The big educational research conference is in NYC this week and I thought this paper would interest some.
That’s odd. I have seen studies that show a higher failure rate for college and law school for those who ‘overmatch’. They can’t keep up to the higher standards.
Why would it be odd that overmatched students don’t succeed, and undermatched students also don’t succeed?
Could it be that the graduation rate disparity is at least partly due to college cost and affordability?
Seems like the most likely reason to “undermatch” is because the student and family have to choose a merit scholarship at a less selective school, or stay home to attend a commuter based local state university or start at community college. Even with this less expensive option, the college attended may still be at the margin of affordability, so that any financial setback forces the student to drop out due to running out of money (one of the most common reasons for not completing college).
They attempted to control for that:
However, within the same SES level, some families may be more careful with money than others, so they may have greater actual financial capabilities. So the students from the careful-with-money families are less likely to be forced to “undermatch” for financial reasons, and less likely to be forced to drop out of whatever college they attend, compared to students from careless-with-money families.
I.e. “undermatching” itself may be a signal that the student is from a financially-stressed family and therefore more vulnerable to being forced to drop out for financial reasons.
Other possible reasons for “undermatching” could also suggest increased vulnerability to dropping out. For example, if the student is forced by parents to stay at home and commute to a college which does not have his/her desired major when there are other colleges of similar cost that have the desired major, that can be a negative factor in college completion. The same goes for any other parentally-enforced non-academic non-financial restriction (geographic location, religion, etc.).
Better schools typically have many more support services available to students - academic and nonacademic. Sometimes, they have support programs geared towards minority students.
Better schools have high graduation rates for reasons that extend beyond the caliber of their students.
I would also think that being surrounded by better and more engaged students and better professors helps one aspire to achieving success themselves. Why else do we as parents encourage our children to keep certain company when they are younger?
I’m not surprised by the finding.
Seems like it would be more like “richer schools typically have many more support services”, whether or not they are more selective.
Still, even an “undermatch” college will likely have fellow students who are better at school and more engaged than a typical non-elite high school.
Financial reasons are certainly a big part of it, but I think there’s also an enormous information gap. Many lower SES students attend schools that send few (if any) students to selective colleges. In most cases their parents and teachers and counselors didn’t attend selective colleges, and they may get very little in the way of real college counseling. No one points them in the direction of better colleges. They don’t have role models among people they know who have successfully navigated the process of getting into a selective college, much less succeeded at one. They may have very little idea about which colleges are better, and where they might fit into the pecking order… And for the most part they aren’t here on CC trying to sort it out (though we have had a few notable posters from lower SES backgrounds).
That goes to why lower SES students often undermatch, not to the success rates of those who do undermatch. There finances certainly play a big role—though again information gaps also play a role in the financial equation. If you’re a low-income kid from inner city Detroit you might not know that the net cost of attending the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor might very well be less than the cost of commuting to Wayne State, because Michigan awards $150 million a year in institutional need-based grants and meets full need for all Michigan residents, while Wayne State, a poorer school with a similarly sized undergraduate student body, can spend only $16 million on need-based grants and doesn’t come close to meeting full need, even though its nominal tuition is lower and most of its students commute----and there’s no one to help you figure that out. You also probably don’t know that the 6-year graduation rate at Wayne is only 48%, while at Michigan it’s 93%. And you almost certainly don’t know that only 38% of Pell grant recipients graduate from Wayne in 6 years or less, while at Michigan that figure is 87%. You also might not know that, on average, a degree from Michigan has a bigger financial payoff at the back end, so as a value proposition Michigan wins hands down.
So you start out at Wayne with high hopes, a Pell grant, and some loans, alongside a lot of other similarly situated kids. And over time, most of your classmates drop out, discouraged by the cost and the rising debt burden and stories they’ve heard about kids who graduated and didn’t find good jobs and are struggling to repay their loans—and you might get discouraged, too, and decide it’s just too big a risk to take on that next loan, so you suspend your studies, or maybe drop out entirely. Meanwhile, your alternative self at Michigan is in an environment where almost everyone succeeds, gets a good job, and can pay off their loans—which are probably lower, because more of COA is covered by grant aid. So success is the norm for Pell grant recipients at Michigan. Sadly, the same can’t be said for Wayne State, where to some extent failure becomes the norm, and a vicious cycle that traps even some very capable students.
“there’s also an enormous information gap”
Yes, there is. The low SES/first-gen kids are often aware that there’s a lot that they don’t know, and they are ashamed of not knowing it.
I see a little bit of this when I volunteer to staff the Bryn Mawr table at local college fairs. When male students approach, I let them know that it’s a women’s college. I’m still happy to talk to them, because maybe their friend or sister would be interested, and anyway Bryn Mawr alumnae know a lot about the coed schools nearby. But when this happens at the high-need fairs, the male students turn bright red, cover their faces, apologize…they’re so embarrassed! They are horrified that someone saw them make this mistake. Maybe it’s impostor syndrome, where they are scared someone will figure out that they don’t really belong there.
When I did the fair at (private) Lake Forest Academy, the students mostly knew what was a women’s college, but if males came by in error, they just chuckled and went to the next table. There wasn’t any shame. They knew that no one has heard of every little private school (though I do my best).