Reasons for racial divide in post-secondary enrollment

James S. Coleman, along with other researchers claimed that level of aspiration is predictive of career choices, future earnings, and consequently, social mobility. Given that African Americans showed high aspirations in the 1960s, equivalent social mobility has not be observed. (Equality of Educational Opportunity, 1966) There are some clear flaws in the assumption that a person can move up in socio-economic status just by having the desire to, since it does not take into account financial constraints, academic preparation, and access to information regarding admission process. In order to address these flaws and to contextualize Coleman’s claims, the Equality of Educational Opportunity report concluded that plans for higher education are a result of socialization in the family during high school years. More recently, the national longitudinal data set, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 attempts to quantify the factors that might affect post-secondary (college) enrollment, including student aspiration. In this blog post, I look at a side-by-side comparison study of the EEO and HSLS:09 by Schneider and Saw (S&S) to assess the validity of their conclusions and some methodology used in HSLS:09.

The HSLS:09 study was started with 9th graders in 2009. The first follow-up was conducted in the spring of the students’ eleventh grade, and the second when the students were in twelfth grade. The participants were graded on various scales including, but not limited to direct aspiration (their answer to what they thought their highest level of schooling would be), measures of interest-shown, commitment to school and persistence, and enrollment in AP/IB or higher level math courses. The participants were divided based on race, namely white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and other. The results in the study show arithmetic mean and standard deviations for each question/category that is supposed to be related to or indicative of college aspirations in high school students, and the percentages in each race that enrolled in some kind of higher education/training program in 2013, right after graduating high school.

S&S conclude, from analyzing HSLS:09 report that while blacks show significant, and sometimes more aspirations for postsecondary education on a group level, “the gap in college enrollment between advantaged groups (white and Asian) and disadvantaged groups (black, Hispanic, and multiracial) persists. They make important disclaimers like the HSLS:09 can only be generalized to 9th graders in 2009, and comment on the exclusion of delayed college-going behavior, and college persistence and graduation rates. Unlike Coleman’s all encompassing hypothesis, S&S also provide possible explanations for the difference in white and black postsecondary enrollment, like difference in quality of school district, and level of competence of higher level courses in schools that different demographics enroll in. They claim that the low-income, minority students that enroll in higher level courses would be predominantly going to school with low resources, with fewer qualified teachers, and unstable administration, which might explain their not pursuing postsecondary education.

There are a some weaknesses in the methodology used in HSLS:09, and S&S’s interpretation of data in their study. First, HSLS:09 report is made on the assumption that college aspirations equal actual intention or realistic expectation of going to college. First generation and low-income students tend to be more enthusiastic about going to college in order to alleviate their social standing, but might not have the same expectation of going to college as their more privileged counterparts. This might be an alternative explanation to why white students don’t show as much aspirations as black or Hispanic students. Additionally, asking questions about college application to school counselor, taking a campus tour, meeting with admissions counselors, are all used as positive indicators of college aspiration. Minority students significantly outperform white students in this scale, especially black students. However, this difference might be a result of white students already having the foundational knowledge of college application process and requirements, and having other sources to ask questions to, like their parents or relatives. This inquisitiveness of minority students might be an indication of not having adequate information and resources, instead of aspirations. Finally, the HSLS:09 does not adequately represent ethnic differences in its data collection. All whites are grouped together, all Asians are grouped together and so on. The use of arithmetic mean might not adequately represent the data we are looking at. Not all kinds of Asian do well, and the data is probably skewed because of that. Moreover, there is a significant population of low-income white people that need assistance but is included in the same pool as middle class and upper class whites.