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

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