Dataset Information

Taken for Granted? Effects of Loan-Reduction Initiatives on Student Borrowing, Admission Metrics, and Campus Diversity.

ABSTRACT: In recent decades, several dozen colleges and universities have instituted loan-reduction initiatives (LRIs), such as "no-loan" programs. Institutions frequently cast such initiatives as efforts to increase socioeconomic diversity on campus. Using a difference-in-differences analytic strategy with national institution-level data, we examine the effect of LRI adoption at 54 institutions on three sets of outcomes: student borrowing, admission metrics, and campus diversity. Our analysis suggests LRIs decreased institution-level borrowing rates at private institutions, with no detected change at public institutions. Consistent with stated program goals, LRI adoption increased the number of Pell Grant recipients at both public and private institutions. However, adopting LRIs at public institutions reduced racial/ethnic diversity, suggesting possible trade-offs for LRI adoption in terms of student body diversity.

SUBMITTER: Bennett C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7561502 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Taken for Granted? Effects of Loan-Reduction Initiatives on Student Borrowing, Admission Metrics, and Campus Diversity.

Bennett Christopher C Evans Brent B Marsicano Christopher C

Research in higher education 20201016 5

In recent decades, several dozen colleges and universities have instituted loan-reduction initiatives (LRIs), such as "no-loan" programs. Institutions frequently cast such initiatives as efforts to increase socioeconomic diversity on campus. Using a difference-in-differences analytic strategy with national institution-level data, we examine the effect of LRI adoption at 54 institutions on three sets of outcomes: student borrowing, admission metrics, and campus diversity. Our analysis suggests LR ...[more]

PMID: 33082619

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: A potential new avenue to address the shortage of country doctors is to change the rules for admission to medical school. We therefore study the link between high-school grade point average and prospective physicians' choice to work in rural areas. To further inform the discussion about rules for admission, we also study the effects of other predictors: a measure of students' attitudes towards risk; whether they waited for their place of study (Wartesemester); whether their parents worked as medical doctors; and whether they have some practical experience in the medical sector. Methods: We conducted two internet surveys in 2012 and 2014. In the first survey, the sample comprised 701 students and in the second, 474 students. In both surveys, we asked students for their regional preferences; in the 2014 survey, we additionally asked students for their first, second, and third preferences among a comprehensive set of specializations, including becoming a general practitioner. In both surveys, we asked students for basic demographic information (age and gender), their parents' occupation, a measure of subjective income expectations, a measure of risk attitudes, and their high-school grade point average (Abiturnote), and First National Boards Examination grade (Physikum). In 2014, we additionally asked for waiting periods (Wartesemester) as well as for prior professional experience in the health-care sector. Results: We find that three factors increase the probability of having a preference for working in a rural area significantly, holding constant all other influences: having a medical doctor among the parents, having worse grades in the high-school grade point average, and being more risk averse. Moreover, we find that those willing to work in the countryside have significantly more experience in the medical sector before admission to medical school. Discussion: Our results suggest that a change in the selection process for medical school may increase the supply of country doctors. Instead of focusing on the high-school grade point average, universities could even more intensely screen for study motivation through interviews or by taking into account students' background, extracurricular activities, or waiting periods.

Project description:BackgroundThe goal of this study was to identify taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions about use, costs, and facilitation of post-event debriefing. These myths prevent the ubiquitous uptake of post-event debriefing in clinical units, and therefore the identification of process, teamwork, and latent safety threats that lead to medical error. By naming these false barriers and assumptions, the authors believe that clinical event debriefing can be implemented more broadly.MethodsWe interviewed an international sample of 37 clinicians, educators, scholars, researchers, and healthcare administrators from hospitals, universities, and healthcare organizations in Western Europe and the USA, who had a broad range of debriefing experience. We adopted a systemic-constructivist approach that aimed at exploring in-depth assumptions about debriefing beyond obvious constraints such as time and logistics and focused on interpersonal relationships within organizations. Using circular questions, we intended to uncover new and tacit knowledge about barriers and facilitators of regular clinical debriefings. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a comprehensive process of inductive open coding.ResultsIn total, 1508.62 min of interviews (25 h, 9 min, and 2 s) were analyzed, and 1591 answers were categorized. Many implicit debriefing theories reflected current scientific evidence, particularly with respect to debriefing value and topics, the complexity and difficulty of facilitation, the importance of structuring the debriefing and engaging in reflective practice to advance debriefing skills. We also identified four debriefing myths which may prevent post-event debriefing from being implemented in clinical units.ConclusionThe debriefing myths include (1) debriefing only when disaster strikes, (2) debriefing is a luxury, (3) senior clinicians should determine debriefing content, and (4) debriefers must be neutral and nonjudgmental. These myths offer valuable insights into why current debriefing practices are ad hoc and not embedded into daily unit practices. They may help ignite a renewed momentum into the implementation of post-event debriefing in clinical settings.

Dataset Information

Taken for Granted? Effects of Loan-Reduction Initiatives on Student Borrowing, Admission Metrics, and Campus Diversity.

Publications

Taken for Granted? Effects of Loan-Reduction Initiatives on Student Borrowing, Admission Metrics, and Campus Diversity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets