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

Popular posts from this blog

2018 Admissions Data

This is always a popular post, it seems, and I've had a couple of people already ask when it was going to be out.  Wait no more. This is IPEDS 2018 admissions data, visualized for you in two different ways.  You can switch using the tabs across the top. The first view is the universe of colleges and universities that report data; not every college is required to, and a few leave data out, and test optional colleges are not supposed to report test scores.  But IPEDS is not perfect, so if you find any problems, contact the college. On the first view, you'll see 1,359 four-year private and public, not-for-profit institutions displayed.  In order to make this as clean as possible, I've taken out some specialty schools (nursing, business, engineering, etc.) as many of those don't have complete data.  But you can put them back in using the filter at top right. Hover over any bar, and a little chart pops up showing undergraduate enrollment by ethnicity. You can also

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects. I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you. However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in

Yes, your yield rate is still falling

In 2015, I wrote this post on falling yield rates.  It was pretty obvious to many of us in the profession that this trend was widespread, and largely driven by a dramatic increase in applications against a more modest increase in actual students who could or would enroll. It apparently wasn't so obvious to everyone.  Response was much stronger than I thought it would be, and I never had seen so many requests from people who wanted to share it with their trustees (btw, this is public; you never have to ask permission to share). So I redid it, using trend data from 2005 to 2018.  First a couple of definitions: Admit rate is the percentage of applicants who were offered admission (admits/applicants). Yield rate is the percentage of admitted students who enroll (enrollers/admits). Draw rate is not commonly known, and I wish I remember who first mentioned it to me in the 1980's.  It stuck with me and is a valuable metric, I think, as we attempt to measure market posi