Skip to main content

Educational Attainment in the States

In case the coverage of the 2016 presidential election didn't convince you, this might help you see why people in the rest of the country seem different somehow.

The data are from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, in 2012; this shows the educational attainment of adults 25-34 in that year.  Use the control at top right to pick a value to display on the map, and the states (represented by hex boxes here) change color to show the value you've chosen.  The bar chart also updates.

There are seven values:


  • Less than a HS Diploma shows the percentage of the population in that state aged 25-34 that did not complete high school
  • HS Diploma or Less shows the number above plus the percentage of people who have just a high school diploma
  • Exactly a HS Diploma shows just that: Everyone who graduated from high school but did not continue
  • HS Diploma or Higher is the percentage with at least a high school diploma, including everyone who went beyond that
  • Bachelor's Degree shows people who have just a BA or a BS
  • Bachelor's Degree or Higher and Graduate Degree should be self explanatory
Once you make a selection, the map and the bar chart update; both are color-coded with blue numbers lower and orange numbers higher.  Be careful with this: With low attainment rates, blue is presumably better (at least if you work in higher education); with higher attainment rates, orange is better.  Hover over a state to see the value, or look at the bar chart at the bottom, which displays the same data in a different format.

You may notice the map style; this is the first time I've used it, and I like it a lot.  It allows you to see values on small states that would otherwise get lost on traditional maps; and it allows Alaska and Hawaii to display just off the coasts without a lot of effort.  But I'd like to know what you think about them, too.







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