Dual-credit programs allow high school students to earn college credits, potentially reducing the time and cost of earning a degree. But evidence on their long-term impacts—particularly for underserved students—has been mixed. A new study by researchers from The Research Institute at Dallas College and The University of Texas at Dallas examines the long-term financial outcomes of dual-credit students and finds that participants experienced an increase in earnings compared to non-participants.
Using individual-level administrative data, the researchers tracked students from the 2011 graduating class across 22 Texas districts, comparing outcomes of students who participated in dual-credit courses against students who did not. Initially, dual-credit students earned less than non-participants in the years immediately after high school, likely because they were more likely to enroll in college. But by the sixth year after graduation, dual-credit participants were earning 4 percent to 9 percent more annually—a wage gap that persisted through year 12.
The benefits of dual credit, however, were not evenly distributed. White, male, and English-proficient students saw the largest gains compared to their peers who did not participate in dual credit, with White students earning 8 percent to 13 percent more annually. In contrast, African American, Hispanic, limited English proficient, and lower-performing students experienced smaller or statistically insignificant improvements. Notably, economically disadvantaged students began to see greater earnings increases than their more advantaged peers in the later years of the 12-year period.
The study also found that dual-credit students were more likely to carry higher annual student loan debt—particularly African American and economically disadvantaged students—likely reflecting longer postsecondary enrollment and, therefore, more years of borrowing.
Overall, the study suggests that while dual-credit programs can improve long-term earnings, the benefits are not equally shared. The authors recommend more intentional advising and better alignment between dual credit coursework and college pathways to ensure that these programs better serve underserved students.