Skip to main content

Your daily dose of "No Kidding"

As a young admissions officer in 1985, I went to my first professional conference, AACRAO, in Cincinnati. I don't remember much about it, but one session is still clear to me. I had chosen a session almost by accident, probably, because it was admissions focused in a conference that was mostly registrars. And fate stepped in.

There was a last minute substitution, and Fred Hargadon filled in for some person whose name is lost to history. At the time, I didn't think I'd stay in admissions long; my personality type is atypical for the profession, and I didn't find a lot to excite me.  But in this session I found someone who could approach the profession, well, professionally; someone who could view admissions in a much larger context than I was used to seeing.  Someone who was more intellectual and conceptual than friendly (although he was both).

I remember a lot of that session, but one thing has stuck with me through all this time.  He said, "In all my years in this profession, I've learned only two things: First, that the block on which  you were born determines where you'll end up in life more than any other factor; and second, if we had to choose the absolute worst time to put someone through the college admissions process, it would be age 17."

It was that first part that hit me.  It still does.  And here is some data that suggests things beyond your control still determine where you end up.  It's from the NCES Digest of Education Statistics, and shows what happened to students who were sophomores in high school in 2002 ten years later.

This is a pretty easy visualization to work with: The bottom bar chart shows the outcomes of the total group.  Then, using the filter at the top right, you can break out the top display by one of several values: Ethnicity (the default), gender, high school GPA, high school type, parental education, parental socioeconomic status, and the student's self-reported aspiration.  You can then see what percentage of each group has attained degrees, some education, or nothing beyond high school.  And of course, you can compare that breakout group to the total.

Use the "Highlight Outcome" function to make any particular level of education stand out.

Of course, the relationships between and among these variables are pretty clear, but the data are still telling: If you're white or Asian, if you're a female, if you were a good student in high school, if you went to a private high school, if your parents went to college, if you parents were wealthier, and if you aspired to a degree, guess what? You were more likely to get a degree.

And of course, while some of these things are a function of birth, others, like your high school GPA and your apsirations, may be heavily influenced by educated, wealthy parents.

Play around a little bit, and if you are able to find one thing on this that surprises you, let me know.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Changes in AP Scores, 2022 to 2024

Used to be, with a little work, you could download very detailed data on AP results from the College Board website: For every state, and for every course, you could see performance by ethnicity.  And, if you wanted to dig really deep, you could break out details by private and public schools, and by grade level.  I used to publish the data every couple of years. Those days are gone.  The transparency The College Board touts as a value seems to have its limits, and I understand this to some extent: Racists loved to twist the data using single-factor analysis, and that's not good for a company who is trying to make business inroads with under-represented communities as they cloak their pursuit of revenue as an altruistic push toward access. They still publish data, but as I wrote about in my last post , it's far less detailed; what's more, what is easily accessible is fairly sterile, and what's more detailed seems to be structured in a way that suggests the company doesn...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Changes in SAT Scores after Test-optional

One of the intended consequences of test-optional admission policies at some institutions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was to raise test scores reported to US News and World Report.  It's rare that you would see a proponent of test-optional admission like me admit that, but to deny it would be foolish. Because I worked at DePaul, which was an early adopter of the approach (at least among large universities), I fielded a lot of calls from colleagues who were considering it, some of whom were explicit in their reasons for doing so.  One person I spoke to came right out at the start of the call: She was only calling, she said, because her provost wanted to know how much they could raise scores if they went test-optional. If I sensed or heard that motivation, I advised people against it.  In those days, the vast majority of students took standardized admission tests like the SAT or ACT, but the percentage of students applying without tests was still relatively small; the ne...
Post a Comment
Read more