Skip to main content

Reworking the Chronicle of Higher Education Visualization

This morning, The Chronicle of Higher Education published a story about the University of South Carolina, and its ambitious goal to bring African-American enrollment more in line with the state's population of African-American residents.  Given that the state population is over a quarter African-American, and USC's student population is about 9.5%, and given the timeline (by 2025), this goal is ambitious, to say the least.

The story had a chart, showing the mathematical gap of the states, using a simple measure: Percentage of African-Americans in the state flagship institution, minus the percentage of African-American students in the state population.  In case you can't get to the story (and if you work in education you really should consider supporting our trade paper with a subscription), it looks like this:

On this map, you can see the light colors, where the gap is the largest, and the dark colors, where the gap is the smallest, or in some cases, actually negative (that is, the percentage of African-Americans in the flagship is higher than the state population.)

But I wanted a little more, so I did some quick re-work on the data.  (As a side note, I wish publishers would make their data available; I had to manually re-create this, which might explain any errors you find.)  

If I were doing this, I'd have started with a different base: The African-American population of 17-24 year-olds, for instance.  And I might have adjusted representation based on the inter-state migration patterns, if I had the time and the modeling skills.  I would have also used raw numbers, and then calculated the percentages separately, as both numbers and percents can be helpful. Collectively, this quibbling demonstrates how hard it is to define precisely which institutions are doing the best job in enrolling diverse populations. Maybe another time.

As an aside, I supposed I should re-do this five-year-old visualization that used Simpon's Diversity Index. 

Using the data available, I found myself dissatisfied with the simple arithmetic gap, and instead calculated a variable called Index of Concentration where 100 is perfectly representational; anything over 100 shows over-representation, and anything under 100 indicates under-representation.  It's calculated by (flagship population/state population) * 100.

As you can see in the visualization below, this shows a different picture.  The top is an array of the states, to show some sense of values, and the bar chart on the bottom to show rank and ranges.  Blue values show over-representation; orange values show under-representation, and gray values are in the middle.




This is not to suggest, of course, that this way of looking at the data is better; it's just different.  And even this view can skew your perception of reality.  It might be easy to conclude that southern states do the worst job, while northern states do better.  While it might be fair to criticize the dark orange states, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to congratulate the blue or gray states, however.

Why? Look at the same data, viewed in yet another way: A scattergram crossing state population and flagship populations of African-American students.  It's clear that the blue states (the ones presumably doing the best job) are also the ones with lower percentages of African-Americans in the general population.  

That makes the question different, and the answer "it depends."

As always, dig into this, and let me know what you see.  And especially, what you might do better.

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