Higher Ed Data Stories

The answer to the headline, of course, is "no."  Race is not determinant of where you go to college, but race--or more probably the factors that vary with race and ethnicity--may influence your college choice set, which can, of course, influence where you go to college. I've written before about how all these variables are at play with each other: In America, race, income, parental attainment, and presumably, opportunity, all cluster together. And, after you look at this, you'll see how opportunity gets distributed by race, provided you're willing to click a button or two.  The visualization starts off showing all undergraduate enrollment in almost 7,000 post-secondary institutions who report to IPEDS.  (And before you object, I've believe strongly that the college you attend is not your destiny, and that education is what you make of it, as I've written before on my other blog . But it's also clear that many people believe talent congregates at th...

Is it true that the rich get richer, as suggested by a recent Washington Post article discussing college endowments?  Probably. But what's more interesting is the pecking order in the world of endowments, and how it's changed (or not) over the last decade or so.  I downloaded trend data from IPEDS showing beginning of year endowment by fiscal year for about 160 four-year private institutions with enrollments of at least 5,000.  To be sure, there are some very well endowed colleges who have smaller enrollments (Williams, Pomona, Grinnell, etc.) but this chart could get messy pretty fast. I pulled the data into Tableau and created a bump chart, showing not the value over time (because everyone does that) but rather the rank of all the endowments shown.  So, for instance, if a line slopes down, it might mean a college has gone from 10th to 20; a slope up might show the opposite. But what we see here are lines that are essentially flat.  There are a couple an...

We hear all the time about the student loan bubble.  Is it a problem?  Like most things, it depends on how you look at it.  Here is data viewed from a very high level, without the benefit of being able to drill down. It shows the status of the government's student loan portfolio, broken out by the older FFEL programs and the currently existing Direct Loan Program; the FFEL loans are older, while the Direct Loans are a mixture of old and new. Some interesting trends appear, even over relatively short periods of time.  What do you see? And, if we had access to better, more granular data, what would you like to see?

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education pointed out the things colleges are doing to bolster their yield rates.  This of course, raised an interesting question among many outside of higher education: What's a yield rate? Colleges admit many more students than they want to enroll, of course.  But let's say you want to enroll a class of 1,000.  How many, exactly, do you need to admit?  Most of the students you admit will have more offers than the ones you send, and they can only enroll in one place. So, if you admit 2,000, you need exactly half of them to enroll, which would mean a yield rate of 50%.  If you're not confident you can get that kind of yield, you admit more: 2,500 with a 40% yield rate gets you that same number (40% of 2,500).  But with most institutions, yield rates are closer to 30%, so that means 3,333.  Or thereabouts. Alas, many colleges are afraid of that admit rate (the percentage of applicants admitted) getting to...

Previously, I did an analysis of colleges, showing which states freshmen came from in 2012.  It was very popular with people who are interested in the topic of geographic diversity. But I heard another admissions person say last week (while I was at Missouri ACAC) that her college wants to enroll more students from outside the state.  It's not hard to figure out why: Students who cross borders (or who travel farther to college) are generally wealthier and have parents who are college-educated themselves, both of which make these students attractive targets.  Since the number of these students who are likely to migrate is essentially fixed in any given year, the intent to recruit more of them is really an effort to get a bigger piece of the pie. But some states have naturally stronger pulls; others export more because of a relative lack of opportunity based on a smaller selection of colleges.  Where do students in your state come from?  Is your state enrolli...

Diversity is a topic a lot of us in higher education think about and write about and work towards, and yet, we don't really have a common definition of what it means. At its most basic level, we simply talk about the percentage of our students who are non-white. And, of course, if you compare colleges today to those in the 1950's, this makes perfect sense, and allows us to give ourselves all a pat on the back. But the success of Asian students over the past few decades has complicated this: While they are not white, their large numbers at the nation's most selective institutions, and performance on college admissions examinations, makes us occasionally shift the discussion to under-represented students of color, which today might include Native American and Alaska Natives, Latino or Hispanic students, African-American students, Asians who are Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and students of two or more races or ethnicity. This of course causes us to wonder whether a student ...

April 1, 2015 This week, all the hype about college admissions comes out.  Blah blah blah this college admitted only 7%.  Blah blah blah Oh Yeah? We admitted only 6% ! We're better. So, I says to myself, "Myself, I says, what is the real measure of the best college?"  And it became clear: The best college is the one everyone wants to copy!" And then I asked myself, "How do you do that?"  "Why," I replied, "by copying the name." So here are the most common names of colleges in America.  As you can see, Columbia College and Bryan University are duking it out for the top spot.  If DeVry got their act together, they could win every year, as an informal analysis says there are about a bazillion of them. So, sorry Duke (if that is your real name.)  Clearly, no one wants to be associated with the likes of you.

I frequently hear that the interactive charts I publish are too confusing or time-consuming, and that it's hard to get the story out of them without some work. So today, I'm making it easier for you, for two reasons: First, this is real student data, not summaries: Each dot represents a student who applied for financial aid, so I'd never publish that data on the web; this is just a good, old-fashioned picture of a chart.  Second, in this case, one chart tells the whole story. The population here is all freshman financial aid applicants who completed a FAFSA but did not have need. Each column is one year, and each dot in that column represents a student; higher positions in the column show higher income, from zero to one million dollars in parental AGI (adjusted gross income).  This is arrayed in a box-and-whiskers, or box plot.  The yellow boxes show the limits of the middle 50% of the distribution (the "box") with the color break representing the median. ...

Ever since my first day in admissions, I've had a big problem with the concept of college application fees.  They just seem odd to me: You pay some amount of money for the privilege of being considered for admission, often not certain you'll attend if you are.  And if you're not admitted, you're out of luck. I understand those who support the concept, in concept: Students shouldn't apply to a lot of colleges, and they should be somewhat serious about the colleges they apply to.  Except we know that doesn't happen.  The counselor at my kids' school said a few years ago one student applied to 46, and the Fast Apps, Snap Apps, and VIP apps all encourage students to apply to places just because they can. I also realize that there are costs associated with processing applications, although those costs have dropped pretty dramatically in the past several years, especially when all the documents come in electronically. But all the costs of doing business are pa...

Another article appeared in my Facebook feed about college ROI, although it was called the 50 Best Private Colleges for Earning Your Degree on Time.    As is often the case, there is nothing really wrong with the facts of the article: You see a nice little table showing the 50 Colleges with the highest graduation rate. But it got me to thinking: What if high graduation rate wasn't enough?  What if a considerable portion of your freshman class that graduates takes longer than four years to do so? Is that a good deal?  Let's take some hypotheticals: College A: 1000 freshmen, 800 who graduate within four years, 900 who graduate in five, and 950 who graduate in six.  So the four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates are 80%, 90%, and 95%.  But of the 950 who eventually graduate, only 84.2% do so in four years. College B: 1000 freshmen, 750 who graduate within four years, 775 who graduate in five, and 800 who graduate in six.  So the four-, five-, a...

If you follow media following higher education, you know that for a while, many have been (somewhat gleefully) predicting the demise of the whole industry.  High costs, MOOCs, a weak job market, and shrinking confidence in the value of a college degree are all conspiring, they would say, to create a perfect storm that will be the end of us all. I'm not saying these people are wrong;  you can get in trouble arguing with self-proclaimed prophets, and until something either comes to fruition or it doesn't, all you have is a lot of heated discussion. Personally, I take exception to the smugness of some who seem to revel in their predictions. But that is, as they say, why they make chocolate and vanilla. The heat (if not the light) increased this week when Sweet Briar College in Virginia announced it was closing.  The pundits came out of the woodwork, proclaiming that this was just the first domino to fall, all the time apparently reveling in this presumptive proof of th...

While the endowment of a private university is not a big investment pot from which universities draw income to spend at their discretion (some portion of every endowment is restricted to certain use), it's a very good proxy for institutional wealth.  What's always been interesting is the enormous size of the top five or six institutions, always led by Harvard, in comparison to everyone else.  And yet Princeton, which enrolls fewer students, has the largest per-FTE endowment. This visualization shows two things.  On the top chart, it's a tree map, or what I like to call a sheet cake map.  Think of all the money in all the endowments as one big bowl of batter baked into a cake, and then, once baked, sliced up into pieces.  The size of the piece is that institution's endowment as a part of the whole. The bottom chart shows ten years of endowments, measured at the start of the fiscal year shown, so you can see the hits in 2008--2009 and the overall growth over t...