Skip to main content

A different look at US Educational Attainment

I've often said that the visualization on educational attainment in the US was perhaps the first visualization I did that blew my mind.  I thought it was a problem with the data.

And, frankly, I'm possibly more amazed that more people aren't amazed.  I've done a few posts on this topic, and it never seems to get much traction.  So I'll give it another shot this time.

In 1940, less than 5% of adults in the US had a college degree or more.  By 2020, it's risen to almost 38%.  I was born in the late 50's and when I went to college in the 70's, the number was still only in the 15% range.  That's why the term "first generation" wasn't even a thing: The majority of college students at that time were probably first gen kids.

We were all a spillover effect of WWII and the GI Bill, which offered college access to the veterans who made it back alive (but unfortunately, the benefits didn't go to everyone who fought).  And if we know one thing, it's that people who have a college education have children who go to college.  The ramp up continued well after my time in college.

What also happened after WWII was unprecedented economic expansion.  The growth of the two indices may be coincidental; they may be cause and effect.  You decide, but I know what I think. 

Shameless plug: If HigherEdDataStories is helpful to you in your job, I would appreciate your support to defray web hosting and other costs, as I do this all on my own dime.  (Don't click if you're a high school counselor...just keep reading.  You do enough already.)

If you're a regular reader, you may recognize the first tab shown below.  It shows the profile of adults in the US from 1940 to 2020 in ten-year increments.  Use the filters at left to choose only certain age groups, or limit by gender.  The highlighter lets you more easily compare attainment levels across time.

The second tab shows the gender breakouts of each attainment level (chosen in the filter at left) over time.  The default view shows that in 2000, for instance, for all adults over 25, 51.85% of bachelor's degree holders were men.  Make you selections at left, and hover over the bars for an explanation. 

And finally, the last view (this is using the tabs across the top, of course) is quite compelling to me.  It shows the distribution of educational attainment by age.  Look at the lower right hand segment in the default view and hover for an explanation. And then notice the change in the red segments over time.

Could America be facing a shortage of college-educated people in the future as baby boomers retire?

As always, play around, use the reset button if you get stuck, and let me know what you see.



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