Bait-And-Switch: The Consequences of Financial Aid Loss in the Second Year of College

Abstract

Low-income students enrolled in a four-year, public institution are three times more likely to drop out after their first year of study than their higher-income peers (Engle & Tinto, 2008, p. 11). The exorbitant price of college tuition plays a significant role in how low-income students are underserved by the current postsecondary system. Participants in this study are in large numbers also first-generation, a group that is even more at-risk for early departure from the university, especially prior to second year (Choy, 2001; Ishitani, 2003). At the research site (a southwest Research 1 university), low-income students living on-campus their first year are front-loaded with funding that then decreases in their second year. This “bait-and-switch” approach is, unfortunately, a common practice by higher education institutions (US News and World Report, 2015). The research study provides a multi-method examination to understand the university experience for low-income students that encounter this decrease in funding. The study gives a clear view of not just the challenges but successes these students experience. A significant contribution of this study is my development of the Student Management of Risk Model that represents the process students go through in identifying, interpreting, and managing risk during college. Surprisingly, my research findings show that program participants persist at a much higher rate than overall university students yet still face many obstacles on top of the traditional challenges for undergraduate students, including financial ones. I explore why and find that a feasible explanation may be a combination of the strengths students bring with them to the university combined with the proactive and comprehensive support provided by the university. First, program participants are highly motivated to complete their education for a variety of reasons, but primarily because many are first in their families to attend college. Relatedly, program participants also have a sense of individual motivation to learn, do well, and graduate to improve the likelihood of having a promising and fulfilling future (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). Once accepted into the university, program participants experience wrap-around services that are put in place for them before they even arrive on campus. This research study not only suggests a new model -- a student management of risk model -- to describe key aspects of what these students face once enrolled but also identifies a powerful combination of elements that seem to provide positive results for program participants. The study shows how the university may be working at cross-purposes in removing financial support and then recouping it through wrap-around services. The study provides a variety of implications and suggestions for future research and practice that includes: 1) evaluating graduation rates not just persistence rates for program participants, 2) evaluating persistence and graduation rates of students that are qualified for the program but are non-participants, 3) research the process in which institutions formulate and execute certain policy changes or actions that can negatively affect student success, and 4) consider building on existing best practices by offering low-cost social and academic engagement opportunities for student participants.