Do merit-based financial aid programs narrow or widen equity gaps and social mobility in higher education?
Xiaodan Hu, assistant professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs, has received $50,000 from the William T. Grant Foundation to explore that question.
Collaborating with Frank Fernandez, assistant professor of Higher Education Administration and Policy at the University of Florida, Hu will serve as the Principal Investigator (PI) to examine state-level financial aid data from multiple sources, including the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs.
Researchers define “social mobility” in different ways, she says: “Some would say social mobility is just accessing higher education – that it’s already a big step. Some say no, that accessing is not sufficient. You have to graduate. And just graduating is not sufficient. You also need to be employed – and how much are you making?”
Their research will analyze each state’s definition of and criteria for merit-based aid – does it consider just GPA or class rank, or SAT scores, or a combination of factors? – along with total and individual amounts of dollars distributed. If they need more specific information, or clearer explanations of policies posted online, the PIs will reach out directly to state agencies.
“Merit aid historically tends to fund students who are higher academically performing, and we know this group of students is disproportionately from a more advantaged background,” says Hu, coordinator of the Community College Leadership program in the Department of Counseling and Higher Education.
“What also matters is where the money comes from. For some states, it’s lottery money – and research knows that lottery funding is primarily from low-income populations,” Hu adds.
“So, we’re basically taking money from the low-income population to fund students who are more advantaged and more privileged to be academically higher performing. It has been viewed as a regressive tool to fund students for public higher education.”
Previous research into the implications of merit-based aid has yielded competing theories, she says.
Admittance of more high-performing students can, through peer and signaling effects, motivate and support the entire student body regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds in their academic success. Students receiving merit aid for previous academic excellence could also signal competitiveness in the labor market and are likely to land good-paying job opportunities.
“But on the other hand, because we know how regressive these policies can be,” Hu says, “could this actually reinforce the college selection process, admit more higher-performing students and leave the minoritized students outside of higher education? Then, without that degree, what jobs are they getting to earn social mobility in this sense?”
Hu is eager to see what she and Fernandez will find and to share the implications of that information with policymakers in public higher education.
“I don’t think one study is going to change the world,” she says, “but by working with colleagues in the field, as well as with the evidence, we can see which aspect of merit aid works. Is it the merit aid based entirely on SAT score or entirely on GPA? Would it work better if it’s in combination with income-based aid?”
Or, she adds, “would it be better just to eliminate merit-based aid completely in the purpose of supporting students’ social mobility?”
At the same time, Hu has received a $1,000 grant from the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships to study whether dual-enrollment courses change students’ financial aid packages and truly reduce costs for students as believed by the high schools and colleges that offer such programs.
“If high school students are starting to accumulate college-level credits, will they receive more merit aid because they could be viewed as more academically advanced?” Hu asks. “Or, by accumulating these grants, will they be less reliant on private loans?”
