Skip to main content

Changes in Educational Attainment, 1940 to 2018

Note: A few people have pointed out that some data on this appears to be slightly askew, even though the story is mostly unchanged.  So don't cite it.

Don't look at the viz yet.  Wait until I tell you.

This is an update to a post I did about five years ago, showing the growth in educational attainment in the US over time. I thought then, and I still think, it's among the most jaw-dropping visualizations I've done, not, of course, for the visualization skills, but for the story it tells, and perhaps, the future it holds for us. This is from Table A-1 on this page of the Census Bureau.

First, before you dive into it, take a guess about the percentage of adults in the US, aged 35-54 with a bachelor's degree or higher.  Got a guess?  If  you have a college degree, you probably said something like fifty or sixty percent, based on my sampling of twenty people or so.  If you didn't, your guess is probably much lower, usually ten or fifteen percent.  There's a lesson there, in itself.

The answer: 38%.  You're probably surprised, either way.

Now, what was it in 1940?  Got an guess in your head?  The answer: Just under 5%.  Yes.  You read that right.

In fact, in 1940, the largest group of people in that age range had an education that ended in the 5th to 8th grade.  When combined with the people who had less than a fifth grade education, you were looking at well over half the population.

OK, now you can play with the visualization.  There are three views, using the tabs along the top.

Dashboard 1 shows the population in a column in stacked bars, colored by highest educational attainment.  Look at what happened to the blues, representing a bachelor's degree or greater (dark blue) and some college (light blue). (Technically, the dark blue is "four years of college or more, but close enough.) Choose a gender or an age range if you wish to change the view.

Dashboard 2 shows you custom views: Choose the educational attainment using the control at right, and limit it to one gender if you wish; the lines are colored by age groups.

Dashboard 3 is just the opposite and is the more interesting of the last two, I think: Colored by gender, and filterable by age, once you select the attainment level.

The incredible post-war economic expansion in the US that lasted until the turn of the 21st century coincided with a substantial increase in educational attainment, especially for women.  You can try to offer explanations about cause and effect if you wish.  And you can extrapolate about our current disinvestment in education and what it might mean for the future. It could be a long, slow, spiral downward. And as you speculate, take a look at how counties with lower and higher levels of education voted in the 2016 presidential election.

Let me know what strikes you in the comments, below.

Reminder: I appreciate support for webhosting and other costs associated with creating Higher Ed Data Stories.  You can support these efforts here.


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