considered distance important” to his decision, and he considered attending “slightly colleges that were flying distance from home. Respondent D is currently still attending University of Maryland College Park. – As these four respondents illustrate, students with very similar high school achievement can experience vastly different outcomes. They were chosen to represent the key findings of the regression results. The high-income students, respondents A and D, did not undermatch and focused on academics when evaluating colleges. Respondent A traveled far from home for college, and although respondent D ended up going to college close to home, he considered colleges across the country. Respondent B is an example of a low-income student who did not capitalize on his talent. He only considered colleges very close to home, constrained by the desire to remain close to his family. Respondent C, on the other hand, was able to overcome the challenges presented by coming from a low-income background, and attended a prestigious college far from home. The purpose of this section has been to give detailed descriptions of students to personify the statistical results, but it is important to note that the sample contains a variety of students. Additionally, the types of students represented by respondents A, B, C, and D are not equally common in the dataset. Regression results have shown that low-income students are likely to undermatch, so students similar to Respondent B may be more prevalent than students similar to Respondent C.
considered distance “slightly important” to his decision, and he considered attending colleges that were flying distance from home. Respondent D is currently still attending University of Maryland – College Park. As these four respondents illustrate, students with very similar high school achievement can experience vastly different outcomes. They were chosen to represent the key findings of the regression results. The high-income students, respondents A and D, did not undermatch and focused on academics when evaluating colleges. Respondent A traveled far from home for college, and although respondent D ended up going to college close to home, he considered colleges across the country. Respondent B is an example of a low-income student who did not capitalize on his talent. He only considered colleges very close to home, constrained by the desire to remain close to his family. Respondent C, on the other hand, was able to overcome the challenges presented by coming from a low-income background, and attended a prestigious college far from home. The purpose of this section has been to give detailed descriptions of students to personify the statistical results, but it is important to note that the sample contains a variety of students. Additionally, the types of students represented by respondents A, B, C, and D are not equally common in the dataset. Regression results have shown that low-income students are likely to undermatch, so students similar to Respondent B may be more prevalent than students similar to Respondent C.
Thesis%20edits.docx