Mismatched Students, Missed Opportunities

Theoretical frameworks on mismatch, rooted in affirmative action literature, provide divergent conclusions on how overmatch, a synonym for affirmative action, and undermatch shape degree completion outcomes for Black undergraduates at selective postsecondary institutions. Through examining data from the 2003–2009 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Survey, this study creates an academic index that estimates the precollege academic credentials of approximately 650 Black, first-time undergraduates enrolled at the top three tiers of selective colleges during the 2003–04 academic year to examine the effects of undermatching or attending a college that is less rigorous than a college that matches their precollege academic record. The findings suggest that overmatched Black students who enrolled at the most selective institutions were far more likely to graduate than students with similar precollege academic credentials who enrolled at their best academic match. The results also indicate that undermatching had an adverse effect on degree completion rates.

Divergent Approaches to Access: How Selective College Admissions Offices Recruit Lower-Income, First-Generation, and Working-Class Students

In recent years, selective colleges and universities have made diversifying their student bodies a top priority, yet the class diversity on these campuses has barely shifted. While most research on class disparities in college admissions focuses on student explanations, this study seeks to understand how campus admissions approaches to recruitment may also contribute to why so few lower-income, first-generation, and/or working-class students (LIFGWC students) attend selective colleges. To address this question, we conducted interviews with seven admissions officers from selective campuses with both relatively strong and weak records of LIFGWC students recruitment. Institutions with stronger records of recruiting LIFGWC students actively sought out new initiatives to make their college more accessible for LIFGWC students, and these actions were motivated by a shared focus on improving larger societal inequality. Although campuses with weaker records also expanded their recruitment strategies, their efforts were often piecemeal and motivated by competition for students and institutional rankings rather than a larger mission to improve diversity and equity. These findings suggest that institutional missions and philosophies are central to increasing access.

What If We Leave It Up to Chance? Admissions Lotteries and Equitable Access at Selective Colleges

Many prominent social scientists have advocated for random-draw lotteries as a solution to the “problem” of elite college admissions. They argue that lotteries will be fair, equitable, eliminate corruption, reduce student anxiety, restore democratic ideals, and end debates over race-conscious admissions. In response, we simulate potential lottery effects on student enrollment by race, gender, and income, using robust simulation methods and multiple minimum thresholds for grades and standardized tests. In the overwhelming majority of lottery simulations, the proportions of low-income students and students of color drop precipitously. With a GPA minimum, we find the proportion of men could drop as low as one third. Admissions lotteries with minimum bars for GPA and/or standardized tests do not appear to produce more equitable outcomes.

Closing the Gap: The Effect of Reducing Complexity and Uncertainty in College Pricing on the Choices of Low-Income Students

High-achieving, low-income students attend selective colleges at far lower rates than upper-income students with similar achievement. Behavioral biases, intensified by complexity and uncertainty in the admissions and aid process, may explain this gap. In a large-scale experiment we test an early commitment of free tuition at a flagship university. The intervention did not increase aid: rather, students were guaranteed before application the same grant aid that they would qualify for in expectation if admitted. The offer substantially increased application (68 percent versus 26 percent) and enrollment rates (27 percent versus 12 percent). The results suggest that uncertainty, present bias, and loss aversion loom large in students’ college decisions. (JEL I22, I23, I24, D31, I28)

Changing the Composition of Beginning Teachers: The Role of State Alternative Certification Policies

Drawing on nationally representative data from six cohorts of beginning teachers from the Schools and Staffing Survey and the National Teacher and Principal Survey, this study applies a difference-in-differences research design to examine the relationship between changes to state-level alternative certification policies and the characteristics of new teachers. The introduction of alternate routes into teaching is associated with an increase in the fraction of new teachers of color in a state and the new teachers who graduated from selective colleges. No evidence was found of a relationship with the relative share of male teachers or teachers of in-demand subjects.

The Yale Outcome Study: Outcomes for Graduates with and without Dyslexia

Dyslexia is defined in recent federal legislation as an unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader. Despite its high prevalence (20%), there have been few studies of the experience and outcome of dyslexic students at selective 4-year colleges. We examined academic and social experiences in college and outcome in the workplace 5 or more years after graduation in Yale graduates with dyslexia compared with a matched group of Yale graduates who were typical readers. Dyslexic college graduates did not differ from typical graduates in college and the workplace. Parents of dyslexic children often ask about their child’s future. These findings should reassure those professionals (including pediatric neuropsychologists, school psychologists and pediatricians) that dyslexic students can be successful in school and go on to succeed and thrive at selective colleges.

Effects of Peers and Rank on Cognition, Preferences, and Personality

We exploit the variation in admission cutoffs across colleges at a leading Indian university to estimate the causal effects of enrolling in a selective college on cognitive attainment, economic preferences, and Big Five personality traits. Using a regression discontinuity design, we find that enrolling in a selective college improves university exam scores of the marginally admitted females, and makes them less overconfident and less risk averse, while males in selective colleges experience a decline in extraversion and conscientiousness. We find differences in peer quality and rank concerns to be driving our findings.

Conclusion

Chapter 8 recaps the primary takeaways and discusses their implications for selective campuses. While campuses and scholarly literature generally treat first-generation students as a cohesive whole, this book speaks to a much more complicated process whereby students’ intersectional identities and preferences work along with institutional structures to sort first-generation students into one of several campus geographies that then lead to different types of connections with faculty, peers, extracurricular activities, and social engagements. Campus geographies are important because they provide informal social knowledge, tools, resources, and inclinations that may be more or less helpful both in college and as they prepare for post-college life. The authors close by discussing the implications of this research for selective colleges wishing to support a range of first-generation students more successfully.