Canadian Public Policy

Access to College and University: Does Distance to School Matter?

Author(s): Marc Frenette
Source: Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 427-443
Published by: University of Toronto Press on behalf of Canadian Public Policy
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3552523 .
Accessed: 31/03/2011 18:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utp. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Toronto Press and Canadian Public Policy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques.

http://www.jstor.org
Access to College and University:
Does Distance to School Matter?
MARC FRENETTE
Businessand LabourMarketAnalysisDivision
StatisticsCanada
Ottawa,Ontario

On sait ddj~quepoursuivredes dtudesau-deladu secondaireest moinsprobablechez les dtudiantsissus de

famillesafaible revenu.Nous apportonsune contributiona l'dtudede l'accbsaux dtudespost-secondaires
en examinantle r61equejoue la distancequi sdpareles dtudiantsde l'dcole secondairedes dtablissements
d'enseignementpost-secondaire,et en pretantune attentionparticulibreau choix que font les dtudiants
entrele collbgeet l'universitd.La distancede l'dcole peutdissuaderl'dtudiantde poursuivreses dtudes,en
raisonducofitdurelogement,surtoutdansle cas de l'dtudiantissu d'unefamilleafaiblerevenu.Les rdsultats
de notredtudesoutiennentl'idde que, al'accroissementde la distancede l'dcole s'associe un decart dans
1'accbsaux 6tudespost-secondaires,dcartqui va bien au-delade celui qui a 6tdlid au revenufamilial.Plus
prdcisdment,l'accroissementde la distancede l'universitdest associdea une frdquentation plus faible de
a
l'universitdet une plus grandetendance frdquenter le collbgelocal. Ce phdnombnes'avbrebeaucoupplus
marquddansles famillesa faible revenu.
It is alreadyknownthatstudentsfromlower-incomefamiliesareless likely to pursuepostsecondarystudies.
This study contributesto our knowledgeof postsecondaryaccess by focusing on the role played by the
distanceseparatinghigh-schoolstudentsfrompostsecondaryinstitutions,withparticularfocuson thechoice
betweencollege anduniversityattendance.Distanceto school may act as a deterrentto attendingby virtue
of relocationcosts, especiallyif the studentis froma lower-incomefamily.The studyfindingssupportthe
notionthatincreaseddistanceto school is associatedwith an access gap, even aboveandbeyondthe gap
thathas beenlinkedto familyincome.Specifically,increaseddistanceto universityis associatedwith lower
universityattendance,anda largertendencyto attendthe local college instead.This relationshipis foundto
be muchstrongerin lower-incomefamilies.

INTRODUCTION important implications for earnings inequality,

economicvalueof a or
university college
The
educationhas long been studiedby economists
and sociologists.The literaturehas reacheda con-
sensuson the averagerateof returnto an additional
year of schooling- roughly6 percentto 10 per-
cent in additionalearnings.1Becauseit may have
intergenerationalincome mobility,and skill devel-
opment, some more recent work has focused on
issues concerningaccess to postsecondaryschool-
ing. This line of research has very clear policy
relevancefor studentloan programsand scholar-
ships,especiallythosethatareat leastpartiallybased
on financialneed.An obviousmeasureof financial

CANADIANPUBLICPOLICY- ANALYSEDE POLITIQUES,

VOL.XXX,NO.4 2004
428 Marc Frenette
need is familyincome,which is knownto be posi-
tively correlatedwith access to university (e.g.,
Mehmet1978;MengandSentence1982;Christofides,
CirelloandHoy 2001; andCorak,LippsandZhao
2003).
Some studentsmay also face geographicbarri-
ers, which may translateto financialneed because
of the addedcosts of movingawayto attendschool.
These includedirectfinancialcosts (e.g., rentinga
movingvan, rentingan apartment,purchasingfur-
nitureor otheritemsfortheapartment, etc.), as well
as indirectfinancialcosts (e.g., foregoneeconomies
of scaleassociatedwithdividingthefamilyin two2).
Theremay also be emotionalcosts associatedwith
leaving home. Some studentsmay be reluctantto
leave homebecauseof theirnetworkof familyand
friends,or they may simplyfeel unprepared to live
on theirown. Of course,for otherstudents,added
distancebetweenthe home and the school may be
seen as an advantageif they desiremoreindepend-
ence fromtheirparents.
Identifyingthe magnitudeof these geographic
barriers,theirrolein shapingpostsecondary partici-
pationpatterns,and who is most affectedby these
barrierscan provideuseful informationfor the de-
velopment of needs-based student financial
assistanceprograms.Thesegeographicbarriersmay
also be linkedto skill shortagesin ruralareas.Post-
secondarygraduateswho werebornin a givenrural
areamay be less reluctantto settle thereaftertheir
studies.Despitethis, verylittle is knownaboutdis-
tance to school andits potentialrole in explaining
postsecondaryparticipationpatterns.
Some recent work by Frenette(2005) suggests
that distanceto school plays an importantrole in
As manyas one in fivehigh-
universityparticipation.
school studentslive beyond80 km of straight-line
distancefroma university,andareonly 58 percent
as likelyto attenduniversityas studentslivingwithin
easy commutingdistance- less than40 km (after
accountingfor differencesin familyincome,paren-
tal educational attainment, sex, and province).
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004
Moreover,the negativeeffect of distanceis felt far
more amongstudentsfromlower-incomefamilies,
which supportsthe notionthatfinancialcosts are a
largepartof thereasonwhydistanceis sucha strong
deterrentto attendinguniversity.AndresandLooker
(2001) also reachedsimilarconclusionswith dif-
ferentdataandmethods.
The currentstudyfollows up on the distanceto
schoolworkby Frenette(2005)withmorecomplete
datathatincludesinformationon colleges. First,do
studentswholive too farto attenduniversity"make
up"forthisdisadvantageby attendingcollege?Sec-
ond, is this uptakein college participationlikely to
occuramongstudentsfromlower-income families-
those most negativelyaffectedby living far away
from universities?Living too far to attendcollege
is generallyless of anissue, giventhatcollegeshave
a strongruralpresence.Nevertheless,a thirdobjec-
tive of the paperis to assess the role of commuting
distancein college participation.
Studyingthe role of distanceto schoolis appeal-
ing from an analyticalpoint of view comparedto
other cost-relatedbarriers.For example,studying
the role of tuitionfees in postsecondaryaccess can
be problematicforseveralreasons.First,tuitionfees
are not necessarilyexogenoussince they may re-
spondto anincreaseddemandfortheprogram.This
wouldleadto a positivecorrelationbetweentuition
and programparticipation,whichmay be counter-
intuitive.Moreover,exogenouschangesin tuition
fees may be largelydeterminedby policy changes
at the federalor provinciallevel, ratherthanat the
institutionorprogramlevel.Thislargelyreducesthe
numberof naturalor randomexperimentsthat re-
searchers could draw upon.3 On the other hand,
differencesin distanceto school areperhapscloser
to randomexperiments.By andlarge,peopledo not
choose wherethey growup. Whatmightmakedis-
tance to school less random are significant
differencesin the cognitiveabilitiesof childrenin
urbanandruralareas.In this study,parentaleduca-
tion and family income are used to proxy the
cognitive abilities of the parents,which may be
 Accessto Collegeand University:DoesDistanceto SchoolMatter?
highly correlatedwith the cognitiveabilitiesof the
students.
Briefly, the results indicatethat thereis a con-
siderable uptake in college participationamong
studentsliving neara college only (relativeto stu-
dents living near a universityand a college). This
uptakein college participationalmost fully coun-
terbalancesthe lower universityparticipationrate
amongstudentsliving neara college only,suchthat
the overallpostsecondaryparticipation rate(univer-
sity and college) is about the same for bothgroups
of students- about40 percenteach.The uptakeis
concentratedamongstudentsfromlower-andmid-
dle-income families - those most negatively
affectedby distancein accessinguniversity.Students
from upper-incomefamilies show no signs of an
uptakein college participationwhenlivingfaraway
fromuniversity.Studentsliving beyondcommuting
distancefrom college are 37 percentless likely to
attendcollege thanthose living withincommuting
distance.Studentsfromlower-incomefamilies are
affectedfar moreby living beyondcommutingdis-
tance to college than are other students. It is
importantto note, however,thatonly about3 per-
centof high-schoolstudentslive beyondcommuting
distanceto college.
The balance of this paper follows in standard
fashion.The next sectiondescribesthe policy con-
text surroundingissues of geographic access to
postsecondaryinstitutions.This is followed by the
core of the paper,in which the dataandresultsare
describedin sequence.Finally,the studyis summa-
rized in the conclusion.
POLICY
CONTEXT
The findings in this study will certainly inform
policy debatesconcerningpostsecondaryfunding.
One topic thatarisesin these debatesis the relative
merits of the different channels through which
policymakerscan increasepostsecondaryfunding
to reduceaccess gaps.Geographicaccess gapsmay
CANADIANPUBLICPOLICY- ANALYSEDE POLITIQUES,
429
be addressedthroughstudentfinancialassistance
programstargetedat studentsin outlyingareas(i.e.,
student loans, bursariesor grants)or by funding
morespacesin new or existinginstitutionsor satel-
lite campusesin outlyingareas(i.e., buildingnew
structures,hiringadditionalinstructors,and subsi-
dizing tuition). In other words, do we bring the
student to the school or bring the school to the
student?
The fact thatstudentscan be easily classifiedby
their proximityto postsecondaryinstitutionspro-
vides a convenient mechanism for increasing
fundingdirectlythroughstudentassistance.Know-
ing themagnitudeof thegeographicaccessgap,and
which studentsare most affected by it, provides
valuable information in the design of student-
assistanceprograms.
Increasingfundingvia new or existing institu-
tionsin outlyingareasis a slightlymorecomplicated
matter.First, thereis the issue of local demandin
these areas.Not only are these communitiesquite
small,butthe groupof studentsthatwouldpresum-
ably benefitthe most from additionallocal spaces
is also very small(17 percentof all studentsdo not
have local access to a university,andof these, it is
studentsfromfamiliesin thebottomincometierthat
aremost affectedby distance).It is also not certain
thatadditionalspaceswouldbe filled by local stu-
dents,as excess demandmayexist in largercentres.
In thatcase, a moretargetedpolicymightbe geared
towardstudentassistance,as opposedto reducing
geographicbarriersin a physicalsense.
Of course, there are instanceswhen additional
spacesareneededto meetchangesin demand.Ques-
tions on how to allocatethese spacesarise,as well
as how these decisions may impact local access.
Theseissues playeda role in the debatesleadingup
to the Ontario"doublecohort"yearof 2003-04. In
essence, the OntariogovernmenteliminatedGrade
13 fromthe high-schoolcurriculum,whichwas re-
quiredfor admittingOntariostudentsinto Ontario
universities.Thelast Grade13 studentswereslated
VOL.XXX,NO. 4 2004
430 MarcFrenette
to graduatein 2002-03 along with Grade 12 stu-
dents,forminga doublecohortof studentsentering
the marketfor universityand college admission.
Additionalspaceswere necessaryto meet the sud-
demand,butwhichschools
denrisein postsecondary
shouldhavereceivedthe additionalfunding?
In the 2002 Ontariobudget speech, it was an-
nounced that postsecondary funding would be
increasedby $75 millionto accountfor reviseden-
rolmentprojectionsin the doublecohortperiod.In
the samespeech,it was statedthat"we also recog-
nize thatnorthernandruralcollegesanduniversities
face financialchallengesdue to economiesof scale
and geography." As a result,it was announcedthat
an additional$16 millionin operatingfundswould
be allocatedto these institutions"to providefair-
ness andequity."4
TheOntario-based group"PeopleforEducation"
expressedconcernoverthe possibilitythatstudents
from largercities would have to face the prospect
of attendingschools in distantareas.In a 2003 re-
portentitledTheirFuturesat Stake,the groupcites
that northernand easterninstitutionswere able or
ready to take more studentsin the 2003-04 year
whenexpressedas a percentageof theircurrentfirst-
yearenrolmentthanschoolsin southwestern Ontario
andthe GreaterTorontoArea,whichmaybe indica-
tive of excess local demandin the morepopulous
areas.Theygo on to statethat"manydoublecohort
studentswho would have gainedentranceto local
institutionsin previousyearsmay not. Theywill be
forcedto considerdistantcolleges and universities.
Whetherdoublecohortstudentscan acceptthe addi-
tionalfinancialburdenof accommodation, andliving
expenses - on of
top high tuitioncosts - will be-
in
comea largerfactor postsecondary education."5
DATA
The datarequirements of this studyareverysimilar
to Frenette(2005). First, longitudinaldata on stu-
dents "at risk"of attendinguniversityis required
CANADIANPUBLICPOLICY- ANALYSEDE POLITIQUES,
VOL.XXX,NO. 4 2004
(including family backgroundcharacteristicsand
geography).The Surveyof LabourandIncomeDy-
namics (SLID) satisfies these requirementsquite
effectively. SLID is a longitudinalhouseholdsur-
vey using the LabourForce Survey (LFS) as a
samplingframe.Eachpanelin SLIDis interviewed
for up to six years,anda new (overlapping)panelis
introducedeverythreeyears.Thefirstpanelstarted
in 1993 and is now completeup to 1998. The sec-
ondpanelbeganin 1996andcurrentlyhasfouryears
of data(up to 1999).The mostimportantfeatureof
this datasetis thatthe postal code of the students'
home while in high school is available.
Which students are at risk of attending a
postsecondaryinstitution?In mostcases, one could
simplylookat studentsimmediatelyfollowinghigh-
school graduation(12 years of elementary and
secondaryschoolingin mostprovinces).In Quebec
and Ontario,however,universityentrancerequire-
mentsaredifferent.Quebecstudentsmustcomplete
at leasttwoyearsof theuniversitystreamof CEGEP,
whereasOntariostudentsmustcompletetheirOn-
tarioAcademicCredits(OACsor Grade13), at least
duringthe periodof study.Since the objectiveis to
look atthestudent'scircumstances whilelivingwith
his or her family,it wouldbe inappropriate to ob-
serveQuebecstudentswhile in CEGEPsince some
studentsleave home to attend,thus possiblyform-
ing their own family.6 Similarto Frenette(2005),
the strategyappliedhere is to look at all students
who are two years awayfrombeing eligible to at-
tenduniversityin theirhomeprovinceundernormal
circumstances.7This requireslooking at students
who just completedGrade 11 in Quebecand On-
tario,andGrade10 in all otherprovinces(year"t").
Theirpostsecondaryparticipationpatterns(univer-
sity and college) are then observedover the next
two years (up to year "t+2").The highestlevel at-
tended is the one that predominatesin the final
analysis (i.e., a studentwho attendscollege and
universitywouldbe coded as havingattendeduni-
versity).The sampleis furtherrestrictedto young
students- betweenthe ages of 15 and21 yearsold
while in high school.
 Accessto Collegeand University:
The second data requirementconsists of the
postalcodesof Canadianpostsecondaryinstitutions
andcolleges).This
(universities,university-colleges,
informationis availablefrom the Web sites of the
Associationof UniversitiesandCollegesof Canada
(AUCC)andthe Associationof CanadianCommu-
nity Colleges (ACCC).8 The AUCC Web site
contains the postal codes of 101 publicly funded
degree-granting universitiesanduniversity-colleges
(includingall campuses),while theACCCWebsite
containsthe postal codes of 377 "communitycol-
leges" (including all campuses).9 The term
"communitycollege"refersto publiclyfundednon-
university postsecondaryinstitutions, excluding
trade-vocationalschools and business colleges.10
Many provincesrefer to them as communitycol-
leges, buttheyareknownas CEGEPsin Quebecand
as colleges of applied arts and technology in
Ontario.1
The nextstepis to calculatethe distancebetween
thestudent's
homepriortograduating fromhighschool
andthenearestpostsecondary whichis done
institution,
with the postalcodes of the studentandthe institu-
tions.TheAppendixdescribesthisprocessin detail.
Threegroupsof studentsare of interestfor this
study:those living withincommutingdistanceof a
universityand a college, those living withincom-
mutingdistanceof a college only, andthose living
beyond commutingdistanceof a universityand a
college.12 Studentsliving beyond 80 km from a
postsecondaryinstitutionare classified as living
beyondcommutingdistance.13Note thatthisrefers
to the straight-linedistancebetweenthe two points,
and may correspondto a longerdrivingdistance.
The set of variablesusedin the analysisincludes:
Postsecondary Attendance:a categoricalvariable
no
indicating postsecondaryattendance(0), college
attendance(1), or universityattendance(2) shortly
afterhigh school (up to year"t+2,"the firstyearof
college/universityeligibility for non-Quebecstu-
dents,andthe first yearof universityeligibilityfor
CANADIANPUBLICPOLICY- ANALYSEDEPOLITIQUES,
Does Distanceto SchoolMatter? 431
Quebecstudents).Note thatstudentswho attended
college and universitywould be coded as having
attendeduniversity,althoughundernormalcircum-
stances,one wouldonly expectthis to occurin the
Quebecsystemwheretwo yearsof CEGEParere-
quiredpriorto attendinguniversity.
Distance to PostsecondaryInstitutions:a series
of dummyvariablesindicatingwhethera university
anda college arewithincommutingdistanceof the
student'shome while in high school (the omitted
category),only a college is withincommutingdis-
tance,andneithera universitynora collegeis within
commutingdistance.
FamilyIncome:dummyvariablesindicatingthe
income tier (meaningone-thirdin this context)of
the student'seconomicfamilywhile in high school.
Familyincomesareclassifiedby tierswithinthefive
standardareasizes of residencein orderto (partially)
accountfor differencesin the cost of living, as well
as the family'srelativesocio-economicstatusin the
community.14The five sizes include rural;small
urban(under30,000people);30,000-99,999people;
100,000-499,999 people; and 500,000 or more
people. The middle-incometier is the omittedcat-
egory.Note thatthe incomeis adjustedfor the size
of the familyin orderto createa per capitaincome
measurethataccountsfor economiesof scale asso-
ciatedwith largerfamilies.The preciseadjustment
consistsof dividingfamilyincomeby thesquareroot
of the size of the family.
ParentalEducation:dummyvariablesindicating
the highest level of educationalattainmentof the
parents(the highestlevel attainedby eitherparent
is a universitydegree, a college diploma, or no
postsecondarycertificate/don'tknow).
Female:a dummyvariableto accountfor differ-
ences in postsecondaryparticipationratesbetween
the sexes.
Province:a series of dummyvariablesindicat-
ing the provincethe studentlived in while in high
VOL.XXX,NO. 4 2004
432 Marc Frenette

school, with Ontarioas the omittedcategory.This attrition).The sampleoverrepresentsthe year 1998

can captureinherentdifferencesin postsecondary
participationacrossprovinces,eitherdue to differ-
ences in student composition, differences in
economicconditionsacrossprovinces,differences
in tuition fees across provinces,or differencesin
the academicrequirementsfor college and univer-
sity admittance forQuebecand
(especiallyimportant
Ontariostudents).
(regardingpostsecondaryparticipation)since the
SLID panels startoverlappingin 1996 (the high-
school students are sampled in 1996, and their
postsecondary upto 1998is observed).
participation
The sampledropsagainin 1999sincethefirstpanel
endedin 1998. The samplingweights aredesigned
to adjustfor this asymmetry.

Year:a seriesof dummyvariablesindicatingthe

TABLE1
yearup to whichwe observepostsecondaryattend- Sample Means
ance (year "t+2").This can capturetrendsin other
factorsthatmay affectpostsecondaryparticipation education = university 0.192
levelattended
Highest
(e.g., improvingeconomicconditionsor risingtui- education
Highest = college
levelattended 0.200
tion fees in the 1990s). Topincome
tier 0.403
Middleincome tier 0.335
The samplemeansof these variablesappearbe- Bottom incometier 0.263
low in Table 1. An equal proportionof students
and
University collegenearby 0.831
Collegenearby 0.135
attendeduniversityand college shortlyafterhigh Nouniversity/college 0.034
nearby
school (aboutone in five attendedeach).Note that Highesteducationallevelofeither
some studentswho attendeduniversitymay have parent= university
degree 0.158
also attendedcollege, butthe highestlevel attended Highesteducationallevelofeither
About40 percentof the samplecomes parent=collegediploma 0.242
predominates. Neither hasa postsecondary
fromfamiliesin the top incometier (withinan area parent
certificate
ordon'tknow 0.601
of a givensize), butthis is dueto the impliedage of Female 0.475
the parentsin the sample relative to the general Newfoundland 0.029
population- by design,theyhaveat leastone child Prince
Edward Island 0.005*
who is between the ages of 15 and 21 years old. NovaScotia 0.039
NewBrunswick 0.034
Most studentsare withincommutingdistance(less
Quebec 0.116
than80 km) of a universityand a college (83 per- Ontario 0.431
cent). Another13.5 percentare withincommuting Manitoba 0.043
distancefroma college only,while only 3.4 percent Saskatchewan 0.046
are out-of-commutingdistancefromeithertype of Alberta 0.108
institution.Recall that studentswho were within British
Columbia 0.148
1995 0.114
commutingdistance from a university,but not a 1996 0.185
college, areexcludedfromthe studysince thereare 1997 0.158
veryfew of thesecases.Thesampleunderrepresents 1998 0.359
Quebecstudentssimplybecausefamilyinformation 1999 0.186
hadto be garneredby lookingbackone year(since
N 2,065
someGrade11 studentsmayhavealreadyleft home
to attendCEGEPor to work).This eliminatedthe
Note:Inthisandallfollowing theterm"nearby"
tables,
first wave of the first two panels (1993 and 1996, tolessthan80kmofstraight-line
refers distance.
respectively),as well as anynewcross-sectionaltop- * Estimate
shouldbeviewedwithcaution.
ups (whichare addedto the sampleto accountfor

CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004

 Does Distanceto SchoolMatter?
Accessto Collegeand University: 433

RESULTS province, with Saskatchewanrankingthe lowest,

The GeographicProximityto Collegesand
Universities
Table 1 answeredthe question "Whereare high-
schoolstudentslocatedrelativeto thenearestcollege
and/oruniversity?"Due to smallprovincialsample
sizes, this questioncould not be investigatedat the
provinciallevel. However,by using the 1996 SLID
cross-sectionalsample, the location of the entire
populationrelativeto universities/collegescan be
ascertained.Table2 shows the distributionof the
populationby distanceto thenearestuniversityand/
or college for all Canadiansandby province.
First, note that the nationalproportionsfor all
Canadians(Table2) are quiteclose to the national
proportionsfor all students (Table 1). Frenette
(2005) found that there was tremendousvariation
in the proximityof universitiesto Canadiansby
followedby Newfoundland andLabrador.15 Wenow
see thatthemajorityof thepopulationin Newfound-
landandLabrador andSaskatchewan is nevertheless
withincommutingdistanceto a universityor a col-
lege, as many of their residents are within
commutingdistanceto a college only. At least 89
percentof residentsin anyprovincelive withincom-
mutingdistanceof a universityor a college (see the
TotalcolumnunderUniversityor CollegeNearby).
Rankinghighest are Prince EdwardIsland, Nova
Scotia,andNew Brunswick(100 percenteach),fol-
lowed by Ontario(99 percent).Rankinglowest is
Manitoba(89 percent),followedby Newfoundland
and LabradorandAlberta(93 percent).In general,
the vast majorityof the Canadianpopulationlives
neara universityor a college. Most of the analysis
will thusfocus on comparingthe participationrates
of studentswho live neara universityanda college
to those of studentswho live neara college only.

2
TABLE
Distribution in1996byDistance
of Population to NearestUniversity
and/orCollege

Type ofInstitution
Nearby
or Nearby
UniversityCollege Neither
Province and
Sample University nor Total
University
College CollegeOnly Total College
Nearby

Newfoundland
andLabrador 3,588 0.579 0.347 0.926 0.074 1.000
PrinceEdward
Island 1,875 0.907 0.093 1.000 0.000 1.000
NovaScotia 4,790 0.957 0.043 0.999 0.001 1.000
NewBrunswick 4,535 0.858 0.142 1.000 0.000 1.000
Quebec 13,470 0.905 0.064 0.969 0.031 1.000
Ontario 20,462 0.921 0.073 0.993 0.007 1.000
Manitoba 4,845 0.789 0.106 0.895 0.105 1.000
Saskatchewan 4,729 0.488 0.478 0.965 0.035 1.000
Alberta 6,069 0.771 0.162 0.933 0.067 1.000
British
Columbia 6,367 0.848 0.124 0.971 0.029 1.000
Canada 70,730 0.867 0.106 0.973 0.027 1.000

Note:Excludes
thosewithonlya university
nearby.

CANADIANPUBLICPOLICY- ANALYSEDE POLITIOUES.

VOL.XXX.NO. 4 2004
434 Marc Frenette

Distanceto Schooland Postsecondary Anotherinterestingresult from Table 3 is that

Attendance
DescriptiveAnalysis
Looking first at the raw data, Table 3 shows the
postsecondaryattendanceratesby the typeof insti-
tution nearby(within 80 km). Studentswithin 80
kmof a universityanda college areequallyas likely
to attenduniversityor college (aboutone in five, or
20 percent,attendeach type of institution).When
only a college is within80 km, the universitypar-
ticipationrate falls to 13 percent,and the college
participationraterises to about22 percent.On the
surface,it appearsthat the uptakein college par-
ticipationis quite low comparedto the decline in
universityparticipation;however,these results do
not accountfor differencesin observablecharacter-
istics. As it turnsout, Quebecstudentsplay a large
role in these results for two reasons:they are far
morelikelyto attendcollege(CEGEP),16 anda rela-
tively highproportion of themlive neara university
and a college (Table2). By excludingQuebecstu-
dents,theuptakein collegeparticipation in outlying
areas almost fully counterbalancesthe decline in
universityparticipation(see the bottomof Table3).
In the regressionanalysis,Quebecstudentswill be
included,but the provinceof residencewill serve
as a controlvariable.
studentsliving beyondcommutingdistancefroma
collegearefarless likelyto attendcollegethanthose
living withincommutingdistance.Recall,however,
thatonly 3.4 percentof studentslive beyondcom-
mutingdistancefrom a college (Table 1), so it is
perhapsless of an issue thandistanceto university.
EconometricAnalysis
In this section, the role of distance to school in
postsecondary participationis analyzedmoreclosely
in a multinomiallogit model with threeoutcomes:
no postsecondary schooling,collegeattendance,and
universityattendance.17
Model 1: The OverallRole of Distance. Students
who live beyondcommutingdistancefrom a uni-
versityareless likely to attenduniversity(Frenette
2005). If these studentsare withincommutingdis-
tance to a college, do they "make up" for this
disadvantage by beingmorelikelyto attendcollege?
The explanatoryvariablesincludedin the first
model are distanceto school, family income, pa-
rental education, sex, province, and the year by
which we observe whether the student attended
postsecondaryschooling or not. The results are
shownbelow in Table4.

3
TABLE
andNon-University
University Participation
Postsecondary to NearestUniversity/College
byDistance

Proportion
Attending
ofInstitution
Type Nearby Sample University orCollege
College University

Allstudents
andcollege
University 1,489 0.205 0.200 0.404
Collegeonly 448 0.130 0.217 0.347
Neither 128 0.112 0.134 0.246

Quebecstudentsexcluded
andcollege
University 1,346 0.229 0.146 0.376
Collegeonly 430 0.136 0.204 0.340
Neither 113 0.136 0.070 0.205

CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004

 Accessto Collegeand University:
Does Distanceto SchoolMatter? 435

4
TABLE
Attendance
Postsecondary 1 (multinomial
Model logit)

DependentVariable
0 = nouniversity/college
attendance
1= college
attendance Attendance
University Attendance
College
2 = university
attendance (PS=2) (PS= 1)

Intercept -1.990 *** -1.470 **

(-4.59) (-4.76)
Collegenearby -0.526 *** 0.319*
(-2.64) (1.65)
Nouniversity/college
nearby -0.539 -0.707**
(-1.64) (-1.98)
Topincometier 0.360* 0.209
(1.77) (1.07)
Bottomincometier -0.672 *** -0.056
(-2.64) (-0.24)
levelofeither
educational
Highest is a university
parent degree 1.362*** 0.110
(5.49) (0.46)
levelofeither
educational
Highest is a college
parent diploma 0.371 -0.186
(1.53) (-0.85)
Female 0.576 *** 0.208
(3.2) (1.24)
Newfoundland 0.507* -0.676 **
(1.87) (-2.19)
Edward
Prince Island 0.561 -0.944*
(1.53) (-1.69)
NovaScotia 0.426 -0.878 **
(1.51) (-2.37)
NewBrunswick 0.278 -0.382
(1.07) (-1.25)
Quebec -1.559 *** 1.639***
(-3.1) (6.13)
Manitoba 0.093 -0.649*
(0.31) (-1.76)
Saskatchewan -0.003 -0.679*
(-0.01) (-1.93)
Alberta -0.546 * -0.563 *
(-1.91) (-2.06)
British
Columbia -0.812 ** -0.128
(-2.49) (-0.48)
1996 0.845** 0.119
(1.96) (0.37)
1997 0.648 -0.226
(1.58) (-0.66)
1998 0.329 0.206
(0.9) (0.78)
1999 0.084 0.068
(0.22) (0.23)
N 2,065
ratio)
-2*log(likelihood 3,432.65

***significant
Notes:z statisticsinparentheses; **significant
at 1 percent; * significant
at 5 percent; at 1 percent.

CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004

436 Marc Frenette
Relativeto studentswith a universityanda col-
lege nearby,studentswithonly a collegenearbyand
thosewith neithera college nora universitynearby
are less likely to attenduniversity(by roughlythe
samemargin,given the equalmagnitudeof the co-
efficients).Studentswith a college nearbyaremore
likelyto attendcollege thanarestudentswitha uni-
versity and a college nearby(with a significance
level of 10 percent).Thus,thereis an uptakein col-
lege attendanceamongstudentsliving away from
universities,butwho areneverthelessnearcolleges.
Studentswho live awayfromcolleges, on the other
hand,areless likely to attendcollege thanstudents
who are near a college, whether a university is
nearbyor not (bothsignificantat 5 percent).18
Relativeto the middle-incometier, studentsin
the topincometieraremorelikely to attenduniver-
sity,while studentsin the bottomtier areless likely
to attend.The magnitudeof the coefficienton the
bottomtier variableis not only largerthanthatof
the top tier (in absolutevalue),it is also significant
at 1 percent(comparedto 10percentforthetoptier).
In terms of college attendance,income does not
seem to play a strongrole, as the coefficientsare
smallin magnitudeandnot statisticallysignificant.
Parentalpossessionof a universitydegreeis as-
sociated with a higher probabilityof university
participation,but havinga college-educatedparent
only has a small positiveimpacton the likelihood
of attendinguniversity (relative to not having a
postsecondary-educated parent).Forcollege attend-
ance,parentaleducationseemsto matterverylittle.
Consistent with published statistics from the
1990s,femalesare morelikely to attenduniversity
thanmales(significantat 1 percent).19Femalesare
only slightly more likely to attend college than
males, however,and the differenceis not statisti-
cally significant.
Manyprovincialcoefficientsare not significant,
indicatingthatstudentsin theseprovincesareabout
as likelyas Ontariostudents(thereferencecategory)
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004
areto attenduniversityor college.Oneprovincethat
standsoutis Quebec.Comparedto Ontario,students
in Quebec are far less likely to attenduniversity,
butarefarmorelikely to attendcollege. This might
be partlybecausemanyQuebecstudentsarestill in
CEGEPtwo yearsaftercompletingGrade11, even
if they plan on pursuinga universityeducation.A
longertime framewouldbe necessaryto moreac-
curatelydepictthesituationin Quebec,butthefocus
of this paperis on the nationalresults(usingprov-
ince as one of manycontrolvariables).
Model 2: Interact Family Income with Distance
to School. Since we know that the studentsmost
likely to be disadvantagedin accessinguniversity
as a result of commutingdistanceare those from
lower-incomefamilies(Frenette2005), it wouldbe
instructiveto knowif these studentsaretakingad-
vantageof theirproximityto college (to make up
for their disadvantagein accessinguniversity).To
answerthis question,the distancevariablesarein-
teractedwiththeincomevariablesin model2, which
is shownbelow in Table5.
To focus on the questionof college uptakein
outlyingareasby incometier, we need to examine
the college attendancecoefficients. More specifi-
cally, we need to look at the income/distance
interactioncoefficients.Forthetopincometier,stu-
dentsneara collegeonly areno morelikelyto attend
college than studentsnear a universityand a col-
lege (thecoefficienton the"topincometier*college
nearby"variableis slightly negative).The uptake
in college attendanceappearsto occur amongstu-
dentsfromlower-andmiddle-incomefamilies.Both
the "bottomincome tier*collegenearby"and the
"middleincome tier*collegenearby"are positive,
althoughnotquitesignificantatthe 10percentlevel.
For all threeclasses of income, studentsliving
far awayfromcolleges areless likely to attendcol-
lege than students living near both types of
institutions.Recallfrommodel1 thatthecoefficient
is significantat 5 percentwhen it is not interacted
with family income. Note that the samplesize of
 Accessto Collegeand University:
Does Distanceto SchoolMatter? 437

TABLE5
Postsecondary Model2: Distance
Attendance andIncomeInteracted
(multinomial
logit)

Dependent Variable
0 = nouniversity/college
attendance
1 = collegeattendance Attendance
University Attendance
College
2 = university
attendance (PS= 2) (PS= 1)
Intercept -1.997 *** -1.510 ***
(-4.57) (-4.72)
tier
Topincome 0.346 0.287
(1.51) (1.28)
Bottomincometier -0.571 ** -0.068
(-2.05) (-0.24)
Topincome
tier*college
nearby -0.401 -0.096
(-1.3) (-0.31)
Middle
income
tier*college
nearby -0.358 0.501
(-1.27) (1.59)
Bottomincometier*collegenearby -1.601 *** 0.568
(-3.28) (1.55)
tier*no
Topincome university/college
nearby -0.213 -0.587
(-0.53) (-1.06)
Middle
income
tier*no
university/college
nearby -1.175 * -0.656
(-1.87) (-1.18)
Bottom
income
tier*no
university/college
nearby -0.521 -1.023
(-0.5) (-1.27)
Highest levelofeitherparent
educational is a university
degree 1.377*** 0.101
(5.52) (0.42)
Highest levelofeitherparent
educational is a collegediploma 0.379 -0.179
(1.57) (-0.82)
Female 0.585 *** 0.212
(3.25) (1.26)
Newfoundland 0.504 * -0.703 **
(1.84) (-2.26)
Prince
Edward
Island 0.546 -0.948 *
(1.5) (-1.69)
NovaScotia 0.410 -0.874 **
(1.46) (-2.36)
NewBrunswick 0.249 -0.376
(0.96) (-1.22)
Quebec -1.568 *** 1.646 ***
(-3.11) (6.1)
Manitoba 0.073 -0.628 *
(0.24) (-1.7)
Saskatchewan 0.001 -0.696 **
(0) (-2.04)
Alberta -0.574 ** -0.562 **
(-1.99) (-2.04)
BritishColumbia -0.833 ** -0.115
(-2.55) (-0.43)
1996 0.846 ** 0.124
(1.97) (0.38)
1997 0.648 -0.215
(1.58) (-0.63)
1998 0.329 0.209
(0.9) (0.79)
1999 0.071 0.079
(0.19) (0.27)
N 2,065
-2*log(likelihood
ratio) 3,423.72

***significant
Notes:z statisticsin parentheses; at 1 percent;** significant
at 5 percent;* significant
at 1 percent.

CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004

438 MarcFrenette

eachclass of incomein thisdistancecategoryis very abilityof participatingin anytype of postsecondary

low, whichmightbe one reasonwhy the resultsare
not significant.Anotherreasonis thatthe reference
groupconsistsof studentsneara college anda uni-
versity, many of whom choose university over
college. Studentsfrom lower- and middle-income
families are less likely to attendcollege when one
is not nearbythanwhenone is nearby(buta univer-
sity is not nearby),with a significancelevel of 10
percent.
TheMagnitudeof the Role of Distance to
School
So far, we have examinedthe role of distanceto
school in a series of multinomiallogit models.To
betterappreciatethe magnitudeof this role, pre-
dictedprobabilitiesof postsecondaryparticipation
were generatedfromthe regressions.20
Figure1 showsthepredictedprobabilitiesof uni-
versityandcollege participationfor studentsliving
in thethreedistancecategories.Thepredictedprob-
schoolingis also shown.This is simplythe sum of
the universityand college predictedprobabilities.
All probabilitiesin Figure 1 arebasedon the coef-
ficientsestimatedin the first model.
Whena universityanda college are nearby,stu-
dents are as likely to attendeithertype of school.
When only a college is nearby,the universitypar-
ticipationrate falls considerably,but the college
participationrate increases substantially.On bal-
ance, the overall postsecondaryparticipationrate
(universityandcollege combined)is aboutthe same
for both types of students - about 40 percent.
Hence, despite the fact that studentswho live be-
yondcommutingdistancefroma universityareless
likely to attenduniversity,they arejust as likely to
pursuepostsecondaryschooling in general - as
long as a college is nearby.Whetherthis is the first
choice of thesestudentsis obviouslya questionthat
cannotbe answeredwithinthe scope of the dataat
hand.

1
FIGURE
Predicted
Postsecondary RatesbyDistance
Participation toSchool

0.50
0 UniversityParticipation
0.45 College Participation
0.40 0 Universityor College Participation
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10 -
0.05
0.00
Universityand College Nearby College Nearby No University/CollegeNearby

CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004

 Accessto Collegeand University:
Does Distanceto SchoolMatter? 439

Forthe groupof studentswho live beyondcom- Figure2 shows the postsecondaryparticipation

muting distance from a college, the college
participationrate is 37 percentlower than that of
studentsliving withincommutingdistance.21This
suggeststhatdistancepresentsa challengeto some
studentscontemplatinga college education.Never-
theless,only3.4 percentof studentsin thesamplelive
farawayfroma college.As outlinedinFrenette(2005),
distanceto school presentsa challengeto far more
potentialuniversitystudents:aboutone in five.
theuniversityparticipation
Interestingly, ratealso
increaseswhena college is no longerwithina local
commute.Thismightresultfromthe fact thatsome
studentswouldhave chosen college if thatwas the
only local choice; when no institution(college or
university)is nearby,some of these studentsmay
chooseto attenduniversity(sincetheyhaveto leave
home regardless).
rates for the three income tiers, which are gener-
ated from model 2. We see that for studentsfrom
families in the top income tier, the college-partici-
pation rate is the same whether they are near a
universityanda college, orjustneara college. Since
the universityparticipationis lower for these stu-
dents when they are beyond commutingdistance,
we also see a moderatedeclinein theiroverallpar-
ticipationrate.Studentsfromfamiliesin themiddle
andbottomincometiers, on the otherhand,arefar
more likely to attendcollege when living near a
college only(relativeto studentsin thesameincome
tier andliving neara universityand a college). The
overallpostsecondaryparticipationrateis aboutthe
sameforstudentsin lower-andmiddle-income fami-
lies whetherthey are near a
just college or nearboth
a universityanda college.

2
FIGURE
Predicted
Postsecondary RatesbyDistance
Participation toSchool

0 University
Participation
0.50
TopIncomeTier
1-.
MiddleIncomeTier
CollegeParticipation
D University
or CollegeParticipation
0.45
BottomIncomeTier
0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25 -

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05
0.00
Univ./Coll. Coll. No Univ./Coll. UnivJColl. Coll. No Univ./Coll. UnivJColl. Coll. No UnivJColl.
Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby

CANADIANPUBLICPOLICY- ANALYSEDE POLITIQUES,

VOL.XXX,NO. 4 2004
440 MarcFrenette
Collegeattendanceis lowerfor studentswho live
beyondcommutingdistancefroma college regard-
less of theirfamilyincome,butthis negativeeffect
is felt far moreamongstudentsfromlower-income
families.RecallfromTable5, however,thatthe co-
efficients generating these differences are not
statisticallysignificant.
CONCLUSION
Previousworkhas foundthathigh-schoolstudents
living beyondcommutingdistanceto universityare
farless likelyto attendshortlyafterhighschoolthan
those living withincommutingdistance,especially
amongstudentsfrom lower-incomefamilies. This
study seeks to answerthree follow-up questions.
First, are studentswho live far from universities
morelikely to attendcollege if one is nearby,even
if this may or may not be their first choice? And
given thatlower-incomestudentsare so negatively
affected by distancein accessing universities,do
they "makeup"for this disadvantageby attending
college? Finally, does distance to college pose a
substantialbarrierto studentscontemplatinga col-
lege education?
The resultsindicatethat studentsliving beyond
commutingdistancefroma universityarefar more
likely to attenda college, as long as one is nearby.
As a result, postsecondaryparticipationrates are
aboutthe samefor studentsliving neara college or
botha college anda university- about40 percent.
Thisuptakein collegeattendanceoccursamongstu-
dents from lower- and middle-income families
only - those most negativelyaffectedby distance
in accessing universities. Students from upper-
incomefamiliesareno morelikely to attendcollege
whenthis is the only choice nearby.
Studentswho live beyond commutingdistance
from a college are 37 percentless likely to attend
than those who live closer. As with universityat-
tendance,the negativeeffect of distanceto college
is felt far moreamongstudentsfromlower-income
CANADIANPUBLICPOLICY- ANALYSEDEPOLITIQUES,
VOL.XXX,NO. 4 2004
families.Nevertheless,distanceto schoolis gener-
ally less of an issue for colleges than it is for
universities.Only3 percentof studentslive beyond
commutingdistanceto a college, while one in five
students live beyond commuting distance to a
university.
The patternsof universityandcollege participa-
tionby familyincomeanddistanceto school(Figure
2) are consistentwith the notion that addedcosts
deterstudentsin less favourableeconomiccircum-
stances from pursuing a university or college
education.When no universityis nearby,students
from lower-incomefamilies are far less likely to
attendthan studentsfrom upper-incomefamilies.
The same can be said when no college is nearby,
althoughthis situationis far less common.In both
cases, however,the impacton studentsfrom mid-
dle-incomefamilieslies somewherein betweenthe
impacton studentsfrom lower- and upper-income
families.
As mentionedin thepolicycontextsection,these
resultsinformdebatesregardinguniversityfinanc-
ing.Addressinggeographicaccessissuesis normally
undertakenthroughtwo avenues:increasedassist-
ance to students and increased funding to
institutions.Since the geographiclocation of stu-
dents can be easily identified,the study findings
providepertinentinformationthat could assist the
designof studentloan programs.The findingsalso
informdebateson how to allocatenew fundsacross
universitiessince such decisionsoften have impli-
cationsfor local access.
NOTES
Anyviewsthatmaybe expressed in thispaperarethose
of theauthoranddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseof Sta-
tisticsCanada.Helpfulcommentswerereceivedfrom
GeorgeButlin,LouisChristofides, GarnettPicot,and
at
participants theCanadian
Economics meet-
Association
ings at CarletonUniversity,May 2003, and at the
Canadian Millennium
ScholarshipConference on Path-
ways to Access, Ottawa,October2003. RussellWilkins
 Accessto Collegeand University:
was veryhelpfulin providingadviceon usingthe PCCF+
in this andearlierwork.All remainingerrorsare the re-
sponsibilityof the author.
'Foran overviewof recentdevelopmentsin the litera-
ture,see Card(1999).
2Forexample,there may be substantialcost savings
associatedwith buyinglargerfood items. If the student
leaves home to attendschool, the two householdsmay
have to separatelypurchasesmallerfood items than if
the studenthadremainedat home(to avoidspoilage).Of
course,the studentmayrecoversome of these economies
of scale by sharinga dwellingwith otherstudents,so that
the student'sfamilymaysee the majorityof the foregone
economiesof scale.
3See Christofides,Cirello and Hoy (2001) for an ex-
ampleof a studyusing tuitionas an explanatoryvariable
in postsecondaryaccess. In a varietyof specifications,
the authorsdo not find a negativeand significanteffect.
4Thefull speechis availableat http://www.gov.on.ca/
FIN/bud02e/statement-eng.htm.
5The report is available via email at p4e@
peopleforeducation.com.
6InSLID,this dependson whetheror nottheyreturned
to live with their parentsduringthe year.If they return
for at least 30 days, say in the summer,they are still
groupedtogetherwiththeirparents;otherwise,theyform
theirown family.
7Studentsare eligible to attendcollege no later than
when they are eligible to attenduniversity.
8TheWeb sites can be visited at http://www.aucc.ca
and http://www.accc.ca,respectively.
9Thelist of universitiesandcolleges is availableupon
request.
'0lnformationon the postalcodes of tradeschoolsand
businesscolleges are not availableto the author.
"In Frenette(2005), only universitiesof interestto
the generalstudentpopulationwere included(71 of the
original 101, which accountedfor about91 percentof
the entirestudentbody).A non-negligibleproportionof
colleges aremainlygearedto thelocal labourmarket,and
thusofferprogramsin a veryspecificrangeof disciplines.
Eliminatingthese colleges wouldhave led to a largede-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004
Does Distanceto SchoolMatter? 441
cline in thenumberof colleges"atrisk"of beingattended.
Note thatin Frenette(2005), universityparticipationpat-
ternswererobustto theinclusionof all universities.Thus,
the currentstudyincludesall colleges anduniversitiesin
the analysis.
12A very tiny proportionof studentslive near a uni-
versity, but not near a college. These cases are omitted
since no substantialanalysiscouldbe performedon them.
13Frenette (2005) had threedistancecategories:0-40
km (within commutingdistance), 40-80 km (possibly
beyondcommutingdistance),and80 kmor more(beyond
commutingdistance).The smallercell sizes in the cur-
rent studynecessitatedcombiningthe 0-40 km and the
40-80 km categories;otherwise,nine categorieswould
need to be created.Note thatotherthresholdswere also
used(e.g., 60km, 100km,etc.),buttheresultswerequali-
tatively very similarin each case. The 80 km threshold
was chosen since it is a distancebeyondwhichit would
be extremelydifficultto commute,especiallygiven that
this is a straight-linedistanceandmaycorrespondto sub-
stantiallygreaterdrivingdistance.
'4Theresultsare robustto calculatingthe family in-
come tier acrossall of Canada.
'5Note that Frenette(2005) includedonly 71 of the
101 universities.This studyincludesall 101 universities.
Theresultsin Frenette(2005)arerobustto thisrestriction.
16ManyQuebecstudentsarestill in CEGEPtwo years
afterGrade11, even if they eventuallyplanon attending
university.As Frenette(2005) points out, a longertime
horizonwouldbe necessaryto moreaccuratelydepictthe
particularsituationin Quebec.
17Thegeneralmodelestimatedis Ln =
[Pij/(Pio)]Xi3j"
+i,
where"P"is the probabilityof postsecondaryparticipa-
tion, "x"is a vector of regressors,and "?"is a random
disturbanceterm.The subscript"i"denotesthe student,
while the subscript"j"denotesthe typeof postsecondary
schooling(0 = no postsecondary;
1 = college;2 = university).
The referenceoutcomeis "nopostsecondaryschooling"
(j= 0).
'8Onemightwonderif the distanceto school effect is
simply a "ruraleffect,"insomuchas ruralstudentsmay
simplybe moreinclinedto attendcollege as opposedto
university,and distancemay be highly correlatedwith
ruralstatus.To test this notion,an additionalregression
442 Marc Frenette
was estimatedwherebythe distancevariableswereinter-
acted with a rural indicator variable. Among rural
students,distanceplays the exact samerole as described
by model2 (i.e., comparedto those with local access to
both a college anda university,those with only local ac-
cess to a college are far less likely to attenduniversity,
butarefarmorelikelyto attenda college instead).Among
urbanstudents,we also see a solid decline in university
attendance(when only a college is nearby),but a more
moderateincrease in college attendance.In summary,
additional distance to school appearsto matter even
amongruralstudents,and(to a lesser extent)amongur-
ban students.Specificresultsareavailableuponrequest.
Onemightalso wonderaboutthepossibilitythatsome
studentsmaypreferto attendcollege for a yearor two in
orderto save costs, andthentransferto a university.This
can be a concernin BritishColumbiaandAlbertain par-
ticular, where some colleges have university transfer
credits.In essence, the fact thatstudentsare morelikely
to attendcollege when thatis the only local optionmay
be largelyexplainedby universitytransfercredits,at least
in these provinces.If a sufficientnumberof studentsin
thesecollegeseventuallymakethetransfer,thenwe would
expect to see a dampeningof the distanceeffects as we
look furtherinto the student'spostsecondaryschooling
years. To test this hypothesisat the nationallevel (pro-
vincial sample sizes are simply too small), the time
horizonof the estimationswereextendedto the student's
third year of college/universityeligibility, which still
showed very solid distance effects along the lines de-
scribed in Table 4. Specific results are availableupon
request.
19SeeCANSIMtables 580602, 580603, 580701, and
580702 for moredetailson universityenrolmenttrends.
20Thiswas done by applyingthe following general
formula:Pij= exp(xi'bj)/[1+ Ekexp(xi'bk)],k = 1 to 2
(college =1; university=2), where"Pij"is the predicted
probabilityof an individual"i"attendingpostsecondary
schooling "j",and "x,'b"is a linearcombinationof the
regressorvariables(at a given set of values xi') each
multipliedby theirestimatedregressioncoefficientin b.
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY - ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, VOL. XXX, NO. 4 2004
Thepredictionsarecalculatedat theindividuallevel, and
then averagedout overthe entiresample(basedon vari-
ous scenariosof interest). See Frenette(2005) for the
advantagesof this technique.
21Thecollege participation rateamongall studentsliv-
ing nearcolleges had to be calculated
to obtainthis figure.
To this end, it was necessaryto calculatea population-
weightedaverageof the predictedcollege participation
rates among studentsliving near both types of institu-
tions andthose living neara college only.
REFERENCES
Andres,L. and E.D. Looker.2001. "Ruralityand Capi-
tal: Educational Expectations and Attainmentsof
Rural/UrbanandMetropolitan Youth,"The Canadian
Journalof HigherEducation31(2):1-46.
Butlin,G. 1999. "Determinants of PostsecondaryEduca-
tion,"EducationQuarterlyReview5(3):9-35.
Card,D. 1999. "TheCausalEffectof Educationon Earn-
ings," in Handbookof LaborEconomics,Volume3,
ed. O. Ashenfelterand D. Card.Amsterdam:North-
Holland.
Christofides,L., J. Cirello and M. Hoy. 2001. "Family
IncomeandPostsecondaryEducationin Canada,"The
CanadianJournalof HigherEducation31(1):177-208.
Corak,M., G. Lipps and J. Zhao. 2003. FamilyIncome
and Participationin PostsecondaryEducation.Ana-
lyticalStudiesResearchPaperSeriesNo. 210. Ottawa:
StatisticsCanada.
Frenette,M. 2005. "TooFarto Go On?Distanceto School
and UniversityParticipation," EducationEconomics,
forthcoming.
Mehmet,0. 1978. WhoBenefitsfrom the OntarioUni-
versitySystem?Toronto:OntarioEconomicCouncil.
Meng,R. andJ. Sentence.1982."Canadian Universities:
WhoBenefitsandWhoPays?"TheCanadianJournal
of HigherEducation12(3):45-58.
Thiessen,V. and C. Nickerson.1978. CanadianGender
Trendsin Educationand Work.Ottawa:HumanRe-
sourcesDevelopmentCanada.
 Accessto Collegeand University:Does Distanceto SchoolMatter? 443

APPENDIX
TOSCHOOL
DISTANCE
CALCULATING

To calculatethe distancebetweenanytwo points,we simplyneedthe geographiccoordinatesof thepoints,

as well as some basic sphericalgeometry.The geographiccoordinates(latitudeandlongitude)of students
arederivedfromthe postalcodes of householdsby usingthe residentialversionof PostalCodeConversion
File Plus (PCCF+),a programthatconvertssix characterpostalcodes into variousgeographicunits,includ-
ing latitudeandlongitude.The institutions'geographiccoordinatesarecalculatedby usingthe institutional
versionof the PCCF+.Assumingthe earthto be a perfectspherewitha radiusof 6,370.997km,the formula
for the straight-linedistance(in kilometres)between the student'shome and the nearestpostsecondary
institutionis:

Distance= 6,370.997*arcos[sin(s_latrad)*sin(i_latrad)+cos(s_latrad)*cos(i_latrad)*cos(s_longrad-i_longrad)]

Thegeographiccoordinates(in degrees
Where"latrad"is the latitudein radians,andlikewisefor "longrad."
anddecimals)were convertedto radiansby dividingby 57.29577951.Note that"s_"denotesthe student's
locationand"i " denotesthe institution'slocation.

PUBLIC
CANADIAN - ANALYSE
POLICY DEPOLITIQUES,
VOL.XXX,NO.4 2004