Scholarlink

<p>This article responds to the critiques formulated by Barroilhet, Silva, and Quiroga (2026) on our study examining the relationship between free tuition and academic performance in Chilean higher education. The commentary raises concerns regarding the interpretation of results, the treatment of missing data and attrition, the construction of financial aid categories, and the generalizability of the findings. In this response, we clarify key aspects of our research design and provide additional empirical analyses to assess the robustness of the results published last year by <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Higher Education</Emphasis>. We implement inverse probability weighting (IPW) models to account for potential selection bias arising from differential attrition. The results remain highly consistent across specifications in terms of direction, magnitude, and statistical significance. We argue that the concerns raised primarily affect interpretation and scope rather than the validity of the empirical findings. Overall, the evidence supports the robustness of the original results and reinforces the study’s relevance for understanding the relationship between financial aid and academic performance and its implications for equity in higher education.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does free tuition impact academic performance of low-income undergraduate students? A response to Barroilhet, Silva and Quiroga

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月9日

查看全文
  • Óscar Espinoza,
  • Bruno Corradi,
  • Luis Sandoval,
  • Lucas Sobarzo,
  • Catalina Miranda,
  • Noel McGinn,
  • Javier Loyola

摘要

This article responds to the critiques formulated by Barroilhet, Silva, and Quiroga (2026) on our study examining the relationship between free tuition and academic performance in Chilean higher education. The commentary raises concerns regarding the interpretation of results, the treatment of missing data and attrition, the construction of financial aid categories, and the generalizability of the findings. In this response, we clarify key aspects of our research design and provide additional empirical analyses to assess the robustness of the results published last year by Higher Education. We implement inverse probability weighting (IPW) models to account for potential selection bias arising from differential attrition. The results remain highly consistent across specifications in terms of direction, magnitude, and statistical significance. We argue that the concerns raised primarily affect interpretation and scope rather than the validity of the empirical findings. Overall, the evidence supports the robustness of the original results and reinforces the study’s relevance for understanding the relationship between financial aid and academic performance and its implications for equity in higher education.