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

Another 1000 Words and Ten Charts on First-generation, Low-income, and Minority Students

I have always enjoyed writing, and I consider this and my other blog like a hobby.  Usually, I spend no more than 45 minutes on any post, as I don't make my living by writing, and my blogs are not "monetized." But once in a while, an opportunity presents itself to write for a wider audience, and that's when I see what it takes to make a living putting words to paper. That happened this week.

You may have seen my opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education. If not, you can read it first, read it last, or not at all; I think both this and that stand alone, despite their relationship.  In the end, we ended up with about 40% of my first draft, which is what happens when you write for a print publication. And of course, a print publication makes interactive charts, well, difficult.

I think there is more to say on the topic, because the similarities in recruitment challenges for first-generation, low-income, and minority students tend to look a lot alike, and the mo…

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 choose to…

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 position.  It's Y…