Undermatching: Who, When, Why, and How?

By Quetzal Mama • April 7, 2014

College Undermatching in the Literature

Roxanne Ocampo

University of California at San Diego

Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

Obtaining admission to a selective college extends beyond social recognition and status. Researchers have identified numerous benefits for students who earn admission to a selective college including greater chance of graduation success, graduating in an ideal timeframe (4 years), greater likelihood to attend graduate school, greater future earnings (and conversely, lower levels of unemployment), greater occupational prestige, and greater access to higher quality health care (Hoxby, 2013; Klugman, 2012; Roderick, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013). Unfortunately, a segment of our society – those who are high performing, low-income, first generation, historically underrepresented – is not applying to selective universities. Until recently, this historical inequity has not garnered national attention, nor been labeled with a novel term. Today, we have a name for this phenomenon: Undermatching. By definition, undermatching refers to college ready students who select and enroll in colleges with selectivity levels significantly lower than their academic profile or forego applying to a selective college altogether. Although this definition does not explicitly refer to historically underrepresented, low-income, and first generation students, it is commonly understood that this particular demographic is disproportionately impacted. The College Board currently estimates that nearly 50% of disadvantaged students are undermatching. Fortunately, with heightened exposure and media scrutiny, researchers are now focusing efforts to understand who is undermatching, where and when it is occurring, and whether current mitigation efforts are effective.

This literature review will focus on emerging theories concerning the phenomenon of undermatching with a lens toward those most significantly impacted: high-performing, historically underrepresented, low-income, and potential first generation college students. For ease of clarity, henceforth the term “disadvantaged” will refer to the above demographic. Constructed as a thematic review, we will consider three themes including low versus high-resourced high schools, the critical stages that most directly impact the decision making process, and the degree to which social positionality influences the decision making process. Finally, we will address the implication for social justice and the implication for educational leadership.

Low-Resourced Versus Highly-Resourced High Schools

Much of the research on the topic of undermatching points to the high school environment and respective resources as the most predictive and impactful factor that determines a student’s college selection and enrollment decision. As can be expected, research confirms there is a direct correlation between a school’s college-going resources, the ability to produce students who can successfully navigate the college admissions process, and the likelihood the students will match to a college(s) properly suited to their academic qualifications (Klugman, 2012; Moller, 2011; Roderick, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013; Walton-Radford 2009). Students attending high schools with above average college-promoting resources – referred to as “highly resourced,” are less likely to undermatch (Klugman, 2012). In contrast, low-income, first generation, Latino students attending high schools with low college-promoting resources – referred to as low or “under resourced,” are significantly more likely to undermatch (Rodriguez, 2013). The inequitable distribution of resources helps explain the disproportionate outcomes. In highly-resourced high school campuses, there exist three compounding factors that contribute toward successful student college match: programmatic, pedagogical, and social advantages. Programmatic resources, referred to as “marks of distinction” that positively correlate with selective college preparedness include comprehensive AP and IB programs and comprehensive extracurricular (sports, clubs, competitions) Klugman (2012). In terms of pedagogical advantages, in highly resourced schools teaching staff tend to have graduated more often from private or selective colleges versus public, less selective colleges (Klugman, 2012) and that the alma mater of teachers is correlated to their students’ college selection (Hoxby, 2013; Klugman, 2012). Conversely, disadvantaged students experience the opposite outcome: “. . . low income urban students often engage in a limited college search and tend to enroll within the traditional feeder patterns of their high schools: predominantly two-year or large public universities with lower levels of selectivity.” (Roderick, 2011, Pg. 186). Aside from programmatic resources, social resources are predictors of successful college match and enrollment (Klugman, 2012; Roderick, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013). Social resources include social networks, peer SES, feeder patterns, test scores, and in-network sharing of information. An added bonus for students attending high-resourced high schools is an intangible, cumulative psychological and sociological effect that positively influences a student’s sense of worthiness. This sense of worthiness translates to greater confidence in applying to selective colleges (Klugman, 2012; Roderick, 2011). The net effect is that disadvantaged students attending low resourced high schools lack timely and critical resources to effectively guide and positively influence their college selection choices such that they would most likely select colleges equal to their academic qualifications and potential. The literature reinforces the theory that systemic disparities in low SES public high schools disproportionately impact disadvantaged student’s college readiness, selection, and enrollment in selective colleges.

Undermatch Occurs at a Critical Stage

Scholars have been attempting to pinpoint the elusive phase where the breakdown occurs between high-performing, disadvantaged students and their college selection choices. Walton-Radford (2009) identified this pivotal phase as the “college exploration stage” where students learn about the college admissions process, investigate college options, and learn about the financial aid process. Walton-Radford found this stage most impactful because it occurs during the critical time when students are engaged in the decision-making process that guides them toward selecting an appropriate college fit. During this stage, disadvantaged students are information-deficient, and their information is typically limited to the opinions of their teachers, guidance counselors, peers, and parents (Hoxby, 2013; Roderick, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013; Walton-Radford, 2009). For disadvantaged students, we know that peers and family members are often ill-equipped to advise or make recommendations on an appropriate college match (Hoxby, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013). Ironically, Walton-Radford (2009) and Rodriguez (2013) found that the most accessible and seemingly appropriate source – the high school guidance counselor, was actually detrimental to high performing students during this phase. In addition to discouraging disadvantaged high performing students from applying to selective universities, Rodriguez (2013) found that counselors are more likely to recommend 2-year (community college) tracks for these students, compared to their high-SES counterparts.

Once students have begun exploring the types of colleges to attend, they will focus attention to the financial aid aspect. Research amplifies the extent financial aid knowledge impacts disadvantaged students in considering and applying to selective universities (Hoxby, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013; Walton-Radford, 2009). In particular, disadvantaged students’ knowledge of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is critical during their college selection stage. This is problematic because financial aid knowledge is largely determined by class (Hoxby, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013), and therefore the knowledge obtained is limited to those within a disadvantaged student’s social network (guidance counselors, parents, and peers). Disadvantaged students need reliable access to relevant and tailored financial aid information. At this stage students gather information from non-reliable, ill-informed sources that do not guide them to an appropriate college match – steering them instead toward colleges that are significantly below their academic profile (Roderick, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013). The information they receive is generally provided in a large-group setting, versus a more effective one-on-one setting, with information typically geared toward low-selectivity, public, local schools (Walton-Radford, 2009). Understanding how timeliness, accuracy, and relevancy of college-going information directly influences the college selection process, and the social profile of students who have access to this information, helps explain why high-performing, disadvantaged students continue to undermatch.

Social Positionality

In considering which colleges they will submit an application and/or enroll, disadvantaged students turn to their social network and high school environment for guidance (Moller, 2011; Roderick, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013). Unfortunately, as discussed above, the high school environment (namely, guidance counselors) is not a trustworthy source and is negatively associated with undermatching. Subsequently, students will look to their parents for college selection information (Klugman, 2012; Roderick, 2013). Unfortunately, because disadvantaged students typically come from families without a college-going history, their parents are not typically equipped with adequate knowledge to provide them with useful information (Roderick, 2011). In addition, parents of disadvantaged Latino students often have a language barrier that impacts their ability to inform their children regarding the college admissions process. As a result, disadvantaged students often turn, unsuccessfully, to siblings or other family members as surrogates for college-going knowledge (Rodriguez, 2013). It is within this multi-layered context of social capital that demonstrates how disadvantaged students are consistently misinformed and misguided during the college selection process. While social positionality disadvantages low-SES students, it benefits high-SES students. High-SES parents reside in communities where the educational systems provide significant college-going advantages for their children (Klugman, 2012). Subsequently, their children have greater success in selecting colleges that are consistent with their academic profiles: “While all individuals have cultural and social capital, students from underrepresented backgrounds are less likely to possess the types of knowledge of the cultural norms and expectations that are valued by the dominant culture and would help them negotiate the college choice process.” (Rodriguez, 2013, Pg. 10).

Implications for Leadership

Research supports that high-performing students establish their college-going attitude by the time they are in middle school (Moller, 2011). Therefore, K-12 educational leaders might wish to develop a consistent, college-going culture starting in K-5, versus focusing college-going resources exclusively at the high school level. This would require re-examining current college-going resources to ensure they are designed for all students with varying academic profiles.

Educational leaders must acknowledge that while their respective segment of potential undermatched students is not numerically significant (relative to their entire student body population), the impact of leading their high performing, disadvantaged student population has long-term, intergenerational and community impact. Given the overwhelming empirical evidence that disadvantaged students rely on their peers and family for cues to consider, select, and enroll in a particular college, K-12 administrators now have a framework from which to consider possible remedies.

Implications for Social Justice

The stratification of selective post-secondary institutions has long-term implications for social inequality. Due to California’s diverse student population – where currently more than half of enrolled K-12 students are of Latino/Hispanic origin, and their respective SES status, the issue of undermatching has far reaching consequences. Coupled with this statistic, research supports that Latino students undermatch at a higher rate compared to their racial/ethnic counterparts (Rodriguez, 2013). We know that high performing, disadvantaged students are not being provided timely, accurate, or relevant information to help guide them toward selecting colleges that match their academic profiles (Roderick, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013). Although 9-12 administrators cannot control for all factors that affect undermatching, they do have direct influence over two significant roadblocks: ill-informed and time-constrained guidance counselors, and relevant financial aid dissemination.

Policy makers, selective universities, and educational leaders and practitioners could quite efficiently distribute timely financial aid information to disadvantaged students and their parents. In addition, K-12 institutions may consider identifying alternate resources (not overburdened counselors) to help students during the pivotal selection and application phase. Since parents play a significant role in the decision-making process, selective colleges should focus outreach to parents and students with culturally relevant and language appropriate recruitment materials that address financial options. Finally, 9-12 institutions should make financial aid available, in a context not just for the general student body population, but focus on sessions that provide a context for private and selective university admissions.

Educational leaders must be mindful that ignoring the segment of our student population perpetuates class inequalities and is contrary to our country’s ideal of meritocracy. Continuing to exclusively entrust guidance counseling teams and parents with sole responsibility to inform our bright, college-bound, disadvantaged students is problematic. It should be clear through this literature review that the system is broken, and that by not attending to seek solutions to this issue will guarantee reproduction of inequality.

Summary

The effects of undermatching have far-reaching consequences including preventing academically gifted students from performing at their abilities, perpetuating generational cycles of poverty and lack of social capital, perpetuating distinct class differences, and disallowing for a unique demographic to bring their voice into selective university classrooms.

From the literature we find many factors that directly impact and compound the phenomenon of undermatching. First, we find that undermatching most significantly impacts disadvantaged students who attend low-resourced high schools. Low-resourced high schools have programmatic, pedagogical, and social deficits, that negatively impact disadvantaged students in their college selection process. Second, we find that we can narrow or pinpoint where the breakdown occurs in undermatching: in the college exploration phase. It is during this phase where disadvantaged students learn about the college admissions process, investigate college options, and learn about the financial aid process. At this phase, disadvantaged students are forced to rely on ill-informed and overburdened guidance counselors, their parents, or their peers. Due to social positionality of disadvantaged students and their immediate network, this results in lack of tailored or relevant college selection information, and information that is skewed toward 2-year community college, or local, public, non-selective universities. The cumulative effect of these compounding issues disproportionately impact disadvantaged students and are causally related to the phenomenon of undermatching.

REFERENCES

Hoxby, C., & Avery, C. (2013). The missing "one-offs": The hidden supply of high-achieving,

low income students. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2013.

Klugman, J. (2012). How resource inequalities among high schools reproduce class

advantages in college destinations. Research in Higher Education (2012) December.

53(8), 803-830.

Moller, S, Stearns, E, Potochnick, S, & Southworth, S. (2011). Student achievement and college

selectivity: How changes in achievement during high school affect the selectivity of

college attended. Youth & Society, 43(2), 656-680.

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.

Rodriguez, A. (2013). Unpacking the Black Box: Estimating the High School-Level

Effects of Undermatching Among Underrepresented Students. (Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Walton-Radford, A. (2009). Where do they go? How gender, race, and social class

shape high school valedictorians’ paths to their undergraduate institutions.

(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.