College Match and Undermatch: Assessing Student Preferences, College Proximity, and Inequality in Post-College Outcomes

Abstract

Recently, multiple studies have focused on the phenomenon of “undermatching”—when students attend a college for which they are overqualified, as measured by test scores and grades. The extant literature suggests that students who undermatch fail to maximize their potential. However, gaps remain in our knowledge about how student preferences—such as a desire to attend college close to home—influence differential rates of undermatching. Moreover, previous research has not directly tested whether and to what extent students who undermatch experience more negative post-college outcomes than otherwise similar students who attend “match” colleges. Using ELS:2002, we find that student preferences for low-cost, nearby colleges, particularly among low-income students, are associated with higher rates of undermatching even among students who are qualified to attend a “very selective” institution. However, this relationship is weakened when students live within 50 miles of a match college, demonstrating that proximity matters. Our results show that attending a selective postsecondary institution does influence post-college employment and earnings, with less positive results for students who undermatch as compared with peers who do not. Our findings demonstrate the importance of non-academic factors in shaping college decisions and post-college outcomes, particularly for low-income students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hoxby and Avery (2013) define “selective colleges” as colleges and universities that are categorized “Very Competitive Plus” or “Most Competitive” in Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges. Match was determined by comparing individuals’ standardized test scores to the median scores of students enrolled in the college.

  2. 2.

    Rodriguez (2013) notes that calculations on undermatching, especially for underrepresented students, vary widely across the literature based on the operational definitions of “selectivity” and “qualifications.”

  3. 3.

    The 7 categories include: most competitive, highly competitive, very competitive, competitive, less competitive, noncompetitive, and special. We omit students that attend schools in the special category because these are schools that specialize in areas such as music or art so their ordering in the selectivity rank is less clear. Two year colleges are not included in Barron’s categories. We therefore add a category for 2-year colleges that is below the noncompetitive category. We add a final category for students that do not enroll in college. This results in a total of 9 ordered selectivity categories. Following the approach of Smith et al. (2013), we further re-categorize schools into the following 6 groups: very selective (most competitive, highly competitive); selective (very competitive); somewhat selective (competitive); nonselective (less selective, noncompetitive); 2-year college; no college.

  4. 4.

    We use NCES-administered math and reading exam scores in the prediction equation in lieu of SAT/ACT scores. Scores on the NCES exams are highly correlated with SAT/ACT scores and are preferable because they are available for the vast majority of sample members. By contrast, only about 60% of sample members had taken the SAT or ACT by the end of 12th grade.

  5. 5.

    Rouse (1995), for example, estimates the effect of attending a two-year versus a four-year college on educational attainment using the proximity of local colleges as an instrument. Researchers have cautioned that using proximity to college may not constitute an exogenous instrument if parents who care about higher education make conscious decisions to live near colleges (Card 1995; Rouse 1995). We mitigate this concern by also considering students’ selectivity qualification range. That is, it does not seem likely that families make relocation decisions based on proximity to a college that they have predicted is a good "match" for their child's academic capabilities.

References

  1. Bastedo, M., & Bowman, N. (2015). Improving Admission of Low-SES students at selective colleges: Results from a national experiment.

  2. Bastedo, M. N., & Flaster, A. (2014). Conceptual and Methodological Problems in Research on College Undermatch. Educational Researcher, 0013189X14523039. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14523039

  3. Bastedo, M. N., & Jaquette, O. (2011). Running in place: Low-income students and the dynamics of higher education stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 318–339. doi:10.3102/0162373711406718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baum, S., Lapovsky, L., & Ma, J. (2010). Tuition discounting: Institutional aid patterns at public and private colleges and universities, 2000-01 to 2008-09. Washington, DC: The College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Black, S. E., Cortes, K. E., & Lincove, J. A. (2015). Apply Yourself: Racial and Ethnic Differences in College Application (Working Paper No. 21368). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21368

  6. Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burkander, K. N. (2014). Culture, class, and college: A mixed-method contextual understanding of undermatch. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/36/35/3635423.html

  8. Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2000). Understanding the college choice process. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(107), 5–22. doi:10.1002/ir.10701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, Randall. (1971). Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification. American Sociological Review, 36, 1002–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Deutschlander, D. (2017). Academic undermatch: How general and specific cultural capital structure inequality. Sociological Forum, 32(1), 162–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fosnacht, K. J. (2014). Selectivity and the college experience: How undermatching shapes the college experience among high-achieving students. Chicago, IL: Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Griffith, A. L., & Rothstein, D. S. (2009). Can’t get there from here: The decision to apply to a selective college. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 620–628. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grodsky, E., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2010). Those Who Choose and Those Who Don’t: Social Background and College Orientation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 627(1), 14–35. doi:10.1177/0002716209348732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hill, C. B., & Winston, G. C. (2010). Low-income students and highly selective private colleges: Geography, searching, and recruiting. Economics of Education Review, 29(4), 495–503. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hillman, N. W. (2016). Geography of college opportunity: The case of education deserts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 987–1021. doi:10.3102/0002831216653204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoxby, C. (2009). The changing selectivity of American colleges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 95–118. doi:10.1257/jep.23.4.95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoxby, C. M., & Avery, C. (2013). The Missing “One-Offs”: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

  18. Hoxby, C., & Turner, S. (2013). Expanding College Opportunities for High-Achieving, Low Income Students. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research: Discussion Paper #12-014.

  19. Hurtado, S., Inkelas, K. K., Briggs, C., & Rhee, B.-S. (1997). Differences in college access and choice among Racial/Ethnic Groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 43–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hurwitz, M., Smith, J., Howell, J., & Pender, M. (2012). The Role of High Schools in Students’ Postsecondary Choices. Retrieved from http://research.collegeboard.org/publications/role-high-schools-students-postsecondary-choices

  21. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Klugman, J. (2012). How resource inequalities among high schools reproduce class advantages in college destinations. Research in Higher Education, 53(8), 803–830. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9261-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kurleander, M., & Grodsky, E. (2013). Mismatch and the paternalistic justification for selective college admissions. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 294–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McKenna, L. (2015, October 22). The New Common App? The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/new-common-app/411820/

  25. Morgan, S. L. (2005). On the edge of commitment: Educational attainment and race in the United States. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ovink, S. M. (2014). They always call me an investment: Gender and Latino/a college pathways. Gender & Society, 28, 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ovink, S. M. (2017). In today's society, it's a necessity: Latino/a postsecondary plans in the college-for-all era Social Currents, 4, 128–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ovink, S. M., & Kalogrides, D. (2015). No place like home? Familism and Latino/a-white differences in college pathways. Social Science Research, 52, 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ovink, S. M., & Veazey, B. D. (2011). More than getting us through: A case study in cultural capital enrichment of underrepresented minority undergraduates. Research in Higher Education, 52(4), 370–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Park, E. (2013). Low-income students’ access to selective higher education. INDIANA UNIVERSITY. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/36/02/3602806.html

  31. Perna, L. (2000). Differences in the decision to attend college among African Americans, Hispanics, and whites. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 117–141. doi:10.2307/2649245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Perna, L. (2006). Studying College Access and Choice: A Proposed Conceptual Model. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 21, pp. 99–157). Springer Netherlands.

  33. Radford, A. W. (2013). Top student, top school? how social class shapes where valedictorians go to college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Roderick, M., Coca, V., & Nagaoka, J. (2011). Potholes on the Road to College High School Effects in Shaping Urban Students’ Participation in College Application, Four-year College Enrollment, and College Match. Sociology of Education, 84(3), 178–211. doi:10.1177/0038040711411280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Coca, V., Moeller, E., Roddie, K., Gilliam, J., et al. (2008). From High School to the Future: Potholes on the Road to College (Research Report). Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rodriguez, A. (2013). Unpacking the Black Box: Estimating the High School-Level Effects of Undermatching on Underrepresented Students (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest.

  37. Rodriguez, A. (2015). Tradeoffs and limitations: Understanding the estimation of college undermatch. Research in Higher Education, 56(6), 566–594. doi:10.1007/s11162-015-9363-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rouse, C. E. (1995). Democratization or diversion? The effect of community colleges on educational attainment. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13, 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Smith, J., Pender, M., & Howell, J. (2013). The full extent of student-college academic undermatch. Economics of Education Review, 32, 247–261. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Student Financial Aid Services, Inc. (2014). College undermatching threatens nation’s future talent pool. Enhanced Online News. http://www.enhancedonlinenews.com/news/eon/20141204005529/en/undermatching/high-achieving/low-income

  41. Tiboris, M. (2014). What’s wrong with undermatching? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48(4), 646–664. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural integrity versus cultural suicide. The Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 80–91. doi:10.2307/2668211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tinto, V. (1973). College proximity and rates of college attendance. American Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 277–293. doi:10.3102/00028312010004277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of college attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Turley, R. N. L. (2009). College proximity: Mapping access to opportunity. Sociology of Education, 82(2), 126–146. doi:10.1177/003804070908200202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding to the first author from a Virginia Tech Incentive Grant supported the development of study on which this article is based.This research was also supported by a grant to the first author from the American Educational Research Association which receives funds for its “AERA Grants Program” from the National Science Foundation under NSF Grant #DRL 0941014. Opinions reflect those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies. The authors also wish to thank W. Carson Byrd and Eric Sindelar for their helpful feedback and support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Ovink.

Appendices

Appendix A: Detailed IV Results

Table 12 First stage IV results, linear probability predicting undermatching (coefficients/standard errors)

Appendix B: Detailed Early Career Outcomes 2012

Table 13 Linear probability/OLS models predicting early career outcomes in 2012 (coefficients/standard errors)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ovink, S., Kalogrides, D., Nanney, M. et al. College Match and Undermatch: Assessing Student Preferences, College Proximity, and Inequality in Post-College Outcomes. Res High Educ 59, 553–590 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9482-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Higher education
  • Undermatching
  • Inequality
  • College proximity