Abstract
Over the last two decades, undergraduate university education in England moved from being state-funded and free for students, to costing all students substantial amounts in tuition fees. In this paper, using detailed administrative longitudinal microdata that follow all students attending state schools in England (approximately 95% of student population), we causally show that, despite the substantial reforms, enrollment fell only by 0.5 percentage points, where the effect is largely borne by those in wealthier groups, reducing the enrolment gap across socio-economic groups. Since tuition fees were introduced in conjunction with the government offering generous means-tested maintenance (cash) grants, as well as loans, our results highlight the importance of reducing financing constraints. Beyond enrollment, we find that the reforms have limited impact on students’ higher education choices, such as relocation decisions, university choice, and field of study. Finally, by tracking the students after graduation, we show similarly small effects on labor market outcomes.
Appendix A
Robustness check – university enrollment.
All | All | All | All | All | All | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [6] | |
2006 HE reform | 0.004*** | −0.016*** | −0.010*** | −0.003** | 0.004*** | −0.003*** |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Trend | 0.007*** | 0.000 | 0.014*** | |||
(0.000) | (0.001) | (0.001) | ||||
Trend squared | 0.001*** | −0.008*** | ||||
(0.000) | (0.001) | |||||
Trend cubic | 0.001*** | |||||
(0.000) | ||||||
Ln (cohort size) | 0.005 | |||||
(0.013) | ||||||
2nd Tercile of Ln (cohort size) | 0.014*** | |||||
(0.001) | ||||||
3rd Tercile of Ln (cohort size) | −0.000 | |||||
(0.001) | ||||||
Constant | 0.235*** | 0.232*** | 0.234*** | 0.231*** | 0.171 | 0.235*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.174) | (0.000) | |
Observations | 2,816,255 | 2,816,255 | 2,816,255 | 2,816,255 | 2,816,255 | 2,816,255 |
R-squared | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
The outcome is a categorical variable equal to 1 if the student is enrolled into an English university at age 18 and 0 otherwise. The regressions refer to the 2006 reform and include data on 1st year UG students enrolled between 2004/2005 and 2009/2010. *Denotes significance at the 10% level, **denotes significance at the 5% level, and ***denotes significance at the 1% level. Robust standard errors clustered at the school enrolled (at age 16) level in parentheses.
Robustness check – university enrollment – five socio-economic categories.
All | All | All | |
---|---|---|---|
[1] | [2] | [3] | |
2006 HE reform | −0.004*** | −0.016*** | −0.016*** |
(0.001) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
2006 HE reform°×°2nd quintile | 0.007*** | 0.007*** | |
(0.002) | (0.002) | ||
2006 HE reform°×°3rd quintile | 0.012*** | 0.011*** | |
(0.002) | (0.001) | ||
2006 HE reform°×°4th quintile | 0.018*** | 0.017*** | |
(0.002) | (0.001) | ||
2006 HE reform°×°5th quintile | 0.021*** | 0.019*** | |
(0.002) | (0.002) | ||
2nd Quintile | 0.004 | −0.001 | −0.012* |
(0.008) | (0.009) | (0.006) | |
3rd Quintile | 0.001 | −0.007 | −0.014* |
(0.011) | (0.011) | (0.008) | |
4th Quintile | −0.010 | −0.022* | −0.027*** |
(0.013) | (0.013) | (0.009) | |
5th Quintile | −0.011 | −0.024* | −0.028*** |
(0.014) | (0.014) | (0.010) | |
Trend | −0.012*** | −0.012*** | −0.013*** |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Trend squared | 0.003*** | 0.003*** | 0.002*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Ln (cohort size) | 0.246*** | 0.246*** | 0.297*** |
(0.021) | (0.021) | (0.017) | |
Controls | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Education controls | No | No | Yes |
Neighborhood FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
School FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations | 2,815,542 | 2,815,542 | 2,815,531 |
R-squared | 0.193 | 0.193 | 0.524 |
The outcome is a categorical variable equal to 1 if the student is enrolled into an English university at age 18 and 0 otherwise. The regressions refer to the 2006 reform and include data on 1st year UG students enrolled between 2004/2005 and 2009/2010. The neighborhood FE are defined using the lower layer super output are where the student was residing at age 16 (we use around 32,400 regions). The school FE are defined as the school attended by the student at age 16, when they sat the GCSEs. The controls are female and white categorical variables. The education controls are the number of full GCSE taken, the number of A* marks in GCSE, the number of A marks in GCSE, the number of B marks in GCSE, the number of C marks in GCSE and the number of D marks in GCSE. *Denotes significance at the 10% level, **denotes significance at the 5% level, and ***denotes significance at the 1% level. Robust standard errors clustered at the school enrolled (at age 16) level in parentheses.
Robustness check – university enrollment – localized effect.
All | All | All | |
---|---|---|---|
[1] | [2] | [3] | |
2006 HE reform | −0.002** | −0.012*** | −0.009*** |
(0.001) | (0.002) | (0.001) | |
2006 HE reform × medium SES | 0.013*** | 0.007*** | |
(0.002) | (0.002) | ||
2006 HE reform × low SES | 0.016*** | 0.010*** | |
(0.002) | (0.002) | ||
Medium SES | −0.074 | −0.083* | −0.081*** |
(0.047) | (0.047) | (0.030) | |
Low SES | −0.065 | −0.081 | −0.061* |
(0.050) | (0.050) | (0.033) | |
Controls | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Education controls | No | No | Yes |
Neighborhood FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
School FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations | 947,920 | 947,920 | 947,909 |
R-squared | 0.221 | 0.221 | 0.549 |
The outcome is a categorical variable equal to 1 if the student is enrolled into an English university at age 18 and 0 otherwise. The first three regressions refer to the 2006 reform and include data on 1st year UG students enrolled between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. The neighborhood FE are defined using the lower layer super output are where the student was residing at age 16 (we use around 32,400 regions). The school FE are defined as the school attended by the student at age 16, when they sat the GCSEs. The controls are female and white categorical variables. The education controls are the number of full GCSE taken, the number of A* marks in GCSE, the number of A marks in GCSE, the number of B marks in GCSE, the number of C marks in GCSE and the number of D marks in GCSE. *Denotes significance at the 10% level, **denotes significance at the 5% level, and ***denotes significance at the 1% level. Robust standard errors clustered at the school enrolled (at age 16) level in parentheses.
Robustness check – university enrollment – free school meal.
All | All | All | |
---|---|---|---|
[1] | [2] | [3] | |
2006 HE reform | −0.004*** | −0.006*** | −0.006*** |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
2006 HE reform × FSM | 0.012*** | 0.011*** | |
(0.001) | (0.001) | ||
FSM | −0.081*** | −0.089*** | −0.013*** |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Trend | −0.012*** | −0.012*** | −0.013*** |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Trend squared | 0.003*** | 0.003*** | 0.002*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Ln (cohort size) | 0.245*** | 0.245*** | 0.299*** |
(0.021) | (0.021) | (0.017) | |
Controls | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Education controls | No | No | Yes |
Neighborhood FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
School FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations | 2,814,949 | 2,814,949 | 2,814,938 |
R-squared | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.524 |
The outcome is a categorical variable equal to 1 if the student is enrolled into an English university at age 18 and 0 otherwise. The regressions refer to the 2006 reform and include data on 1st year UG students enrolled between 2004/2005 and 2009/2010. The neighborhood FE are defined using the lower layer super output are where the student was residing at age 16 (we use around 32,400 regions). The school FE are defined as the school attended by the student at age 16, when they sat the GCSEs. The controls are female and white categorical variables. The education controls are the number of full GCSE taken, the number of A* marks in GCSE, the number of A marks in GCSE, the number of B marks in GCSE, the number of C marks in GCSE and the number of D marks in GCSE. *Denotes significance at the 10% level, **denotes significance at the 5% level, and ***denotes significance at the 1% level. Robust standard errors clustered at the school enrolled (at age 16) level in parentheses.
Robustness check – university enrollment – no London universities.
Pr(enroll into uni) | Ln(distance btw home and uni) | Pr(same commuting area) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [6] | [7] | [8] | [9] | |
2006 HE reform | −0.005*** | −0.015*** | −0.014*** | −0.030*** | −0.031*** | −0.041*** | 0.008*** | 0.007*** | 0.009*** |
(0.001) | (0.002) | (0.001) | (0.008) | (0.009) | (0.008) | (0.002) | (0.003) | (0.003) | |
2006 HE reform × medium SES | 0.011*** | 0.009*** | −0.004 | 0.002 | 0.004* | ||||
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.002) | (0.002) | ||||
2006 HE reform × low SES | 0.017*** | 0.016*** | 0.013 | 0.027*** | −0.001 | −0.003 | |||
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.010) | (0.009) | (0.003) | (0.003) | ||||
Medium SES | −0.007 | −0.014** | −0.013** | −0.042 | −0.040 | −0.049 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
(0.007) | (0.007) | (0.005) | (0.039) | (0.039) | (0.039) | (0.011) | (0.012) | (0.011) | |
Low SES | −0.010 | −0.020** | −0.015** | −0.019 | −0.026 | −0.047 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
(0.009) | (0.009) | (0.007) | (0.068) | (0.068) | (0.066) | (0.020) | (0.020) | (0.020) | |
Trend | −0.011*** | −0.011*** | −0.012*** | 0.010 | 0.010 | −0.000 | −0.001 | −0.001 | 0.001 |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
Trend squared | 0.003*** | 0.003*** | 0.002*** | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.002 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Ln (cohort size) | 0.236*** | 0.236*** | 0.280*** | −0.095 | −0.095 | 0.110 | −0.045 | −0.045 | −0.080** |
(0.021) | (0.021) | (0.017) | (0.126) | (0.126) | (0.125) | (0.037) | (0.037) | (0.037) | |
Controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Education controls | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Neighborhood FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
School FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations | 2,748,397 | 2,748,397 | 2,748,386 | 602,691 | 602,691 | 602,691 | 602,691 | 602,691 | 602,691 |
R-squared | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.516 | 0.344 | 0.344 | 0.374 | 0.352 | 0.352 | 0.362 |
The outcome in the first three columns is a categorical variable equal to 1 if the student is enrolled into an English university at age 18 and 0 otherwise. The outcome in columns [4] to [6] is the geographical distance between the student’s home measured at age 16 and the university enrolled in at age 18, expressed in km. The outcome in columns [7] to [9] is a categorical variable equal to 1 if the student is enrolled into a university located in the same commuting area as their residency at age 16. The regressions refer to the 2006 reform and include data on 1st year UG students enrolled between 2004/2005 and 2009/2010. The regressions do not include any London based university. The neighborhood FE are defined using the lower layer super output are where the student was residing at age 16 (we use around 32,400 regions). The school FE are defined as the school attended by the student at age 16, when they sat the GCSEs. The controls are female and white categorical variables. The education controls are the number of full GCSE taken, the number of A* marks in GCSE, the number of A marks in GCSE, the number of B marks in GCSE, the number of C marks in GCSE and the number of D marks in GCSE. *Denotes significance at the 10% level, **denotes significance at the 5% level, and ***denotes significance at the 1% level. Robust standard errors clustered at the school enrolled (at age 16) level in parentheses.
Robustness check – probability to pursue a field of study.
Medicine | STEM | Social sciences | Languages | Arts and education | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [6] | [7] | [8] | [9] | [10] | |
2006 HE reform | 0.001 | −0.004 | 0.002 | 0.006** | 0.001 | 0.006* | 0.001 | −0.003 | −0.005** | −0.005** |
(0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.003) | |
2006 HE reform × medium SES | 0.005** | −0.005** | −0.008*** | 0.005** | 0.002 | |||||
(0.003) | (0.002) | (0.003) | (0.002) | (0.002) | ||||||
2006 HE reform × low SES | 0.013*** | −0.012*** | −0.007** | 0.004* | 0.002 | |||||
(0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.002) | (0.003) | ||||||
Medium SES | 0.026* | 0.023 | −0.032** | −0.030** | −0.002 | 0.004 | 0.002 | −0.002 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
(0.016) | (0.016) | (0.013) | (0.013) | (0.016) | (0.016) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.014) | (0.014) | |
Low SES | 0.054** | 0.045* | −0.030 | −0.027 | −0.034 | −0.025 | 0.014 | 0.009 | −0.005 | −0.003 |
(0.025) | (0.026) | (0.022) | (0.022) | (0.027) | (0.027) | (0.018) | (0.018) | (0.020) | (0.020) | |
Trend | 0.016*** | 0.014*** | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.007** | −0.014*** | −0.017*** | −0.009*** | −0.006** |
(0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
Trend squared | −0.002*** | −0.002*** | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.001 | 0.002*** | 0.002*** | 0.001*** | 0.001*** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Ln (cohort size) | −0.153*** | −0.125*** | −0.117*** | −0.085** | −0.346*** | −0.383*** | 0.301*** | 0.342*** | 0.315*** | 0.251*** |
(0.045) | (0.045) | (0.040) | (0.040) | (0.048) | (0.048) | (0.033) | (0.033) | (0.035) | (0.035) | |
Controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Education controls | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Neighborhood FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
School FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 | 669,924 |
R-squared | 0.081 | 0.084 | 0.147 | 0.155 | 0.074 | 0.087 | 0.080 | 0.095 | 0.086 | 0.109 |
The outcome is a categorical variable equal to 1 if the student is pursuing a specific field of study 0 otherwise. The outcome in the first two columns is the probability to pursue a degree in Medicine, Dentistry or allied subjects. The outcome in columns [3] and [4] is the probability to pursue a degree in STEM. The outcome in columns [5] and [6] is the probability to pursue a degree in Social Sciences. The outcome variable in columns [7] and [8] is the probability to pursue a degree in Languages, while the outcome variable in columns [9] and [10] is the probability to pursue a degree in Arts or Education. For a detailed description of each field of study see Table C.2 in Appendix C. The regressions refer to the 2006 reform and include data on 1st year UG students enrolled between 2004/2005 and 2009/2010. The neighborhood FE are defined using the lower layer super output are where the student was residing at age 16 (we use around 32,400 regions). The school FE are defined as the school attended by the student at age 16, when they sat the GCSEs. The controls are female and white categorical variables. The education controls are the number of full GCSE taken, the number of A* marks in GCSE, the number of A marks in GCSE, the number of B marks in GCSE, the number of C marks in GCSE and the number of D marks in GCSE. *Denotes significance at the 10% level, **denotes significance at the 5% level, and ***denotes significance at the 1% level. Robust standard errors clustered at the school enrolled (at age 16) level in parentheses.
Definition of the eligibility for maintenance grants by year and family income.
Year | Full maintenance grant | Partial maintenance grant | No maintenance grant |
---|---|---|---|
2004 | ≤£15,000 | £15,001–£22,500 | >£22,500 |
2005 | ≤£15,000 | £15,001–£22,500 | >£22,500 |
2006 | £17,500 | £17,501–£37,425 | >£37,425 |
2007 | ≤£17,910 | £17,911–£38,330 | >£38,330 |
2008 | ≤£25,000 | £25,001–£60,005 | >£60,005 |
2009 | £25,000 | £25,001–£60,005 | >£60,005 |
The grouping is based on the information provided by The Student Loan Company (available at http://www.slc.co.uk/official-statistics/full-catalogue-of-official-statistics/student-support-for-higher-education-in-england.aspx) and in Dearden et al. (2014).
Appendix C GCSE
For the period under analysis, the grading system of the GCSEs changed. Based on the information provided by Ofsted and Ofqual, the following scales were used in the calculation of the grades obtained in the GCSE in English and in Maths:
Grading system GCSEs.
Panel A: Single awards | |||||||||||||||
Grade | A* | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | |||||||
Old points (before 2004) | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||||||
New points (2004 onwards) | 58 | 52 | 46 | 40 | 34 | 28 | 22 | 16 | |||||||
Panel B: Double awards | |||||||||||||||
Grade | A*A* | A*A | AA | AB | BB | BC | CC | CD | DD | DE | EE | EF | FF | FG | GG |
New points (2008 onwards) | 58 | 55 | 52 | 49 | 46 | 43 | 40 | 37 | 34 | 31 | 28 | 25 | 22 | 19 | 16 |
Double Award GCSE subjects are certificated on a fifteen-point scale for the first time in the June 2008 examination. For the Double Awards, the grade is recorded twice on the certificate to indicate that the results in these specifications have the same status as GCSE grades in two other single-certificate subjects. Source Ofsted, Ofqual.
Undergraduate Degree Definition
The undergraduate students who represent the student population considered in this analysis are formed or two categories of students: first degree and other undergraduate degree. According to HESA, the First degree includes first degrees with or without eligibility to register to practice with a Health or Social Care or Veterinary statutory regulatory body, first degrees with qualified teacher status (QTS)/registration with the General Teaching Council (GTC), enhanced first degrees, first degrees obtained concurrently with a diploma and intercalated first degrees. Other undergraduate includes qualification aims below degree level such as Foundation Degrees, diplomas in HE with eligibility to register to practice with a Health or Social Care regulatory body, Higher National Diploma (HND), Higher National Certificate (HNC), Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE), Certificate of Higher Education (CertHE), foundation courses at HE level, NVQ/SVQ levels 4 and 5, post-degree diplomas and certificates at undergraduate level, professional qualifications at undergraduate level, other undergraduate diplomas and certificates including post registration health and social care courses, other formal HE qualifications of less than degree standard, institutional undergraduate credit and no formal undergraduate qualifications. The coding also accounts for the mapping between the old and the new codes which was introduced in 2007/2008[28].
Field of Study
In the HESA data there are 20 major field of study pursued at higher education level, but we group the fields of study in five groups as below in order to increase precision.
Coding of field of study.
JACS subject groups | Five subject groups |
---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | Medicine, Dentistry and Allied Subjects |
Other Medical Subjects | Medicine, Dentistry and Allied Subjects |
Biological Sciences | Medicine, Dentistry and Allied Subjects |
Veterinary Sciences and Agriculture | Medicine, Dentistry and Allied Subjects |
Physical Sciences | STEM |
Maths and Computer Sciences | STEM |
Engineering | STEM |
Technology | STEM |
Architecture, Building and Planning | STEM |
Social Sciences | Social Sciences |
Law | Social Sciences |
Business and Administration | Social Sciences |
Mass Communication and Documentation | Languages and History |
Linguistics and Classics | Languages and History |
European Languages | Languages and History |
Modern Languages | Languages and History |
History and Philosophical Studies | Languages and History |
Creative Arts and Design | Arts, Education, other |
Education | Arts, Education, other |
Combined | Arts, Education, other |
References
Andrews, R., and K. Stange. 2019. “Price Regulation, Price Discrimination, and Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education: Evidence from Texas.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11 (4): 31–65. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170306.Search in Google Scholar
Angrist, J., D. Lang, and P. Oreopoulos. 2009. “Incentives and Services for College Achievement: Evidence from a Randomized Trial.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (1): 136–63. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.1.136.Search in Google Scholar
Cabrales, A., M. Güell, R. Madera, and A. Viola. 2019. “Income Contingent University Loans: Policy Design and an Application to Spain.” Economic Policy 34: 479–521, https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiz010.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, S., and J. Heckman. 2001. “The Dynamics of Educational Attainment for Black, Hispanic and White Males.” Journal of Political Economy 109 (3): 455–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/321014.Search in Google Scholar
Card, D. 1995. “Using Geographic Variation in College Proximity to Estimate the Return to Schooling.” In Aspects of Labor Market Behaviour: Essays in Honour of John Vanderkamp, edited by G. E. Christofides, and R. Swidinsky. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3386/w4483Search in Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, R., V. Fos, A. Liberman, and C. Yannelis. 2020. Tuition, Debt, and Human Capital. Report 912, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports.10.2139/ssrn.3532593Search in Google Scholar
Chan, D., and D. Cochrane. 2008. Paving the Way: How Financial Aid Awareness Affects College Access and Success. Technical report. Institute for College Access and Success.Search in Google Scholar
Chapman, B., and C. Ryan. 2005. “The Access Implications of Income-Contingent Charges for Higher Education: Lessons from Australia.” Economics of Education Review 24 (5): 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.08.009.Search in Google Scholar
Crawford, C., and E. Greaves. 2015. Socio-Economic, Ethnic and Gender Differences in Higher Education Participation. BIS Research Paper 186. Department for Business, Inovation and Skills.Search in Google Scholar
Crawford, C., and W. Jin. 2014. Payback Time? Student Debt and Loan Repayments: What Will the 2012 Reforms Mean for Graduates?. Report R93. IFS.10.1920/re.ifs.2014.0093Search in Google Scholar
Dearden, L., E. Fitzsimons, and G. Wyness. 2011. The Impact of Tuition Fees and Support on University Participation in the UK. Working Papers No. W11/17. IFS.10.1920/wp.ifs.2011.1117Search in Google Scholar
Dearden, L., E. Fitzsimons, and G. Wyness. 2014. “Money for Nothing: Estimating the Impact of Student Aid on Participation in Higher Education.” Economics of Education Review 43: 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.09.005.Search in Google Scholar
Del Rey, E. 2012. “Deferring Higher Education Fees without Relying on Contributions from Non-students.” Education Economics 20 (5): 510–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2011.592361.Search in Google Scholar
Deming, D. J., and C. R. Walters. 2017. The Impact of Price Caps and Spending Cuts on U.S. Postsecondary Attainment. Working Paper 23736. National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w23736Search in Google Scholar
Denning, J., B. M. Marx, and L. J. Turner. 2019. “ProPelled: The Effects of Grants on Graduation, Earnings, and Welfare.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11 (3): 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180100.Search in Google Scholar
Diris, R., and E. Ooghe. 2018. “The Economics of Financing Higher Education.” Economic Policy 33 (94): 265–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiy003.Search in Google Scholar
Dynarski, S. M. 2003. “Does Aid Matter? Measuring the Effect of Student Aid on College Attendance and Completion.” American Economic Review 93 (1): 279–88, https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455287.Search in Google Scholar
Field, E. 2009. “Educational Debt Burden and Career Choice: Evidence from a Financial Aid Experiment at NYU Law School.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Garibaldi, P., F. Giavazzi, A. Ichino, and E. Rettore. 2012. “College Costs and Time to Complete Degree: Evidence from Tuition Discontinuities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 94 (3): 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00195.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbons, S., and A. Vignoles. 2012. “Geography, Choice and Participation in Higher Education in England.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 42 (1–2): 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.07.004.Search in Google Scholar
Grodsky, E., and M. Jones. 2007. “Real and Imagined Barriers to College Entry: Perceptions of Cost.” Social Science Research 36 (2): 745–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
Hearn, J. C., and D. Longanecker. 1985. “Enrollment Effects of Alternative Postsecondary Pricing Policies.” The Journal of Higher Education 56 (2): 485–508. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981207.Search in Google Scholar
HESA. 2006. HESA Statistics. Publication on students 2006/2007, HESA.Search in Google Scholar
Horn, L. J., X. Chen, and C. Chapman. 2003. Getting Ready to Pay for College: What Students and their Parents Know about the Cost of College Tuition and what They are Doing to Find Out. Technical report. US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.10.1037/e492152006-009Search in Google Scholar
Hubner, M. 2012. “Do Tuition Fees Affect Enrolment Behaviour? Evidence from a ‘Natural Experiment’ in Germany.” Economics of Education Review 31 (6): 949–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.006.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, B., and S. J. G. van Wijnbergen. 2007. “Capital-Market Failure, Adverse Selection, and Equity Financing of Higher Education.” FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis 63 (1): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522107x186683.Search in Google Scholar
Kane, T. 1995. Rising Public College Tuition and College Entry: How Well Do Public Subsidies Promote Access to College. NBER working paper 5164.10.3386/w5164Search in Google Scholar
Kelchtermans, S., and F. Verboven. 2010. “Participation and Study Decisions in a Public System of Higher Education.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 25 (3): 355–91, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.1087.Search in Google Scholar
Lincoln, I., and A. Walker. 1993. “Increasing Investment in Higher Education: The Role of a Graduate Tax.” Education Economics 1 (3): 211–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299300000028.Search in Google Scholar
Long, B. 2004. “How Have College Decisions Changed over Time? An Application of the Conditional Logistic Choice Model.” Journal of Econometrics 121 (1): 271–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.001.Search in Google Scholar
Looney, A., and C. Yannelis. 2015. “A Crisis in Student Loans?: How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions they Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 1–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2015.0003.Search in Google Scholar
McPherson, M., and M. Schapiro. 1991. “Does Student Aid Affect College Enrolment? New Evidence on a Persistent Controversy.” American Economic Review 81 (1): 309–18.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, R., J. Scott-Clayton, and G. Wyness. 2019. “The End of Free College in England: Implications for Quality, Enrolments and Equity.” Economics of Education Review 71: 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.11.007.Search in Google Scholar
Nielsen, H., T. Sorensen, and C. Taber. 2010. “Estimating the Effect of Student Aid on College Enrolment: Evidence from a Government Grant Policy Reform.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2 (2): 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.2.2.185.Search in Google Scholar
OECD. 2011. Education at a Glance 2011. OECD. Technical report.Search in Google Scholar
OECD. 2014. Education at a Glance 2014. OECD. Technical report.Search in Google Scholar
OECD. 2016. Education at a Glance 2016. OECD. Technical report.Search in Google Scholar
Page, L., and J. Scott-Clayton. 2016. “Improving College Access in the United States: Barriers and Policy Responses.” Economics of Education Review 51: 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.02.009.Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein, J., and C. Rouse. 2011. “Constrained after College: Student Loans and Early-Career Occupational Choices.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (1–2): 149–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.09.015.Search in Google Scholar
Sa, F. 2019. “The Effect of Tuition Fees on University Applications and Attendance: Evidence from the a Natural Experiment in the UK.” Economica 86 (343): 607–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12278.Search in Google Scholar
Salmil, J. 2003. Student Loans in an International Perspective: The World Bank Experience. LCSHD Paper Series 44. Washington, DC: World Bank.Search in Google Scholar
Usher, A. 2005. A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing: How Perceptions of Costs and Benefits Affect Access to Education. Toronto, ON: Educational Policy Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Zarate, M. E., and H. Pachon. 2006. Perceptions of College Financial Aid Among California Latino Youth. Policy Brief. Tomas Rivera.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston