Downloads
Supporting students from underrepresented populations can help accelerate progress toward racial and ethnic equity in US higher education.
Our report, Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education, discusses how institutions of higher education could accelerate progress toward racial and ethnic equity through teaching and learning, research scholarship, and community impact.
Institutions could more easily achieve this impact if they are accessible—especially to historically underrepresented populations—and if they support students from underrepresented populations in completing their education. This article is a data-driven illustration of how accessible nonprofit higher education is for students from underrepresented populations (as measured by their attendance) and how successfully those institutions help those students earn undergraduate degrees.1Raw data are drawn from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (For more on student and faculty representation, see “Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education: Students and faculty.”)
Table of contents
Section 1
There is a relationship between student body composition and completion rates.
To examine the relationship between student body composition—particularly the share of students from underrepresented populations—and completion rates, we calculated how far each institution’s student body is from equitable racial and ethnic representation. This calculation, a weighted average, yielded an expected racial and ethnic composition for each institution.2For more on how we calculate representational parity, see the appendix of Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education. Most institutions had gaps to representational parity.3For more, see Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education: Students and faculty.
We then overlayed this measure of representational parity with each institution’s performance on the completion rate for underrepresented populations. This completion rate is equivalent to the percentage of students from underrepresented populations at four-year institutions who graduate in six years. These two measures suggest that some institutions are more accessible and effective at helping students from underrepresented populations to complete their degree programs compared to their peer schools.
Few institutions achieve both representational parity and above-average rates of completion for students from underrepresented populations.
Institutions are plotted on this graph to show the gap in enrollment parity (x-axis) and completion rates (y-axis) for students from underrepresented populations.
Gap to enrollment parity versus underrepresented population student completion, nonprofit four-year institutions
Underrepresented population completion rate in 150% of normal time, %, 2019
Underrepresented population completion only
52% of students
Underrepresented population student experience leaders
8% of students
Underrepresented population access only
19% of students
Underrepresented population student experience laggards
21% of students
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference, 2020
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
In 2020, only 8 percent of students attended four-year institutions that simultaneously had equitable racial representation—defined as having student bodies that reflect students’ home states’ demographics among 18–24 year-olds—and helped students from underrepresented populations graduate within six years at an above-average rate.
Gap to enrollment parity versus underrepresented population student completion, nonprofit four-year institutions
Underrepresented population completion rate in 150% of normal time, %, 2019
Underrepresented population completion only
52% of students
Underrepresented population student experience leaders
8% of students
Underrepresented population access only
19% of students
Underrepresented population student experience laggards
21% of students
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference, 2020
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Although minority-serving institutions are often underresourced,4For more on minority-serving institutions, see “Minority Serving Institutions Program,” US Department of the Interior. many manage to overperform in terms of completion rates and could drive additional economic mobility for underrepresented populations.
Gap to enrollment parity versus underrepresented population student completion, nonprofit four-year institutions
Underrepresented population completion rate in 150% of normal time, %, 2019
Underrepresented population completion only
52% of students
Underrepresented population student experience leaders
8% of students
Underrepresented population access only
19% of students
Underrepresented population student experience laggards
21% of students
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference, 2020
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
However, many institutions with high completion rates for students from underrepresented populations are also low in economic diversity.
Schools shaded in red on this graph have the lowest proportion of students who receive Pell Grants (a proxy for students from low-income backgrounds).5“Federal Pell Grants,” Federal Student Aid. Although these institutions enjoy high completion rates, they tend to be among the least racially and ethnically diverse.
Gap to enrollment parity versus underrepresented population student completion, nonprofit four-year institutions
Underrepresented population completion rate in 150% of normal time, %, 2019
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference, 2020
Proportion of Pell
recipients enrolled, %
20
40
60
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Section 2
The pace of change remains slow.
The opportunity for progress is significant, but the pace of progress is slow.
Nearly 20 percent of institutions have not made meaningful progress on either equitable representation or completion rates for underrepresented populations.
Each four-year institution is plotted to show how far it has advanced or regressed on racial and ethnic representation in its student body and completion rates for underrepresented populations. We define meaningful progress as increases of 2 percent or more per year on either dimension, to exceed the rate of increase in underrepresented populations in the US population in a similar period (2 percent per year from 2013 to 2019).6“Releases by year,” United States Census Bureau, October 8, 2021.
Gap to parity for first-time undergraduate students and instructional staff, nonprofit institutions
Change in underrepresented population completion, %
Change in underrepresented population diversity, %
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
More than a third of institutions are making significant simultaneous strides in representation and completion of underrepresented populations.
A subset of institutions increased representation of underrepresented populations while also increasing completion rates for those populations. This number drops significantly when we layer on representation and completion rates for low-income students; only 8 percent of institutions have made significant progress representing and graduating those students.
Underrepresented population students: Change in diversity and completion rate
2013–20
Increased underrepresented population completions only
17%
Increased underrepresented population diversity and underrepresented population completion
36%
Increased underrepresented population diversity only
27%
Did not increase underrepresented population diversity or underrepresented population completion rate
19%
Almost 20 percent of institutions have not made meaningful progress on either dimension.
More than 80 percent of institutions are making progress on improving access or completion for underrepresented populations. However, a significant portion of institutions have either made no progress or are regressing on both measures.
Underrepresented population students: Change in diversity and completion rate
2013–20
Increased underrepresented population completions only
17%
Increased underrepresented population diversity and underrepresented population completion
36%
Increased underrepresented population diversity only
27%
Did not increase underrepresented population diversity or underrepresented population completion rate
19%
Our analysis shows that the sector currently falls short in equitably representing and serving students from underrepresented populations. For the sector to realize its promise of economic mobility and improved life outcomes for underrepresented populations, institutions could improve accessibility by increasing the share of students from underrepresented populations in their student bodies and helping them to graduate on time.
