percentages adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B for details)

4

 Weighted least squares (WLS) coefficient (see appendix B for details).

5

 Standard error of WLS coefficient, adjusted for design effect (see appendix B for details).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
29

Summary and Conclusions

Institutional aid is a significant source of aid for postsecondary undergraduates. Twelve

percent of all undergraduates received institutional aid in 1992-93. Institutional aid, most of

which was in the form of grants, has increased faster than grants provided by the federal

government or the states over the last decade. Most of this growth has taken place in 4-year

institutions. Within each sector, undergraduates attending 4-year colleges and universities were

more likely to receive institutional aid than those attending other institutions.

 This study has shown that undergraduates with certain characteristics were more likely to

receive institutional aid than others. Institutional aid was especially prevalent in private 4-year

institutions. The average institutional aid award amount varied among types of undergraduates. 

Forty-seven percent of the full-time undergraduates attending private 4-year institutions received

institutional aid, with an average award size of $4,969. The average award for full-time

undergraduates in this sector was over 2.6 times larger, on average, than that received by those in

public 4-year institutions. Undergraduates in private 4-year institutions received an average

award of $4,658, while recipients in public 4-year institutions received $1,755.

Institutional Aid Associated with Undergraduate Characteristics

A traditional undergraduate is defined as one who attended school full-time, was

unmarried, dependent, less than 24 years of age, attended a 4-year institution and lived on

campus. Undergraduates with each of these characteristics were more likely to receive

institutional aid than those without them in at least one sector. For example, 20 percent of fulltime undergraduates received institutional aid compared to 5 percent of those attending school

part-time. Fifty percent of the full-time undergraduates under age 24 in private 4-year institutions

received institutional aid compared to 34 percent of those between 24 and 31 years old. In public

4-year institutions, 18 percent of those under 24 received institutional aid compared to 15 percent

of those between 24 and 31 years old. Those full-time undergraduates who lived on campus were

more likely to receive institutional aid than those living off campus. Among full-time

undergraduates at private 4-year institutions, unmarried students were more likely to receive

institutional aid than married students, and dependent students were more likely to do so than

independent students.

There was also a relationship between the receipt of institutional aid and GPA of

undergraduates in 4-year institutions. Undergraduates with a grade point average of 3.50 or

higher were more likely to receive institutional aid than those with lower grade point averages. 

Grade point average was the only measure of achievement available. It is not possible to identify

whether other types of student accomplishment were related to the award of institutional aid.

In private 4-year institutions, undergraduates from the highest income quartile were less

likely to receive institutional aid than those in the lower three quartiles. In public 4-year

institutions, undergraduates from the lowest income quartile were more likely to receive

institutional aid than those in the three higher quartile income groups.
30

Race/ethnicity played a role in the awarding of institutional aid. Black undergraduates

were more likely to receive institutional aid than white undergraduates in public 4-year

institutions. Four-year institutions may have awarded institutional aid, in part, to help achieve an

ethnically diverse distribution of undergraduates. Alternatively, this could be explained by the fact

that black undergraduates were more likely to be low income than white undergraduates.28

 A look at the packaging of institutional aid with other student financial aid provided

further evidence of the type of undergraduate who received institutional aid. In public 4-year

institutions, 35 percent of the undergraduates awarded institutional aid received no other aid. 

Thirty-eight percent of them received institutional aid in a package with a Pell Grant. However,

18 percent of the undergraduates who received institutional aid in private 4-year institutions

received only this type of aid, and 32 percent received it with a Pell Grant. Another 40 percent

received it with Title IV aid but no Pell Grant.

Institutional Aid and Institutional Characteristics

As noted above, students at 4-year institutions were more likely to have received

institutional aid than students at other types of institutions. Also, students at private institutions

were more likely to have received this type of aid than were students at public institutions.

In addition, the results identify endowment and tuition as institutional revenue

characteristics that were associated with the award of institutional aid. The data suggest that the

proportion of undergraduates who received institutional aid while attending private 4-year

colleges and universities with higher levels of endowment was similar to those attending

institutions with lower levels. However, undergraduates attending institutions with higher

endowment received larger average institutional awards than those attending institutions with

lower endowment.

Another possible indicator of institutional resources among private 4-year institutions was

the average tuition charged. Undergraduates attending private colleges and universities with

tuition at or above $12,500 were less likely to receive institutional aid than those attending

institutions with tuition between $7,500 and $12,499 but more likely to receive larger average

awards.

In sum, both characteristics of students and the institutions they attended were associated

with the likelihood of having received institutional aid and with the size of the institutional aid

awards among those undergraduates who received them. The table compendium, which follows

the summary and conclusions section, summarizes the results already discussed here. It also

provides a more detailed exploration of the possible relationships between student and

institutional characteristics and the receipt and size of institutional aid awards.

 

28 Horn, L. and Preno, M. National Center for Education Statistics. Profile of Undergraduates in U.S.

Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1992-93. U.S. Department of Education. (Washington, D.C. : 1995).

p. 86.
31

Table Compendium

Tables 16-22 provide more detailed information about the award of institutional aid than

those in the main body of the report. Besides providing more detail, these tables may suggest

other issues that might be investigated further. The following bullets emphasize results found in

the tables in this section as well as results already discussed in the above essay.

All Undergraduates29 (table 16)

• Twelve percent of all undergraduates received institutional aid.

• The average institutional aid award was $2,832.

• Full-time undergraduates were four times as likely to receive institutional aid as part-time

undergraduates (20 percent compared to 5 percent).

• The average institutional aid award was $3,271 for full-time undergraduate recipients and

$1,410 for part-time recipients.

• Dependent undergraduates were more likely to receive institutional aid than independent

undergraduates and the average amount received was larger.

• Undergraduates who were not married were more likely to receive institutional aid than

married or separated undergraduates. Those who were not married receive a larger

average institutional aid award than undergraduates who were married or separated.

• Those undergraduates who were under 24 were more likely to receive institutional aid

than those who were older.

• Undergraduates who lived on campus were more likely to receive institutional aid than

those who lived off campus or with their parents.

Full-Time Undergraduates in Private, Not-for-Profit, 4-Year Institutions

Institutional Characteristics

• Undergraduates attending institutions with high levels of endowment (at least $4,501 per

student) were not significantly more likely to receive institutional aid than those attending

institutions with low levels of endowment (under $500 per student) (table 17).

 

29 Table 16 includes part-time undergraduates and students enrolled in less-than-4-yeaar institutions.
32

• Institutions with tuition between $7,500 and $12,499 provided institutional aid to a

higher proportion of undergraduates than institutions with tuition above $12,500 or

below $7,500.

• Undergraduates attending institutions with enrollment below 1,000 received less

institutional aid than undergraduates in institutions with enrollments of 5,000 or more

($3,454 compared to $5,517, $6,518, and $6,454) (table 18).

• Undergraduates attending Research I universities received the largest average

institutional aid award compared to other types of institutions with the exception of

Research II, Doctoral Granting II, and Liberal Arts I ($7,826 compared to $5,096,

$4,282, $3,811, $3,076, $1,621, and $3,852).

• Those undergraduates who received institutional aid with no other aid received a larger

amount than those who received institutional aid with a Pell Grant ($5,938 compared to

$4,234).

•

Student Characteristics

• Undergraduates who were resident on campus were more likely to receive institutional

aid than those who lived off-campus (57 percent compared to 38 percent and 36

percent). (table 17)

• Undergraduates residing on campus received a larger average institutional aid award than

those living off campus or with relatives ($5,620 compared to $4,185 and $3,768).

(table 18)

• Dependent undergraduates were more likely to receive institutional aid than independent

undergraduates (50 percent compared to 37 percent). Consistent with this is the fact that

unmarried undergraduates were more likely to receive institutional aid than those who

were married or separated (50 percent compared to 35 and 24 percent). (table 17)

• Dependent undergraduates received larger awards than independent undergraduates

($5,288 compared to $3,473). (table 18)

•

• Not married undergraduates received larger awards than those who were married ($5,079

compared to $2,874).

• Undergraduates less than 24 years old received larger institutional aid amounts than older

undergraduates ($5,212 compared to $3,361, $3,090 and $2,724).

• White, non-Hispanic undergraduates were more likely to receive institutional aid than

Asian/Pacific Islanders (51 percent compared to 37 percent). (table 17)
33

• Asian/Pacific Islanders received larger average institutional aid awards than white, nonHispanics and black, non-Hispanics ($6,774 compared to $4,885 and $4,531). 

• (table 18)

• There is no significant difference in the percent of undergraduates receiving institutional

aid among first, second, third and fourth year undergraduates (52, 49, 45 and 43

percent). (table 17) The adjusted means suggest that first year undergraduates were

more likely to receive institutional aid than those in later years. (table 16)

• Undergraduates with grade point averages of 3.50 or higher were more likely to receive

aid than those with a 2.00-3.49 GPA. (table 17)

Full-Time Undergraduates in Public 4-Year Institutions

Institutional Characteristics

• Eighteen percent of the undergraduates received institutional aid (table 20).

• Undergraduates attending institutions with tuition below $7,500 were less likely to

receive institutional aid than those attending institutions with tuition of $12,500 or more

(17 percent compared to 25 percent).

• Undergraduates attending institutions with tuition of at least $12,500 received an average

institutional aid award of $4,937 that was higher than the average institutional aid awards

for those attending institutions with tuition less than $12,500 ($1,763 and $3,207). (table

21)

Student Characteristics

• Institutions were more likely to provide institutional aid to dependent undergraduates

with income below $20,000 (27 percent) compared to those with income over $40,000

(16 and 13 percent). (table 20)

• Undergraduates with a 3.50 or higher grade point average (GPA) were more likely to

receive institutional aid than those with lower GPA (32 percent compared to 16 and 13

percent).

• White, non-Hispanic undergraduates were less likely than black, non-Hispanics to receive

institutional aid (16 percent compared to 24 percent).

• Undergraduates living on campus were more likely to receive institutional aid (24

percent) than those living off campus (16 and 13 percent).
34

• Thirty-five percent of the institutional aid recipients received institutional aid by itself and

another 38 percent received institutional aid in a package with a Pell Grant. These two

packages accounted for 73 percent of the institutional aid recipients in public 4-year

colleges and universities. (table 22)

• Undergraduates under 24 years old received a larger average institutional aid award

($1,962) than undergraduates ages 24 to 31 ($1,424). (table 21)

• Dependent undergraduates received larger awards than independent undergraduates

($2,011 compared to $1,411).

• Undergraduates who were not married received a larger award than those who were

married ($1,888 compared to $1,163).

• Undergraduates living on campus received a larger average award than those living off

campus ($2,285 compared to $1,744, and $1,262).
35

Table 16--Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to receipt of institutional aid and average

award per recipient, by selected student characteristics: 1992-93

No institutional Received

aid institutional aid Average award

 Total 87.9 12.1 $2,832

Gender

 Male 87.6 12.4 3,052

 Female 88.1 11.9 2,664

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 87.9 12.1 2,826

 Black, non-Hispanic 87.8 12.2 2,576

 Hispanic 89.9 10.1 2,283

 Asian/Pacific Islander 89.5 10.5 4,074

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 87.1 12.9 2,007

Dependency status

 Dependent 82.9 17.1 3,441

 Independent 92.4 7.6 1,569

Marital status

 Not married 85.7 14.3 3,042

 Married 94.1 5.9 1,334

 Separated 91.2 8.8 1,127

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 89.7 10.3 1,616

 $501-$4,500 79.2 20.8 2,811

 $4,501 or more 62.0 38.0 5,220

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,499 91.1 8.9 1,534

 $7,500-$12,499 58.9 41.1 4,029

 $12,500 or more 52.8 47.2 7,228

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 83.9 16.1 3,224

 24-31 93.0 7.0 1,561

 32-39 93.8 6.2 1,323

 40 or more 94.6 5.4 1,140

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 91.8 8.2 2,316

 2.00-3.49 86.6 13.4 2,830

 3.50 or higher 85.7 14.3 2,945

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 89.8 10.2 2,258

 1,000-2,499 78.2 21.8 3,630

 2,500-4,999 85.2 14.8 2,739

 5,000-7,499 87.7 12.3 3,212

 7,500-9,999 90.8 9.2 3,000

 10,000 or more 89.6 10.4 2,443
36

Table 16--Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to receipt of institutional aid and average

award per recipient, by selected student characteristics: 1992-93--Continued

No institutional Received

aid institutional aid Average award

Local residence

 On campus 65.2 34.8 4,268

 Off campus 90.8 9.2 2,030

 With parents or other relative 92.0 8.0 1,913

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 80.2 19.8 2,714

 $20,000-$39,999 80.2 19.8 3,362

 $40,000-$69,999 83.6 16.4 3,907

 $70,000 or more 84.5 15.5 3,492

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 84.2 15.8 1,997

 $5,000-$19,999 90.6 9.4 1,624

 $20,000-$49,999 95.0 5.0 1,148

 $50,000 or more 96.6 3.4 1,353

Income quartiles

 0-24 83.7 16.3 2,418

 25-49 87.2 12.8 2,891

 50-74 89.7 10.3 3,174

 75-100 90.4 9.6 3,096

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 91.0 9.0 2,654

 2nd year-sophomore 87.6 12.4 2,805

 3rd year-junior 81.7 18.3 3,281

 4th year or more-senior 84.7 15.3 2,781

Carnegie code

 Research I 78.5 21.5 3,646

 Research II 80.3 19.7 3,728

 Doctoral granting I 78.9 21.1 3,473

 Doctoral granting II 83.2 16.8 3,868

 Comprehensive I 84.2 15.8 2,541

 Comprehensive II 68.2 31.8 3,120

 Liberal arts I 51.8 48.2 6,399

 Liberal arts II 70.0 30.0 2,492

 Religious 60.5 39.5 1,552

 Specialized schools 94.6 5.4 1,072

Attendance status-fall 1992

 Full-time 79.6 20.4 3,271

 Part-time 95.0 5.0 1,410

Institutional level and control

 Public, less-than-2-year 99.1 0.9 742

 Public, 2-year 95.3 4.7 844

 Public, 4-year, non-doctoral granting 89.1 10.9 1,348

 Public, 4-year, doctoral granting 84.4 15.6 1,964

 Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 82.3 17.7 1,107

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctoral granting 65.5 34.5 3,942

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctoral granting 60.4 39.6 5,551

 Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 95.6 4.4 1,520

 Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 95.7 4.3 1,728

1

 Family income

2

 Student income

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
37

Table 17--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

according to receipt of institutional aid, by selected student and institutional characteristics:

1992-93

No institutional Received institutional

aid aid

 Total 52.9 47.1

Gender

 Male 53.5 46.5

 Female 52.4 47.6

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 49.5 50.5

 Black, non-Hispanic 60.7 39.3

 Hispanic 70.0 30.0

 Asian/Pacific Islander 62.7 37.3

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 64.0 36.0

Dependency status

 Dependent 50.1 49.9

 Independent 62.7 37.3

Marital status

 Not married 50.5 49.5

 Married 64.6 35.4

 Separated 76.3 23.7

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 49.8 50.2

 $501-$4,500 52.6 47.4

 $4,501 or more 49.1 50.9

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,499 67.0 33.0

 $7,500-$12,499 42.0 58.0

 $12,500 or more 50.6 49.4

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 49.9 50.1

 24-31 66.0 34.0

 32-39 68.0 32.0

 40 or more 71.0 29.0

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 54.4 45.6

 2.00-3.49 53.0 47.0

 3.50 or higher 43.7 56.3
38

Table 17--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

according to receipt of institutional aid, by selected student and institutional characteristics:

1992-93--Continued

No institutional Received institutional

aid aid

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 55.3 44.7

 1,000-2,499 45.9 54.1

 2,500-4,999 49.5 50.5

 5,000-7,499 62.0 38.0

 7,500-9,999 56.3 43.7

 10,000 or more 60.4 39.6

Local residence

 On campus 42.7 57.3

 Off campus 61.6 38.4

 With parents or other relative 64.0 36.0

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 47.4 52.6

 $20,000-$39,999 33.2 66.8

 $40,000-$69,999 43.4 56.6

 $70,000 or more 67.1 32.9

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 51.2 48.8

 $5,000-$19,999 59.1 40.9

 $20,000-$49,999 76.0 24.0

 $50,000 or more 74.5 25.5

Income quartiles

 0-24 47.2 52.8

 25-49 40.2 59.8

 50-74 45.1 54.9

 75-100 65.0 35.0

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 47.9 52.1

 2nd year-sophomore 51.1 48.9

 3rd year-junior 54.9 45.1

 4th year or more-senior 57.4 42.6
39

Table 17--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

according to receipt of institutional aid, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-

93--Continued

No institutional Received institutional

aid aid

Carnegie code

 Research I 52.8 47.2

 Research II 59.7 40.3

 Doctoral granting I 56.1 43.9

 Doctoral granting II 52.9 47.1

 Comprehensive I 56.4 43.6

 Comprehensive II 36.0 64.0

 Liberal arts I 44.5 55.5

 Liberal arts II 48.6 51.4

 Religious 51.9 48.1

 Specialized schools 55.2 44.8

1

 Family income

2

Student income

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
40

Table 18--Average institutional aid award to full-time undergraduates in private, not-for-profit, 4-year

institutions according to aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

Type of institutional aid package

Institutional Institutional Average

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other, institutional

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV aid award

 Total $5,938 $4,234 $5,101 $5,007 $4,969

Gender

 Male 5,976 4,397 5,251 5,342 5,146

 Female 5,878 4,111 4,966 4,714 4,812

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 5,801 4,218 4,874 5,064 4,885

 Black, non-Hispanic 6,995 3,334 5,566 --- 4,531

 Hispanic --- 4,561 6,109 --- 5,169

 Asian/Pacific Islander --- 5,945 7,845 --- 6,774

 American Indian/Alaskan Native --- --- --- --- ---

Dependency status

 Dependent 6,038 4,927 5,241 4,959 5,288

 Independent 5,030 2,820 3,927 5,431 3,473

Marital status

 Not married 6,050 4,416 5,198 5,127 5,079

 Married 3,176 2,152 3,393 --- 2,874

 Separated --- --- --- --- ---

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 3,935 2,332 2,792 --- 2,904

 $501-$4,500 5,588 3,202 4,364 4,908 4,197

 $4,501 or more 6,297 5,402 5,866 5,406 5,773

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,500 3,611 1,940 2,301 3,411 2,535

 $7,500-$12,499 5,416 3,756 3,723 4,680 4,146

 $12,500 or more 8,054 7,519 7,062 7,331 7,368

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 6,081 4,673 5,203 5,095 5,212

 24-31 5,295 2,790 3,904 --- 3,361

 32-39 --- 2,805 3,828 --- 3,090

 40 or more --- 2,222 --- --- 2,724

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 --- 4,357 4,355 --- 4,606

 2.00-3.49 6,100 4,145 4,831 4,209 4,749

 3.50 or higher 5,935 4,108 5,556 5,799 5,335

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 4,400 3,199 3,353 3,532 3,454

 1,000-2,499 5,359 4,036 4,715 4,309 4,515

 2,500-4,999 5,224 3,693 4,575 5,094 4,533

 5,000-7,499 6,400 5,070 5,378 5,759 5,517

 7,500-9,999 7,990 5,621 5,374 --- 6,518

 10,000 or more 7,482 5,637 6,404 5,641 6,454
41

Table 18--Average institutional aid award to full-time undergraduates in private, not-for-profit, 4-year

institutions according to aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

 --Continued

Type of institutional aid package

Institutional Institutional Average

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other, institutional

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV aid award

Local residence 

 On campus 6,602 5,140 5,627 5,122 5,620

 Off campus 4,942 3,292 4,550 4,626 4,185

 With parents or other relative 4,865 3,088 3,483 5,107 3,768

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 --- 4,450 4,931 --- 4,809

 $20,000-$39,999 6,437 5,201 5,758 5,784 5,556

 $40,000-$69,999 6,496 5,801 5,349 4,822 5,549

 $70,000 or more 5,356 --- 4,221 4,414 4,736

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 --- 3,116 --- --- 3,892

 $5,000-$19,999 5,045 2,820 4,871 --- 3,565

 $20,000-$49,999 --- 1,960 2,709 --- 2,641

 $50,000 or more --- --- --- --- 2,887

Income quartiles

 0-24 7,529 4,056 5,746 6,223 4,607

 25-49 6,271 4,706 5,220 5,878 5,209

 50-74 7,195 4,221 5,464 5,090 5,636

 75-100 5,201 3,397 4,416 4,133 4,616

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 5,967 4,703 5,598 5,244 5,348

 2nd year-sophomore 6,171 4,130 5,236 4,301 4,960

 3rd year-junior 6,072 4,298 4,883 5,206 4,950

 4th year or more-senior 5,587 3,761 4,600 5,059 4,548

Carnegie code

 Research I 6,856 8,343 7,982 --- 7,826

 Research II 7,436 5,770 5,662 --- 6,317

 Doctoral granting I 7,455 4,147 3,982 --- 5,096

 Doctoral granting II 8,559 6,264 6,007 --- 6,492

 Comprehensive I 5,280 3,561 3,981 5,139 4,282

 Comprehensive II 5,321 2,919 3,270 --- 3,811

 Liberal arts I 6,402 6,949 6,686 5,251 6,585

 Liberal arts II 4,027 2,743 3,017 3,708 3,076

 Religious --- --- --- --- 1,621

 Specialized schools --- 2,225 3,777 --- 3,852

--- Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

1

 Family income

2

Student income

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
42

Table 19--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates in private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

according to institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics:

1992-93

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

 Total 18.2 31.7 40.0 10.1

Gender 

 Male 19.2 29.7 41.2 10.0

 Female 17.4 33.5 39.0 10.2

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 18.8 28.1 42.2 10.9

 Black, non-Hispanic 11.2 54.6 27.5 6.7

 Hispanic 9.3 45.9 38.3 6.4

 Asian/Pacific Islander 18.6 31.0 41.0 9.4

 American Indian/ Alaskan Native --- --- --- ---

Dependency status

 Dependent 19.9 25.8 43.3 11.0

 Independent 10.3 59.4 24.4 6.0

Marital status

 Not married 16.4 32.1 42.1 9.5

 Married 13.3 43.0 32.8 11.0

 Separated --- --- --- ---

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 18.3 33.8 39.1 8.7

 $501-$4,500 16.4 36.2 37.8 9.7

 $4,501 or more 19.8 28.1 41.7 10.4

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,500 19.7 44.0 24.1 12.1

 $7,500-$12,499 17.6 32.3 38.2

11.9

 $12,500 or more 18.1 23.6 51.4 7.0

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 19.2 27.9 42.1 10.8

 24-31 9.5 62.3 23.8 4.4

 32-39 7.5 55.6 28.3 8.6

 40 or more 19.2 57.4 21.1 2.3

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 14.0 41.2 33.9 11.0

 2.00-3.49 15.6 34.2 42.9 7.4

 3.50 or higher 25.6 25.1 31.2 18.2

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 13.7 44.8 26.3 15.2

 1,000-2,499 16.1 39.3 35.6 9.0

 2,500-4,999 20.4 25.4 44.6 9.7

 5,000-7,499 16.9 27.4 42.5 13.3

 7,500-9,999 21.9 21.4 45.0 11.7

 10,000 or more 23.4 19.2 50.3 7.1
43

Table 19--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates in private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

according to institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics:

 1992-93--Continued

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

Local residence

 On campus 18.8 28.5 42.4 10.3

 Off campus 17.9 35.1 38.7 8.3

 With parents or other relative 16.4 38.4 32.3 13.0

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 5.1 79.2 13.7 2.0

 $20,000-$39,999 6.9 44.9 41.7 6.5

 $40,000-$69,999 21.7 6.1 57.6 14.6

 $70,000 or more 41.4 1.3 41.3 16.0

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 6.7 72.7 13.5 7.2

 $5,000-$19,999 10.8 61.7 23.9 3.6

 $20,000-$49,999 11.0 43.2 35.6 10.3

 $50,000 or more 24.5 6.3 64.4 4.8

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 17.1 30.3 40.7 11.9

 2nd year-sophomore 20.4 34.3 35.9 9.4

 3rd year-junior 18.0 30.1 42.9 9.0

 4th year or more-senior 18.0 32.6 39.9 9.5

Carnegie code

 Research I 16.1 21.8 54.0 8.1

 Research II 30.3 18.1 40.5 11.1

 Doctoral granting I 23.7 23.4 43.8 9.1

 Doctoral granting II 19.7 20.1 52.6 7.5

 Comprehensive I 21.6 24.6 43.0 10.8

 Comprehensive II 22.5 31.3 36.9 9.3

 Liberal arts I 17.9 30.0 43.2 9.0

 Liberal arts II 11.5 50.1 26.8 11.7

 Religious 19.4 29.4 17.6 33.6

 Specialized schools 21.4 33.3 41.9 3.5

--- Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

1

 Family income

2

 Student income

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
44

Table 20--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according

to receipt of institutional aid, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

No institutional Received

aid institutional aid

 Total 82.5 17.5

Gender 

 Male 83.1 16.9

 Female 81.9 18.1

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 83.9 16.1

 Black, non-Hispanic 76.1 23.9

 Hispanic 72.7 27.3

 Asian/Pacific Islander 84.7 15.3

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 72.9 27.1

Dependency status

 Dependent 82.3 17.7

 Independent 83.2 16.8

Marital status

 Not married 82.1 17.9

 Married 84.1 15.9

 Separated 88.1 11.9

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 84.6 15.4

 $501-$4,500 80.8 19.2

 $4,501 or more 81.2 18.8

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,500 82.6 17.4

 $7,500-$12,499 79.0 21.0

 $12,500 or more 75.4 24.6

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 81.8 18.2

 24-31 85.4 14.6

 32-39 85.0 15.0

 40 or more 88.6 11.4

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 87.0 13.0

 2.00-3.49 83.8 16.2

 3.50 or higher 68.4 31.6

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 94.0 6.0

 1,000-2,499 69.3 30.7

 2,500-4,999 80.9 19.1

 5,000-7,499 80.1 19.9

 7,500-9,999 85.3 14.7

 10,000 or more 83.2 16.8
45

Table 20--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according to

receipt of institutional aid, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

 --Continued

No institutional Received

aid institutional aid

Local residence

 On campus 75.7 24.3

 Off campus 84.2 15.8

 With parents or other relative 87.0 13.0

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 73.4 26.6

 $20,000-39,999 77.0 23.0

 $40,000-$69,999 84.2 15.8

 $70,000 or more 87.2 12.8

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 75.3 24.7

 $5,000-$19,999 83.8 16.2

 $20,000-$49,999 88.7 11.3

 $50,000 or more 94.5 5.5

Income quartiles

 0-24 76.2 23.8

 25-49 80.8 19.2

 50-74 84.7 15.3

 75-100 87.7 12.3

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 81.5 18.5

 2nd year-sophomore 83.6 16.4

 3rd year-junior 82.5 17.5

 4th year or more-senior 82.6 17.4

Carnegie code

 Research I 79.9 20.1

 Research II 81.6 18.4

 Doctoral granting I 82.7 17.3

 Doctoral granting II 83.6 16.4

 Comprehensive I 85.0 15.0

 Comprehensive II 79.4 20.6

 Liberal arts I 75.1 24.9

 Liberal arts II 77.1 22.9

 Religious --- ---

 Specialized schools 81.1 18.9

---Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

1

 Family income

2

Student income

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
46

Table 21--Average institutional aid award to full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according

to institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

Type of institutional aid package

Institutional Institutional Average

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other, institutional

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV aid award

 Total $2,402 $1,427 $1,617 $2,124 $1,871

Gender

 Male 2,702 1,483 1,663 2,083 2,032

 Female 2,091 1,382 1,578 2,155 1,729

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 2,323 1,419 1,575 2,084 1,877

 Black, non-Hispanic 3,092 1,756 1,822 --- 2,062

 Hispanic 1,787 797 --- --- 1,134

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2,915 1,649 --- --- 1,971

 American Indian/Alaskan Native --- --- --- --- 2,526

Dependency status

 Dependent12,478 1,514 1,729 2,122 2,011

 Independent21,838 1,290 1,143 2,138 1,411

Marital status

 Not married 2,471 1,466 1,654 2,050 1,888

 Married 1,447 1,070 959 --- 1,163

 Separated --- --- --- --- ---

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 2,455 1,332 1,612 2,170 1,850

 $501-$4,500 2,352 1,824 1,931 2,295 2,122

 $4,501 or more 3,291 2,123 1,338 --- 2,459

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,500 2,282 1,362 1,414 2,039 1,763

 $7,500-$12,499 4,846 2,516 2,393 --- 3,209

 $12,500 or more --- --- --- --- 4,937

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 2,467 1,475 1,692 2,118 1,962

 24-31 1,711 1,339 1,223 --- 1,424

 32-39 --- 1,099 --- --- 1,120

 40 or more --- 1,166 --- --- 941

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 3,929 1,313 --- --- 2,108

 2.00-3.49 2,338 1,393 1,742 2,109 1,824

 3.50 or higher 2,256 1,496 1,378 2,460 1,976

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 --- --- --- --- ---

 1,000-2,499 2,715 759 1,503 --- 1,170

 2,500-4,999 1,464 1,561 1,364 --- 1,479

 5,000-7,499 2,082 1,577 1,166 --- 1,636

 7,500-9,999 1,845 1,521 2,160 --- 1,787

 10,000 or more 2,573 1,490 1,668 2,311 2,027
47

Table 21--Average institutional aid award to full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according

to institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

 --Continued

Type of institutional aid package

Institutional Institutional Average

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other, institutional

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV aid award

Local residence

 On campus 2,790 1,851 1,946 2,613 2,285

 Off campus 2,399 1,315 1,400 1,804 1,744

 With parents or other relative 1,583 924 1,234 1,457 1,262

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 --- 1,381 2,108 --- 1,525

 $20,000-$39,999 2,414 1,609 1,353 2,196 1,789

 $40,000-$69,999 2,757 2,007 1,854 2,132 2,391

 $70,000 or more 2,146 --- 1,888 2,133 2,110

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 2,233 1,431 --- --- 1,561

 $5,000-$19,999 1,772 1,190 1,039 --- 1,378

 $20,000-$49,999 --- 986 1,195 --- 1,119

 $50,000 or more --- --- --- --- ---

Income quartiles

 0-24 2,137 1,415 1,694 --- 1,563

 25-49 2,743 1,467 1,482 2,324 1,894

 50-74 2,647 1,368 1,834 1,878 2,248

 75-100 2,169 --- 1,508 2,085 2,022

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 2,231 1,505 1,785 1,896 1,844

 2nd year-sophomore 2,681 1,535 1,384 2,673 2,104

 3rd year-junior 2,701 1,360 1,546 2,115 1,909

 4th year or more-senior 2,156 1,373 1,580 1,876 1,725
48

Table 21--Average institutional aid award to full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according

to institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

 --Continued

Type of institutional aid package

Institutional Institutional Average

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other, institutional

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV aid award

Carnegie code

 Research I 2,693 1,706 1,634 2,300 2,123

 Research II 2,498 1,739 2,409 2,310 2,232

 Doctoral granting I 2,608 1,300 --- --- 2,168

 Doctoral granting II 2,634 1,521 1,543 --- 2,127

 Comprehensive I 1,961 1,284 1,263 1,924 1,558

 Comprehensive II 2,410 --- --- --- 1,869

 Liberal arts I --- --- --- --- ---

 Liberal arts II 1,719 874 --- --- 964

 Religious --- --- --- --- ---

 Specialized schools --- 916 --- --- 1,146

--- Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

1

 Family income

2

Student income

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
49

Table 22--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according to

institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

 Total 34.8 37.7 17.3 10.3

Gender

 Male 37.9 35.6 17.1 9.4

 Female 32.1 39.5 17.4 11.1

Race-ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 39.5 31.0 18.6 10.9

 Black, non-Hispanic 20.4 55.7 13.8 10.2

 Hispanic 18.2 65.2 9.5 7.2

 Asian/Pacific Islander 28.6 49.6 15.7 6.1

 American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 15.3 61.4 13.6 9.8

Dependency status

 Dependent 40.0 29.9 18.2 11.8

 Independent 17.7 63.0 14.1 5.2

Marital status

 Not married 32.7 39.0 18.1 10.2

 Married 23.8 52.4 16.1 7.8

 Separated --- --- --- ---

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 34.9 37.5 18.9 8.6

 $501-$4,500 40.4 28.0 17.5 14.1

 $4,501 or more 43.1 31.7 17.7 7.5

Tuition and fees

 Less than $7,500 35.3 38.4 16.2 10.0

 $7,500-$12,499 30.3 25.7 29.0 15.0

 $12,500 or more 12.1 29.2 47.9 10.8

Age as of 12/31/92

 23 years or younger 38.0 33.4 17.3 11.3

 24-31 14.7 62.8 17.6 5.0

 32-39 15.4 67.6 13.0 4.0

 40 or more 20.9 56.7 20.7 1.8

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 29.6 43.5 17.1 9.8

 2.00-3.49 33.2 41.5 17.5 7.8

 3.50 or higher 42.8 24.7 14.7 17.9

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 --- --- --- ---

 1,000-2,499 15.7 69.6 12.6 2.1

 2,500-4,999 25.1 49.2 17.4 8.3

 5,000-7,499 28.7 40.5 18.3 12.5

 7,500-9,999 40.6 38.3 15.2 5.9

 10,000 or more 38.0 32.8 17.8 11.5
50

Table 22--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according to

institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

 --Continued

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

Local residence

 On campus 33.8 33.8 19.5 12.9

 Off campus 34.5 39.4 18.0 8.0

 With parents or other relative 37.9 41.7 9.5 10.9

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 7.0 82.7 9.3 0.9

 $20,000-$39,999 23.2 47.1 21.5 8.2

 $40,000-$69,999 53.5 4.9 24.7 17.0

 $70,000 or more 66.9 0.8 12.8 19.5

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 15.9 77.6 4.7 1.8

 $5,000-$19,999 17.4 62.3 14.5 5.8

 $20,000-$49,999 21.2 29.5 37.5 11.8

 $50,000 or more --- --- --- ---

Income quartiles

 0-24 13.1 75.7 8.2 3.0

 25-49 26.0 36.0 27.4 10.6

 50-74 54.7 8.0 22.9 14.4

 75-100 60.4 2.4 17.8 19.4

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 32.6 35.2 20.5 11.7

 2nd year-sophomore 38.2 33.5 14.8 13.5

 3rd year-junior 33.5 41.3 15.9 9.3

 4th year or more-senior 35.4 39.7 17.0 8.0
51

Table 22--Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates at public 4-year institutions according to

institutional aid package, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 1992-93

 --Continued

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

Carnegie code

 Research I 36.0 32.8 18.5 12.7

 Research II 37.2 29.6 22.2 11.0

 Doctoral granting I 53.4 21.5 13.3 11.9

 Doctoral granting II 42.4 36.5 12.0 9.0

 Comprehensive I 32.9 41.0 17.5 8.6

 Comprehensive II 36.9 28.4 17.7 17.0

 Liberal arts I --- --- --- ---

 Liberal arts II 11.8 74.4 9.0 4.7

 Religious --- --- --- ---

 Specialized schools 26.1 41.1 22.5 10.3

--- Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate. 

1

 Family income

2

Student income

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
52

Appendix A: Glossary

This glossary is arranged in alphabetical order. The variables were taken directly from the

NCES NPSAS: 93 Undergraduate Data Analysis System (DAS). This is an NCES software

application that generates tables from the NPSAS: 93 data. A description of the DAS software

can be found in appendix B. The labels in parentheses correspond to the names of the variables in

the DAS.

Age as of 12/31/92 (AGE)

23 years or younger Student was 23 years old or younger as of 12/31/92.

24-31 Student was between 24 and 31 years old as of 12/31/92.

32-39 Student was between 32 and 39 years old as of 12/31/92.

40 or more Student was 40 years old or older as of 12/31/92.

Attendance, intensity-fall 1992 (ATTEND)

Student's attendance status, as defined by the institution, as of September 1992.

Full-time

Part-time, greater than or equal to half time

Part-time, less than half time

Part-time, unknown

Not enrolled

Carnegie code (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 annually $40 million or more 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 between $15.5 and $40 million in federal support

annually.

Doctoral Universities I These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are
53

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.

2-Year Colleges These institutions offer associate of arts certificate or degree programs,

and, with few exceptions, offer no baccalaureate degrees.

Professional and

Specialized Institutions

These institutions offer a range of degrees from bachelor’s to

doctorate. At least 50 percent of the degrees awarded by these

institutions are in a single discipline. Specialized institutions include:

theological seminaries, Bible colleges and other institutions offering

degrees in religion; medical schools and medical centers; other separate

health profession schools; schools of engineering and technology;

schools of business and management; schools of art, music, and design;

schools of law; teachers’ colleges; other specialized institutions; and

tribal colleges and universities.
54

Cumulative grade point average (GPA)

Less than 2.00 Student had lower than a C average.

2.00-3.49 Student had a C to B+ average.

3.50 or higher Student had a B+ to A average.

Dependency status (DEPEND)

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:

Twenty-four or older as of 12/31/92.

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 1992 tax returns.

Was a graduate student and not claimed as a dependent by parents on 1992

tax return.

Was a single undergraduate, not claimed as a dependent by parents on

either 1991 or 1992 tax returns, and was self-sufficient for two years prior

to receiving any federal aid.

Endowment/FTE Categories (ENDCAT)

The ratio of institutional endowment amount to full-time enrollment, based on Fundsfunctioning-as-endowment-balance from Part I of the 1992-93 IPEDS Finance Survey and Fulltime equivalent student enrollment (FTE) calculated from the 1993 IPEDS Enrollment data. 

Endowment/FTE was calculated on an institutional basis for institutions which responded to both

IPEDS surveys.

$500 or less Endowment/FTE if $500 or less.

$501 - $4,500 Endowment/FTE is between $501 and $4,500.

$4,501 or more Endowment/FTE is $4,501 or more.

Enrollment in 1992 (ENROLL92)

The number of students enrolled at the institution in 1992.
55

Gender of student (GENDER)

Male

Female

Income group (PCTALL)

Family income percentile rank. Calculated separately for dependent and independent

students, each ranking compares the student only to other students of the same dependency

status. Uses parents' income if student is dependent, student's own income if student is

independent.

Income and dependency level (INCOME)

The source of income for dependent students is their parents or guardians, whereas the

source of independent students' income refers to their own assets or earnings including those of

their spouse if they are married. 

Dependent student:

Less than $10,000 Income of less than $10,000 in 1991.

$10,000 to 19,999 Income between $10,000 and $19,999 in 1991.

$20,000 to 39,999 Income between $20,000 and $39,999 in 1991.

$40,000 to 69,999 Income between $40,000 and $69,999 in 1991.

$70,000 or more Income of $70,000 or higher in 1991.

Independent student:

Less than $5,000 Income of less than $5,000 in 1991.

$5,000 to 19,999 Income between $5,000 and $19,999 in 1991.

$20,000 to 49,999 Income between $20,000 and $49,999 in 1991.

$50,000 or more Income of $50,000 or higher in 1991.

Institutional aid, total (INSTAMT)

For those who received institutional aid, the total dollar amount of the institutional aid

received.
56

Institutional type-level and control (SECTOR_B)

Institutional type by level and control, combined. Institutional type concerns the

institution's highest offering (length of program and type of certificate, degree or award), and

control concerns the source of revenue and control of operations.

Public, less-than-2-year

Public, 2-year

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting

Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year

Private, for-profit, 2-years-or-more

Local residence (LOCRES2)

On campus Institution-owned living quarters for students. These were

typically residence halls or other facilities.

Off campus Student lived off-campus in privately owned housing but not with

his or her parents or other relatives.

With parents or other relative Student lived at home with parents or other relative.

Marital status (SMARITAL)

Student marital status as of NPSAS interview date.

Not married

Married

Separated

Number of dependents (RDEPENDS)

Number of dependents student has. Refers to student's own family, rather than parent's

family, regardless of whether student is dependent or independent. Does not include spouse or

student.
57

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).

Tuition and fees-amount for terms attended (TUITION)

Actual amount of tuition charged the student for the terms attended, as reported by the

institution. Student report was used if institutional data were not available or if the student

attended more than one institution during the academic year.

Type of institutional aid package (INSTPACK)

Identification of institutional and federal aid combinations received by students who were

awarded institutional aid.

Institutional aid only: Student received institutional aid only.

Institutional and Pell: Student received institutional aid and Pell grant.

Institutional and Title IV: Student received institutional aid and Title IV aid, but no Pell grant.

Institutional and other : Student received institutional aid and other aid, but no Title IV aid.
58

Undergraduate class level (YEAR_R)

Student's year in college or university:

1st year-freshman

2nd year-sophomore

3rd year-junior

4th year or more-senior
59

Appendix B: Technical Notes and Methodology

The 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

The need for a nationally representative database on postsecondary student financial aid

prompted the U.S. Department of Education to conduct the 1986-87 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 87). The study was updated in 1989-90 (NPSAS:90) and 1992-93

(NPSAS: 93). The NPSAS sample was designed to include students enrolled in all types of

postsecondary education. It included students enrolled in public institutions, private institutions,

and private, for-profit institutions. The sample included students at 4-year and 2-year institutions,

as well as students enrolled in occupationally specific programs that lasted for less than 2 years. 

United States service academies were not included in the institutional sample because of their

unique funding and tuition base, and certain other types of institutions were also excluded.30

NPSAS: 93 included a stratified sample of approximately 66,000 eligible students (about

52,000 of whom were undergraduates) from about 1,100 institutions. Students were included in

the sample if they:

• attended a NPSAS-eligible institution;

• were enrolled between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993;

• were enrolled in one or more courses or programs including courses for credit, a degree or

formal award program of at least 3 months' duration;

• were enrolled in an occupationally or vocationally specific program at least 3 months long.

Regardless of their postsecondary status, students who were also enrolled in high school were

excluded.

The 1992-93 NPSAS survey sample, while representative and statistically accurate, was

not a simple random sample. Instead, the survey sample was selected using a more complex

three-step procedure with stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection at each level.

 First, postsecondary institutions were initially selected within geographical strata. Once

institutions were organized by zip code and state, they were further stratified by control (i.e.,

public; private, not-for-profit; or private, for-profit) and offering (less-than-2-year, 2- to 3-year,

4-year non-doctorate-granting, and 4-year doctorate-granting). Sampling rates for students

enrolled at different institutions and levels (undergraduate or other) varied, resulting in better data

for policy purposes, but at a cost to statistical efficiency.

For each of the students included in the NPSAS sample, there were up to three sources of

data. First, institutional registration and student financial aid records were extracted. Second, a

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) designed for each student was conducted. 

Finally, a CATI designed for the parents or guardians of a sub-sample of students was conducted.

 

30 Other excluded institutions were those offering only avocational, recreational, or remedial courses; those

offering only in-house business courses; those offering only programs of less than 3 months’ duration; and those

offering only distance education courses.
60

Data from these three sources were synthesized into a single system with an overall response rate

of about 85 percent.

For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult Methodology Report for the 1993

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (Longitudinal Studies Branch, Postsecondary

Education Statistics Division, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics, NCES 92-080, June 1992).

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 non-sampling errors. Sampling errors may 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.

Non-sampling 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 estimating missing data.

Data Analysis System

Most of the estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS: 93 Data

Analysis System (DAS) for undergraduates. The DAS software makes it possible for users to

specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS data. With the DAS, users can recreate or

expand upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS

calculates proper standard errors31 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example,

table B.1 presents the standard errors that correspond to table 19 in the text. If the number of

valid cases is too small to produce an estimate, the DAS prints the message "low-N" instead of

the estimate.

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables

to be used for linear regression models. Also produced with the correlation matrix are the design

effects (DEFT) for all the variables identified 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 stratified sampling

method. (See discussion under "Statistical Procedures" below for the adjustment procedure.)

 

31 The NPSAS: 93 sample is not a simple random sample, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for

estimating sampling errors cannot be applied to these data. The NPSAS: 93 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.
61

For more information about the NPSAS: 93 Data Analysis System, contact:

Aurora D'Amico

NCES Postsecondary and Educational Outcomes

Longitudinal Studies Program

555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address: Aurora_d'Amico@ED.GOV

Statistical Procedures

Two types of statistical procedures were employed in this report: testing differences

between means, and adjustment of means after controlling for covariation among a group of

variables. Each procedure is described below.

Differences Between Means

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student's t statistics. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error, or significance

level. The significance levels were determined by calculating 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, for comparisons using these tables' estimates, with

the following formula:

(E1- E2)

t =

 (se1

2

 + se2

2

) (1)

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; in this report, across a row in a table), 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 appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since 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 is 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
62

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 pair-wise

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 when k comparisons were made within a

family of possible tests, the significance level of the comparisons would sum to p ≤.05.32

For example, in a comparison between males and females of average aid received only one

comparison is possible (males vs. females). In this family, k = 1, and the comparison can be

evaluated with Student's t test. When students are divided into five racial-ethnic groups and all

possible comparisons are made, then k = 10 and the significance level of each test must be p ≤

.05/10, or .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows:

 k = j x (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, Asian, black, Hispanic, and white), so

substituting 5 for j in equation 2 yields:

k = 5 x (5-1) = 10 (3)

 2

Adjustment of Means

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 across income groups, it is

impossible to know to what extent the observed variation is due to low-income status differences.

 It is also possible to know to what extent the observed variation is due to differences in other

factors related to income such as type of institution attended, parents' education, and so on. 

However, if a table were produced showing income within type of institution, within parent's

education, for example, 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.

 

32 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 statistic 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.
63

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that were

adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables.33 The dependent variable, receiving

institutional aid, was regressed 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 probability of the outcome for a given

individual, holding all other variables constant. Then, the probability for the individual is

multiplied by 100 to obtain the adjusted percentage of the specified subgroup experiencing the

outcome of interest.34 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 age and gender

variables are recoded as a dummy variable representing age and one representing gender:

 

33 For more information about regression, see M. S. Lewis-Beck. Applied Regression, vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., 1980) and W. D. Berry and S. Feldman, Multiple Regression in Practice, vol. 50

(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987). 

34 For more information about the use of linear regression for a binary outcome, see J. H. Aldrich and F. D.

Nelson, Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models, vol. 45 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,

1984).

Age A

24 years or older 1

Under 24 years old 0

Gender G

Female 1

Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output

from the DAS:

Y = a + β1A + β2G (4)
64

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 variables representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose we had

a case where Y was being described by age (A) and gender (G), coded as shown above, and the

means for A and G are:

Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

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 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

outcome 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 completed a

degree is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for conversion to a percentage).

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using NPSAS: 93 data, since

one of the output options of the DAS is a correlation matrix, computed using pair-wise missing

values.35 This matrix can be used by most commercial regression packages as the input data to

produce least-squares regression estimates of the parameters. That was the general approach

used for this report, with two additional adjustments described below to incorporate the complex

sample design into the statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates.

Most commercial regression packages assume simple random sampling when computing

standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for NPSAS:

 

35 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 or to estimate probit/logit models can

apply for a restricted data license from NCES.
65

93, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to multiply

each standard error by the average design effect of the dependent variable (DEFT),36 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 produced with the correlation matrix.

 

36 The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in Skinner, C. J., Holt, D., and Smith, T.M.F., eds. 

Analysis of Complex Surveys. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).
66

Table B.1--Standard errors for Table 19: Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates in private, notfor-profit, 4-year institutions according to institutional aid package, by selected student and

institutional characteristics: 1992-93

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

Total 1.0 1.4 1.5 0.9

Gender of student

 Male 1.3 1.8 2.0 1.1

 Female 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.1

Race/ethnicity of student

 White, non-Hispanic 1.2 1.4 1.5 0.9

 Black, non-Hispanic 2.0 5.5 4.7 2.4

 Hispanic 2.5 4.9 4.8 2.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 4.4 4.3 5.9 3.2

 American Indian/Alaskan Native --- --- --- ---

Dependency status

 Dependent 1.2 1.3 1.6 0.9

 Independent 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.8

Marital status

 Not married 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.0

 Married 2.2 3.3 3.6 2.6

 Separated --- --- --- ---

Endowment per full-time equivalent student

 $500 or less 4.6 6.8 4.6 1.8

 $501-$4,500 1.7 3.1 2.3 1.3

 $4,500 or more 1.4 1.7 2.2 1.3

Tuition and fees (amount for terms attended)

 Less than $7,500 1.9 3.1 2.1 2.1

 $7,500-$12,499 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.1

 $12,500 or more 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.1

Age as of 12/31/92

 Less than 24 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.0

 24-31 2.4 4.1 3.6 1.9

 32-39 2.2 4.9 4.5 2.4

 40 or more 5.6 6.3 5.0 2.0

Cumulative grade point average

 Less than 2.00 3.0 4.2 3.7 2.4

 2.00-3.49 1.0 1.4 1.5 0.8

 3.50 or higher 2.0 1.8 2.1 1.9
67

Table B.1--Standard errors for Table 19: Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates in private,

 not-for-profit, 4-year institutions according to institutional aid package, by selected student

 and institutional characteristics: 1992-93--Continued

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

Enrollment in 1992

 Less than 1,000 3.0 3.9 2.9 3.2

 1,000-2,499 1.5 2.8 2.2 1.3

 2,500-4,999 2.5 2.1 2.8 1.3

 5,000-7,499 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.7

 7,500-9,999 4.9 4.1 5.3 5.3

 10,000 or more 2.9 1.6 2.9 1.2

Local residence

 On campus 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.1

 Off campus 1.5 1.8 2.3 1.3

 With parents or other relative 1.9 2.5 2.2 1.9

Income and dependency status

 Dependent1

 Less than $20,000 1.2 2.3 1.9 0.8

 $20,000-$39,999 1.1 2.3 2.3 1.1

 $40,000-$69,999 1.9 1.0 2.1 1.7

 $70,000 or more 3.0 0.4 2.9 1.9

 Independent2

 Less than $5,000 1.6 4.2 3.0 3.5

 $5,000-$19,999 2.2 3.0 3.0 1.7

 $20,000-$49,999 3.0 4.9 4.6 3.7

 $50,000 or more 7.3 4.6 8.6 3.9

Undergraduate class level

 1st year-freshman 1.5 2.5 2.2 1.3

 2nd year-sophomore 2.0 2.3 2.4 1.7

 3rd year-junior 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.4

 4th year or more-senior 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.0
68

Table B.1--Standard errors for Table 19: Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduates in private,

 not-for-profit, 4-year institutions according to institutional aid package, by selected student

 and institutional characteristics: 1992-93--Continued

Institutional Institutional

Institutional Institutional aid & Title IV, aid & other,

aid only aid & Pell no Pell no Title IV

Carnegie code

 Research I 1.7 1.7 3.7 3.1

 Research II 6.4 3.1 6.0 2.4

 Doctoral Granting I 4.4 1.7 3.8 1.9

 Doctoral Granting II 5.0 3.0 5.0 2.6

 Comprehensive I 1.9 2.1 2.4 1.6

 Comprehensive II 3.9 3.4 4.0 3.1

 Liberal Arts I 2.4 2.6 2.9 1.4

 Liberal Arts II 1.6 3.4 2.5 1.9

 Religious 8.8 2.2 1.2 9.3

 Specialized 7.6 9.0 7.5 1.7

---Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

1

 Family income

2

 Student income

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1992-93 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS: 93). Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
69

Bibliography

Aldrich, J.H. and Nelson, F.D. Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. Vol. 45. (Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1984).

Berry, W.D. and Feldman, S. Multiple Regression in Practice. Vol. 50. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., 1985).

Bowen, W. and Breneman, D. “Student Aid: Price Discount or Educational Investment?” 

Finance in Higher Education. (Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, 1992).

Carnegie Foundation. A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (Princeton, NJ:

1987).

The College Board. Trends in Student Aid: 1984 to 1994. (Washington, D.C.: 1994).

The College Board. Trends in Student Aid: 1986 to 1996. (Washington D.C.: 1996).

Davis, J. College Affordability, A Closer Look at the Crises. (Washington, D.C.: Sallie Mae

Foundation, 1997).

Horn, L. and Preno, M. National Center for Education Statistics. Profile of Undergraduates in

U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1992-93. U.S. Department of Education,

 (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

Lenth, C. The Tuition Dilemma - State Policies and Practices in Pricing Public Higher

Education. State Higher Education Executive Officers. (Denver, CO.: 1993).

Lewis-Beck, M.S. Applied Regression. Vol. 22. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,

1980).

Richard Moll, “The Scramble to Get the New Class”. Change. (March/April 1994).

Skinner, C.J., Holt, D., and Smith, T.M.F., eds. Analysis of Complex Surveys. (New York: John

Wiley & Sons, 1989).

St. John, E. "Changes in Pricing Behavior During the 1980's." Journal of Higher Education. 

(1992). 63(2).

Stecklow, S. "Expensive Lessons." The Wall Street Journal. (New York, NY: April 1, 1996).

Stine, Glen R. “Finance and Tuition Trends in the 1980s: A Review.” Finance in Higher

Education. (Needham Heights, MA. Ginn Press: 1991).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States

1995, 115th edition. (Washington, D.C.: 1995)
70

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of

Education, 1994. (Washington, D.C.: 1994).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education

Statistics, 1995. (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education

Statistics, 1993. (Washington, D.C.: 1993).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Longitudinal Studies

Branch, Postsecondary Education Statistics Division. Methodology Report for the 1993

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. (Washington, D.C.: June 1992).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Packaging of

Undergraduate Student Financial Aid: 1989-90. (Washington, D.C.: 1996).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Student Financing of

Undergraduate Education, 1992-93. (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

Warner, T. and Kern, K. Federal Student Aid and the Financing of Colleges and Universities:

Some Impacts on Small Private Colleges in the 1980s. (Philadelphia, PA: Institute for

Research on Higher Education, University of Pennsylvania, 1989).