Skip to main content

The Race Goes On: Who wins?

If you know much about higher education, you know that about 80% of college students enrolled in not-for-profit institutions the US attend public universities and colleges.  Nine percent of all college enrollments, for instance, are in California Community Colleges.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe public universities--whether they are the state's flagship or a university with two directions in its name--have an obligation at some level to the citizens of the state who support it. And by "citizens of the state" I mean all citizens.

People at the university, of course, are often focused on making the university more prestigious; look at almost any strategic plan, for instance, and you're likely to find something about "improving academic quality as measured by standardized test scores," or something very similar.

One problem: The two goals tend to be in conflict with each other.

So for this visualization, I made it very simple: I took public institutions with a Carnegie Classification of "Research Universities: Very High Research Activity."  They're more often than not considered to be the state flagship institution, or, in some states, one of the flagships.

The charts are identical, except for the x-axis.  On the top chart, it's mean SAT CR+M of the entering freshman class; in the bottom, it's the mean ACT-Composite.  (Because IPEDS reports only 25th and 75th percentiles, I averaged the two, which is not perfect, but close enough for this analysis.)

The y-axis shows percentage of freshmen who receive a Pell Grant.  Of course, to be fair, it's not the percentage of admitted freshmen who are eligible for a Pell Grant, so there are several possible explanations for this number that is a residual of a complicated process.

Right away, of course, you notice the trend: As test scores go up, low-income students go down.  Add to it diversity, as indicated by the color of the point, and you see another pattern: The bluer dots are more heavily Asian and Caucasian; note also that they're below the line (presumably under-performing on enrolling kids with Pell), and more likely to be on the right side (high test scores) of the chart.

It's a fair criticism, of course, to point out that not every state has similar levels of wealth and poverty.  But I doubt that many of these places would be unable to find more poor students in their state, were they to simply understand that the thing they think is propelling them--test scores--may be the very thing that is holding them back.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs

Yes, your yield rate is still falling, v 2020

I started doing this post on a regular basis several years ago, in response (if I recall) to a colleague talking about their Board of Trustees Chair insisting that "all we need to do" to bring enrollment back to its former level is to get the yield rate up.   That's the equivalent of saying all you need to do is straighten your drives and cut ten putts from each round, and you'll be a great golfer.  Moreover, it's based on the assumption that a falling yield rate is based on something you're doing or not doing.  The challenge is much larger, and a lot harder to address.  It's not a switch you flip. So we've got this: A look at applications, admits, and enrolls over the last twenty years, and three key ratios that are based on those numbers: Admit rate, or the percentage of applicants offered admission; yield rate, or the percentage of those offered admission who enroll; and the lesser-known draw rate, which is calculated by dividing the yield rate by t