{"title":"成本框架如何影响大学申请:来自目标信息干预的证据","authors":"Joshua A. Price","doi":"10.1016/j.econedurev.2025.102677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study evaluates an experiment conducted at a regional public university aimed at increasing college applications by reframing how tuition costs were presented to prospective students. High school seniors with a GPA of 3.0 or higher received letters outlining the application process and financial aid eligibility. A randomized subset received an enhanced version of the letter that emphasized the net cost of attending college—highlighting how the Pell Grant could significantly reduce tuition—rather than focusing on the full, list price. Results show that letters highlighting net costs increased application rates by 2.03 percentage points overall, with students most likely to qualify for the Pell Grant 4.08 percentage points more likely to apply. However, the intervention did not significantly influence enrollment decisions or FAFSA completion rates. These findings underscore both the promise and limitations of low-cost, information-based outreach efforts. While salient cost framing can shift application behavior, additional support may be needed to convert interest into enrollment—particularly at broad-access institutions serving economically diverse populations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48261,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Education Review","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 102677"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How cost framing affects college applications: evidence from a targeted information intervention\",\"authors\":\"Joshua A. Price\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.econedurev.2025.102677\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study evaluates an experiment conducted at a regional public university aimed at increasing college applications by reframing how tuition costs were presented to prospective students. High school seniors with a GPA of 3.0 or higher received letters outlining the application process and financial aid eligibility. A randomized subset received an enhanced version of the letter that emphasized the net cost of attending college—highlighting how the Pell Grant could significantly reduce tuition—rather than focusing on the full, list price. Results show that letters highlighting net costs increased application rates by 2.03 percentage points overall, with students most likely to qualify for the Pell Grant 4.08 percentage points more likely to apply. However, the intervention did not significantly influence enrollment decisions or FAFSA completion rates. These findings underscore both the promise and limitations of low-cost, information-based outreach efforts. While salient cost framing can shift application behavior, additional support may be needed to convert interest into enrollment—particularly at broad-access institutions serving economically diverse populations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics of Education Review\",\"volume\":\"107 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102677\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics of Education Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775725000573\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics of Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775725000573","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
How cost framing affects college applications: evidence from a targeted information intervention
This study evaluates an experiment conducted at a regional public university aimed at increasing college applications by reframing how tuition costs were presented to prospective students. High school seniors with a GPA of 3.0 or higher received letters outlining the application process and financial aid eligibility. A randomized subset received an enhanced version of the letter that emphasized the net cost of attending college—highlighting how the Pell Grant could significantly reduce tuition—rather than focusing on the full, list price. Results show that letters highlighting net costs increased application rates by 2.03 percentage points overall, with students most likely to qualify for the Pell Grant 4.08 percentage points more likely to apply. However, the intervention did not significantly influence enrollment decisions or FAFSA completion rates. These findings underscore both the promise and limitations of low-cost, information-based outreach efforts. While salient cost framing can shift application behavior, additional support may be needed to convert interest into enrollment—particularly at broad-access institutions serving economically diverse populations.
期刊介绍:
Economics of Education Review publishes research on education policy and finance, human capital production and acquisition, and the returns to human capital. We accept empirical, methodological and theoretical contributions, but the main focus of Economics of Education Review is on applied studies that employ micro data and clear identification strategies. Our goal is to publish innovative, cutting-edge research on the economics of education that is of interest to academics, policymakers and the public. Starting with papers submitted March 1, 2014, the review process for articles submitted to the Economics of Education Review will no longer be double blind. Authors are requested to include a title page with authors'' names and affiliation. Reviewers will continue to be anonymous.