What is rarely considered in previous studies on undermatching, as noted by Radford (2013), Bastedo and Flaster (2014), and Park (2013), is the entire process of college choice, from predisposition, preparation, application, and matriculation to persistence, graduation, and beyond. In particular, we know surprisingly little about the post-college income and employment outcomes of students who undermatch, as compared to otherwise similar peers who attend match institutions. Previous literature on college outcomes has noted the benefits of attending a selective college, including rich instructional, extracurricular and financial resources as well as presumed post-graduation benefits including improved social/occupational networks; graduate and professional school attendance; rates, sector, and level of employment; and post-college earnings (Hoxby & Avery, 2013; Bowen et al., 2009, Baum et al., 2010; Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011; Kurlaender & Grodsky, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013). As Student Financial Aid Services Inc. (2014) undermatching threatens future talent pool... This not only states, “College [the] nation’s perpetuates the cycle of poverty, but also robs our nation of smart, diverse leadership to solve future (p. 1). As a policy concern, then, undermatching evokes apprehension for both problems” individual and social outcomes, in the form of lost and productivity. Yet, while the benefits of selective colleges are often described, the link between college match and labor market outcomes has yet to be directly measured. In sum, strong concerns remain about the potential for undermatching to negatively affect college outcomes, particularly given the demonstrated higher rates of undermatching students’ among historically underrepresented and low-income students. Moreover, undermatching is framed as a potential loss for society in general, as the nation misses out on the contributions of a significant portion of the populace who do not make their way to the elite colleges they are
What is rarely considered in previous studies on undermatching, as noted by Radford (2013), Bastedo and Flaster (2014), and Park (2013), is the entire process of college choice, from predisposition, preparation, application, and matriculation to persistence, graduation, and beyond. In particular, we know surprisingly little about the post-college income and employment outcomes of students who undermatch, as compared to otherwise similar peers who attend match institutions. Previous literature on college outcomes has noted the benefits of attending a selective college, including rich instructional, extracurricular and financial resources as well as presumed post-graduation benefits including improved social/occupational networks; graduate and professional school attendance; rates, sector, and level of employment; and post-college earnings (Hoxby & Avery, 2013; Bowen et al., 2009, Baum et al., 2010; Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011; Kurlaender & Grodsky, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013). As Student Financial Aid Services Inc. (2014) states, “College undermatching threatens [the] nation’s future talent pool... This not only perpetuates the cycle of poverty, but also robs our nation of smart, diverse leadership to solve future problems” (p. 1). As a policy concern, then, undermatching evokes apprehension for both individual and social outcomes, in the form of lost and productivity. Yet, while the benefits of selective colleges are often described, the link between college match and labor market outcomes has yet to be directly measured. In sum, strong concerns remain about the potential for undermatching to negatively affect students’ college outcomes, particularly given the demonstrated higher rates of undermatching among historically underrepresented and low-income students. Moreover, undermatching is framed as a potential loss for society in general, as the nation misses out on the contributions of a significant portion of the populace who do not make their way to the elite colleges they are
Accepted%20version%20RHE%20Ovink%20Kalogrides%20Nanney%20Delaney.docx