Does Intensive College Advising Improve Selective College Outcomes for High-Achieving, Low-Income Students?

This study investigates whether intensive, personalized advising through the EMERGE Fellowship improves selective college outcomes for high-achieving, low-income, and first-generation students. Using a sharp regression discontinuity design with data on 1,078 Houston Independent School District sophomores, the authors examined SAT scores, application behaviors, and enrollment outcomes. Results showed no significant effects on SAT scores but large effects on selective college applications and enrollment. EMERGE students were 17 percentage points more likely to apply to most competitive colleges and 15–18 percentage points more likely to enroll, with Cohen’s d effect sizes ranging from 0.32 to 0.58 standard deviations .

Full Citation and Link to Article

Holzman, Brian, Irina Chukhray, and Courtney Thrash. “EMERGEing Educational Opportunities: The Effects of Social Capital on Selective College Outcomes.” Education Finance and Policy, Just Accepted (2025). Association for Education Finance and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.a.19

Extended Summary

Central Research Question

The study seeks to answer whether intensive, sustained, and personalized college advising programs improve selective college outcomes for high-achieving, low-income, and first-generation students. Specifically, it examines the causal effects of the EMERGE Fellowship, a multi-year college access program, on students’ standardized test scores, selective college application behaviors, and college enrollment patterns. By focusing on a population often subject to academic undermatch—students attending less selective institutions than their qualifications merit—the authors explore how social capital interventions can reduce inequalities in access to selective colleges and thereby advance educational equity .

Previous Literature

Past research consistently demonstrates that students from historically marginalized backgrounds, particularly low-income and first-generation students, are less likely to apply to and enroll in selective institutions despite having academic qualifications similar to their higher-income peers (Hoxby & Avery, 2013). This phenomenon of academic undermatch has important consequences, since selective colleges often provide greater resources, higher graduation rates, and improved labor market outcomes (Black & Smith, 2004; Dale & Krueger, 2014; Hoekstra, 2009).

Efforts to address this gap have emphasized the importance of social capital. Social capital interventions typically provide students with information, coaching, and personalized support through advisors or counselors, thereby supplementing what students may not receive from their families or schools (Stephan & Rosenbaum, 2013). Programs like College Possible (Avery, 2013) and advising studies by Carrell and Sacerdote (2017) and Castleman and Goodman (2018) have shown that such interventions can boost applications and enrollment in four-year institutions, but the evidence is mixed on whether they affect enrollment in the most selective institutions.

Nudge interventions—low-cost strategies such as sending informational packets or text reminders—have been tested as alternatives, but results are inconsistent and often small in magnitude (Dynarski et al., 2021; Gurantz et al., 2021). Few studies have rigorously examined whether sustained, multi-year advising programs targeting high-achieving, low-income students produce stronger outcomes than lighter-touch approaches. This study addresses that gap by focusing on the EMERGE Fellowship, which offers intensive advising beginning in the sophomore year of high school .

Data

The study focuses on 1,078 sophomores from the Houston Independent School District (HISD) who applied to the EMERGE Fellowship in fall 2016. HISD is a large, majority-minority urban district with a high proportion of low-income students. Approximately 77 percent of EMERGE applicants were economically disadvantaged, and 72 percent were first-generation college-goers.

The data sources include:

• Administrative records from HISD, including student demographics, GPA, PSAT scores, and advanced coursework.

• Application data from ApplyTX (a statewide portal) and the Common Application, providing information on the number and type of colleges applied to.

• National Student Clearinghouse records for college enrollment outcomes.

• Institutional characteristics (e.g., admission rates, graduation rates, and median SAT scores) from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

Dependent variables included SAT scores, application rates to most competitive (MC) and highly competitive (HC) colleges (as defined by Barron’s), number of applications, and enrollment in selective institutions. Additional measures included whether students enrolled in institutions with higher median SAT scores, lower admission rates, and higher graduation rates .

Methods

The study employs a sharp regression discontinuity (RD) design. Admission to EMERGE was determined by a rank-ordering system within each high school: students were scored on GPA, PSAT, extracurriculars, and resilience (via interview), and schools were allocated a fixed number of slots. Students at or above the cutoff rank at their school were admitted to EMERGE, while those below were not.

This school-specific cutoff allows the authors to compare students just above and just below the threshold, who are otherwise highly similar in characteristics, thereby isolating the causal effect of EMERGE. The authors focus primarily on an 8-point bandwidth around the cutoff, though robustness checks with alternative bandwidths are also conducted.

The regression discontinuity models control for demographic covariates (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, English learner status, economic disadvantage, first-generation status) and include school fixed effects. The main analyses estimate intent-to-treat (ITT) effects of being admitted to EMERGE, though fuzzy RD models using partial compliance data from the first semester are also provided as robustness checks .

Findings/Size Effects

The results reveal striking differences between EMERGE students and their non-EMERGE peers:

1. SAT Scores:

   
   

   • No significant effects were found on SAT math, verbal, or composite scores.

   • Coefficients were near zero, suggesting EMERGE’s impacts are not driven by improvements in academic competitiveness.

   
   

2. College Applications:

   
   

   • EMERGE students were 17 percentage points more likely to apply to a most competitive (MC) Barron’s college (Cohen’s d = 0.36 SD, p < 0.05).

   • They were 13 percentage points more likely to apply to an MC/HC institution (d = 0.32 SD, p < 0.10).

   • On average, EMERGE students submitted 1.5 more MC applications (d = 0.47 SD, p < 0.01) and 2.6 more MC/HC applications (d = 0.58 SD, p < 0.01).

   
   

3. College Enrollment:

   
   

   • Enrollment in MC colleges increased by 15 percentage points (d = 0.43 SD, p < 0.01).

   • Enrollment in MC/HC colleges increased by 18 percentage points (d = 0.41 SD, p < 0.01).

   • EMERGE students enrolled in colleges with median SAT scores 58 points higher than those of non-EMERGE peers (d = 0.35 SD, p < 0.10).

   • They also attended institutions with lower admission rates (–7 percentage points, d = 0.28 SD, p < 0.10) and higher graduation rates (+11 percentage points, d = 0.43 SD, p < 0.01).

   
   

4. Institutional Choice:

   
   

   • EMERGE students were more likely to attend out-of-state selective institutions, including Ivy League and liberal arts colleges, and less likely to enroll in local community colleges.

   • For example, while fewer than 1% of non-EMERGE students attended an Ivy League school, 4% of EMERGE admits did.

   
   

5. Subgroup Analyses:

   
   

   • Gender: Effects were stronger for female students, who showed consistent gains in both applications and enrollment.

   • Race/Ethnicity: Hispanic students benefited more in enrollment outcomes than Black students. Many Black students instead chose Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), which are not categorized as MC/HC colleges in Barron’s.

   • School Context: Effects were strongest in low-college-going schools, suggesting EMERGE may be particularly effective where college-going culture is weaker.

   
   

6. Comparison to Nudge Interventions:

   
   

   • Students randomly assigned to receive non-personalized information packets showed no improvements in outcomes, underscoring the importance of personalized, sustained advising.

   • Effect sizes for EMERGE were larger than those reported in widely cited nudge experiments, and comparable to or stronger than those in prior advising interventions .

   
   

Conclusion

The study concludes that intensive, multi-year advising programs like EMERGE can significantly improve selective college outcomes for high-achieving, low-income, and first-generation students. Unlike nudge interventions that provide only information, EMERGE’s personalized, relationship-based model helps students navigate the complex college application process and make more ambitious choices.

The null effects on SAT scores suggest that the program’s success is not due to boosting academic ability but rather to enhancing students’ knowledge, confidence, and decision-making through social capital. EMERGE provides heuristic guidance, application strategies, and encouragement that allow students to overcome informational and cultural barriers to selective college enrollment.

The findings also highlight important subgroup differences. The program seems particularly impactful for female and Hispanic students, as well as for students in high schools with low college-going rates. In contrast, Black students’ enrollment effects were muted, partly because many opted for HBCUs. These nuances suggest that while EMERGE is broadly effective, tailoring advising to account for cultural and institutional preferences could enhance its impact across diverse student populations.

From a policy perspective, the study demonstrates the limitations of low-cost, information-only interventions and underscores the value of investing in intensive advising for underserved high-achievers. However, scalability remains a challenge, as programs like EMERGE require substantial staffing, training, and funding. Future work should explore cost-effective strategies for expanding access without sacrificing personalization.

In sum, this research provides compelling causal evidence that social capital interventions can reduce academic undermatch and promote educational equity. By helping high-achieving, low-income students access selective colleges, programs like EMERGE not only change individual trajectories but also contribute to broader goals of social mobility and opportunity .