Undermatching

Bowen, Chingos and McPherson named it in Crossing the Finish Line (2009): in North Carolina, most qualified students from the lowest income quarter undermatched, against about a quarter from the highest, and undermatched students graduated less often. Hoxby and Avery showed in 2012 that most high-achieving, low-income students never apply to a selective college, often because none recruits where they live, and Hoxby and Turner found that posting them application guidance and fee waivers changed where they applied.

In practice

• A rural valedictorian applies only to the regional college her teachers attended, and never learns that the flagship would have cost her less after aid.
• A top student chooses the college his friends are going to because nobody in his family has been through an admissions process.

Possible explanations

One explanation is information: students who know nobody who attended a selective college underestimate both their chances and the aid available. Another is cost, since the sticker price is visible and the discount is not. A third is preference for staying close to home.

In its favour

The pattern is documented in state administrative data, and mailing application guidance and fee waivers changed where students applied, which shows the barrier is partly informational.

Against it

Bastedo and Flaster argued in 2014 that the concept rests on contestable assumptions about what counts as a match, and whether undermatching costs students anything depends on the Dale-Krueger question, where the premium is largest for exactly this group.

Standing

Bastedo and Flaster argued in 2014 that the concept rests on contestable assumptions about what a match is. Whether undermatching costs students anything turns partly on the Dale–Krueger finding, where the selective-college premium is largest for exactly these students.

Further reading

Wikipedia

Subject

Learning & Education

Essay

What works in learning, and what schools can and cannot change