ABSTRACT
Previous studies identified student-specific and institutional factors that impact community college student retention. However, few studies have examined associations between commodity prices and community college student retention. Guided by rational choice theory, we examine the relationship between annual, state-level gasoline prices and community college student retention. Using institution fixed effects and data from IPEDS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Energy Information Administration, we analyze 11,460 observations collected between 2006 and 2019 from 942 community colleges. We find a statistically significant relationship between gasoline prices and retention rates: one dollar increase in gasoline price per gallon is associated with a 0.918% point decrease in community college student retention rates, when accounting for institutional characteristics and local unemployment rates. Our study expands the current literature on the impact of transportation costs on student retention and argues that institutions should work to support students’ financial concerns, including gasoline prices.
Plain Language Summary
Community college students consider many factors when making enrollment decisions, including their expenses. Our study considers how gasoline prices, which reached record highs in 2022, are associated with student retention rates at 942 public community colleges in the United States. Using public data from 2006 to 2019, we find that a one dollar increase in gasoline prices per gallon is associated with a 0.918 percentage point decrease in community college student retention rates, when controlling for various institutional characteristics. Our results add to research that suggests transportation costs and other financial barriers limit opportunities for community college students. Policymakers and leaders in higher education should develop policies to expand transit options, especially during periods with high gasoline prices, to support community college students.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).