Downloads
Most nonprofit institutions have significant progress to make to reach their stated goals of representational parity.
Our report, Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education, discusses how institutions in US higher education could accelerate their progress toward racial and ethnic equity through teaching and learning, research scholarship, and impact in the community.
For this article, we analyzed data from more than 3,200 nonprofit institutions (both two-year and four-year) that collectively serve 2.4 million students,1Raw data are drawn from the National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. to measure the extent to which colleges and universities are contributing to a more equitable society. Our analysis, which evaluated institutions’ representation of students, faculty, and noninstructional staff from underrepresented populations,2Includes individuals identifying as Black, Hispanic or Latino, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and two or more races. found that most institutions have significant room for improvement. What follows is a walk-through of the analysis. (For more on degree completion for students from underrepresented populations, see “Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education: Completion rates.”)
Table of contents
Section 1
Nearly 60 percent of institutions fall short on representational parity for students.
Institutions’ locations are often significant factors in the racial and ethnic make-up of their undergraduate populations. This suggests that there is no one-size-fits-all measure of racial and ethnic representational parity.
We created institution-specific measures of student representational parity by looking at the home states of incoming, matriculated, first-year, degree-seeking undergraduates at each institution. Using a weighted average of the number of students from each state, we calculated the expected racial and ethnic make-up of the first-year cohort based on the US Census statistics for each demographic group in each state. We then compared the actual student body make-up to the expected demographics to determine whether each institution achieved equitable student representation and by how much. (This analysis excludes international students.) Against this metric, we found that nearly 60 percent of institutions have not achieved representational parity for students from underrepresented populations.3For more on how we calculate representational parity, see the appendix of Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education.
Underrepresented populations are not distributed evenly throughout the US.
While underrepresented populations constitute almost two-thirds of the population of New Mexico, they account for less than 10 percent of the population in states such as Maine and New Hampshire. This demographic variability is the result of historical patterns of in- and out-migration, such as the Great Migration of Black Americans out of the South from 1915 to 1970.4This analysis uses population data from the 2019 American Community Survey because US Census microdata for 2020 was not available at the time of analysis and may contain irregularities from the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on data collection.
For more on the Great Migration, see “The Great Migration,” History.com, updated June 28, 2021.
Underrepresented population estimates per state, 2020, % of total
Click to view info
10
20
30
40
50
60
undefined
Population estimates, 2020, % of total
Representation of students from underrepresented populations at each institution is heavily shaped by geography because undergraduates are likely to attend schools in or near their home states. Accordingly, institutions located in states and cities with more diverse populations, such as Atlanta or San Jose, tend to enroll a greater proportion of students from underrepresented populations than institutions in areas the majority of which is White, such as Vermont.
Underrepresented population student representation per institution, 2020, % of total
Click to view info
undefined (undefined)
First-time undergraduate students (excluding foreign students), % of total
10
20
30
40
50
60
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
In order to account for these geographic variances, we created an institution-specific measure of student representational parity. First, we analyzed the home states of each institution’s first-time, full-time, matriculated undergraduate student class (with data from the US Department of Education) to create a weighted average of each state. Second, we combined the weighted average of each state with the racial and ethnic composition of the traditional college-going population (that is, 18–24 years old) within each state (from the US Census) to create an expected racial and ethnic composition of each institution’s first year undergraduate class.5Excluding international students. We then compared this expected composition to each institution’s actual levels of student diversity within their first-year undergraduate class. The difference is each institution’s gap to parity.
Underrepresented population student representation per institution, 2020, % of total
Click to view info
undefined (undefined)
First-time undergraduate students (excluding foreign students), % of total
More students from underrepresented populations than expected
Fewer students from underrepresented populations than expected
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Forty-four percent of institutions had a larger share of students from underrepresented populations than would be expected.
Each institution on this map had a greater proportion of first-time undergraduates from underrepresented populations than expected in 2020, as compared to the proportion of residents from underrepresented populations (ages 18–24), statewide.
Underrepresented population student representation per institution, 2020, % of total
Click to view info
undefined (undefined)
First-time undergraduate students (excluding foreign students), % of total
More students from underrepresented populations than expected
Fewer students from underrepresented populations than expected
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Fifty-six percent of institutions had lower shares of students from underrepresented populations than expected.
Each institution on this map had a lower than expected proportion of students from underrepresented populations enrolled in 2020, as compared to the proportion of residents (ages 18–24) from underrepresented populations in its state.
Underrepresented population student representation per institution, 2020, % of total
Click to view info
undefined (undefined)
First-time undergraduate students (excluding foreign students), % of total
More students from underrepresented populations than expected
Fewer students from underrepresented populations than expected
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Notes
1. Underrepresented minorities include Black or African American, native American, native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, and two or more races.
2. Maps display only institutions with at least 250 first-time undergraduate students (excluding foreign students).
Section 2
Nine in ten institutions have significant gaps to parity for students, faculty, or both.
Student representation on its own is an incomplete picture of racial equity. Universities also seek excellence in research, scholarship, and creative expression, while also having a positive impact in their communities. These goals suggest that institutions would also benefit from equitable representation of underrepresented populations among faculty and staff.
Because institutions can attract faculty from a national pool of talent, we compared faculty representation at institutions to the overall racial composition of the United States.6Includes both tenure track and nontenure track full-time instructional staff. Full-time instructional staff members are defined as staff that is classified as full-time by their employers and who perform instruction exclusively or in combination with research and service responsibilities. We found that less than 12 percent of institutions have reached parity in faculty representation. Moreover, nearly 90 percent of institutions have parity gaps in representation for students, faculty, or both; 55 percent of institutions are below representational parity on both measures.
This analysis focuses on representation among faculty—or instructional staff—because of their outsize role in scholarship, student experience, and completion rates.7Madeline St. Amour, “As times and students change, can faculty change, too?,” Inside Higher Ed, April 3, 2020. However, institutions could also consider measures to improve representation among noninstructional staff such as administrators and managers.8For more on noninstructional staff, see Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education.
Most institutions have parity gaps for both students and faculty from underrepresented populations.
Each bubble on this chart represents an institution. The x-axis shows the gap to parity for undergraduates; the y-axis illustrates the gap to parity for instructional staff.
Gap to parity for first-time undergraduate students and instructional staff, nonprofit institutions
2020
Instructional staff gap to parity, percentage point difference
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Only 11 percent of institutions have equitable representation of both students and faculty from underrepresented populations.
Institutions in the top right-hand quadrant have higher than expected proportions of students and staff from underrepresented populations compared to the state and national populations.
Gap to parity for first-time undergraduate students and instructional staff, nonprofit institutions
2020
Instructional staff gap to parity, percentage point difference
1% of institutions represent staff only
11% of institutions represent both
33% of institutions represent students only
55% of institutions represent neither
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
More than 90 percent of the most research-intensive institutions have parity gaps for both students and faculty from underrepresented populations.
An even greater proportion of research-intensive (R1) institutions face gaps to parity for students and staff.9For more on the classifications of institutions by research activity, see “Basic classification description,” The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, accessed February 4, 2022. These prestigious institutions account for a disproportionate share of faculty in many fields. For example, 11 R1 universities produce 50 percent of the instructional staff in political science at R1 institutions.10Robert Oprisko, “Superpowers: The American academic elite,” Georgetown Public Policy Review, December 3, 2012. Equitable racial and ethnic representation at R1 institutions is therefore critical to building diversity in academia.
Gap to parity for first-time undergraduate students and instructional staff, nonprofit institutions
2020
Instructional staff gap to parity, percentage point difference
1% of institutions represent staff only
11% of institutions represent both
33% of institutions represent students only
55% of institutions represent neither
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Notes
1. Analysis excludes for-profit institutions.
2. Charts display only universities with at least 250 first-time undergraduate students (excluding foreign students).
3. Underrepresented minorities include Black or African American, Native American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, and two or more races.
4. Includes Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (defined as current and eligible HSI grantees in DoE’s 2020 Eligibility Matrix), and tribal universities.
Section 3
Progress toward equitable representation is slow.
We close out our analysis by examining the pace of progress toward equity. At current rates, the vast majority of institutions will not achieve equitable representation of students and faculty from underrepresented populations for centuries. In some cases—such as at R1 institutions—representational parity will never be achieved at the current pace of progress.
We identified the rate of diversification across different types of institutions based on changes in enrollment and faculty diversification between 2013 and 2020. The gap to parity for historically underrepresented populations beginning in 2013 appears below.
Gap to parity for first-time undergraduate students and instructional staff, nonprofit institutions
2013
Instructional staff gap to parity, percentage point difference
1% of institutions represent staff only
10% of institutions represent both
28% of institutions represent students only
61% of institutions represent neither
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
Gaps to parity are largely similar in 2020. While select institutions have closed gaps, broad progress has been limited.
Gap to parity for first-time undergraduate students and instructional staff, nonprofit institutions
2020
Instructional staff gap to parity, percentage point difference
1% of institutions represent staff only
11% of institutions represent both
33% of institutions represent students only
55% of institutions represent neither
Student gap to parity, percentage point difference
Public
Private
not-for-profitMinority-serving
institution
Size = total first-time
undergraduate students
On average, progress has been faster for students than faculty.
In 2013, 61 percent of institutions had less than the expected share of students and faculty from underrepresented populations. However, 28 percent were representative of students from underrepresented populations, which was not the case for faculty.
Institutions where students and staff are representative of their expected underrepresented population, %
2013
Represent staff only
1%
Represent both students and staff
10%
Represent students only
28%
Represent neither students nor staff
61%
In 2020, the proportion of institutions that had less than the expected share of both students and faculty from underrepresented populations had decreased from 61 percent to 55 percent.
However, this shift is the result of increased representation of underrepresented populations among students, with a one percentage point increase in the proportion of institutions where both student and faculty populations achieved representational parity.
Institutions where students and staff are representative of their expected underrepresented population, %
2020
Represent staff only
1%
Represent both students and staff
11%
Represent students only
33%
Represent neither students nor staff
55%
Representational parity for students may not be achieved in our lifetime.
Assuming that the rate of diversification from 2013 to 2020 holds, it will take about 70 years to achieve representational parity for students at all institutions (including two-year and four-year institutions). While four-year institutions may reach parity a bit sooner—in 44 years—slower progress at R1 institutions means it would take them more than 400 years to achieve equitable representation for students from underrepresented populations.
Student parity, % of higher education institutions with student representation equal to or above national demographic levels
Four-year institutions
2013
30.9%
2020
40.4%
44 years to reach student parity
R1 institutions
2013
7.7%
2020
9.2%
433 years to reach student parity
Representation of Hispanic and Latino students has improved, but it has worsened for Black and Native American students.
Increased representation for Hispanic and Latino students has driven the most representational gains. By contrast, representation of Black and Native American students decreased from 2013 to 2020. At current rates of change, those students will never be equitably represented.
Student parity, % of higher education institutions with student representation equal to or above national demographic levels
Black
2013
34.7%
2020
33.4%
Never reach student parity
Hispanic
2013
22.6%
2020
33.1%
45 years to reach student parity
Native American or American Indian
2013
44.5%
2020
37.7%
Never reach student parity
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander
2013
37.1%
2020
29.9%
Never reach student parity
Two or more races
2013
55.8%
2020
60.8%
54 years to reach student parity
Representation of underrepresented population faculty has remained low.
Institutions have made less progress in diversifying faculty. If current trends continue, it will take schools a thousand years, on average, to achieve representational parity for faculty. R1 institutions would never achieve it at current rates of change.
Instructional staff parity, % of higher education institutions with instructional staff representation equal to or above national demographic levels
Four-year institutions
2013
10%
2020
10.5%
1,439 years to reach instructional staff parity
R1 institutions
2013
0.8%
2020
0.8%
Never instructional staff parity
Black, Hispanic, and Latino faculty have gained some ground, but Native American faculty have lost it.
Institutions have made modest progress in increasing representation of Hispanic and Latino faculty, though it still lags for Hispanic and Latino students. For Native Americans, representation of both students and faculty has decreased.
Instructional staff parity, % of higher education institutions with instructional staff representation equal to or above national demographic levels
Black
2013
11.6%
2020
13.1%
422 years to reach instructional staff parity
Hispanic
2013
5.8%
2020
7.2%
476 years to reach instructional staff parity
Native American or American Indian
2013
20%
2020
18.5%
Never reach instructional staff parity
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander
2013
9.1%
2020
11.3%
282 years to reach instructional staff parity
Two or more races
2013
8.8%
2020
14%
115 years to reach instructional staff parity
However, there is some evidence of positive change. From June 2020 through November 2021, 32.4 percent of newly hired presidents and chancellors in US higher education were from underrepresented populations, an increase from 19 percent during the preceding 18 months.11Doug Lederman, “Diversity on the rise among college presidents,” Inside Higher Ed, February 14, 2022; Chelsea Long, “Who’s missing in leadership at elite colleges? Women of color, a new report finds,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 20, 2022.
Presidential hires by race at US higher education institutions, % of total
Underrepresented population
White
Asian
Representational equity is a stated goal of many stakeholders in higher education. We hope the details of this analysis can serve as a resource for institutions seeking to make progress toward equity more quickly and on a broader scale. Doing so will build richer communities of learning, more robust research scholarship, and greater community benefits—all of which can help realize a more equitable and productive society.
