Top Student, Top School?

How Social Class Shapes Where Top Valedictorians Go to College

By ALEXANDRIA WALTON RADFORD

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

Copyright © 2013 The University of Chicago
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-226-04095-0

Contents

List of Tables and Figures………………………………………….ixCHAPTER 1. Introduction: Three Valedictorians…………………………1CHAPTER 2. Predisposition: Setting the Course…………………………23CHAPTER 3. Preparation: Paving the Way……………………………….36CHAPTER 4. Exploration: Investigating College…………………………54CHAPTER 5. Application: Choosing Potential Destinations………………..95CHAPTER 6. Admissions: Gaining Permission to Enter…………………….114CHAPTER 7. Matriculation: Selecting among Offers of Admission…………..123CHAPTER 8. Integrating It All: College Destinations and the Paths That
Lead to Them………………………………………………………141Appendix A. List of Most-Selective Colleges…………………………..165Appendix B. The High School Valedictorian Project Social Class Variable….167Appendix C. Quantitative Data Collection……………………………..171Appendix D. The High School Valedictorian Project Web Survey……………175Appendix E. The High School Valedictorian Project Interview Schedule…….199Appendix F. Regression Tables……………………………………….203Notes…………………………………………………………….221References………………………………………………………..249Acknowledgments……………………………………………………273Index…………………………………………………………….275

Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Three Valedictorians

Karen

By all measures, Karen was an excellent high school student. Valedictorianof her class, she also received a perfect score on the verbal sectionof the SAT. Yet Karen did not grow up in a family or community wheresuch accomplishment was common. Her parents never went to college.Her older brother enlisted in the navy after high school. Most studentsfrom Karen’s high school did not attend college, and her fellow honors studentsmatriculated mainly at in-state public universities. Her high schoolpeers found it “shocking” when a classmate enrolled in a most-selectiveprivate college in a different region of the country.

Karen’s parents wanted her to go to college, but thought she would liveat home and drive to the local public four-year university ” ’cause it wouldbe affordable.” They made it clear to Karen that if she wanted to enrollelsewhere, she would have to earn a scholarship.

Around the start of high school, Karen began aspiring to attend a particularIvy League college, one of “The Big Three” comprised of Harvard,Prince ton, and Yale. When asked how she identified that particularinstitution, Karen was not sure, but knew that she “wanted to be reallysmart.” Still, this college was unfamiliar to her and those around her. Atone point, when Karen told a community member of her plan to enrollin this institution and the listener asked her where it was located, Karendid not know.

As high school progressed, Karen’s dream of attending this prestigiousuniversity began to wane. Enrolling in this type of institutionwas not encouraged in her home, her community, or her high school.Karen’s parents did not see any additional benefit to attending a more-selectivecollege. Instead, they viewed all universities as interchangeablebecause they all offered a college credential. Meanwhile, Karen startedfeeling pressure from her religious community to attend the local collegeaffiliated with her church. Karen’s high school guidance counselor mighthave provided another opinion, but she could not even remember Karen’sname. Needless to say, personalized college advice that took into accountKaren’s accomplishments was not forthcoming from the counseling office.

College costs also became a contentious issue in the family. Karen’sfather was particularly outraged by the prices he saw for the private universitiesshe was considering. During the only campus visit he made withhis daughter, he stated simply: “You know you’re not going to be able to[afford to] go here.” He asked her repeatedly, “Why can’t you go to a publicschool?” He did not know about the possibility of need-based financialaid, nor did he understand that given his family’s financial circumstances,colleges would expect him to pay far less than the sticker price suggested.

The college admissions process was becoming a struggle, too. Karenhad to ask her dad repeatedly: “I’m taking the SAT; will you give me the$25?” Then she found out that the Ivy League college she wanted to attendrequired paying for another round of tests—the SAT IIs—which were notrequired by the local Christian colleges she was beginning to consider.

Ultimately, Karen put aside her prestigious college aspirations. Shedid not even apply to the Ivy League institution she had long imaginedattending. Instead, she matriculated at a small, regional, private Christiancollege with a full scholarship.

Nevertheless, Karen appeared to have lingering doubts about thisdecision. In the spring of her freshman year of college, she “somehow”found herself on the admissions website of what had been her dreamschool. Only then did she learn that her family’s income would have allowedher to attend for free.

Paul

Paul, like Karen, was another high achiever. He graduated first in hisclass and scored in the high 700s on both the math and verbal sectionsof the SAT. But unlike Karen, Paul came from a middle-class familyand community. His mother and father had attended the state’s flagshipuniversity as well as a community college and eventually earned an RNand a bachelor’s degree, respectively. Though some of Paul’s high schoolfriends joined the military or took jobs in factories, most continued theirschooling, attending either community colleges or public four-year universitiesaround the state. Few graduates of his high school attended aprivate or out-of-state institution.

Early in his college search, Paul’s parents told him that they could notafford to send him to a private college. They said, “We’re sorry. Maybeyou’d get in there, but we can’t afford to have you go there.” And soprivate colleges were “thrown right out, right in the beginning” andnot explored further. To try to help with college costs, Paul applied formerit scholarships. His parents told him they did not think they wouldqualify for need-based financial aid, but to Paul’s knowledge, they neverexplored the possibility or applied.

Paul’s parents worked with him to try to identify possible collegeoptions, but the whole family found the process challenging. Paul haddecided he wanted to study medicine, but since “there were no doctorsin the family,” they “had no idea of where to look.” Paul turned to classmatesfor help, but they too were unsure of which institutions and collegecharacteristics to consider. His high school guidance counselors did notknow about out-of-state universities. If they provided any guidance, itwas to steer students toward the in-state schools with which counselorswere most familiar. Paul started to focus on Big Ten schools because”they had more—both academics and fun stuff.” He also thought thatmedical school admissions officers would have heard of Big Ten schools,but might not know about smaller colleges.

In the end, Paul applied to three public universities: two in his state andone in a neighboring state. He applied to the third—a less-selective BigTen school—on a whim, filling out the application the day it was due becausea couple of his friends were applying. This out-of-state institutionoffered Paul a full scholarship and he enrolled.

Elizabeth

Our third valedictorian, Elizabeth, also excelled on the SATs, receiving aperfect score on the math section. In Elizabeth’s family and community,however, such achievement was not particularly surprising. Elizabeth’sparents had both attended prestigious private undergraduate and graduateinstitutions. Her older sister was enrolled in a highly selective liberalarts college. Elizabeth estimated that 99 percent of students from herprosperous suburban town’s high school went on to attend college, andmost students in the honors track scattered to prominent four-year privateuniversities in the Northeast.

From the beginning of her college search, Elizabeth’s parents wereexplicit that college costs should not influence her choice. She would nothave had to pay tuition if she attended the private, not particularly selectiveinstitution where her dad worked, but her parents only “jokingly”suggested she consider it. Due to her academic credentials, Elizabethwas also guaranteed a certain amount of money if she attended the publicflagship in her state. She did not apply to either of these less expensiveoptions.

Elizabeth’s family was also highly involved in her exploration of collegeoptions. Her father “fleshed out the concept” that Elizabeth shouldgo to a university, but a “smaller one … that had a lot of opportunities.”Her mother gave her lists of colleges that were prominent in Elizabeth’splanned major and that were “just top schools in general.” Her motheralso organized trips so Elizabeth could visit colleges that interested her.And when Elizabeth was not “thrilled” by the prestigious private collegein her state, the family simply investigated more distant colleges becauseElizabeth and her family wanted her to attend a “top school.”

In the end, Elizabeth applied to nine colleges, all of them private andeight of them most selective. She ultimately enrolled in a most-selectiveprivate college multiple states from home.

How Representative Are These Stories?

Karen, Paul, and Elizabeth are equal in many ways. All three are valedictoriansof their high school classes and have worked hard to earn thistitle. They all have also taken Advanced Placement (AP) courses andperformed well on standardized tests. Yet in the end, only Elizabeth—thestudent from the more-affluent family—enrolled in a top college.

These social class stories play out every year throughout the country,ultimately producing the national enrollment statistics observed.They repeatedly show that more-affluent students are much more highlyrepresented at America’s most prominent colleges than students who areless affluent. Consider these findings:

• Only 3 percent of students at the 146 most-selective public and private collegesin America are from the bottom socioeconomic quartile (Carnevale andRose, 2004).

• Just 10 percent of students attending one of U.S. News & World Report‘s topthirty public and private universities are from families with incomes of lessthan $30,000 (Pallais and Turner, 2006).

• Sixty-seven percent of entering freshmen at the country’s 193 most-selectivecolleges come from the top income quartile. Twelve percent come from thesecond quartile and only 15 percent come from the bottom two (Leonhardt,2011).

• At the prestigious public University of Michigan, more freshmen come fromfamilies with an annual income of $200,000 or more than from families withan annual income below the national median of $53,000 (Leonhardt, 2004).

Although some might believe that these enrollment patterns are theresult of more-affluent students being better academically prepared,preparation differences by social class are unable to fully account for thisphenomenon.

First, while data do show that less-affluent students are not as likelyas more-affluent students to exhibit the high levels of academic preparationexpected of elite college matriculants, there are many more studentsfrom less privileged backgrounds, like Karen and Paul, who havethe ability to succeed at our nation’s top institutions but do not attend(Hill and Winston, 2006b; Pallais and Turner, 2006). About 16 percentof students scoring in roughly the top decile of all SAT and ACT testtakers are from the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution (Hilland Winston, 2006b). This finding suggests that top institutions could increasethe proportion of less-affluent students in their student bodiesto at least this percentage without affecting the quality of matriculantsenrolled. A more encompassing, holistic review of students’ abilities thatconsiders grades, curriculum rigor, class rank, other test scores, and evenessays and letters of recommendation is likely to identify an even greaterpercentage of promising students from less-affluent families who couldthrive at America’s best universities.

Second, even when students are similarly well prepared, their collegedestinations diverge by social class. One study found that 55 percentof upper-income students with combined math and verbal SAT scoresof 1300 or above enrolled in a private, elite, Consortium on FinancingHigher Education (COFHE) institution compared with 30 to 39 percentof upper-middle-, middle-, lower-middle-, and lower-income studentswith scores in the same range (McPherson and Schapiro, 1991). A morerecent analysis of students who were determined to possess the academicpreparation necessary to attend a selective institution revealed that 73percent of those in the top income quartile ultimately enrolled in sucha college compared with 58, 46, and 41 percent of those in the second,third, and fourth income quartiles, respectively (Haycock, Lynch, andEngle, 2010).

This phenomenon in which students attend a less-selective collegethan they are qualified to attend is known as undermatching, and the evidencesuggests it occurs frequently among our very brightest students—likeKaren and Paul (Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, 2009; Rodericket al., 2008, 2009). More than half of all Chicago public high schoolstudents enrolled in the system’s most challenging academic programsundermatched, with more than one-third attending a two-year college orno college at all (Roderick et al., 2009).

Does Where One Attends College Even Matter?

Even when confronted with this socioeconomic status (SES) disparityamong students with similar levels of preparation, some may questionwhether the type of college that students attend matters. Such individualsmight posit, for example, that a degree from “Big State University” isjust as good as one from an Ivy League school.

The research we have suggests otherwise; undergraduate alma materis consistently found to affect later life outcomes. In fact, the benefitsof attending a selective institution have been growing rather than decreasing(Brewer, Eide, and Ehrenberg, 1999; Hoxby, 2001). Bowen (1997)explains that as an increasing number of Americans go to college and becomecollege educated—like they have in recent de cades (Aud, Kewal-Ramani,and Frohlich, 2011)—it becomes more important for collegegraduates to distinguish themselves from others. Americans could try touse graduate school to stand out from the growing quantity of bachelor’sdegree recipients, but earning a greater number of advanced degreeshas diminishing returns. Instead, the relevant credential becomes notthe quantity of degrees possessed, but the caliber of the institutionsattended.

One of the most important ways that an undergraduate institutionaffects subsequent outcomes is in educational attainment. Students whoattend more-selective colleges are more likely to receive their bachelor’sdegrees than students who enroll in less-selective colleges, even controllingfor ability and other factors (Bowen and Bok, 1998; Bowen, Chingos,and McPherson, 2009; Carnevale and Rose, 2004; Carnevale and Strohl,2010; Cohodes and Goodman, 2012; Kane, 1998; Long, 2008; Melguizo,2008, 2010). In addition, graduates of more-selective colleges are alsomore likely to obtain further education by pursuing graduate degrees(Alexander and Eckland, 1977; Bowen and Bok, 1998; Carnevale andRose, 2004; Carnevale and Strohl, 2010; Zhang, 2005a).

Emerging research on the consequences of undermatching yields similarconclusions. Students who enroll in a college that is less selective thantheir academic preparation warrants are less likely to complete an undergraduatedegree (Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, 2009; Carnevale andStrohl, 2010; Nagaoka, Roderick, and Coca, 2009) or pursue a graduatedegree (Carnevale and Strohl, 2010).

Research also links attending a more-selective college to greaterearnings. Alumni of more-prominent universities earn larger salaries inpart because they are more likely to have additional years of education.But even when matched by years of schooling (as well as other characteristics),investigation after investigation indicates that on average,graduates of elite colleges enjoy higher incomes than graduates of less-eliteschools (Andrews, Li, and Lovenheim, 2012; Arnold, 2002; Arnoldand Youn, 2006; Behrman, Rosenzweig, and Taubman, 1996; Black andSmith, 2006; Bowen and Bok, 1998; Brand and Halaby, 2006; Brewer,Eide, and Ehrenberg, 1999; Carnevale and Strohl, 2010; Daniel, Black,and Smith, 1997; Fitzgerald, 2000; Hershbein, 2011; Long, 2008; Louryand Garman, 1995; Monks, 2000; Solmon, 1975; Thomas and Zhang, 2005;Zhang, 2005b). While there are a few who question some of these studies’methods (Dale and Krueger, 2002, 2011; Gerber and Cheung, 2008), evenskeptics find that at the very least, low-SES students earn more when theyenroll in more-selective institutions (Dale and Krueger, 2002, 2011).

There is also evidence suggesting that selective college attendanceand occupational prestige and power are related (Arnold, 2002; Arnoldand Youn, 2006; Smart, 1986). President George H. W. Bush and thethree U.S. presidents who have followed hold undergraduate degreesfrom Yale, Georgetown, Yale, and Columbia, respectively. The currentSupreme Court justices’ undergraduate alma maters include: Prince ton(three), Stanford (two), Harvard (one), Cornell (one), Georgetown (one),and Holy Cross (one). Prestigious colleges are also well represented inthe upper echelons of business. The chief executives of General Electric,Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, and Google attended Dartmouth, Harvard,Georgia Tech, and the University of Michigan, respectively (Leonhardt,2011). Top companies often concentrate their recruitment efforts at elitecolleges, believing these institutions are more likely to yield them thetype of employees that best fit their business needs (Hansen, 2006).

Does College Selectivity Matter for StudentsWho Are Already Top Performers?

While the overwhelming body of research indicates that selectivity ofundergraduate institution attended affects the outcomes of students atlarge, some might wonder if it influences top students’ paths. Does it makeany difference in the end that Karen went to a small, regional Christiancollege and Paul enrolled in a less-selective Big Ten school while Elizabethmatriculated at a most-selective private college? A planned follow-upstudy of valedictorians’ undergraduate attainment, graduate school enrollment,and labor market outcomes will be able to address this questionspecifically. Until then, however, the evidence currently availablesuggests that selectivity of undergraduate alma mater on average doesshape even our most talented students’ trajectories.

To begin, top students’ undergraduate attainment differs by institutionattended. Bowen and Bok (1998: 380) found that white students enteringcollege in 1989 with SAT scores of 1300 or above were 11 percentagepoints more likely to graduate if they had enrolled in an institutionthat fell in the study’s top selectivity tier rather than its third selectivitytier. Using another dataset, Carnevale and Strohl (2010: 151) reported thatstudents of all races with similarly high SAT scores were 10 percentagepoints more likely to graduate if they had attended a university in thestudy’s most competitive tier of institutions rather than the study’s thirdtier of institutions. It is also important to stress that in both analyses therewas no evidence that gaps in graduation rates by institutional selectivitywere less pronounced for high-performing than for low-performingstudents. Instead, the percentage point difference in graduation rates byinstitutional selectivity tended to be greater among top students, suggestingthat selectivity of college attended may have a greater impact on topstudents than on students at large.
(Continues…)Excerpted from Top Student, Top School? by ALEXANDRIA WALTON RADFORD. Copyright © 2013 by The University of Chicago. Excerpted by permission of The University of Chicago Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.