Skip to main content

Is Admissions Fair to Women?

We go through cycles in college admissions, it seems, and the topic of interest in recent days (at least based on my limited view on things) has to do with gender discrimination in college admissions.

Most men readily admit that women are smarter, especially when it comes to high school performance. Others point out that men score higher on standardized tests, which predict far less with regard to college performance than grades do, and probably shouldn't carry as much weight as they do.

The focus on the treatment of young men and women in college admission goes back at least as far as this article in the New York Times in 2006. And the topic has been popping up a lot lately, most recently when Patrick O'Connor sent me this article, and asked for my opinion.  I thought it would be an interesting idea to look at the data.  So I did, using IPEDS data from the Fall of 2012.

The story here is interesting: The thing that jumps out at you, or at least might jump out at you, is that women file far more applications than men, which drives the fact that 55% of college students are now women. (Note: The number of applications from women does not necessarily mean that more women are applying to college, although in this case it does.)

The second thing that might jump out at you is that this is not true at the most selective institutions, where men file about the same number of applications.  Why is this?  Lots of reasons you could speculate about, and almost none of them reflect well on our society.  I'll leave the answers to researchers.

Anyway, have at it.  Use the filters liberally here (you won't break anything); the top three charts show summaries, and the bottom one shows individual institutions.  You can choose by selectivity, state, Carnegie Classification, public or private, in any combination.

And the bottom filter allows you to see the places where men have the greatest advantage in terms of admit rates.  Enjoy.


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