Search

Most states use need-based state grant programs to reduce financial barriers to college for students from low-income households. The policy design and eligibility requirements of these grant programs vary from state to state and even across sectors. But some policies may unintentionally disproportionately exclude students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups.In this report, we analyze data on students who attend college in their state of legal residence and examine how the characteristics of need-based state grant programs affect students from different racial and ethnic groups. We focus on 11 states with significant need-based grant programs and examine both program structure and the distribution of aid among students from different racial and ethnic groups. We find that some of the eligibility restrictions for state grants, including those based on time part-time enrollment, time since high school graduation, and high school academic record, may have differential impacts by race and ethnicity.The data show that differences in aid receipt are not as large or as prevalent as one might expect, but in some states, Black, Hispanic, or Asian students are less likely than others in similar financial circumstances to receive state grant aid. These differences usually do not occur within the public four-year sector but occur either among public two-year college students or among college students overall. Another significant issue is the relatively small share of state grant aid going to students attending public two-year colleges, which tend to enroll relatively large shares of Black and Hispanic students.Each state has a unique program design for need-based aid, and both student demographics and enrollment patterns vary considerably among states, so the most effective policies will differ from state to state. If states want to ensure inclusivity in their need-based state grant programs, they would be well advised to examine their policies for differenti

Most states use need-based state grant programs to reduce financial barriers to college for students from low-income households. The policy design and eligibility requirements of these grant programs vary from state to state and even across sectors. But some policies may unintentionally disproportionately exclude students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups.In this report, we analyze data on students who attend college in their state of legal residence and examine how the characteristics of need-based state grant programs affect students from different racial and ethnic groups. We focus on 11 states with significant need-based grant programs and examine both program structure and the distribution of aid among students from different racial and ethnic groups. We find that some of the eligibility restrictions for state grants, including those based on time part-time enrollment, time since high school graduation, and high school academic record, may have differential impacts by race and ethnicity.The data show that differences in aid receipt are not as large or as prevalent as one might expect, but in some states, Black, Hispanic, or Asian students are less likely than others in similar financial circumstances to receive state grant aid. These differences usually do not occur within the public four-year sector but occur either among public two-year college students or among college students overall. Another significant issue is the relatively small share of state grant aid going to students attending public two-year colleges, which tend to enroll relatively large shares of Black and Hispanic students.Each state has a unique program design for need-based aid, and both student demographics and enrollment patterns vary considerably among states, so the most effective policies will differ from state to state. If states want to ensure inclusivity in their need-based state grant programs, they would be well advised to examine their policies for differenti

Overall, people with a college education do better in the labor market than people with no education beyond high school. Higher levels of education correspond, on average, to higher levels of employment and higher wages. Yet, as college prices rise and as examples of graduates struggling to find remunerative employment despite their credentials become more visible, both potential students and the general public are questioning the value of a college education. The data, however, remain clear: even at current prices, postsecondary education pays off for most people. Promising occupational and personal opportunities are disproportionately available to college graduates. It is increasingly difficult to maintain a middle class lifestyle without a postsecondary credential, and the economic, social, and civic benefits of a more educated population are well documented. Outcomes do vary considerably, however, both among people with similar levels of education and across types of credentials. Growing income inequality does not just involve a growing gap between the earnings of the most educated and the least educated people; there is also increasing variation within educational categories. Greater understanding of these patterns and of the changes over time in the earnings premium for different levels of education can add perspective to discussions of the importance of increased educational attainment for both individuals and society as a whole. This brief highlights some of the complexities underlying discussions of the return to the investment in postsecondary education and describes some of the variation in outcomes that leads to the prevalent uncertainty about the value of the investment, clarifying that disappointing outcomes for some are not inconsistent with a high average payoff and significant benefits for most students

Overall, people with a college education do better in the labor market than people with no education beyond high school. Higher levels of education correspond, on average, to higher levels of employment and higher wages. Yet, as college prices rise and as examples of graduates struggling to find remunerative employment despite their credentials become more visible, both potential students and the general public are questioning the value of a college education. The data, however, remain clear: even at current prices, postsecondary education pays off for most people. Promising occupational and personal opportunities are disproportionately available to college graduates. It is increasingly difficult to maintain a middle class lifestyle without a postsecondary credential, and the economic, social, and civic benefits of a more educated population are well documented. Outcomes do vary considerably, however, both among people with similar levels of education and across types of credentials. Growing income inequality does not just involve a growing gap between the earnings of the most educated and the least educated people; there is also increasing variation within educational categories. Greater understanding of these patterns and of the changes over time in the earnings premium for different levels of education can add perspective to discussions of the importance of increased educational attainment for both individuals and society as a whole. This brief highlights some of the complexities underlying discussions of the return to the investment in postsecondary education and describes some of the variation in outcomes that leads to the prevalent uncertainty about the value of the investment, clarifying that disappointing outcomes for some are not inconsistent with a high average payoff and significant benefits for most students