ADVANCING DIVERSITY 

AND INCLUSION IN 

HIGHER EDUCATION

K E Y D A T A H I G H L I G H T S F O C U S I N G 

O N R A C E A N D E T H N I C I T Y A N D

P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in 

Higher Education

Key Data Highlights Focusing on Race and Ethnicity and Promising 

Practices 

November 2016

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Office of the Under Secretary

U.S. Department of Education
The U.S. Department of Education does not mandate or prescribe practices, models, or other activitiesin this report. 

Thisreport contains examples of, adaptations of, and linksto resources created and maintained by other public and

private organizations. Thisinformation, informed by research and gathered in part from practitioners, is provided for

the reader’s convenience and isincluded here to offer examples of the many resources that educators, parents,

advocates, administrators, and other concerned parties may find helpful and use at their discretion. The U.S.

Department of Education does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this

outside information. Further, the inclusion of linksto items and examples does not reflect their importance, nor are

they intended to represent or be an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any views expressed, or

materials provided.

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary

Ted Mitchell

Under Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Amy McIntosh

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director

November 2016

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission

to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and Office of the Under Secretary, Advancing Diversity and 

Inclusion in Higher Education, Washington, D.C., 2016.

This report is available at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf. 

Availability of Alternate Formats

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or compact disk. For

more information, contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or the 504

coordinator via email atOM_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services free of charge

for Department information that is available to the public. If you need more information about these

interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327), (TTY: 1-800-437-0833),

or e-mail us at ed.language.assistance@ed.gov, or write to the U.S. Department of Education, Information 

Resource Center, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.
iii

Contents

List of Exhibits...................................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................................vii

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1

I. Introduction....................................................................................................................................5

II. Setting the Context: A Snapshot of Opportunity Gaps in Postsecondary Education.........................10

A. Trends in Educational Degree Attainment and Social Mobility......................................................................10

B. Gaps in College Opportunity ..........................................................................................................................14

III. The Higher Education Pipeline for Underrepresented Students of Color........................................19

A. Access: Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment ........................................................................................19

B. Student Success: Persistence, Completion, and Degree Attainment.............................................................24

C. Smaller Populations of Students of Color.......................................................................................................29

D. Multiple Dimensions of Gaps in College Opportunity ....................................................................................32

IV. Promoting Higher Education Access and Inclusion for All Students: Leadership Examples .............35

V. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................46

Appendix A: Supplemental Charts ....................................................................................................49

Opportunity Gaps in Postsecondary Education ......................................................................................................49

The Higher Education Pipeline ................................................................................................................................54

Appendix B: Academic Level of Degrees Conferred to Students of Color ............................................71

Appendix C: Faculty Diversity ...........................................................................................................73

Appendix D: Postsecondary Data on Equity and Student Success.......................................................75

Appendix E: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Definitions of Race and Ethnicity Categories..76

Endnotes .........................................................................................................................................77
iv

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1.1: Percentage of U.S. residents 25 years and older attaining a bachelor’s degree 

or higher, by race and ethnicity: From 1964 through 2014........................................................................ 12

Exhibit 1.2: Total money earnings for U.S. residents 18 years and older, by race and ethnicity 

and educational attainment: 2014 ............................................................................................................. 13

Exhibit 2.1: College opportunities and social mobility decrease at five points along the 

higher education pipeline for students of color......................................................................................... 16

Exhibit 3.1: Percentage of high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions, 

by race and ethnicity and institution type: Fall 2013 ................................................................................. 20

Exhibit 3.2: Percentage of U.S. undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions, 

by race and ethnicity: Selected years from 1980 through 2014................................................................. 23

Exhibit 4.1: Percentage of first-time, full-time U.S. students graduating with a bachelor’s degree 

within six years of enrollment, by race and ethnicity and sex: 2007–08 through 2013–14....................... 25

Exhibit 4.2: Percentage of first-time, full-time U.S. students graduating with a bachelor’s degree 

within six years, by race and ethnicity and institution control: From 2007–08 through 2013–14 ............ 26

Exhibit 4.3: Percentage degree attainment of U.S. students within six years of entering postsecondary 

programs, by race and ethnicity and institution type: From 2003–04 through 2008–09 .......................... 28

Exhibit 5.1: Percentage bachelor’s degree attainment of students within six years of postsecondary 

enrollment, by race and ethnicity and family income quartile: From 2003–04 

through 2008–09 ........................................................................................................................................ 33

Exhibit 5.2: Total annual salary of bachelor’s degree recipients four years after graduation, 

by race and ethnicity and family income: 2012.......................................................................................... 34

Appendix A: Supplemental Charts

Exhibit A.1: Percentage of U.S. population, by race and ethnicity: Decades from 1960 to 2010 .............. 49

Exhibit A.2: Percentage of U.S. population, by age group and race and ethnicity: 2014........................... 50

Exhibit A.3: Percentage of U.S. residents 25 years and older attaining a high school diploma, 

by race and ethnicity, and gap between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites 25 years 

and older attaining a high school diploma: Decades from 1964 to 2014................................................... 50

Exhibit A.4: Percentage of U.S. residents from 25–29 years old attaining a high school diploma, 

by race and ethnicity, and gap between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites from 

25–29 years old attaining a high school diploma: Decades from 1964 to 2014......................................... 51
v 

Exhibit A.5: Percentage of U.S. residents 25–29 years old attaining a bachelor’s degree, by race and 

ethnicity, and gaps between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites from 25–29 years old 

attaining a bachelor’s degree: Decades from 1964 to 2014....................................................................... 51

Exhibit A.6: Percentage point attainment gap between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites 

25 years and older earning a bachelor’s degree: Decades from 1964 to 2014.......................................... 52

Exhibit A.7: Family socioeconomic status in quintiles of U.S. high school student freshmen, 

by race and ethnicity: 2009–10................................................................................................................... 53

Exhibit A.8: Parental education of U.S. high school student freshmen, by race and ethnicity: 

2009–10 ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

Exhibit A.9: Postsecondary enrollment percentages at four-year and less than four-year institutions 

among 2013 U.S. high school graduates, and percentages of graduates not enrolled in postsecondary 

education, by family socioeconomic status in quintiles: Fall 2013............................................................. 54

Exhibit A.10: Postsecondary enrollment percentages at four-year and less than four-year institutions 

among 2013 U.S. high school graduates, and percentages of graduates not enrolled in postsecondary 

education, by parental educational attainment: Fall 2013 ........................................................................ 54

Exhibit A.11: Percentage of 2013 U.S. high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary education, 

by race and ethnicity and selectivity of institution: Fall 2013 .................................................................... 55

Exhibit A.12: Percentage of expected family contribution for U.S. undergraduate students, 

by race and ethnicity and level of contribution: Fall 2012 ......................................................................... 55

Exhibit A.13: Percentage of U.S. postbaccalaureate students, by race and ethnicity: 

Selected years from 1980 to 2014.............................................................................................................. 56

Exhibit A.14: Percentage of U.S. undergraduate students, by race and ethnicity, level of institution, 

and control of institution: 2014–15............................................................................................................ 57

Exhibit A.15: Age of entering U.S. undergraduates at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by race and ethnicity: Fall 2011 .................................................................................................................. 57

Exhibit A.16: Percentage graduation rate within six years for first-time, full-time students seeking a 

bachelor’s degree, by race and ethnicity, and the graduation rate gap between black and white 

students and Hispanic and white students, by Carnegie selectivity of the postsecondary institution: 

2013–14 ...................................................................................................................................................... 57

Exhibit A.17: Number of first-time, full-time students seeking a bachelor’s degree and the percentage 

graduating within six years, by race and ethnicity, sex, institution control, and Carnegie selectivity 

of institution: From 2007–08 through 2013–14 ......................................................................................... 58
vi

Exhibit A.18: Percentage of students attaining degrees within four years of postsecondary enrollment, 

by race and ethnicity and type of degree: From 2003–04 through 2006–07 ............................................. 67

Exhibit A.19: Percentage of students attaining degrees within six years of postsecondary enrollment, 

by type of degree, and income quartile of parents: From 2003–04 through 2008–09.............................. 67

Exhibit A.20: Percentage of students attaining degrees within six years of postsecondary 

enrollment, by degree type and parental education: From 2003–04 through 2008–09 ........................... 68

Exhibit A.21: Number of degrees awarded, by race and ethnicity and degree type: 2013–14.................. 68

Exhibit A.22: Percentage of degrees awarded, by race and ethnicity and degree type: 2013–14............. 68

Exhibit A.23: Percentage graduation rates for first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking U.S. 

students six years after initial postsecondary enrollment, by categories of small populations of 

students of color and sex, and graduation rate gaps between each small population and whites and 

Asians: 2013-14........................................................................................................................................... 69

Exhibit A.24: Percentage graduation rates for first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking U.S. 

students six years after initial postsecondary enrollment, by race and ethnicity and parental education: 

From 2003–04 through 2008–09................................................................................................................ 69

Exhibit A.25: Total annual salary of bachelor’s degree recipients four years after graduation, 

by race and ethnicity and parental education: 2012.................................................................................. 70

Appendix B: Academic Level and Degrees Conferred to Students of Color

Exhibit B.1: Percentage of degree completions, by race and ethnicity and level of degree, and total 

number of degree completions, by level of degree: 2013–14 ................................................................... 72

Appendix C: Faculty Diversity

Exhibit C.1: Percentage of higher education full-time instructional staff, by race and ethnicity 

and tenure status, and total number of faculty by status: 2013–14.......................................................... 73

Exhibit C.2: Number and percentages of full-time faculty at degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by race and ethnicity: Fall 1993.............................................................................................. 74

Appendix D: Postsecondary Data on Equity and Student Success

Measures Disaggregated by Race and Ethnicity ......................................................................................... 75

Measures Disaggregated by Socioeconomic Status ................................................................................... 75
vii

Acknowledgments

This report was written by a team from several offices at the Department of Education, comprising the 

following individuals: Jared Bass and Clare McCann in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development; Chase Sackett and Oliver Schak in Policy and Program Studies Service; and Cynthia Cole,

Kim Hunter Reed, Jon O’Bergh, and Lauren Thompson Starks in the Office of the Under Secretary. Other 

contributing offices included the Institute of Education Sciences; Office for Civil Rights; Office of Career, 

Technical and Adult Education; Office of Communication and Outreach; Office of Postsecondary 

Education; and Office of the Secretary.
1 

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for 

global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. Integral to 

furthering that mission is supporting efforts to create diverse and welcoming campus communities for 

all students. Toward that end, the Obama Administration has encouraged institutions not only to attract 

and admit students from various backgrounds and experiences, but to support and retain these students 

once on campus. The Administration has also supported efforts by institutions of higher education to 

use legally permissible strategies to promote student body diversity on their campuses, including by 

issuing guidance and technical assistance to help institutions do so. Through all of these strategies, we 

can achieve the goal of preparing all of the nation’s students to be great citizens of the world and to

compete in a global environment.

While highlighting the Obama Administration’s efforts to promote diversity in institutions of higher 

education, this report shows the continuing educational inequities and opportunity gaps in accessing 

and completing a quality postsecondary education. The following are key findings from the analysis:

 Higher education is a key pathway for social mobility in the United States. At roughly 2.5 

percent, the unemployment rate for college graduates is about half of the national average. 

Among Hispanics, adults who had only completed a high school diploma earned $30,329, 

compared with $58,493 for those who had completed four-year college (or higher). Among 

blacks, adults with a high school diploma earned $28,439 compared with $59,027 for those who 

held a bachelor’s degree (see pages 10-14).

 During the past 50 years, the U.S. has seen racial and ethnic disparities in higher education 

enrollment and attainment, as well as gaps in earnings, employment, and other related 

outcomes for communities of color. While the share of the population with a high school 

diploma has risen over time for Hispanic, black, white, and Asian adult U.S. residents, the gap in 

bachelor’s degree attainment has widened for both black and Hispanic adults compared to 

white adults. Specifically, the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment has doubled, from 9 to 20 

percent for Hispanic residents since 1974 and from 6 to 13 percent for black residents since 

1964. This has significant effects for students’ lives; among all races and ethnicities, there are 

significant gaps in post-college earnings and employment between those with only a high school 

diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree (see pages 24-28). 

 Gaps in college opportunity have contributed to diminished social mobility (e.g., the ability to 

jump to higher income levels across generations) within the United States, and gaps in college 

opportunity are in turn influenced by disparities in students’ experiences before graduating 

from high school. This is particularly true for people of color, who share many of the same 

childhood and educational experiences as low-income and first-generation college students. For 

instance, research shows that one of the factors most likely to negatively contribute to the racial
2 

and ethnic gap in college completion is elementary and high school segregation. Studies have 

documented the impacts associated with racial and economic isolation in schools and 

neighborhoods, such as greater stress that interferes with learning and less familiarity with 

information and skills that are necessary for future success. Students of color also, on average, 

have less access to advanced high school coursework and counselors who are focused on 

preparing students for enrolling in postsecondary education (see pages 14-18).

 The participation of underrepresented students of color decreases at multiple points across 

the higher education pipeline including at application, admission, enrollment, persistence, and 

completion. A smaller proportion of black or Hispanic high school graduates than white 

graduates enroll in college, and more than 80 percent of Hispanic, black, and Asian students 

have a gap between their financial need and grants and scholarships, compared with 71 percent 

for white undergraduate students. Moreover, degree completion rates are lower among black 

and Hispanic students than white and Asian students; nearly half of Asian students who enrolled 

in postsecondary education complete a bachelor’s degree, compared with fewer than one in five 

Hispanic and about one in five black students (see pages 19-28).

 The interaction of race and ethnicity, family income, and parental education can influence 

educational and labor market outcomes. In 2009, six-year bachelor's degree attainment among 

postsecondary undergraduate students beginning in the 2003–04 school year was higher for 

white and Asian students compared with black and Hispanic students, even after taking into 

account family income — a measure of one aspect of socioeconomic status. Moreover, students 

of color whose parents completed college were twice as likely as first-generation college 

students to earn a bachelor’s degree (see pages 32-34).

To provide equitable, valuable experiences to students of color and low-income students — as well as 

other underrepresented populations that are not highlighted in this report — colleges and universities 

have implemented practices designed to meet the needs of their campuses. The following areas of focus 

encompass practices that research suggests can help advance diversity and inclusion on college 

campuses: 

 Institutional Commitment to Promoting Student Body Diversity and Inclusion on Campus:

Research shows that colleges and universities seeking to promote campus diversity identify how 

diversity relates to their core institutional mission and the unique circumstances of the 

institution. For example, mission statements and strategic plans that promote student body 

diversity and inclusion on campus establish priorities that can, in turn, lead institutions to 

allocate the necessary funds and resources for those purposes. Institutions are encouraged to 

consider building their capacity to collect and analyze the data required to set and track their 

diversity and inclusion goals (see pages 37-38). 

 Diversity Across All Levels of an Institution: Research shows that campus leadership, including a 

diverse faculty, plays an important role in achieving inclusive institutions. For example, faculty
3 

members’ curricular decisions and pedagogy, including their individual interactions with 

students, can foster inclusive climates. Also, students report that it is important for them to see 

themselves reflected in the faculty and curriculum to which they are exposed to create a sense 

of belonging and inclusiveness (see pages 38-39). 

 Outreach and Recruitment of Prospective Students: Institutions committed to student body 

diversity can take steps to improve outreach and recruitment to a diverse array of students. For 

instance, institutions often work to proactively develop relationships and provide support to the 

elementary and secondary schools that are located within communities surrounding the 

institution. Some strategies supported by research include comprehensive and ongoing support 

from administrators and peers; peer advising provided by similarly aged students; targeted 

support for critical steps such as completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) and test prep; and exposure for students to college-level work while they are in high 

school (see pages 38-40). 

 Support Services for Students: In general, student support services are associated with 

improved academic outcomes, including after students’ first years in college. Well-designed 

course placement strategies mitigate the time students spend in remedial education without 

making progress toward a credential. Individualized mentoring and coaching can increase the 

odds that students remain enrolled in school. First-year experience programs, such as summer 

bridge programs that support incoming students, can improve academic achievement and 

credit-earning (see pages 39-41). 

 Inclusive Campus Climate: Students report less discrimination and bias at institutions where 

they perceive a stronger institutional commitment to diversity. Institutions are encouraged to

develop and facilitate programming to increase the cultural competency of leadership, faculty, 

staff, and students. Institutions are also encouraged to perform an assessment of their campus 

climate related to diversity in order to identify areas for improvement. Many institutions include 

cultural competency training in new student orientation and require that students take 

coursework in diversity as freshmen. Cultural and socio-emotional support systems like personal 

mentoring and counseling can help all students to thrive on campus and are important for 

students who do not comprise a racial or ethnic majority. Institutional leaders create support 

systems individualized to students’ needs that are highly visible and accessible, and engage 

students in the decision-making process regarding campus climate. Successful institutions also 

make financial support available to close the need gap for economically disadvantaged students 

(see pages 41-44). 

Finally, this report recommends areas for further study that can help shape a path forward toward 

enrolling, retaining, and graduating more students from underrepresented groups in higher education, 

and the promise of equal educational opportunity for all students.
4 

During the last seven years, the Obama Administration has worked to improve access to higher 

education, as well as to help more students complete their college educations and obtain quality 

degrees and credentials. Since the beginning of the Administration, the Department of Education has 

focused on making college more affordable and accessible to more students, including low-income 

students and students of color. However, the path forward will require a thoughtful discourse and a 

range of strategies. 
5 

I. Introduction

To ensure that higher education remains a key pathway for social mobility and economic opportunity in 

the United States, it is critical to understand both the challenges and the opportunities of advancing

postsecondary diversity and inclusion. For most Americans, higher education is a necessary pathway for 

social mobility. The unemployment rate for college graduates with a bachelor’s degree is about half of 

the national average, and the pay gap between college graduates and individuals who did not graduate 

from college is at a record high and growing.

1, 2 By 2020, experts predict that fully two-thirds of jobs will 

require a postsecondary education.3 For the United States to regain its foothold as the world leader in 

college graduates, and to meet the projected workforce demands of the knowledge economy, we must 

ensure equitable educational access for an increasingly diverse population. Institutions of higher 

education can play a critical role in this effort by strengthening the focus on promoting higher education 

access and success for underrepresented populations, and fostering inclusion on college campuses.

While a college education benefits students of all backgrounds, there are likely to be distinct economic 

benefits for students from traditionally underserved and underrepresented populations. In an era of 

increased wealth and income inequality, a college degree remains a powerful vehicle for upward 

economic and social mobility. Data continue to show that the 21st-century economy favors college 

graduates over those with only a high school diploma or GED.4, 5, 6 However, data also show that too 

many students of color and low-income students do not receive a higher education comparable to their 

white peers. Colleges and universities are the gateways to economic opportunity; they hold the key to 

supporting millions of students of color in accessing that mobility.

Thousands of institutions define and pursue educational access and promote diversity in unique ways 

that relate to their educational mission and goals. Following a long history of racism and exclusivity of 

educational opportunities, today’s college students are more diverse than their predecessors with 

respect to race and ethnicity as well as socioeconomic background, as this report describes.

7, 8, 9, 10

This report seeks to build on those institutions’ actions by documenting the trends in educational 

outcomes and degree attainment by race and ethnicity at critical points throughout the pipeline into, 

during, and beyond higher education. After reviewing trends in the racial and ethnic demographics of 

higher education and identifying important challenges, this report provides campus leaders with model 

practices for enhancing their institution’s efforts to address these demographic gaps in higher 

education, as well as the opportunity to enhance efforts to promote campus diversity and inclusion.

Highlights of Obama Administration Efforts to Promote Diversity in Higher Education

As noted above, research demonstrates that student body diversity in institutions of higher education is 

important not only for improving the economic and educational opportunities for students of color, but 

also for the social, academic, and societal benefits that diversity presents for all students and 

communities. Diverse learning environments help students sharpen their critical thinking and analytical 

skills; prepare students to succeed in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world; break down 

stereotypes and reduce bias; and enable schools to fulfill their role in opening doors for students of all 

backgrounds.11 Toward that end, the Obama Administration has taken many actions to encourage 
6 

educational institutions to promote diversity consistent with U.S. Supreme Court decisions about the 

use of race and ethnicity in education. The Department of Education’s role in these efforts has included 

issuing guidance and technical assistance to help postsecondary institutions to voluntarily pursue 

campus diversity; promulgating discretionary grant priorities that can be used to promote racial, ethnic, 

and socioeconomic diversity at postsecondary institutions in Department of Education-funded grant 

programs; and participating, with the Department of Justice, as amicus curiae in Supreme Court and 

federal appellate litigation to support racial diversity in higher education. 

Ensuring Opportunities for All: Underrepresented Students in Higher Education

More work remains to ensure educational opportunity for all students in higher education. Data show 

gaps in preparation, enrollment, and degree attainment for many students of color compared with 

white students and Asian students.

12 For instance, fewer high schools with high percentages of students 

of color offer advanced coursework opportunities than do high schools with low populations of students 

of color. Additionally, many students of color — particularly those from lower-income areas — have 

lower levels of academic preparation than their white peers upon entering college, which can affect 

degree attainment rates. This report explores data that show that, regardless of the type of institution 

they attend, black and Hispanic students are far more likely to be placed in remedial courses during their 

first year of college than their white peers (30 and 29 percent, respectively, compared with 20 percent). 

Enrolling in remedial courses, which are generally non-credit-bearing, can make it difficult for students 

to earn a sufficient number of credits to be on track to graduate in a timely manner relative to the 

program length.

Looking at students’ race and ethnicity, we see disparities in access to higher education. For example, 

black and Hispanic students are less likely to be enrolled in college, and far less likely to be enrolled in 

selective and four-year institutions, than their white and Asian peers. 13 In 2015, the college enrollment 

rate for recent high school graduates was more than 70 percent for white students, but was only 55 

percent for black students. Moreover, there is a clear divide in the demographics of students enrolling at 

four-year institutions versus two-year institutions. Students of color (particularly black and Hispanic 

students) who enroll in college are more likely than their white peers to be enrolled in two-year 

institutions — 41 and 32 percent, respectively, compared with just 27 percent of white students.14 While 

this may mean that students of color take greater advantage of affordable pathways to a four-year 

degree, it may also suggest that students of color lack equitable access to the four-year and selective 

institutions that tend to have higher graduation rates and better post-college outcomes.

All of the factors above can significantly affect students’ likelihood of graduating from college. The rate 

of college degree attainment for black and Hispanic college students is approximately half that of white 

students, and even more stark a difference compared to Asian/Pacific Islander students.

15, 16 Though 

overall high school graduation and college enrollment rates have increased among black and Hispanic 

students, those students continue to trail their white and Asian counterparts in college completion and 

degree attainment.17 Six years after first enrolling in college, even higher-income black and Hispanic 

students are far less likely to have earned a bachelor’s degree than their higher-income white peers (18 

and 24 percentage points less, respectively).
7 

A National Dialogue on Improving Educational Opportunity for All Students in Higher 

Education

Given the role that college access and completion play in improving opportunities for people of color — 

and other historically underrepresented groups — there is a growing public focus on improving 

educational opportunity for all students in higher education and efforts to better measure institutional 

success in addressing the issue.18

Already, dozens of organizations have launched studies of efforts to promote success among lowincome students. Though not a comprehensive list, some efforts on measuring student success include 

reports by New America to identify institutions that do not perform well on access, affordability, or 

both,19, 20, 21 college rankings that account for economic diversity and low-income students’ outcomes 

from the New York Times,

22, 23 an Education Trust report on the success of low-income students,24 a 

report from the Institute for Higher Education Policy examining colleges where enrolling a larger 

population of Pell Grant recipients could generate significant increases in graduates from that 

background,

25 and a report from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation identifying gaps in access for highachieving, low-income students.26

In addition to broad initiatives to refocus on equity and student success, other efforts have been made 

to conceptualize and measure progress on racial and ethnic student enrollment and campus climate. 

These efforts, which include the following among many others, present further, critical components of 

promoting educational excellence and access in postsecondary education:

• Gallup conducted a survey among students and college presidents regarding on-campus race 

relations. Although the survey found that 84 percent of presidents positively view race relations 

on their campus, only a quarter positively view race relations on other campuses nationwide. 

The authors suggest positive views of race relations on other campuses decreased sharply from 

2015 to 2016 — presumably due to increased attention to issues of racial equity and inclusion in 

higher education. Students interviewed also viewed campus climate positively on their campus, 

although black and Hispanic students were less likely to describe relations as “excellent.” 27

• The Chronicle of Higher Education published an interactive tool, using data from the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), allowing the public to examine faculty racial and 

ethnic demographics at selective public universities in comparison to the students they serve. To 

measure the racial and ethnic demographics of students and faculty, the authors used a 

“diversity index,” which represents the probability that any two people chosen at random from 

a sample will be of different races or ethnicities. The index works on a scale of zero to 100. A 

score of zero means there’s no chance that those two people will be of different races; a score 

of 100 means it’s guaranteed that they will be.28

• Indiana University at Bloomington’s Culturally Engaging Campus Environment Project (CECE) has 

developed a campus climate survey of students for the 2016–17 academic year that will help 

participating colleges make meaningful changes in their campus environment. The overarching 

aim of the CECE Project is to create and utilize tools to assist postsecondary institutions in their 

efforts to examine, understand, and improve their campus environments and maximize success 

among diverse student populations. The CECE Project moves beyond typical climate 
8 

assessments that tend to focus on challenges in the environment. Instead, the CECE Project 

focuses on the types of environments that engage and support college students from all 

backgrounds.

29

• American Council on Education (ACE) conducted a national anonymous online survey of college 

and university presidents for an institutional perspective on campus climate and reactions to 

student movements for more inclusive higher education settings. The authors received 

responses from 567 college and university presidents, including those at two-year and four-year 

institutions. They found that, at almost half of four-year colleges, students have raised concerns 

about racial diversity by organizing on campuses; and that the racial climate on campus is a 

priority for more than half of four-year college presidents surveyed.30

• Admission staff at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU-Boulder) took a hard look at how 

underrepresented students were viewed during a holistic review of undergraduate applications. 

Using data from the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) of 2002, a nationally representative 

dataset, CU-Boulder estimated the relationships between college access, socioeconomic status, 

and high school academic achievement and created its disadvantage index and 

overachievement index, which give special consideration to students who have faced significant 

socioeconomic disadvantage and those who have succeeded despite their disadvantage.31

All of these — and many other — efforts have made valuable contributions to our understanding of 

campus racial and ethnic demographics, climate, and student success.

Obama Administration Efforts on the Expansion of College Opportunity

A March 2016 Department of Education report and summit focused on supporting Pell student success 

in higher education: Fulfilling the Promise, Serving the Need highlights institutions that enroll an aboveaverage share of low-income students and help them to graduate, and identifies best practices for 

institutional improvement.32

This report builds on the substantial body of work, since the beginning of the Obama Administration, to 

expand college opportunity — particularly the work to ensure more historically underserved students 

are enrolling in and graduating from college. Recognizing the impact of affordability on college access 

and completion, this Administration has increased the maximum annual Pell award by more than $1,000

per eligible student, enabling more students to access and complete college each year. Additionally, by 

simplifying and streamlining the FAFSA and making it available earlier in the admissions process, and 

through resources like the College Scorecard that can help students navigate their college options, this 

Administration has expanded access to financial aid and made it easier for students and families to apply 

for and enroll in college. Through the White House College Opportunity Summit and Day of Action, the 

president and first lady secured more than 700 commitments from college presidents, K-12 

superintendents, non-profit organizations, foundations, and businesses to help more students prepare 

for and graduate from college, which altogether set 10 million more students on track to earn their 

degrees within a decade.

A report released in conjunction with the January 2014 College Opportunity Summit noted that, “while 

the President continues to push for changes that keep college affordable for all students and families, 
9 

we can and must be doing more to get more low-income students prepared for college, enrolled in 

quality institutions, and graduating.”33 To support these efforts, the Department of Education has 

worked to expand access by launching a dual enrollment experiment that will provide low-income high 

school students with new opportunities to access college programs before graduating; holding career 

colleges accountable for their students’ outcomes through the Gainful Employment regulations; and 

promoting greater affordability through expanded access to income-driven student loan repayment 

plans.

Community engagement and partnerships to advance the work to close equity and opportunity gaps, 

and ensure students have an opportunity to reach their full potential, have also been key features of the 

Administration’s work. The Obama Administration has launched efforts like the My Brother’s Keeper

Task Force, a coordinated federal initiative to address opportunity gaps, including gaps that boys and 

young men of color face, and ensure that all young people can reach their full potential. Communities

across the country have accepted the My Brother’s Keeper Community Challenge and have also 

committed to creating their own independent plans to expand opportunity for our nation’s young 

people. And a number of initiatives, housed in the Department of Education, are also focused on 

ensuring that all young people can reach their full potential. These initiatives include the White House 

Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans, the White House Initiative on Educational 

Excellence for Hispanics, the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, the White 

House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and the White House Initiative on 

American Indian and Alaska Native Education. The White House initiatives have played a key role in 

announcing new resources, convening stakeholders, and engaging in direct outreach with the field to 

help both students and their institutions support expanding opportunity. 
10

II. Setting the Context: A Snapshot of Opportunity Gaps in Postsecondary 

Education

This section reviews trends related to educational outcomes and socioeconomic status disaggregated by 

race and ethnicity. After highlighting the persistence of gaps in educational attainment, it discusses the 

interplay between gaps in college opportunity and social mobility; and lays out the influence that factors 

such as family resources and childhood experiences can have on college access and opportunity for 

students of color, which provides some backdrop for understanding the related challenges.

A note about the presentation of race and ethnicity data: U.S. Department of Education data are limited 

for smaller racial and ethnic groups of students, including American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. In addition, there is limited data for students reported as two 

or more races. This limits the statistics that can be analyzed because, in many cases, trend data are not 

available or sample sizes are too small to yield reliable or reportable estimates. The Department 

continues work to improve data collection so a more complete picture of educational outcomes for these

populations can be made available in the future (See pages 29-31 and exhibit A.23 in appendix A for data 

on smaller populations of students of color.) 

A. Trends in Educational Degree Attainment and Social Mobility

The United States population has steadily become more diverse over time.

The U.S. population has steadily become more diverse over time. In 1960, 89 percent of United States 

residents were white, 11 percent were black, and less than 1 percent was either Asian/Other Pacific 

Islander or American Indian/Alaska Native. For the 1980 Census, 6 percent were Hispanic. In 

Key Findings: The U.S. population has steadily become more racially and ethnically diverse 

over time. Data in exhibits in this section and in appendix A reflect the rise in young, diverse 

Americans, and show the following educational trends disaggregated by student race and 

ethnicity: 

• The percentage of Hispanic, black, white, and Asian adults who have earned a high 

school diploma or higher has increased since the 1960s.

• Gaps in degree attainment are more pronounced at the postsecondary level. 

Bachelor’s degree attainment for Hispanic, black, white, and Asian adults has risen 

over time — yet the attainment gap has more than doubled between whites and 

blacks, as well as between whites and Hispanics. 

• Racial and ethnic disparities in postsecondary degree attainment continue into the 

working world. Earnings are strongly correlated with both college completion and

race and ethnicity. Increased demand for skilled workers only further disadvantages 

adults without college degrees.
11

comparison, 64 percent of residents were non-Hispanic white, 13 percent were black, 17 percent were 

Hispanic, 5 percent were Asian, 1 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 3 percent were two 

or more races in 2010 (see exhibit A.1 in appendix A). 

The racial and ethnic breakdown of young Americans indicates that the diversity of the population will 

continue to increase. In 2014, almost half of children under the age of 18 were people of color. Among 

residents between the ages of 18 and 24, 55 percent were white, 15 percent were black, 21 percent 

were Hispanic, 5 percent were Asian, 1 percent was American Indian/Alaska Native, and 3 percent were 

two or more races (exhibit A.2). Because of the large share of people of color among young Americans, 

the Census Bureau projects that the majority of Americans will be people of color by 2050.34

The earning of high school diplomas has increased over time. 

The share of students earning a high school diploma has risen over time for Hispanic, black, white, and 

Asian adult U.S. residents. For example, in 1964, the percentage of people 25 and older who at least 

graduated from high school was 50 percent for white and 26 percent for blacks, compared with 93 

percent for whites and 86 percent for blacks in 2014 (exhibit A.3). Similar increases also occurred for 

young adults between the ages of 25 and 29 (exhibit A.4). 

For people 25 years and older, from 1974 to 1994, the gap between Hispanic and white high school 

attainment increased from 27 percent to 32 percent — but then declined to 27 percent by 2014. 

However, the gap between black and white high school attainment steadily dropped from 25 percent in 

1964 to 7 percent in 2014 (exhibit A.3). Moreover, the total college enrollment rate (percent of 18- to 

24-year-olds enrolled at two- and four-year colleges and universities) increased from 32 percent in 1990 

to 40 percent in 2013.35 Students of color also benefited from increases in enrollment. For instance, the 

gap in the college enrollment rate between white and Hispanic students narrowed between 2003 and 

2013 (from 18 to 8 percent).36

Bachelor’s degree attainment has risen over time for Hispanic, black, white, and Asian adults. 

Exhibit 1.1 shows that bachelor’s degree attainment has risen over time for Hispanic, black, white, and 

Asian adult U.S. residents. For example, in 1974, the percentage of people 25 and older who had 

completed college was 6 percent for both Hispanic and black residents, compared with 15 percent for 

Hispanics and 22 percent for blacks in 2014. In 2014, Asians had the highest rate of attainment with 52 

percent having completed college. Similar trends also occurred for young adults between the ages of 25 

and 29 (exhibit A.5).

The gap in bachelor’s degree attainment has risen for both black and Hispanic adults. 

While the high school attainment gap has closed and overall attainment for black and Hispanic students 

has grown, the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment has steadily widened between Hispanic and whites 

as well as black and white U.S. residents. From 1974 to 2014, the gap between Hispanic and white 

bachelor’s degree attainment more than doubled from 9 percent to 20 percent (exhibit A.6). The gap 

between black and white bachelor’s degree attainments also more than doubled, from 6 percent in 

1964 to 13 percent in 2014. Similar increases in gaps occurred for young adults between the ages of 25 

and 29 (exhibit A.5). As discussed later in this report, part of this increase in attainment gaps is due to a 
12

relatively smaller share of students of color enrolling in four-year colleges, while to some extent it is also

due to lower completion rates among those who do enroll. 

Exhibit 1.1: Percentage of U.S. residents 25 years and older attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher, 

by race and ethnicity: From 1964 through 2014

NOTE: Due to limitations in Census methodology, attainment among Asians is not available before 2002 and attainment among Hispanics is not 

available before 1974. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, March Current Population Survey, 1947 and 1952 to 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 2003 to 2015 (noninstitutionalized population, excluding members of the Armed Forces living in 

barracks); U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1940 and 1950.

Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html. 

Annual earnings are strongly correlated with educational attainment and race and ethnicity.

Exhibit 1.2 suggests gaps in bachelor’s degree attainment could contribute to income disparities among

Hispanic, black, white, and Asian adults. In 2014, the average annual earnings were $33,944 for 

Hispanics and $37,012 for blacks, compared with $52,171 for whites and $57,351 for Asians. Among 

Hispanics, adults who had only completed a high school diploma earned $30,329, compared with 

$58,493 for those who had completed four-year college (or higher). Among blacks, adults with a high 

school diploma earned $28,439 compared with $59,027 for those who held a bachelor’s degree.

6% 8% 9%

12%

15%

4%

6%

10%

13%

18%

22%

10%

14%

20%

24%

31%

36%

49%

52%

0%

50%

100%

1964 1974 1984 1994 2004 2014

Percent Attained Bachelor's Degree or Higher

Hispanic Black White Asian
13

Exhibit 1.2: Total money earnings for U.S. residents 18 years and older, by race and ethnicity and 

educational attainment: 2014

NOTE: Total money earnings includes earnings received for work performed as an employee during the income year, such as wages, salary, 

Armed Forces pay, commissions, tips, piece-rate payments, and cash bonuses earned, before deductions are made for taxes, bonds, pensions, 

union dues, etc. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2015 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/perinc/pinc04_000.htm. 

Research also indicates that the attainment of a postsecondary degree has become increasingly 

important due to technological changes and increasing demand for skilled workers. At roughly 2.5

percent, the unemployment rate for college graduates is about half of the national average.37 According 

to the Center on Education and the Workforce, more than 95 percent of jobs created during the 

economic recovery have gone to workers with at least some college education, while those with a high 

school diploma or less have not seen a return of their jobs. As a result, workers with at least some 

postsecondary education now make up 65 percent of the total employment, and bachelor’s degree 

holders now earn 57 percent of all wages.38 In addition to economic outcomes, educational attainment 

is associated with important nonpecuniary benefits that impact communities of color. For African 

American males, those with only a high school diploma are three times more likely to be incarcerated by 

age 34 as their counterparts with a four-year college degree.

39 These trends suggest gaps in 

$33,944

$30,329

$39,130

$58,493

$37,012

$28,439

$35,399

$59,027

$52,171

$36,826

$44,984

$73,682

$57,351

$29,809

$40,382

$78,037

$0

$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

Total High school Associate degree Bachelor's degree or

more

Total Money Earnings

Hispanic Black White Asian
14

postsecondary attainment will continue to contribute to socioeconomic disparities among Hispanics, 

blacks, whites, and Asians.

B. Gaps in College Opportunity

Overview of the Higher Education Pipeline

This section analyzes data on the higher education pipeline to and through college, which represents the 

different pathways students can take to complete a postsecondary degree. Taking a national lens of 

nationally representative data, this report examines the following points in the pipeline:

• Applications: Student engages in precollegiate activities, such as researching colleges or taking 

entrance exams, and applies or attempts to enroll at a postsecondary institution; 

• Admissions: College offers admission to student and student has adequate financial aid to make 

attendance and costs of living affordable;

• Enrollment: Student enrolls and starts attending college;

• Persistence: Student remains enrolled in college and successfully accumulates credits needed to 

graduate; and

• Completion: Student meets graduation requirements and college confers the student with a 

postsecondary credential. 

As depicted in exhibit 2.1, college opportunity diminishes for students of color at multiple points in the 

pipeline. These gaps in college opportunity diminish social mobility and play a role in perpetuating 

intergenerational disparities by race and ethnicity, and also socioeconomic status. Moreover, because of 

the impact parental education has on family resources, childhood experiences, and educational 

opportunity of future generations, such disparities in college completion are a major factor in reducing 

opportunities for both children and adults of color. Stated another way, institutions and the policy 

community face critical challenges in reducing these gaps in access and success to improve the 

socioeconomic and educational opportunities for people of color. This section highlights some key 

evidence supporting this linkage between college opportunity and racial and long-term outcomes for 

people of color.

College Completion and Social Mobility

While institutions of higher education serve as gateways to educational and economic mobility, too few 

students are able to benefit from these opportunities. The previous section demonstrated that 

persistent disparities in educational attainment contribute to disparities in socioeconomic outcomes 

Key Findings: Gaps in college access and opportunity to complete a degree have contributed to 

diminished social mobility across generations within the United States, particularly for people of 

color. These gaps in college opportunity are influenced by disparities in students’ experiences 

before graduating from high school; and these experiences for students of color, in turn, 

intersect with the experiences of low-income and first-generation college students. 
15

between whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Trends in social mobility may also suggest gaps in 

educational attainment, which may play a role in diminishing social mobility in the United States, 

particularly with respect to race and ethnicity. 
16

Exhibit 2.1: College opportunities and social mobility decrease at five points along the higher 

education pipeline for students of color. 
17

Research suggests growing gaps in college attainment have contributed to growing socioeconomic 

inequality and declining social mobility since the 1980s.

40, 41, 42 A four-year college degree is an 

important factor in facilitating upward mobility for lower-income families and stability for the middle to 

upper class. Having a college degree makes a person more than three times as likely to rise from the 

bottom of the family income ladder all the way to the top, and makes a person more than four times as 

likely to rise from the bottom of the family wealth (determined by cumulative assets such as home 

ownership) ladder to the top.43 Since people of color are less likely to have a college degree or raise 

children who earn a college degree, gaps in college opportunity present a barrier to social mobility. In 

fact, only 23 percent of blacks raised in the middle of the income distribution surpass their parents’ 

family wealth compared with more than half (56 percent) of whites.44

Childhood Experiences and Family Resources

Disparities in students’ experiences in elementary and secondary education can influence the progress 

students make throughout the higher education pipeline. Moreover, these experiences relate to and 

interact with family background characteristics. Research suggests family income, parental education, 

and social capital (i.e., relationships to people and organizations) affect the resources available to 

students in the home and in school. As a result, socioeconomic factors like family income are partially 

linked to the experiences of students during childhood and throughout the higher education pipeline.

Research also indicates racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic isolation in public elementary and secondary 

schools may contribute to differences in the demography of students who attend colleges, particularly 

institutions with selective admissions. Racially and ethnically isolated high schools in which students of 

color are the majority remain, in too many cases, a microcosm of poverty and other forms of 

concentrated disadvantage. Research shows that one of the factors most likely to negatively contribute 

to the racial and ethnic gap in college completion is elementary and high school segregation.

45, 46 Studies 

have documented the impacts associated with racial and economic isolation in schools and 

neighborhoods, such as greater stress that interferes with learning and less familiarity with information

and skills that are necessary for future success.47, 48, 49, 50 Additionally, among black students, racial 

isolation in public elementary and secondary schools has increased since the 1980s.51, 52

Students of color also have less access to advanced coursework. According to the 2013–14 Civil Rights 

Data Collection, far fewer high schools with high proportions of black and Hispanic students offer 

calculus, physics, or chemistry (33 percent, 48 percent, and 65 percent, respectively) compared to high 

schools with low proportions of these students (56 percent, 67 percent, and 78 percent, respectively).53

School counselors can play a critical role in increasing college enrollment rates. Most students in high 

schools have access to at least one school counselor, but close to 1.6 million high school students go to 

schools with law enforcement officers but no guidance counselor.

54 Several studies suggest that 

increasing access to high school counselors improves postsecondary-related outcomes such as applying 

to college and matriculation.

55, 56, 57 There is some evidence that increased access to summer counseling 

can improve college persistence into the sophomore year.58, 59, 60, 61 However, students of color have 

less access to counselors whose primary goal is to prepare students for enrolling in college.62
18

Aspirations, Access, and College Completion

Several studies have documented the associations between parental education and their children’s 

outcomes, such as educational aspirations and persistence (i.e., staying in college and continuing to 

make progress toward a degree).

63 Students’ aspirations to continue their education after high school 

are shaped by personal and environmental factors such as family and community expectations.64, 65

Aspirations aside, low-income and first-generation students often lack the knowledge and guidance

necessary for a smooth transition from high school to a postsecondary institution. The entry process, 

which involves taking admissions tests, researching institutions, identifying and securing financial aid, 

and applying to and ultimately selecting a postsecondary institution, can be difficult for many firstgeneration students to navigate.66, 67 Low socioeconomic-status students can also be susceptible to 

having their educational plans change, or even fall apart, during the summer and first few weeks of 

college (often known as “summer melt”) due to lack of sufficient academic and non-academic 

support.68, 69

Persistence can be a challenge for students whose parents have lower levels of academic attainment. 

For example, a report that examined the postsecondary experiences of first-generation college students 

found that they persisted in postsecondary education and attained credentials at lower rates than their 

non-first-generation counterparts. This finding held for students at four-year institutions as well as at 

community colleges.

70 Moreover, structural factors at postsecondary colleges and universities add to 

disparities throughout the higher education pipeline and beyond. According to the Georgetown Center 

on Education and the Workforce, America’s white and Asian college students are concentrated in the 

country’s best-funded, most selective four-year colleges and universities, which spend anywhere from 

two to nearly five times as much per student as do less well-funded colleges, where black and Hispanic 

students are often concentrated. Since well-funded, selective institutions benefit from more resources 

and social capital among their students, racial and ethnic concentration in postsecondary schools may 

deepen gaps in college opportunity.

71

Intersection Between Socioeconomic Status, Parental Education, and Race and Ethnicity

Exhibit A.7 (see appendix A) shows there is overlap in the race and ethnicity and

socioeconomic status of students and families. In 2009, approximately one-third of white and 

Asian high school students were from the top socioeconomic status quintile, compared to 10 

percent or less of Hispanic and black students. Hispanic and black students were more than 

twice as likely to belong to families in the bottom socioeconomic status quintile as white and 

Asian students.

There are also disparities by race and ethnicity in the highest level of education attained by 

either parent. In 2009, the majority of white and Asian high school students had a parent with 

at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with fewer than a quarter for both Hispanic and black 

students (exhibit A.8).
19

III. The Higher Education Pipeline for Underrepresented Students of 

Color

The following section provides more details on the current state of the racial and ethnic student 

enrollment and outcomes in our nation’s institutions of higher education. While not comprehensive, it 

examines how students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds progress through the higher 

education pipeline, from college applications to degree completion. Spotlighted are trends in enrollment 

and completion across time and institutional sector — and, additionally, statistics about admissions and 

financial aid for undergraduate students of color.

A. Access: Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment

Trends in College Enrollment for Recent High School Graduates

Even though most high school graduates apply to at least one college or enroll in open enrollment 

institutions, Hispanic and black students enroll in college (particularly four-year colleges) at a lower rate 

than their white and Asian counterparts. However, data also indicate that two-year institutions are still a 

common postsecondary option for Hispanic high school graduates. 

The first several steps of the higher education pipeline include college applications, 

admissions, and enrollment at both two-year and four-year institutions. This section 

presents statistics on the access to postsecondary education among high school students of 

color and students entering institutions through less traditional pathways.

Key Findings:

• Differences between racial and ethnic groups in financial need contribute to issues 

of unmet financial need among black and Hispanic students.

• Recent undergraduate college enrollment trends reveal that the share of non-white 

undergraduate students has steadily increased over time, while the share of white 

student enrollment has declined by more than 25 percentage points from 1980 to 

2014.

• Fewer Hispanic and black high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges than 

white and Asian high school graduates, but two-year college is a common pathway 

for Hispanic students.

• Considerable variation also appears across institution types (public, for-profit, 

private non-profit). White students enroll in private, non-profit institutions more 

than their black and Hispanic counterparts, and the percentage of students enrolled 

at for-profit institutions was highest among black students and lowest among Asian 

students.
20

Fewer Hispanic and black high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges than white and Asian

high school graduates, but two-year college is a common pathway for Hispanic students.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases estimates from the Current Population Survey (CPS) on the 

percentage of high school graduates between the ages of 16 and 24 who enrolled in college the next fall. 

According to the BLS report for 2015, the college enrollment rate of recent Asian (83 percent) and white 

(71 percent) graduates was higher than the rate for their Hispanic (69 percent) and black (55 percent) 

counterparts.72 Exhibit 3.1 shows white and Asian students enroll more often in four-year colleges than 

black and Hispanic students immediately after high school, according to longitudinal data from the U.S.

Department of Education.

73, 74 Enrollment in college is also correlated with socioeconomic status and 

parental education, which may influence the relationship between race and ethnicity and college-going 

(see exhibits A.9 and A.10).

Exhibit 3.1: Percentage of high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by race and 

ethnicity and institution type: Fall 2013

NOTE: The data are based on high school graduates from the 2009 High School Longitudinal Study Freshman Cohort who enrolled in 

postsecondary institutions. The high school graduate category includes completion of diploma, GED, and high school-equivalent degrees. The 

Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09). For 

PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code bmgbge1b.

38%

47%

55%

69%

41%

32%

27%

25%

21% 20% 18%

6%

0%

50%

100%

Hispanic Black White Asian

Percent of High School Graduates

Enrolled at 4-year institution Enrolled at less than 4-year institution Not enrolled
21

Although both BLS and Department of Education data indicate disparities by race and ethnicity, 

comparing these data sets over time suggests the overall gap in college enrollment appears to be 

closing.75 This trend is partially explained by gradual increases in the enrollment rates of black and 

Hispanic students, particularly in attending community colleges and less selective schools. It also may be 

explained by stagnation (and possibly even declines) in the college-going rates of white students during 

the aftermath of the Great Recession.76

For both black and Hispanic high school students, fewer students enroll at selective institutions.

The Department of Education collects few data elements that directly measure admission outcomes. 

However, one alternative measure collected by the Department is the extent to which students of color 

enroll at institutions that require passing through a selective admissions process. Far fewer black and 

Hispanic students attend selective and highly selective institutions, compared to white and Asian 

students — as measured by the percentage of enrollment after high school by race and ethnicity, and by 

each Carnegie selectivity category: “more selective,” “selective,” and “inclusive/open enrollment”

(exhibit A.11).

In addition, black and Hispanic students place into remedial education courses at a higher rate. 

According to a recent report by the State Higher Education Executive Officers and Complete College 

America, at two-year institutions, more than 70 percent of black students and 60 percent of Hispanic 

students enroll in at least one remedial course, compared with just over 50 percent of white and Asian 

students.77 At four-year institutions, black students are more than twice as likely to be enrolled in 

remedial education.

78

Most black, Hispanic, and Asian students do not have adequate resources to pay for college.

Another important factor that influences enrollment patterns is whether students are able to afford 

college. The percentage of students with zero expected family contribution (EFC) — an indicator of high 

financial need — is 47 percent for Hispanic students, 60 percent for black students, and 37 percent for 

Asian students. In comparison, only 29 percent of white students have zero EFC; and over a third have 

an EFC of more than $10,000, suggesting many white students have more resources to pay for attending 

college (exhibit A.12).

Among undergraduate students, two-thirds of Hispanic, black, and Asian students had a gap between 

total resources (e.g., EFC, grants, scholarships, and federal student loans) and the total cost of 

attendance, while 54 percent of white students had a financial gap in 2012.

79 More than 80 percent of 

Hispanic, black, and Asian students had a gap between their financial need (cost minus EFC) and grants 

and scholarships, compared with 71 percent for white undergraduate students.80 In order to pay for 

their education, many of these students may need to take out additional loans or work. Others may not 

enroll at all if there is too large a gap between available money and the cost of attendance.

In fact, Hispanic and black students are more likely than white students to assume more debt than they 

can afford and struggle to repay their loans, in part because borrowers of color borrow more than white 

borrowers.81 Research has found significant variation in education-debt levels by race and household 

income, with black and lower-income students accumulating higher levels of education debt compared 
22

to their white and upper-income peers.82 Black graduates have an average of $52,726 in student debt 

compared to $28,006 for the typical white bachelor’s degree graduate four years after graduation.83

Even after controlling for socioeconomic status and college completion rates, blacks incurred more 

student loan debt than similarly situated white borrowers.84

Trends in College Enrollment for All Students

The data described above illustrate disparities in applications, admission, and financial aid among high 

school students by race and ethnicity. The following examines trends in total enrollment as a result of 

the enrollment of both high school graduates and older, non-traditional students. 

Non-white undergraduate enrollment has steadily increased since 1980.

Exhibit 3.2 below shows that the share of non-white undergraduate students has steadily increased. 

Since 1980, the share of white undergraduate enrollment has declined from 81 percent of total 

enrollment to 55 percent in 2014. During the same period, the share of undergraduate enrollment has 

increased steadily for black, Hispanic, and Asian students. Similar trends occurred for graduate school 

enrollment (exhibit A.13).

Fewer Hispanic and black students are enrolled full-time than white and Asian students.

Fewer Hispanic and black undergraduate and graduate students are enrolled full-time than white and 

Asian students. From 1980 to 2014, the percentage of white and Asian students enrolled full-time has 

risen, while the percentage of Hispanic students enrolled full-time has barely increased and the 

percentage of black students enrolled full-time actually declined.85

Half of Hispanic degree-seeking students enroll at two-year institutions, while most black, white, 

and Asian students enroll at four-year institutions. 

Similar to the college enrollment patterns of recent high school graduates, about half of all Hispanic 

students are enrolled at four-year institutions, compared with 58 percent of black students, 64 percent 

of white students, and 62 percent of Asian students (exhibit A.14).

Black and Hispanic students are more likely to enroll at for-profit institutions.

The percentage of students enrolled at public institutions was highest among Hispanics (83 percent) and 

lowest among black students (71 percent). The percentage of students enrolled at private, non-profit 

institutions was highest among white students and lowest among Hispanics. However, the percentage of 

students enrolled at for-profit institutions was highest among black and Hispanic students and lowest 

among Asian students (exhibit A.14). Factors that may contribute to higher enrollment of black and 

Hispanic students at for-profit institutions and community colleges include insufficient financial 

resources to pay the high sticker prices of private colleges with selective admissions policies, and a lack 

of information and guidance about admissions processes.86 It is important to note that students of color 

may in some instances start their postsecondary education at two-year colleges and then transfer to 

four-year public and private, nonprofit institutions, which provides them the opportunity to complete a 

bachelor’s degree. However, Department data on transfers from two-year to four-year institutions are 

limited.
23

In addition to full-time status and sector, data are available on the sex and age for each race and 

ethnicity category. Black and Hispanic students are, on average, more likely to be female and older. In 

2014, the percentage of women undergraduates was 62 percent for black students, 57 percent for 

Hispanics, 55 percent for white students, and 52 percent for Asian students.87 In 2011, among black 

beginning undergraduate students (i.e., students enrolling in postsecondary education for the first 

time), 19 percent were 25 years or older compared with 11 percent among Hispanic students, 14 

percent among white students, and 3 percent among Asian students (exhibit A.15).

Exhibit 3.2: Percentage of U.S. undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by race and 

ethnicity: Selected years from 1980 through 2014

NOTE: The data are based on fall enrollment at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant an associate 

degree or higher and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The Asian category includes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

*The other category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, two or more races, and nonresident alien. Percentages may not add to 100 percent 

due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), "Fall 

Enrollment in Colleges and Universities" survey 1980; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment Survey"; and 

IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment component. 

Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.10.asp. 

81%

55%

10%

14%

4%

17%

2%

6%

3%

7%

0%

50%

100%

1980 1990 2000 2014

Percent of Undegraduates

White Black Hispanic Asian Other*
24

B. Student Success: Persistence, Completion, and Degree Attainment

Graduation Rate Among First-Time, Full-Time, Bachelor’s Degree-Seeking Students

Black students who pursue a four-year college degree — particularly men — graduate at a much 

lower rate than white and Asian students. Graduation rates among Hispanic students also are 

somewhat lower than white and Asian students.

Exhibit 4.1 shows substantial gaps in the six-year graduation rate among Hispanic, black, white, and 

Asian first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking students. In 2013–14, the graduation rate was 54 

percent for Hispanic students and 41 percent for black students, compared with 63 percent for white 

students and 71 percent for Asian students. Among men, the graduation rate gaps were even larger. For 

example, the graduation rate for black men was about half the graduation rate for Asian men and 25 

percentage points lower than white men, while the graduation rate for black women was about twothirds the graduation rate for Asian women and 21 percentage points lower than the rate for white 

Key Findings: The next section overviews the disparities in the rate of completion —

particularly bachelor’s degree completion — among undergraduate students by race and 

ethnicity. In part, these disparities result from lower Hispanic and black enrollment in fouryear colleges, as discussed earlier. Another important factor is gaps in the graduation rates 

among students seeking the same degree by race and ethnicity. The information below 

highlights patterns in the graduation rate among first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degreeseeking students in addition to those who enter college through less traditional pathways.

• All races have lower graduation rates at for-profit institutions when compared with 

public and private, nonprofit institutions. The graduation rate for black students was 

20 percent at for-profit institutions, 41 percent at public institutions, and 45 percent 

at private nonprofit institutions among the first-time, full-time cohort.

• The students in each of the four race and ethnicity categories have higher 

graduation rates when they attend more selective institutions.

• When looking at the cohort of all students entering college, degree completion is 

lower among black and Hispanic students than white and Asian students. Nearly half 

of Asian students who enroll in postsecondary institutions complete a bachelor’s 

degree within six years, compared with 36 percent of white students and only 17 

percent of black and Hispanic students.

• In 2013–14, nearly two out of three associate and bachelor’s degrees were awarded 

to white students, even though white students comprised only 55 percent of 

undergraduates. 
25

women. The graduation rate for Hispanic men was 11 percentage points lower than white men, while 

the rate for Hispanic women was 9 percentage points lower than white women.

Exhibit 4.1: Percentage of first-time, full-time U.S. students graduating with a bachelor’s degree 

within six years of enrollment, by race and ethnicity and sex: 2007–08 through 2013–14

NOTE: The data are based on the six-year graduation rate for the 2007–08 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking cohort. Transfer-out 

students are counted as not graduating. Includes institutions that participate in Title IV financial aid programs and four institutions not 

participating in Title IV programs. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: Ginder, S.A., Kelly-Reid, J.E., and Mann, F.B. (2015). Graduation Rates for Selected Cohorts, 2006–11; Student Financial Aid, Academic 

Year 2013–14; and Admissions in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2014: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2015-181). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. See table 1 at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015181.pdf. 

Graduation rates are lower at for-profit institutions, compared with public and private non-profit 

institutions.

Exhibit 4.2 shows the six-year graduation rate among Hispanic, black, white, and Asian bachelor’s 

degree-seeking students by sector (i.e., institution control). For these four race and ethnicity categories, 

the graduation rate was lowest at for-profit institutions and highest at private, non-profit institutions in 

2013–14.88 For instance, the graduation rate among Hispanic students was 34 percent at for-profit 

institutions compared with 52 percent and 62 percent at public and private, non-profit institutions, 

respectively. Because the percentage of black and Hispanic enrollment is higher at for-profit institutions 

54%

41%

63%

71%

49%

35%

60%

68%

57%

45%

66%

74%

0%

50%

100%

Hispanic Black White Asian

Percent Graduating with Bachelor's Degree within Six Years

Total Men Women
26

(exhibit A.14), differences in graduation rates across sectors could contribute to disparities in 

completion by race and ethnicity.

Exhibit 4.2: Percentage of first-time, full-time U.S. students graduating with a bachelor’s degree 

within six years, by race and ethnicity and institution control: From 2007–08 through 2013–14

NOTE: The data are based on the six-year graduation rate for the 2007–08 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking cohort at degreegranting postsecondary institutions. Includes institutions that participate in Title IV financial aid programs and four institutions not participating 

in Title IV programs. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: Ginder, S.A., Kelly-Reid, J.E., and Mann, F.B. (2015). Graduation Rates for Selected Cohorts, 2006–11; Student Financial Aid, Academic 

Year 2013–14; and Admissions in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2014: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2015-181). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. See table 1 at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015181.pdf. 

Most students of color who attend highly selective and moderately selective institutions graduate, 

and graduation rate gaps for students of color are smaller at these campuses.

Numerous studies show that students of color gain significant educational and economic benefits as a 

result of attending selective institutions.89, 90 Similarly, graduation rates are higher at more selective 

institutions among Hispanic, black, white, and Asian bachelor’s degree-seeking students. For example, in 

2013–14, the graduation rate of Asian students was slightly below 50 percent at institutions with 

inclusive or open admissions (less selective), compared with 59 percent at (moderately) selective 

institutions and 85 percent at more (highly) selective institutions (exhibit A.16).91

34%

20%

37%

46%

52%

41%

62%

69%

62%

45%

69%

78%

0%

50%

100%

Hispanic Black White Asian

Percent Graduating with Bachelor’s Degree within Six Years

For-profit Public Private, non-profit
27

Moreover, the graduation rate gap between Hispanic and white students — along with the graduation 

rate gap between black and white students — is lower among students attending similarly highly 

selective colleges. In 2013–14, the black graduation rate was 15 percent lower than the white 

graduation rate at institutions with inclusive or open enrollment, but the gap closed to 10 percent at 

more selective institutions (exhibit A.16). Since Hispanic and black high school graduates are less likely 

to enroll at highly selective institutions than white and Asian students (exhibit A.11), selectivity (and 

ultimately the institutional supports and resources associated with selectivity) may in part influence 

racial and ethnic disparities in the graduation rate. However, a focus on addressing equity gaps within 

institutions remains another key way to grow talent.

Exhibit A.17 presents more statistics on first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking enrollment and 

graduation rates for all race and ethnicity categories by sex, sector, and control. While disparities in 

graduation rate by race and ethnicity are large, there is substantial variation in the graduation rate 

within each race and ethnicity category by other important institutional and student characteristics.

Persistence and Completion Among All Undergraduates

Completion rates among undergraduate students, including community college students and transfer 

students, further illustrate clear disparities in postsecondary outcomes across race and ethnicity. 

Among students who entered postsecondary schooling in 2003–04, only one in five who completed 

a degree after six years were black or Hispanic.

For the cohort of undergraduates who began their postsecondary studies in 2003–04 and completed at 

least an associate degree by 2008–09, 71 percent were white, 8 percent were black, 9 percent were 

Hispanic, 6 percent were Asian, and 4 percent were identified in another category.92 In comparison, 

among all entering students in the same cohort, 62 percent were white, 14 percent were black, 15 

percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were Asian, and 5 percent were identified in another category.

93

On-time completion is lower among black and Hispanic students than white and Asian students.

For the same cohort of students, disparities exist in the persistence and degree attainment outcomes 

four years after enrollment. Only 5 percent of black and 5 percent of Hispanic undergraduate students 

enrolled in college had attained a bachelor’s degree within four years, compared with 18 percent among 

white students and 24 percent among Asian students. On the other hand, the percentage who dropped 

out was 44 percent among Hispanic students, 44 percent among black students, 34 percent among 

white students, and only 20 percent among Asian students (exhibit A.18).

Nearly half of Asian students who enrolled in postsecondary education complete a bachelor’s 

degree, compared with fewer than one in five black and one in five Hispanic students.

Exhibit 4.3 shows persistence and degree attainment outcomes six years after enrollment by race and 

ethnicity and indicates that the disparities became even starker after an additional two years. Only 17 

percent of black and 17 percent of Hispanic undergraduate students completed a bachelor’s degree 

within six years of entering the postsecondary institution in the 2003–04 academic year, compared with 

36 percent for white students and nearly half of Asian students. The percentage of students who 

dropped out was 42 percent for Hispanic students, 43 percent for black students, 33 percent for white 

students, and 22 percent for Asian students.
28

Exhibit 4.3: Percentage degree attainment of U.S. students within six years of entering 

postsecondary programs, by race and ethnicity and institution type: From 2003–04 through 2008–

09

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students study cohort. Asian category excludes

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 

Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use 

the QuickRetrieve code hgbgeb2.

In addition to disparities by race and ethnicity, large gaps in educational attainment are present by 

socioeconomic status (exhibit A.19) and first-generation college status (exhibit A.20). Since race and 

ethnicity are related to socioeconomic status and parental education, these disparities could in part 

influence educational attainment outcomes by race and ethnicity.

In 2013–14, nearly two out of three associate and bachelor’s degrees were awarded to white 

students.

Due to disparities at each step of the higher education pipeline, the racial and ethnic composition of 

undergraduate and graduate degrees completed was still predominantly white. In 2013–14, nearly two 

out of three associate and bachelor’s degrees were awarded to white students (see appendix B for more 

details by award level). Yet, during this time, only 55 percent of undergraduates were white. 

17% 17%

36%

46% 8% 8%

10%

8%

16% 13%

8%

5%

17% 20%

13%

19%

42% 43%

33%

22%

0%

50%

100%

Hispanic Black White Asian

Percent Degree Attainment of Undergraduates After Six Years

No degree, not enrolled or left without return No degree, still enrolled

Attained certificate Attained associate degree

Attained bachelor's degree
29

C. Smaller Populations of Students of Color*

American Indian/Alaska Native Students

In 2014, institutions enrolled 138,600 American Indian/Alaska Native students.

• About 138,600 American Indian/Alaska Native undergraduates were enrolled in fall 2014 

compared with 77,900 in 1980.94

• About 14,300 graduate students were American Indian/Alaska Native.95

Almost half of American Indian/Alaska Native undergraduate students were enrolled in two-year 

community colleges.

• Forty-eight percent of American Indian/Alaska Native undergraduate students were enrolled at 

two-year institutions in 2014, compared with 36 percent of white students and 38 percent of 

Asian students, excluding Pacific Islanders.96

• Eighty percent enrolled at public institutions compared with 76 percent for white.97 Eleven 

percent enrolled at private, non-profit institutions compared with 18 percent for white.

98 Nine

percent enrolled at for-profit institutions.99

In the 2013–14 academic year, graduation rates were lower among American Indian/Alaska Native 

bachelor’s degree-seeking students compared with white and Asian students (exhibit A.23). 

• In 2013-14, 41 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students graduated within six years out 

of 10,200 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking students, compared with 63 percent 

among white students and 71 percent among Asian students, excluding Pacific Islanders.100

• The graduation rate was 43 percent among women and 39 percent among men.101

• Twenty percent graduated within six years at for-profit institutions compared with 40 percent at 

public institutions and 49 percent at private, non-profit institutions.102

* The Department of Education implemented reporting guidelines in 2007 to conform to the Office of Management 

and Budget Statistical Policy Directive 15, “Standards for Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.” 

Categories are American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and White (also see appendix E). For reporting purposes, ethnicity is required to 

be collected separately from race, so individuals identified as Hispanic are not included in racial categories. For 

example, individuals identifying as both Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native are not counted in the 

American Indian/Alaska Native category.

Key Findings: U.S. Department of Education data are limited for smaller racial and ethnic groups 

of students, including American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 

students. In addition, there is limited data for students reported as two or more races. However, 

disparities in graduation rates also exist among these students of color. This section briefly 

presents data available on these smaller populations.
30

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Students

In 2014, institutions enrolled 52,300 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students.

• About 52,300 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander undergraduates were enrolled in fall 2014 

compared with 57,500 in fall 2010 — the first time institutions reported enrollment separately 

for Asians and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders, respectively.

103

• About 6,500 graduate students were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

104

Three times as many Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander undergraduate students were enrolled 

at for-profit institutions compared with white students.

• Forty-one percent of undergraduate students were enrolled at two-year institutions compared 

with 36 percent of white students and 38 percent of Asian students, excluding Pacific 

Islanders.105

• Sixty-eight percent enrolled at public institutions compared with 76 percent of white 

students.106 Fourteen percent enrolled at private, non-profit institutions compared with 18 

percent of white students.107 Eighteen percent enrolled at for-profit institutions — three times 

the percentage among white students.108

In 2013–14, graduation rates were lower among Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander bachelor’s 

degree-seeking students compared with white and Asian students (exhibit A.23). 

• In 2013–14, 50 percent of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students graduated within six 

years out of 2,500 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking students compared with 63 

percent among white students.109

• The graduation rate for both men and women was close to 50 percent.110

• Twenty-six percent graduated at for-profit institutions compared with 49 percent at public 

institutions and 61 percent at private, non-profit institutions.111

Students of Two or More Races

In 2014, institutions enrolled 579,500 students identifying as two or more races, and the number of 

students identifying in this group is steadily increasing.

• About 579,500 undergraduates of two or more races were enrolled in fall 2014 compared with 

293,700 in fall 2010 — the first time institutions reported this category. 112

• About 62,600 graduate students identified as two or more races.113

Students identifying as two or more races enrolled predominantly at four-year institutions, and one 

in eight enrolled at for-profit institutions.

• Thirty-five percent of undergraduate students identifying as two or more races were enrolled at 

two-year institutions compared with 36 percent of white undergraduate students.114

• Seventy-three percent enrolled at public institutions compared with 76 percent of white 

students.115 Fifteen percent enrolled at private, non-profit institutions compared with 18 

percent of white students.116 Twelve percent enrolled at for-profit institutions — twice the 

percentage among white students.117
31

• Seventy-three percent enrolled at public institutions compared with 76 percent of white 

students.118 Fifteen percent enrolled at private, non-profit institutions compared with 18 

percent of white students.119 Twelve percent enrolled at for-profit institutions — twice the 

percentage among white students.120

In 2013–14, 65 percent of students identifying as two or more races completed their bachelor’s 

degree — at a similar rate as white students (exhibit A.23). 

• In 2013–14, 65 percent of students of two or more races graduated within six years out of 

11,500 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking students compared with 63 percent 

among white students.121

• The graduation rate was 62 percent among men and 68 percent among women.122

• Thirty-six percent graduated within six years at for-profit institutions compared with 59 percent 

at public institutions and 73 percent at private, non-profit institutions.123
32

D. Multiple Dimensions of Gaps in College Opportunity

Four-Year College Attainment Disaggregated by Income Quartile.

Among low-income students who entered postsecondary education in 2003–04, about 14 percent 

of black and 14 percent of Hispanic students attained a bachelor’s degree compared to 24 percent 

of white students. 

Exhibit 5.1 shows that bachelor’s degree attainment among beginning postsecondary undergraduate 

students is higher for white and Asian students compared to black and Hispanic students, even after 

taking into account family income. Among low-income students who entered postsecondary education 

in 2003–04, about 14 percent of black and 14 percent of Hispanic students attained a bachelor’s degree 

compared to 24 percent of white students and 45 percent of Asian students.124 White students in the 

top income quartile also tend to earn a bachelor’s degree at a higher rate than their lower-income 

peers. However, across each income category, the estimated attainment rates for white students are 

always greater than the estimated attainment rates for both black and Hispanic students. 

Students whose parents completed college are about twice as likely to attain a bachelor’s degree. 

Almost one in three black and one in three Hispanic students beginning their undergraduate studies who 

had at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree completed their own bachelor’s degree within six 

years, compared to only one in seven first-generation students of the same race and ethnicity. A similar 

pattern holds among white and Asian students. As noted earlier, due to lower levels of parental 

education among black and Hispanic students, these trends could in part contribute to disparities in 

completion (see exhibit A.24). 

Key Findings: In addition to data broken down by race and ethnicity, disaggregation 

of outcomes by family income and parental education within each race and 

ethnicity group offers additional insights about disparities in college completion and 

postgraduate salaries. Available data show the following:

• In 2009, bachelor’s degree attainment among beginning postsecondary 

undergraduate students was higher for white and Asian students compared 

to black and Hispanic students, even after accounting for family income.

• For Hispanic, black, white, and Asian undergraduate students, students 

whose parents completed college were twice as likely as first-generation 

students to attain a bachelor’s degree. 

• In 2012, postgraduate salaries among white and Asian students were higher 

than those of black and Hispanic students, particularly among students who 

came from low- and middle-income families.

• Within the same race or ethnicity, bachelor’s graduates expect to make 

about the same salary regardless of the college completion of their parents. 
33

Exhibit 5.1: Percentage bachelor’s degree attainment of students within six years of postsecondary 

enrollment, by race and ethnicity and family income quartile: From 2003–04 through 2008–09

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students study cohort. These statistics are 

estimates based on a sampling of students, and standard errors may be large. Interpret with caution, particularly for the non-white subgroups.

Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 

Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use 

the QuickRetrieve code bhhbgdf20.

In 2012, postgraduate salaries among white and Asian students were higher than those of black and 

Hispanic students, particularly among students who came from low- and middle-income families. 

Exhibit 5.2 breaks down the average annual salary of four-year college graduates of Hispanic, black, 

white, and Asian students by their family’s income at the time of their graduation. Especially among lowand middle-income students, postgraduate salaries were higher among white and Asian students 

compared to black and Hispanic students in 2012. Moreover, within each racial and ethnic group, 

postgraduate salaries are higher for upper-income students than low- and middle-income students. For 

instance, white students whose family fell in the top income quartile made an average of $45,163 four 

years after graduation compared to only $35,506 among white students whose families were in the 

bottom income quartile. These trends suggest that the factors associated with family income such as 

Hispanic

Black and Hispanic

Black

Black & Hispanic

White

Asian

0%

25%

50%

75%

Percent Attaining Bachelor's Degree within Six Years of 

Enrollment

Family Income Quartile

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
34

access to dynamic regional labor markets and connections to social capital may influence postgraduate 

earnings.

The salary that four-year college graduates expect to make is no different if their parents finished 

college or did not finish college. 

The average annual salary of bachelor’s graduates by race and ethnicity and parental education indicate 

that, although the educational attainment of the student is an important contributor to labor market 

outcomes for four-year college graduates, there is little correlation between whether a student’s 

parent(s) completed college and labor market success (exhibit A.25).125

Exhibit 5.2: Total annual salary of bachelor’s degree recipients four years after graduation, by race

and ethnicity and family income: 2012

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2007–08 Baccalaureate and Beyond study. Family income percentiles are grouped by 

quartiles among both independent and dependent students at time of graduation. Figures also exclude foreign students. These statistics are 

estimates based on sampling of students and standard errors may be large. Interpret with caution, particularly for the non-white subgroups.

Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2008/12 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

(B&B:08/12). For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve 

code bhhbgef5.

Hispanic

Black

White

Asian

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

Annaul Salary of Bachelor's Degree Recipients Four Years 

After Graduation

Family Income Quartile

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
35

IV. Promoting Higher Education Access and Inclusion for All Students: 

Leadership Examples

Practices for Promoting Higher Education Access for All Students in Institutions of Higher 

Education

As noted earlier in this report, at too many institutions, underrepresented students of color face far 

lower odds of graduating than other students, far higher chances that they will struggle to afford a 

higher education, and significant academic obstacles. Many states and institutions have taken 

extraordinary and significant steps to increase access for underrepresented students of color, and to 

improve the educational experiences and academic success of students of color and low-income 

students.

States that are committed to advancing campus diversity and inclusion in higher education can 

contribute in many ways, for example, by creating goals toward this end and providing support to 

Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs). The state boards of education can work in conjunction with IHEs 

to create more diverse and inclusive campuses. For example, Delaware has committed to increase 

college access through its Delaware Goes to College initiative, a goal to have zero college-ready students 

who do not apply to college. This initiative encourages all high schools to make time for students to 

apply to college, assist families with completing FAFSA applications, create a College Acceptance Day, as 

well as provide outreach to families to ensure that students attend and remain in college. Colorado’s 

School Counselor Corps Grant Program (SCCGP) awards funding to eligible school districts to increase 

the availability of effective school-based counseling. The program’s goal is to improve the high school 

graduation rate and increase the percentage of students who appropriately prepare for, apply to, and 

continue into postsecondary education. Approximately 60 percent of students served participate in the 

free and reduced price lunch programs. SCCGP schools increased their matriculation rates by 

approximately 13 percentage points with the first year of funding and were able to maintain that 

increase during the next two years.

This section includes some publicly available examples of institutional practices, and highlights them as 

possible models for other institutions seeking approaches to expand access and promote safe and 

welcoming campus environments, including for students of color. While many more noteworthy 

practices at institutions across the country could be cited, the examples that follow are provided to 

show a variety of approaches in different institutional settings. This publication also contains hyperlinks 

and URLs for information created and maintained by outside third parties. As indicated at the beginning 

of this report, information to such outside sources is provided for the reader's convenience. The 

inclusion of these examples is not to be construed as an endorsement by the Department of Education 

or the federal government. The Department of Education does not guarantee the accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, or completeness of the outside information contained at hyperlinks or URLs. Further, the 

inclusion of this information or a hyperlink or URL does not reflect the importance of the organization, 

nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered. 
36

Institutional Commitment to Promoting Student Body Diversity and Inclusion on Campus

Research shows that colleges and universities seeking to implement programs to promote campus 

diversity identify how it relates to the core institutional mission and unique circumstances of the 

educational institution. Often, core institutional documents inform goals, objectives, and priorities that 

can lead institutions in turn to allocate necessary funds and resources to those purposes. For example, 

the institution could adopt a mission statement describing how the institution intends to promote 

student body diversity and inclusion as well as the necessary climate and conditions to do so.

126

In turn, campus leaders could consider aligning policies and practices across the institution with this 

mission statement.127 These steps could be connected to the institution’s overall strategic plan and 

vision for student learning and success. Implementation of the campus diversity plan need not be 

considered the sole responsibility of a single designated diversity committee.128 Institutions could also

build their capacity to collect and analyze the data required to set and track their diversity and inclusion 

efforts in order to facilitate assessment of the plan’s effectiveness.

129 The joint Department of Education 

and Department of Justice Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Postsecondary 

Education provides a checklist of key steps for colleges and universities, including reasons for a plan and 

considerations when implementing the plan. 

 The University at Albany (UAlbany), part of the State University of New York (SUNY), includes 

diversity and inclusion as a part of its strategic plan, reinforcing the system-wide Diversity Vision 

and Mission Statement. The 2010 Strategic Plan sets forth a key strategic goal “to enhance the 

quality of undergraduate education at UAlbany and attract and serve a highly qualified and 

diverse group of students.” (Planning is underway during the 2016–17 academic year to update 

the strategic plan.) In an effort to fulfill that portion of its plan, the university has established the

Diversity Transformation Fund, which provides funding to faculty and staff for development of 

new and innovative initiatives that model inclusiveness and impact campus climate. Among 

other campus resources, the university funds the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which is 

charged with promoting and furthering the university’s commitment.

 Southwestern University, a faith-based private university in Texas, builds on its Core Values 

with a diversity statement that commits to “continuing the development of an increasingly 

diverse community of students, faculty, and staff.” The Strategic Plan identifies actions to 

advance the objectives outlined in the Mission, Core Values, and Diversity Statement. A chief 

diversity officer leads the Office of Diversity Education and supports the Coalition for Diversity 

and Social Justice, an umbrella organization for eight cultural, identity, and social justice groups. 

Also, under the auspices of the office, the Diversity Enrichment Committee provides funding for 

programs that further diversity on campus.

 The University of Mississippi not only supports diversity in its UM 2020 Strategic Plan but 

produced a stand-alone Diversity Matters plan in which key actions and metrics for measuring 

progress are outlined. The university funds the work of the William Winter Institute for Racial 

Reconciliation — which works in communities and classrooms on campus, in Mississippi, and 
37

beyond, to support a movement of racial equity and wholeness — and the Critical Race Studies 

Group. 

 The Mission and Goals Statement at the University of Maryland, College Park sets forth a 

number of objectives, among which are those to “reduce the achievement gap for African 

American/Black, Hispanic, and low-income students” and “expand the diversity of the graduate 

student body through collaborations with University System of Maryland partner institutions 

that focus on recruitment, academic success, professional development, and the creation of a 

supportive work environment for all students.” The university implements these objectives in 

part through a holistic admission review process and review factors. 

 At the University of Michigan, the Campuswide Strategic Plan focuses on three strategic areas 

to address inclusivity. Strategy 1 aims to create an inclusive and equitable campus climate; 

Strategy 2 aims to recruit, retain, and develop a diverse community; and Strategy 3 aims to 

support innovative and inclusive scholarship and teaching.

Diversity Across All Levels of an Institution

Promoting diversity and inclusiveness across all levels of the institution, including the institution’s 

administration and faculty, can be an important way to achieve a diverse and inclusive campus climate. 

Institutional leadership that focuses on diversity and inclusion, such as a chief diversity officer assigned 

the duties of overseeing the development and implementation of the institution’s commitments to 

diversity, can spearhead these efforts. These administration and faculty challenges are not insignificant, 

as people of color are often underrepresented among institutions’ leadership: in 2013–14, seven times 

as many faculty were white as were either black or Hispanic (see appendix C for statistics on faculty). 

Campus leadership, including a diverse faculty, plays an important role in achieving an inclusive 

institution. Faculty’s curricular decisions and pedagogy, including their individual interactions with 

students, can foster inclusive climates. Also, students report it is important that they see themselves 

reflected in the faculty and curriculum to which they are exposed to create a sense of belonging and 

inclusiveness. Research suggests that greater representation of underrepresented groups among faculty 

may increase students’ sense of academic validation.130 Research at the K-12 level, for instance, 

demonstrates that teachers of color may hold higher expectations for students of color and employ a 

deeper cultural understanding of their students.131, 132, 133 Faculty creates the curricula and, therefore, 

has the responsibility and discretion to select the educational content to which students are exposed 

and the educational experiences fostered in the classroom. The curriculum and classroom interactions

greatly impact all students — including students of color.

Institutions may wish to consider how historical and current policies and practices may serve as barriers 

to diversity goals. They could also consider various parts of the pipeline, including how they may expand 

the hiring pool for administrators and faculty, as well as programs that support and retain diverse 

administrators and faculty.

134
38

Mentoring programs, for instance, can help address relatively high rates of turnover among 

underrepresented minority faculty.135 The campus climate can affect the success of both students and 

faculty.

136

 For example, the University of Illinois at Chicago in 2011 created the Cluster Initiative to 

Increase Diversity and the Interdisciplinary Culture at UIC, a faculty hiring initiative that was 

designed to develop diverse academic leadership and enrich the student learning experience.

 At The University of Texas at Austin, the Thematic Faculty Initiative incorporates a three-tiered 

approach to prepare, recruit, and retain faculty. First, the university hires graduate research 

assistants who are mentored and exposed to the value of working in an academic environment 

committed to diversity and inclusion. Second, the university recruits intellectually and culturally 

diverse faculty members, providing a line of funding through the Division of Diversity and 

Community Engagement for these hires. Finally, the university provides fellowships to faculty 

members across the university whose research, teaching, or special projects focus on diversity 

and community engagement issues. 

 In tandem with efforts to expand college access to low-income, first-generation, and historically 

underrepresented students, Columbia University has invested $85 million to support the 

recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty. The Provost’s Grant Program for Junior 

Faculty Who Contribute to the Diversity Goals of the University provides awards, of up to 

$25,000 each, to support new or ongoing research and scholarship, seed funding for innovative 

research for which external funding would be difficult to obtain, and curricular development 

projects. The Dean's Faculty Diversity Research Awards Program at Teachers College supports 

faculty research projects related to diversity for one semester. 

Outreach and Recruitment of Prospective Students

Institutions committed to enhancing student diversity can take steps to improve outreach and

recruitment to a diverse array of students. For instance, institutions often work to proactively develop 

relationships and provide support to the elementary and secondary schools that are located within the 

communities surrounding the institution. Institutions could consider how they target their financial aid 

resources and how their admissions processes — such as early decision procedures — may act as a 

barrier to groups of students, including low-income students.137 There are many ways institutions can 

promote diversity through their financial aid and admissions, including transfer or articulation 

agreements with other institutions, such as with community colleges; recruitment or additional 

consideration for community college transfer applicants; targeted financial aid; and holistic application 

reviews.138 As the joint Department of Education and Department of Justice Guidance on the Voluntary 

Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Postsecondary Education describes, postsecondary institutions may 

develop admissions procedures designed to achieve diversity, including procedures that involve 

admissions preferences for certain groups of students.
39

As a recent review of rigorous research on college access strategies suggests, institutions may most 

effectively expand access when they employ strategies to address multiple barriers to college access 

together, instead of in isolation.139 Students encounter many barriers in accessing higher education, 

such as the complex process of identifying appropriate institutions, applying for financial aid, and 

completing paperwork to matriculate on-time, or difficulties filling gaps in financial aid.140, 141, 142 Some

strategies supported by research include providing comprehensive, ongoing support from 

administrators and peers; advising from peers near the students’ age; targeting support for elements 

such as FAFSA completion and test prep; and exposing students to college-level work while they are in 

high school.143, 144, 145, 146 The joint Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in 

Postsecondary Education sets out examples of mentoring, tutoring, retention, and support programs

postsecondary institutions might consider in pursuing diversity. 

Examples of institutional outreach programs include the following: 

 The LIFT College Access Mentoring program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

provides access and exposure to college for the community’s underrepresented youths in 

tandem with mentoring.

 At The University of Texas at Austin, the Neighborhood Longhorns program partners with local 

elementary and middle schools that have a high proportion of low-income students to improve 

academic performance. The university’s Math Masters program prepares students from 

underrepresented Texas high schools with the skills necessary for successful completion of 

college-level math courses.

 At the flagship campus of Rutgers University, the Office for Diversity and Academic Success in 

the Sciences (ODASIS) aims to increase the recruitment and academic success of 

underrepresented students, as well as educationally and economically disadvantaged students, 

who are interested in pursuing careers in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

professions. The Summer Preparatory Program in chemistry and calculus, one example of an 

ODASIS program, involves intensive academic support during the summer prior to students' 

freshman year in order to strengthen and articulate the foundation of course content necessary 

to excel in future gatekeeper courses within a science curriculum.

Support Services for Students

As this report describes, students of color face disproportionate barriers to completing higher 

education. One significant challenge is helping students transition academically when they have 

attended schools with fewer resources, less-qualified teachers, and limited college prep coursework, as 

well as “college knowledge” regarding the rigor of coursework in higher education.147 In general, student 

support services are associated with improved academic outcomes throughout the student’s college 

experience.

148 A Department of Education analysis found that a variety of student support services are 

related to improved outcomes, such as peer tutoring, labs, workshops, counseling, and referrals to 

outside sources — and that what may be most important is that students receive an appropriate 
40

package of student-centered services from the institution.

149 Promising academic support strategies 

include the following: 

 Well-designed Course Placement Strategies: Many institutions require entering students to 

take screening exams and, if they do not pass the cutoff, take remedial or developmental 

courses. Although half of all undergraduates take at least one developmental course, research 

indicates that many of the tests are poor predictors of success in college-level courses and may 

not be a good use of students’ or institutions’ time and money.

150 Evidence suggests that 

emerging strategies could help, such as using computer-adaptive placement testing; basing 

placement on high school transcripts, not tests; and having high school juniors take placement 

exams so they can address academic gaps during their senior year.151, 152, 153 Also, research

indicates Statway — a new pathway for developmental math that addresses complex problems 

affecting student success, along with the companion Quantway pathway — may improve creditearning for all students, including students of color.154

 Mentoring or Coaching: These programs help college students identify strategies to overcome 

both academic and “real-life” barriers.155 Rigorous evidence indicates that individualized 

mentoring and coaching — distinct from academic advising — can increase the odds that college 

students remain enrolled in school.156 Mentoring and coaching might be particularly helpful for 

first-generation students who are less familiar with the institutional structure of higher 

education. 

 On-campus Support and Summer Bridge Programs: First-year experience programs, which 

support the academic performance and social development of college students and also 

increase students’ sense of campus community and connection to their institutions, can 

improve academic achievement and credit-earning.157 Summer bridge programs, which ease 

students’ transition to college and help students develop academic skills and social resources to 

succeed, can also improve persistence and completion for participants.158 For example, the 

Center for Academic Reinforcement at Howard University identifies academic difficulties 

experienced by students who enter the university, providing a pre-summer college preparation 

program, a pre-college orientation program for entering freshmen, individualized peer 

mentoring and tutoring in mathematics, mini courses in areas such as critical thinking and essay 

writing, and intervention courses for students who do not pass the Graduate School’s Expository 

Writing Examination.

 Challenges Outside the Classroom: Many American students also encounter challenges outside 

of the classroom that may affect their success in school, such as housing insecurity, hunger, 

transportation to school, and affording textbooks.

159 A recent study of more than 4,000 

undergraduates at 10 community colleges, for instance, found that about half of respondents

struggled with either food or housing insecurity.

160 As with other barriers described in this 

report, students of color may disproportionately encounter these issues. Institutions have 

experimented with various strategies to support students with housing insecurities and living 
41

costs, such as establishing a campus single point of contact, connecting students with federal 

benefits, and providing emergency aid or micro grants.

161 Rigorous research demonstrates that 

one program in particular, City University of New York’s Accelerated Study in Associate 

Programs (ASAP), nearly doubled graduation rates among participating low-income students 

after three years.162 The ASAP program covers the gap between students’ financial aid and their 

need and provides an array of services such as free transportation MetroCards, a program 

advisor with a small caseload, and free textbooks to borrow.163

Inclusive Campus Climate

Institutions may take steps to foster inclusive campus climates for all members of their communities. 

Many factors can affect campus climate. Campus composition makes a difference: underrepresented 

students tend to experience less frequent discrimination at more compositionally diverse institutions, 

compared to less diverse institutions.164 Also, students report less discrimination and bias at institutions 

where they perceive a stronger institutional commitment to diversity.165 As a foundation, institutions 

could perform an assessment of their campus climate related to diversity in order to identify areas for 

improvement — for instance, ways different groups of students perceive discrimination on campus. 

These assessments can inform a continuous process of planning, implementing, and reflecting on 

progress made and lessons learned. Performing assessments that address unique aspects of the campus 

community can ensure they align with institutions’ efforts to improve their campus climates and student 

outcomes.166

The level of experience and exposure to different races and ethnicities varies for all persons in campus 

environments. As a result, institutions may wish to develop and facilitate programming to increase the 

cultural competency of leadership, faculty, staff, and students by implementing training. Promising 

evidence suggests that diversity training and workshops can influence the behavior and attitudes of 

academic leaders and faculty, including acting inclusively and engaging in fair hiring practices.167

Research indicates that trainings for both leaders and students can be more effective when they involve 

active learning techniques, not just lectures, so participants engage with the course content, and when 

the trainings avoid assigning blame or responsibility to participants for current diversity issues.168

Research suggests that, for faculty to develop cultural competencies, it may be helpful for training to

include an orientation, as well as an ongoing and developmentally sequenced curriculum such as 

Cultural Competency Training (CCT). CCT is designed not only to teach learners about cultural 

differences and ways in which to engage respectfully with persons of other cultures, but also to provide

implicit bias training to increase learners’ awareness of the unconscious and subtle associations made 

between groups of people and stereotypes attributed to the group. Some institutions offer this training 

and provide certificates and recognition to faculty and staff upon completion. Cultural competency is a 

life-long learning endeavor; thus, earning a certificate does not constitute mastery of the subject, but 

rather demonstrates a willingness to learn.

Much of the dialogue around diversity and inclusion in higher education suggests that curricula to which 

students are exposed can greatly impact the way in which they view and engage the world. Research 

suggests this begins with institutions’ orientation and induction of new students into the campus 
42

environment.169 Many IHEs include cultural competency training in new student orientation, and also 

require that students take coursework in diversity as freshmen. These programs can create 

opportunities for students to have positive interactions with diverse peers, which research 

demonstrates can lead students to feel a greater sense of belonging to their college or university.170

Examples of institutions implementing such strategies include the following:

 Southern Methodist University in Dallas requires all graduating students to have taken a human 

diversity co-curricular course. A variety of courses in disciplines ranging from anthropology to 

English to religion are designated as courses that can satisfy this requirement.

 The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign offers an I-Connect Diversity and Inclusion 

Workshop for first-year and transfer students, which uses collaborative exercises and discussion 

to build participants’ communication skills and their ability to collaborate, learn, and work in 

diverse environments. The university’s year-long Learn, Envision, Navigate, and Synthesize 

(LENS) Diversity Certificate Program enables students to build the skills necessary to engage on 

the multicultural campus and global society. Participants take courses, attend workshops and 

cohort meetings, and design their own action project.

 The University of Mississippi University Police Department requires Hate vs. Bias Training for all 

new officers and has employed additional diversity training within the department for existing 

officers. The university provides a Welcome Home onboarding program to new employees, 

which emphasizes the university’s commitment to racial reconciliation. New students are 

required to attend the Respect the M orientation session to facilitate a more inclusive and 

diverse campus climate. MPower is an optional, first-year summer program for students to instill 

appreciation for university culture and for cultural differences and inclusivity.

In addition, institutions may incorporate diversity training into broader campus programs and training. 

Research suggests that coupling diversity training with larger initiatives, such as new student orientation 

or broader professional development efforts for university employees, as opposed to holding 

standalone trainings, may be more effective.171 Similarly, institutions also could consider how best to 

support student-, staff-, and faculty-led initiatives that incorporate conversations about diversity and 

inclusion into campus life.172 For example, some institutions support discrete components of student 

government, such as a diversity affairs council, that promote diversity and inclusion. Many institutions 

engage students in the decision-making process on matters involving diversity and efforts to improve 

campus climate.

 At the University of Illinois-Chicago, the Chancellor’s Status Committees are advisory groups 

comprising staff, students, and faculty that collaboratively monitor the needs of 

underrepresented and underserved groups and proactively make policy recommendations to

improve the climate for these groups on campus. The Diversity Advisory Committee, which 

includes student representatives, provides counsel to the provost and vice provost for diversity 

on diversity policy, procedures, and strategy. 
43

 The Multicultural Programming Council at Georgia State University functions as the advisory 

board to the Multicultural Center and its programs. The Council is comprised of student leaders 

of multicultural groups, which provide input on events and initiatives developed and supported 

by the Multicultural Center, as well as workshops, advisement, and funding to student groups. 

Cultural and socio-emotional support systems are helpful for all students to thrive on campus and can 

be important for students who do not comprise a racial or ethnic majority. Institutional leaders in these 

areas create visible, easily accessible support systems and resources customized to students’ needs. 

Successful institutions also make available financial support to close the need gap for students who are 

economically disadvantaged. Research shows that, in general, fostering involvement outside of the 

classroom, such as in extracurricular activities, can play a critical role in diverse students’ academic 

development and persistence — but students of color tend to have lower rates of engagement in 

campus organizations, potentially due to negative campus climates or because available activities do not 

reflect their cultural interests.173 Safe spaces that reflect students’ cultural backgrounds can help reduce 

feelings of isolation or alienation among students of color, and can provide a sense of meaning and 

validation.174 Examples of institutions providing such support systems include the following:

 The Diversity Initiatives and Resource Centers at California State University-Fullerton offer 

workshops and trainings designed for students to become self-aware, culturally competent, 

civically engaged, and critical thinkers. The African American Resource Center, Asian Pacific 

American Resource Center, Chicana/Chicano Resource Center, LGBTQ Resource Center, and 

Titan Dreamers Resource Center (for undocumented students) operate under its umbrella and 

strengthen the integration of diverse populations of students into the university.

 Brown University provides multiple socio-emotional resources that can be helpful for students 

of color and their allies with its Center, which serves as a gathering place for communities of 

color. Students are encouraged to build meaningful relationships across differences, develop 

racial and ethnic consciousness, and enact change at Brown and beyond. In collaboration with 

student organizations and academic departments, the center also offers a variety of forums and 

events through the Heritage Series. Other resources include alumni of color affinity groups, the 

newly-launched Social Justice Peer Education Program, Black Student Initiative, Latino Student 

Initiative, and Asian American Student Initiative. 

 Santa Fe College in Florida similarly provides multiple resources. The College Achievement 

Program (operated by the College Achievement Office) provides the opportunity for students 

from diverse backgrounds to enhance their academic, professional, cultural, personal, and 

overall college experience, reinforcing behaviors that embrace compassion, civility, justice, 

social responsibility, and mutual respect. The Global Roundtable for Academic Development

(GRAD) offers students an opportunity to broaden their learning outside of the classroom, 

brainstorm student success strategies, and promote better understanding about how to succeed 

in college and in the global economy. The Multicultural Student Center supports approximately 

2,000 international students, including those who are first generation. 
44

 Beyond the usual array of multicultural student organizations, the University at Albany has 

established the Office of Intercultural Student Engagement, which sponsors activities and events 

that increase the cultural competency of students, faculty, and staff. The Multicultural Resource 

Center enhances the university’s commitment to social justice and diversity by supporting 

students of all backgrounds and cultural identities. The center features the Asian Heritage Suite 

and the African Heritage Suite, affinity group spaces that also provide opportunities for dialogue 

about the history, culture, obstacles, and achievements of people of African or Asian descent. 

The C.H.A.R.G.E Peer Educator Program provides the opportunity for students seeking 

leadership experiences related to diversity and inclusion to receive training to facilitate cultural 

competency discussions. Peer educators assist students in residence halls to create an 

environment where faculty, staff, and students understand, embrace, and model respect for 

diversity. 

A Multi-Pronged Commitment to Diversity

The institutions referenced in this section have in most cases managed to increase diversity in student 

enrollment, graduation rates, and faculty. † While it may not be possible to definitively ascribe this 

success to a particular diversity effort, the broad range of activities in which these institutions engage 

suggest that a multi-pronged commitment to diversity can have a discernible impact.

 At California State University-Fullerton, enrollment of black and Hispanic students increased 

from 27 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2014. During this same time frame, graduation rates 

for black students increased from 29 to 43 percent, and for Hispanic students from 39 to 49 

percent. 

 At Georgia State University, black and Hispanic enrollment increased from 38 to 50 percent

between 2001 and 2014. Graduation rates for black students increased from 25 to 56 percent, 

and for Hispanic students from 38 to 55 percent. The percentage of non-white, full-time faculty 

increased from 15 to 24 percent between 2001 and 2011.

 At University of Illinois at Chicago, black and Hispanic enrollment increased from 26 to 34

percent between 2001 and 2014. Graduation rates for black students increased from 27 to 43 

percent, and for Hispanic students from 38 to 56 percent. Non-white, full-time faculty now 

comprise 30 percent of the faculty, a noticeably higher percentage than at most universities. 

 

† Graduation rates refer to graduation rates within 150 percent of normal time for first-time, full-time students. 

Enrollment refers to undergraduate certificate/degree-seeking students. Faculty refers to full-time instructional 

staff (the percentage of non-white faculty is calculated with the race unknown and nonresident alien categories 

included in the denominator, but not the numerator). SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Human Resources Survey,” “Fall 

Enrollment Survey,” “Graduation Rate Survey.” Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 
45

 At Southern Methodist University, the graduation rate for Hispanic students has increased from 

64 to 83 percent between 2001 and 2014. The percentage of non-white, full-time faculty 

increased from 13 to 19 percent between 2001 and 2011.

 At the University at Albany, black and Hispanic students now graduate at similar rates as white 

students. 
46

V. Conclusion

Diversity in higher education is critically important to ensuring student success. During the last seven 

years, the Obama Administration has worked to improve access to higher education, as well as to help 

more students complete their college educations and obtain quality degrees. Since the start of the 

Administration, the Department of Education has focused on making college more affordable and 

accessible to more students, particularly low-income students and students of color, through reforms 

such as increases to the size of Pell Grant awards; simplification of federal financial aid; and greater use 

of evidence-based practices in Department of Education grant competitions to promote student success. 

Additionally, a stronger focus on the importance of college completion in improving students’ odds for 

success and reducing negative outcomes like defaults on student loans has helped to shift the national 

dialogue on higher education.

The Obama Administration celebrates the progress that has been made and the strides that have been 

taken to reach important milestones — more students of color are going to college than seven years 

ago; the college-going numbers of black and Hispanic college students have risen by more than 1 million 

since 2008; and the share of Hispanic young adults with a bachelor’s degree has increased by 4 

percentage points throughout the same time period. Yet, as outlined in this report, there are many 

challenges that remain and demand our attention. The path forward will require a thoughtful discourse 

and a range of strategies, including those outlined here. Policy makers and institutions of higher 

education play central, vital roles in supporting these strategies and expanding access to an affordable, 

high-quality education, including for low-income students and students of color.

 Enhancing Public Information and Transparency: Increasing underrepresentation of students of 

color in higher education requires clear and actionable information. With access to more 

accurate, timely, and relevant data, the Department of Education can identify inequities and 

highlight areas for improvement. Currently, however, the absence of data on certain key items

— like information on race associated with family income — means that policy makers and 

researchers cannot evaluate the outcomes of students by institution; and the absence of 

information on certain student characteristics like disability status and sexual orientation makes 

it challenging to identify diversity and achievement gaps between those students and their 

peers. Moreover, even where there are useful data on achievement gaps, more research is 

needed to improve opportunity for students of color. For instance, research on admissions 

decisions and financial aid offers and other key areas of the higher education pipeline could 

provide actionable information to help more students persist.

 Improving Application and Admissions Practices: Student body diversity and graduation rates

for low-income students and students of color may increase as institutions evaluate and 

improve their admission and application practices to ensure that access and educational 

opportunity are available to the students who need it most. Institutions and their partners in the 

field can help students navigate the sometimes overly complex admissions processes, including 
47

by offering opportunities for far more intensive counseling. Institutional policies for admissions 

could redefine talent by taking into consideration how the institution’s goals align with diversity.

 Ensuring College Is Affordable: One of the most significant obstacles to higher education for 

many low-income students and students of color is the high — and growing — cost of attending

college. Many institutions are working to replace achievement-based aid with need-based aid 

programs that better target available dollars to the students who need them most. Still others 

are guaranteeing aid availability across an educational program, so that a student’s aid doesn’t 

disappear between sophomore and senior years, leaving them in the lurch. While policy makers 

have worked to reinvest in critical financial aid programs in recent years, their efforts have not 

kept pace with the rising costs of college. Greater public investments in programs like the Pell 

Grant program, or President Obama’s proposed America’s College Promise program (which 

makes two years of community college or two years at a Historically Black College or University 

(HBCU) or minority-serving institution (MSI) tuition-free for students) would help to ensure that

a higher education remains accessible to students of color and low-income students. Moreover, 

more and better data — such as the information provided through the Department of 

Education’s College Scorecard — can help students to expand their options and understand 

which schools will give them the biggest bang for their buck.

 Providing Strong Supports to Help Students Succeed: Institutions and their partners can work 

to ensure students — including students of color and low-income students — have the academic 

and social supports they need to thrive in college. Advising programs, mentoring opportunities,

and comprehensive social support structures can help ensure that low-income students and 

students of color feel welcome and are ready and able to succeed academically, socially, and 

emotionally. The Administration has worked to encourage more institutions to contribute to the 

growing body of evidence about the best ways to serve students — particularly low-income 

students and students of color — and to bring those evidence-based practices onto their 

campuses. Programs like First in the World and the Department of Education’s proposed College 

Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program and HBCU and MSI Innovation for Completion Fund 

help to seed such practices across the country, and to bring them to scale where they prove 

worthy of greater investment.

 Ensuring Safe and Inclusive Campuses: Too often, high school students of color, low-income 

students, and first-generation students feel that college is a place they do not belong. For

students who decide to enroll in college, it is often an isolating experience where they do not 

feel accepted, welcomed, or well-treated. Colleges and universities can work to make their 

campuses inclusive, safe, and hospitable environments, where all students feel respected, to 

help ensure that everyone is able to pursue their educational opportunities to their fullest 

potential. For instance, colleges may work with other non-profit organizations to reach out to 

students of color and others; use campus climate surveys and data on student outcomes for 

student subgroups to identify areas for improvement; and make the most of resources from the 

federal government to help improve access and the outcomes for students of all backgrounds. 
48

The Obama Administration recognizes both the tremendous value of increased diversity in higher 

education, and the role of higher education as a keystone to health, happiness, and economic mobility 

for all students, including low-income students and students of color. Diverse and inclusive 

environments at colleges and universities also strengthen American democracy by facilitating the 

exchange of perspectives and values among students from various ethnic, cultural, and economic 

backgrounds. In highlighting strategies to support diversity and success for students of all backgrounds, 

the Administration suggests a path forward to strengthen the postsecondary education system for all.
49

Appendix A: Supplemental Charts

Opportunity Gaps in Postsecondary Education

Exhibit A.1: Percentage of U.S. population, by race and ethnicity: Decades from 1960 to 2010 

NOTE: The 1960 and 1970 Census did not collect data on Hispanics as a separate race category. Separate figures on number of Hispanic 

residents were not collected before 1974. American Indian/Alaska Native U.S. residents represented less than 1 percent from 1960 to 2010 and 

therefore the percentages are not listed on the chart. Similarly, U.S. residents who were Asian or Two or more races represented less than 1 

percent in 1960 and therefore the percentages are not listed on the left side of the chart. The Asian category includes Native Hawaiian/Other

Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals by Race, 1790 to 1990, and by Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, for 

Large Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States, available at 

https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.pdf; 

U.S. Census Bureau, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin, Census 2000 brief available at 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, Census 2010 brief available at

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf.

89%

64%

11%

13%

6%

17%

5%

3%

0%

50%

100%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Percent of U.S. Residents

White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian / Alaska Native Two or more races
50

Exhibit A.2: Percentage of U.S. population, by age group and race and ethnicity: 2014

Age group White Black Hispanic Asian American 

Indian/Alaska 

Native

Two or more 

races

Under 18 years old 52% 14% 24% 5% 0.9% 4%

19 to 24 years old 55% 15% 21% 5% 0.9% 3%

25 to 44 years old 58% 13% 20% 7% 0.7% 2%

45 to 64 years old 69% 12% 12% 5% 0.7% 1%

65 years old 78% 9% 8% 4% 0.5% 1%

NOTE: The Asian category includes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the 

United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014.

Available at https://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2015/index.html. 

Exhibit A.3: Percentage of U.S. residents 25 years and older attaining a high school diploma, by race 

and ethnicity, and gaps between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites 25 years and older 

attaining a high school diploma: Decades from 1964 to 2014

Year White Black Hispanic Asian Black-white 

gap

Hispanicwhite gap

1964 50% 26% n/a n/a 25 points n/a

1974 63% 41% 37% n/a 23 points 27 points

1984 75% 59% 47% n/a 17 points 28 points

1994 85% 73% 53% n/a 12 points 32 points

2004 90% 81% 58% 87% 9 points 32 points

2014 93% 86% 62% 90% 7 points 27 points

NOTE: The data include GED and high school-equivalent degrees. Due to limitations in Census methodology, attainment among Asians is not 

available before 2002, and attainment among Hispanics is not available before 1974.The Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander students.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, March Current Population Survey, 1947 and 1952 to 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 2003 to 2015 (noninstitutionalized population, excluding members of the Armed Forces living in 

barracks); U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1940 and 1950.

Based on data available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html. 
51

Exhibit A.4: Percentage of U.S. residents from 25–29 years old attaining a high school diploma, by 

race and ethnicity, and gaps between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites from 25–29 years

old attaining a high school diploma: Decades from 1964 to 2014

Year White Black Hispanic Asian Black-white 

gap

Hispanicwhite gap

1964 72% 49% n/a n/a 27 points n/a

1974 83% 68% 53% n/a 15 points 31 points

1984 87% 79% 59% n/a 8 points 28 points

1994 91% 84% 60% n/a 7 points 31 points

2004 93% 88% 62% 96% 5 points 31 points

2014 96% 90% 75% 97% 6 points 21 points

NOTE: The data include GED and high school-equivalent degrees. Due to limitations in Census methodology, attainment among Asians is not 

available before 2002 and attainment among Hispanics is not available before 1974. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, March Current Population Survey, 1947 and 1952 to 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 2003 to 2015 (noninstitutionalized population, excluding members of the Armed Forces living in 

barracks); U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1940 and 1950.

Based on data available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html. 

Exhibit A.5: Percentage of U.S. residents 25–29 years old attaining a bachelor’s degree, by race and 

ethnicity, and gaps between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites from 25–29 years old

attaining a bachelor’s degree: Decades from 1964 to 2014

Year White Black Hispanic Asian Black-white 

gap

Hispanicwhite gap

1964 14% 6% n/a n/a 8 points n/a

1974 22% 8% 6% n/a 14 points 16 points

1984 23% 12% 11% n/a 12 points 13 points

1994 27% 14% 8% n/a 13 points 19 points

2004 35% 17% 11% 61% 18 points 24 points

2014 41% 22% 15% 62% 19 points 26 points

NOTE: Due to limitations in Census methodology, attainment among Asians is not available before 2002 and attainment among Hispanics is not 

available before 1974. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, March Current Population Survey, 1947 and 1952 to 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 2003 to 2015 (noninstitutionalized population, excluding members of the Armed Forces living in 

barracks). U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1940 and 1950.

Based on data available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html. 
52

Exhibit A.6: Percentage point attainment gaps between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites

25 years and older earning a bachelor’s degree: Decades from 1964 to 2014

NOTE: Due to limitations in Census methodology, attainment among Asians is not available before 2002 and attainment among Hispanics is not 

available before 1974. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, March Current Population Survey, 1947 and 1952 to 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 2003 to 2015 (noninstitutionalized population, excluding members of the Armed Forces living in 

barracks); U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1940 and 1950.

Based on data available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html. 

9 pts

12 pts

15%

19 pts

20 pts

6 pts

9 pts

9 pts

11 pts

13 pts 13 pts

0%

15%

30%

1964 1974 1984 1994 2004 2014

Attainment Gap in Percentage Points

Gap between Hispanic and white Gap between black and white
53

Exhibit A.7: Family socioeconomic status in quintiles of U.S. high school student freshmen, by race 

and ethnicity: 2009–10

Race/ethnicity First quintile 

(lowest)

Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Fifth quintile 

(highest)

Hispanic 43% 23% 15% 12% 7%

Black 26% 30% 19% 15% 10%

White 10% 17% 22% 24% 28%

Asian 14% 9% 19% 22% 35%

NOTE: The data are based on students in the 2009 High School Longitudinal Study Freshman Cohort. Asian category excludes Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09).For 

PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code ggbgbb9.

Exhibit A.8: Parental education of U.S. high school student freshmen, by race and ethnicity: 2009–10

Race/ethnicity Less than high 

school

High school Associate 

degree

Bachelor’s 

degree

Graduate 

degree

Hispanic 27% 40% 14% 12% 7%

Black 7% 49% 20% 14% 10%

White 2% 35% 16% 27% 20%

Asian 5% 23% 9% 34% 29%

NOTE: The data are based on students in the 2009 High School Longitudinal Study Freshman Cohort. High school includes completion of diploma, 

GED, and high school-equivalent degrees. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09).For 

PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve codeggbgb57.
54

The Higher Education Pipeline

Exhibit A.9: Postsecondary enrollment percentages at four-year and less than four-year institutions 

among 2013 U.S. high school graduates, and percentages of graduates not enrolled in 

postsecondary education, by family socioeconomic status in quintiles: Fall 2013

Socioeconomic status 

quintile

Enrolled at four-year 

institutions

Enrolled at less than fouryear institutionsNot enrolled

First quintile (lowest) 31% 41% 29%

Second quintile 36% 37% 27%

Third quintile 45% 33% 22%

Fourth quintile 53% 31% 16%

Fifth quintile (highest) 76% 18% 6%

NOTE: The data are based on high school graduates from the 2009 High School Longitudinal Study Freshman Cohort who enrolled in degreegranting postsecondary institutions. High school graduate includes completion of diploma, GED, and high school-equivalent degrees. 

Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09).For 

PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code bmgbge1b.

Exhibit A.10: Postsecondary enrollment percentages at four-year and less than four-year 

institutions among 2013 U.S. high school graduates, and percentages of graduates not enrolled in 

postsecondary education, by parental educational attainment: Fall 2013

Parental educational 

attainment

Enrolled at four-year 

institutions

Enrolled at less than fouryear institutionsNot enrolled

Parent(s) did not attain 

bachelor’s degree

38% 37% 25%

Parent(s) attained 

bachelor’s degree or 

higher

68% 22% 10%

NOTE: The data are based on high school graduates from the 2009 High School Longitudinal Study Freshman Cohort who enrolled in degreegranting postsecondary institutions. High school graduate includes completion of diploma, GED, and high school-equivalent degrees.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09).For 

PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code bmgbge1b.
55

Exhibit A.11: Percentage of 2013 U.S. high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary education, by

race and ethnicity and selectivity of institution: Fall 2013

NOTE: The data are based on high school graduates from the 2009 High School Longitudinal Study Freshman Cohort enrolled in degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions. High school graduate includes completion of diploma, GED, and high school-equivalent degrees. IPEDS selectivity 

code based on 2010 Carnegie classifications. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. Percentages may not add 

to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09).For 

PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code bmgbgekfa.

Exhibit A.12: Percentage of expected family contribution for U.S. undergraduate students, by race 

and ethnicity and level of contribution: Fall 2012

Race/ethnicity Zero $1 - 5,000 $5,001 - 10,000 $10,001 – 20,000 Greater than $20,000

Hispanic 47% 23% 14% 9% 9%

Black 60% 18% 9% 8% 8%

White 29% 19% 18% 18% 18%

Asian 37% 29% 21% 13% 13%

NOTE: The data are based on individuals participating in the 2012 Undergraduate National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. Asian category 

excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12). 

For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code 

bmbgec0.

10% 7%

23%

36%

21% 29%

32%

27%

16%

25%

13%

10%

52%

39%

33%

27%

0%

50%

100%

Hispanic Black White Asian

Percentage of High School Graduates Enrolled in 

Postsecondary Education

Highly selective Moderately selective Inclusive or not classified, 4-year 2-year or less
56

Exhibit A.13: Percentage of U.S. postbaccalaureate students, by race and ethnicity: Selected years from 

1980 to 2014

NOTE: The data are based on fall enrollment at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant associate degrees 

or higher and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The Asian category includes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students.

*The other category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, two or more races, and nonresident alien students. Percentages may not add to 

100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), “Fall 

Enrollment in Colleges and Universities" surveys 1980; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment Survey;” and 

IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment component.

Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.10.asp. 

84%

57%

5%

13%

2%

8%

2%

7%

6%

16%

0%

50%

100%

1980 1990 2000 2014

Percent of Postbaccalaureate Students

White Black Hispanic Asian Other*
57

Exhibit A.14: Percentage of U.S. undergraduate students, by race and ethnicity, level of institution, 

and control of institution: 2014–15

Race/ethnicity Four-year Two-year Public Private, 

non-profit

For-profit

Hispanic 47% 23% 14% 9% 9%

Black 60% 18% 9% 8% 8%

White 29% 19% 18% 18% 18%

Asian 37% 29% 21% 13% 13%

NOTE: The data are based on full-time fall enrollment at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant associate 

degrees or higher and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The Asian category includes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment component. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.50.asp. 

Exhibit A.15: Age of entering U.S. undergraduates at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by 

race and ethnicity: Fall 2011

Race/ethnicity 19 years old or younger 20–24 years old 25 years old or older

Hispanic 77% 13% 11%

Black 65% 16% 19%

White 75% 11% 14%

Asian 84% 12% 3%

NOTE: The data are based on fall enrollment at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant an associate 

degree or higher and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Interpret Asian data point on percent 25 years old or older with 

caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate. Asian category excludes Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–12 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 

First Follow-up (BPS:12/14).For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the 

QuickRetrieve code hgbc07.

Exhibit A.16: Percentage graduation rate within six years for first-time, full-time U.S. students 

seeking a bachelor’s degree, by race and ethnicity, and the graduation rate gaps between black and 

white students and Hispanic and white students, by Carnegie selectivity of the postsecondary 

institution: 2013–14

Carnegie 

selectivity

Hispanic Black White Asian Black-white 

gap

Hispanicwhite gap

Inclusive/open 

admission

39% 31% 45% 49% 15 points 7 points

Selective 50% 43% 57% 59% 14 points 7 points

More selective 76% 70% 80% 85% 10 points 3 points

NOTE: The data are based on the six year graduation rate for 2007–08 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking cohort at degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions. Includes institutions participating in Title IV financial aid programs. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Graduation Rate Survey,” 2007–08 cohort provisional data.
58

Exhibit A.17: Number of first-time, full-time U.S. students seeking a bachelor’s degree and the 

percentage of them graduating within six years, by race and ethnicity, sex, institution control, and 

Carnegie selectivity of institution: From 2007–08 through 2013–14

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, all races and 

ethnicities blank Blank blank 1,412,793 100.00% 60%

Total, American 

Indian or Alaska 

Native

Blank Blank blank 10,210 0.72% 41%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 202 0.01% 21%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women For-profit More Selective 0 0.00% N/A

American Indian or Alaska Native Women For-profit Selective 12 0.00% 33%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women Private, 

non-profit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 299 0.02% 38%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women Private, nonprofit More Selective 539 0.04% 72%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women Private, nonprofit Selective 533 0.04% 44%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 993 0.07% 27%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women Public More Selective 900 0.06% 67%

American Indian or Alaska Native Women Public Selective 2,376 0.17% 38%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men For-profit N/A 4 0.00% 25%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 128 0.01% 17%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men For-profit More Selective 0 0.00% N/A

American Indian or Alaska Native Men For-profit Selective 37 0.00% 27%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Private, 

non-profit N/A 244 0.02% 59%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 455 0.03% 42%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Private, nonprofit More Selective 73 0.01% 55%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Private, nonprofit Selective 209 0.01% 35%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Public N/A 1,656 0.12% 47%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 1,260 0.09% 28%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Public More Selective 113 0.01% 35%

American Indian or Alaska Native Men Public Selective 177 0.01% 27%
59

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, Asian blank Blank blank 90,680 6.42% 71%

Asian Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 569 0.04% 46%

Asian Women For-profit More Selective 1 0.00% 0%

Asian Women For-profit Selective 9 0.00% 33%

Asian Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 1,688 0.12% 62%

Asian Women Private, non-profit More Selective 9,139 0.65% 88%

Asian Women Private, non-profit Selective 3,225 0.23% 64%

Asian Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 3,168 0.22% 49%

Asian Women Public More Selective 15,904 1.13% 86%

Asian Women Public Selective 13,984 0.99% 63%

Asian Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 622 0.04% 46%

Asian Men For-profit More Selective 16 0.00% 63%

Asian Men For-profit Selective 3 0.00% 33%

Asian Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 1,135 0.08% 53%

Asian Men Private, non-profit More Selective 7,594 0.54% 85%

Asian Men Private, non-profit Selective 2,284 0.16% 57%

Asian Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 2,895 0.20% 41%

Asian Men Public More Selective 15,064 1.07% 81%

Asian Men Public Selective 13,380 0.95% 55%
60

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, Black or 

African American Blank Blank blank 161,646 11.44% 41%

Black or African American Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 5,470 0.39% 19%

Black or African American Women For-profit More Selective 3 0.00% 0%

Black or African American Women For-profit Selective 395 0.03% 42%

Black or African American Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 11,980 0.85% 38%

Black or African American Women Private, non-profit More Selective 5,870 0.42% 75%

Black or African American Women Private, non-profit Selective 9,474 0.67% 50%

Black or African American Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 27,055 1.92% 36%

Black or African American Women Public More Selective 8,971 0.63% 72%

Black or African American Women Public Selective 26,213 1.86% 46%

Black or African American Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 3,542 0.25% 19%

Black or African American Men For-profit More Selective 12 0.00% 33%

Black or African American Men For-profit Selective 155 0.01% 37%

Black or African American Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 9,177 0.65% 27%

Black or African American Men Private, non-profit More Selective 4,265 0.30% 66%

Black or African American Men Private, non-profit Selective 7,264 0.51% 39%

Black or African American Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 18,954 1.34% 26%

Black or African American Men Public More Selective 6,163 0.44% 63%

Black or African American Men Public Selective 16,683 1.18% 36%
61

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, Hispanic 

or Latino/a Blank Blank blank 122,489 8.67% 54%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 3,418 0.24% 34%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women For-profit More Selective 0 0.00% N/A

Hispanic or Latino/a Women For-profit Selective 171 0.01% 61%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 3,791 0.27% 48%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women Private, non-profit More Selective 7,563 0.54% 82%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women Private, non-profit Selective 7,177 0.51% 56%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 13,718 0.97% 43%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women Public More Selective 10,886 0.77% 78%

Hispanic or Latino/a Women Public Selective 23,089 1.63% 54%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 3,127 0.22% 32%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men For-profit More Selective 19 0.00% 37%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men For-profit Selective 65 0.00% 48%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 2,675 0.19% 37%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men Private, non-profit More Selective 5,742 0.41% 77%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men Private, non-profit Selective 4,764 0.34% 47%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 9,948 0.70% 33%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men Public More Selective 8,713 0.62% 70%

Hispanic or Latino/a Men Public Selective 17,623 1.25% 44%
62

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, Native 

Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific 

Islander

Blank Blank blank 2,501 0.18% 50%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 160 0.01% 24%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women For-profit More Selective 0 0.00% N/A

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women For-profit Selective 2 0.00% 100%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 111 0.01% 45%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women Private, non-profit More Selective 134 0.01% 80%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women Private, non-profit Selective 138 0.01% 57%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 300 0.02% 33%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women Public More Selective 143 0.01% 84%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Women Public Selective 500 0.04% 51%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 67 0.00% 28%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men For-profit More Selective 1 0.00% 100%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men For-profit Selective 0 0.00% N/A

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 90 0.01% 60%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men Private, non-profit More Selective 86 0.01% 79%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men Private, non-profit Selective 96 0.01% 51%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 166 0.01% 28%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men Public More Selective 142 0.01% 77%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander Men Public Selective 365 0.03% 45%
63

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, 

Nonresident Blank Blank blank 36,199 2.56% 66%

Total, Nonresident Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 417 0.03% 47%

Total, Nonresident Women For-profit More Selective 5 0.00% 100%

Total, Nonresident Women For-profit Selective 38 0.00% 74%

Total, Nonresident Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 1,354 0.10% 61%

Total, Nonresident Women Private, non-profit More Selective 4,717 0.33% 86%

Total, Nonresident Women Private, non-profit Selective 2,005 0.14% 65%

Total, Nonresident Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 1,343 0.10% 43%

Total, Nonresident Women Public More Selective 3,692 0.26% 80%

Total, Nonresident Women Public Selective 3,242 0.23% 58%

Total, Nonresident Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 354 0.03% 32%

Total, Nonresident Men For-profit More Selective 12 0.00% 58%

Total, Nonresident Men For-profit Selective 23 0.00% 57%

Total, Nonresident Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 1,723 0.12% 57%

Total, Nonresident Men Private, non-profit More Selective 4,870 0.34% 79%

Total, Nonresident Men Private, non-profit Selective 2,233 0.16% 57%

Total, Nonresident Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 1,531 0.11% 38%

Total, Nonresident Men Public More Selective 4,730 0.33% 70%

Total, Nonresident Men Public Selective 3,910 0.28% 50%
64

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, Two Or 

More Races Blank Blank blank 11,485 0.81% 65%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 102 0.01% 44%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women For-profit More Selective 4 0.00% 75%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women For-profit Selective 2 0.00% 50%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 554 0.04% 50%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women Private, non-profit More Selective 1,880 0.13% 86%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women Private, non-profit Selective 980 0.07% 65%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 445 0.03% 37%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women Public More Selective 893 0.06% 85%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Women Public Selective 1,915 0.14% 58%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 138 0.01% 33%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men For-profit More Selective 10 0.00% 40%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men For-profit Selective 3 0.00% 0%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 301 0.02% 46%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men Private, non-profit More Selective 1,187 0.08% 83%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men Private, non-profit Selective 568 0.04% 64%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 298 0.02% 31%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men Public More Selective 789 0.06% 78%

Total, Two Or More 

Races Men Public Selective 1,416 0.10% 48%
65

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, Unknown Blank Blank blank 78,741 5.57% 52%

Total, Unknown Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 6,370 0.45% 16%

Total, Unknown Women For-profit More Selective 6 0.00% 67%

Total, Unknown Women For-profit Selective 108 0.01% 28%

Total, Unknown Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 3,655 0.26% 48%

Total, Unknown Women Private, non-profit More Selective 7,682 0.54% 79%

Total, Unknown Women Private, non-profit Selective 6,038 0.43% 52%

Total, Unknown Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 3,224 0.23% 39%

Total, Unknown Women Public More Selective 5,780 0.41% 81%

Total, Unknown Women Public Selective 9,754 0.69% 55%

Total, Unknown Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 5,018 0.36% 16%

Total, Unknown Men For-profit More Selective 39 0.00% 36%

Total, Unknown Men For-profit Selective 84 0.01% 42%

Total, Unknown Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 2,827 0.20% 37%

Total, Unknown Men Private, non-profit More Selective 6,376 0.45% 78%

Total, Unknown Men Private, non-profit Selective 4,999 0.35% 43%

Total, Unknown Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 2,582 0.18% 33%

Total, Unknown Men Public More Selective 5,625 0.40% 74%

Total, Unknown Men Public Selective 8,574 0.61% 46%
66

Race/ethnicity Sex

Institution 

Control

Carnegie 

Selectivity

# First-Time, 

Full-Time 

Bachelor's 

Students

Percentage of 

First-Time, Fulltime Bachelor's 

Cohort

Graduation 

rate

Total, White N/Ablank Blank blank 908,850 64.33% 63%

Total, White Women For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 7,093 0.50% 35%

Total, White Women For-profit More Selective 18 0.00% 17%

Total, White Women For-profit Selective 593 0.04% 31%

Total, White Women Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 23,862 1.69% 55%

Total, White Women Private, non-profit More Selective 68,993 4.88% 83%

Total, White Women Private, non-profit Selective 72,479 5.13% 65%

Total, White Women Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 36,203 2.56% 46%

Total, White Women Public More Selective 104,310 7.38% 81%

Total, White Women Public Selective 175,408 12.42% 59%

Total, White Men For-profit Inclusive/Open 

admission 7,445 0.53% 40%

Total, White Men For-profit More Selective 195 0.01% 40%

Total, White Men For-profit Selective 309 0.02% 34%

Total, White Men Private, nonprofit

Inclusive/Open 

admission 20,800 1.47% 47%

Total, White Men Private, non-profit More Selective 58,233 4.12% 80%

Total, White Men Private, non-profit Selective 52,898 3.74% 57%

Total, White Men Public Inclusive/Open 

admission 31,050 2.20% 39%

Total, White Men Public More Selective 98,877 7.00% 76%

Total, White Men Public Selective 150,084 10.62% 51%

NOTE: The data are based on the six-year graduation rate for 2007-08 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking cohort. Aggregate 

graduation rates for each race and ethnicity category are based on first-look report and include several institutions not participating in Title IV

aid programs. Thus, disaggregated graduation rates by sex, institution control, and Carnegie Selectivity may not sum to total graduation rates 

by race and ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Based on data available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 
67

Exhibit A.18: Percentage of U.S. students attaining degrees within four years of postsecondary 

enrollment, by race and ethnicity and type of degree: From 2003–04 through 2006–07 

Race/ethnicity Attained 

bachelor’s 

degree

Attained 

associate 

degree

Attained 

certificate

No degree, still 

enrolled

No degree, not 

enrolled, or left 

without return

Hispanic 5% 7% 15% 29% 44%

Black 5% 5% 11% 35% 44%

White 18% 9% 7% 33% 34%

Asian 24% 8% 4% 44% 20%

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2003–04 beginning postsecondary study cohort. Asian category excludes Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 

Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use 

the QuickRetrieve code hgbgce0.

Exhibit A.19: Percentage of U.S. students attaining degrees within six years of postsecondary 

enrollment, by type of degree, and income quartile of parents: From 2003–04 through 2008–09

Income Quartile 

of Parents

Attained 

bachelor’s 

degree

Attained 

associate 

degree

Attained 

certificate

No degree, still 

enrolled

No degree, not 

enrolled, or left 

without return

Low 20% 8% 13% 16% 43%

Low middle 26% 11% 11% 17% 36%

High middle 33% 9% 9% 15% 34%

High 44% 9% 6% 12% 29%

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2003–04 beginning postsecondary study cohort.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 

Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use 

the QuickRetrieve code hgbgeb2.
68

Exhibit A.20: Percentage of U.S. students attaining degrees within six years of postsecondary 

enrollment, by degree type and parental education: From 2003–04 through 2008–09

Parental educational 

attainment

Attained 

bachelor’s 

degree

Attained 

associate 

degree

Attained 

certificate

No degree, still 

enrolled

No degree, not 

enrolled or left 

without return

Parent(s) did not attain 

bachelor’s degree

20% 11% 12% 15% 41%

Parent(s) attained 

bachelor’s degree or 

higher

49% 7% 4% 14% 26%

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2003–04 beginning postsecondary study cohort. Percentages may not add to 100 

percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 

Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use 

the QuickRetrieve code hgbgeb2.

Exhibit A.21: Number of degrees awarded, by race and ethnicity and degree type: 2013–14

Degree type Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctor’s

Hispanic 167,120 202,412 55,965 10,665

Black 134,483 191,218 88,515 12,615

White 601,383 1,218,792 444,700 110,156

Asian 50,333 131,680 44,613 19,118

NOTE: The data are based on degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant associate degrees or higher and 

participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data have been revised from 

previously published figures. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

“Completions Survey”; and IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall 2014, Completions component. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 

Exhibit A.22: Percentage of degrees awarded, by race and ethnicity and degree type: 2013–14

Race/Ethnicity Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctor’s

Hispanic 38% 46% 13% 3%

Black 31% 45% 21% 3%

White 25% 51% 19% 5%

Asian 20% 54% 18% 8%

NOTE: The data are based on degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant an associate degree or higher and 

participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data have been revised from 

previously published figures. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

“Completions Survey”; and IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall 2014, Completions component. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
69

Exhibit A.23: Percentage graduation rates for first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking U.S. 

students six years after initial enrollment, by categories of small populations of students of color

and sex, and graduation rate gaps between each small population category and whites and Asians: 

2013–14

Race/Ethnicity Total Men Women Gap relative 

to whites

Gap relative 

to Asians

American Indian/Alaska 

Native

41% 43% 39% 22 points 30 points

Native Hawaiian/Other

Pacific Islander

50% 50% 50% 13 points 21 points

Two or more races 65% 68% 62% None 6 points

NOTE: The data are based on the six year graduation rate for 2007–08 first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking cohort. Transfer-out 

students are counted as not graduating. Includes institutions that participate in Title IV financial programs and four institutions not participating 

in Title IV programs. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students. 

SOURCE: Ginder, S.A., Kelly-Reid, J.E., and Mann, F.B. (2015). Graduation Rates for Selected Cohorts, 2006–11; Student Financial Aid, Academic 

Year 2013–14; and Admissions in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2014: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2015-181). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. See table 1 at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015181.pdf. 

Exhibit A.24: Percentage graduation rates for first-time, full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking U.S. 

students six years after initial postsecondary enrollment, by race and ethnicity and parental 

education: From 2003–04 through 2008–09

Parental educational 

attainment

Hispanic Black White Asian

Parent(s) did not attain 

bachelor’s degree

14% 12% 23% 33%

Parent(s) attained bachelor’s 

degree or higher

29% 32% 54% 61%

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2003–04 beginning postsecondary study cohort. Asian category excludes Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 

Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use 

the QuickRetrieve code bhhbgdf20.
70

Exhibit A.25: Total annual salary of bachelor’s degree recipients four years after graduation, by race 

and ethnicity and parental education: 2012

Parental educational 

attainment

Hispanic Black White Asian

Parent(s) did not attain 

bachelor’s degree

$34,946 $32,715 $39,248 $37,365

Parent(s) attained bachelor’s 

degree or higher

$30,411 $32,149 $39,788 $39,424

NOTE: The data are based on students participating in the 2007–08 Baccalaureate and Beyond study. Family income percentiles are grouped by 

quartiles among both independent and dependent students at time of graduation. Figures also exclude foreign students. Asian category 

excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2008/12 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

(B&B:08/12). For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates above in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve 

code bhhbgef5.
71

Appendix B: Academic Level of Degrees Conferred to Students of Color

In 2013–14, nearly two out of three associate and bachelor’s degrees were awarded to white 

students.

Exhibit B.1 shows that, due to disparities at each step of the higher education pipeline, the racial and 

ethnic composition of students completing undergraduate and graduate degrees in 2013–14 was still 

predominantly white; a similar disparity did not exist for students completing associate degrees, which 

are a common pathway for students of color. The percentage of associate degrees awarded by race and 

ethnicity was 60 percent white, 17 percent Hispanic, 13 percent black, 5 percent Asian, and 5 percent 

some other race and ethnicity category.175 Most bachelor’s degrees were conferred to white students: 

two-thirds of degrees were awarded to white students, 11 percent to Hispanic students, 10 percent to

black students, 7 percent to Asian students, and 7 percent to students of another race and ethnicity

category. Yet, during this time, only 55 percent of undergraduates were white. Even smaller percentages 

of the total master’s and doctor’s degrees were conferred to Hispanic and black students compared with 

undergraduate degrees.

In spite of the disparities in postsecondary completion by race and ethnicity, it is important to note that 

the diversity of college graduates has increased substantially over the last four decades.176 There are 

also nuances in the composition of degree completions by the level of award.

Associate degrees account for almost two out of five degrees conferred to Hispanic students.

The number (exhibit A.21) and percentage of degrees (exhibit A.22) conferred to Hispanic students by 

degree level suggests both four-year and two-year programs serve as common pathways for Hispanic 

undergraduate students. In 2013–14, 38 percent of degrees awarded to Hispanic students were 

associate degrees and 46 percent were bachelor’s degrees. About one in six were degrees conferred at 

the master’s or doctor’s level.

Bachelor’s degrees are more commonly awarded to black, white, and Asian graduates than to 

Hispanic graduates.

In contrast, bachelor’s degree completions account for a higher share of total completions among black 

students than Hispanic students. In 2013–14, 31 percent of degrees awarded to black students were 

associate degrees, compared with 45 percent awarded as bachelor’s degrees. Graduate degrees were 

also somewhat more common among black students, accounting for nearly one-quarter of degree 

completions in 2013–14. Among white and Asian graduates, bachelor’s degrees accounted for an even 

higher share of total degree completion, while graduate degrees accounted for about one-quarter of all 

completions.
72

Exhibit B.1: Percentage of degree completions, by race and ethnicity and degree type, and total 

number of degree completions, by degree type: 2013–14

NOTE: The data are based on degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant associate degrees or higher and 

participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Reported racial and ethnic 

distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, and sex were used to estimate race and ethnicity for students whose race and 

ethnicity was not reported. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

The Asian category includes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders. *The Other category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, two or more 

races, and nonresident alien students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

“Completions Survey”; and IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall 2014, Completions component.

Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 

17%

11% 7% 6%

13%

10%

12%

7%

5%

7%

16%

14%

60%

65%

59%

62%

5% 7% 6%

11%

0%

50%

100%

Associate

(Total = 1,003,364)

Bachelor's

(Total = 1,869,814)

Master's

(Total = 754,475)

Doctor's

(Total = 177,580)

Percent of Degree Completions

Hispanic Black Other* White Asian
73

Appendix C: Faculty Diversity

In addition to student diversity and opportunity, the Department also collects data on tenure and nontenure track faculty by race and ethnicity. Disparities in the percentage of faculty of color versus white 

are similar to disparities among postsecondary students. In 2013–14, fewer than one in 10 instructional 

faculty were either black or Hispanic. Figure C.1 shows the racial and ethnic diversity of full-time

instructional faculty by tenure status. In 2013–14, 74 percent of the faculty members were white, but 

only 4 percent and 5 percent were Hispanic and black, respectively. Trends were similar across other 

faculty status categories. For instance, among the professors who were tenure track but had not yet 

gained tenure, 65 percent were white, 5 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were black, 11 percent were 

Asian, and 13 percent fell in another category. Moreover, already tenured faculty members were even 

more predominantly white at 77 percent.

Exhibit C.1: Percentage of higher education full-time instructional staff, by race and ethnicity and 

tenure status, and total number of faculty by status: 2013–14

NOTE: The data are based on degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant associate degrees or higher and 

participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. *The other category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific

Islander, two or more races, nonresidents, and unknown. Asian category excludes Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Percentages may not 

add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

“Human Resources Survey,” academic year 2013–14. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 

4% 4% 5% 4%

5% 5% 6% 6%

7% 4%

13%

8%

74% 77%

65% 74%

9% 9% 11% 7%

0%

50%

100%

Total Faculty

(Total = 583,445)

Tenured

(Total = 266,441)

Tenure track, not tenured

(Total = 112,152)

Not tenure track

(Total = 204,852)

Percent of Full-time Instructional Staff with Faculty Status

Hispanic Black Other* White Asian
74

The percentage of faculty of color has gradually increased. 

Since 1993, the percentage of faculty of color has gradually increased, especially for Asians and 

Hispanics. From fall 1993 to academic year 2013–14, the percentage of faculty who reported as Asian 

nearly doubled from 5 percent to 9 percent and the percentage of Hispanic faculty increased from 3 

percent to 5 percent. The percentage of black professors also increased, but at a slower rate — 

increasing from 4 percent to 6 percent (see exhibit C.2). Recently, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity 

Association (TIAA Institute) published a report examining trends in faculty diversity by race and ethnicity 

and gender. The report found that the fastest growth in faculty occurred in the non-tenure track or parttime categories from 1993 to 2013.177 As a result, while the composition of instructional faculty has 

become more diverse over time, the most progress has been made among non-tenure track and parttime faculty.178 The authors also concluded that, on average, there is a higher percentage of faculty 

members of color at two-year, public, and less selective institutions compared to four-year, private 

(non-profit), and more selective institutions.179

Exhibit C.2: Number and percentages of full-time faculty at degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by race and ethnicity: Fall 1993

NOTE: The data are based on degree-granting postsecondary institutions, which are institutions that grant associate degrees or higher and 

participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Includes “research” and “public service faculty.” Asian includes Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander. *The Other category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, nonresidents, and unknown.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

“Human Resources Survey,” fall 1993. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 

450,300, 81%

24,517, 4%

17,351, 3%

24,578, 5%

37,935, 7%

White Black Hispanic Asian Other*
75

Appendix D: Postsecondary Data on Equity and Student Success

Below are examples of measures available from the U.S. Department of Education that could help shed 

light on trends in equity and student success throughout the higher education diversity pipeline.

Measures Disaggregated by Race and Ethnicity

Measures Description Availability Source

Unmet financial 

need

Financial need is equivalent to total cost of 

attendance (including tuition, fees, books, 

materials, and cost of living) minus expected family 

contribution.

Infrequent, student level 

(national sample)

National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study

Total enrollment Percentage of students of each race and ethnicity 

enrolled. Desegregations by sex and academic level 

also available.

Annual, institution level The Integrate Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS)

Enrollment by major Percentage of students enrolled in each 

undergraduate major. Desegregations by sex also 

available. 

Every two years, 

institution level (four-year 

schools only)

IPEDS

Persistence / 

retention

Percentage of students who continue to enroll in a 

postsecondary program at any institutions 

(persistence) or continue to enroll at the same 

institution (retention).

Infrequent, student level 

(national sample)

Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study

Educational 

attainment after 

enrollment

Level of educational attainment students attain 

after one to six years, including categories 

bachelor’s, associate’s, certificate, still enrolled (but 

no degree), and not enrolled (no degree).

Infrequent, student level 

(national sample)

Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study

Graduation rate 150% bachelor's cohort graduation rate for fouryear institutions. In IPEDS, bachelor’s-seeking 

students are considered to have graduated "on 

time" if they graduate within 6 years.

Annual, institution level 

(bachelor’s-seeking 

student only)

IPEDS

Degree completions Total number of degree conferred for each level of 

degree and major by race and ethnicity. 

Desegregations by sex also available.

Annual, institution level IPEDS

Measures Disaggregated by Socioeconomic Status

Measures Description Availability Source

Unmet financial 

need

Financial need is equivalent to total cost of 

attendance (including tuition, fees, books, 

materials, and cost of living) minus expected family 

contribution. Can be disaggregated by income and 

highest level of parental education.

Less than annual, student 

level (national sample)

National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study

Total enrollment Percentage of undergraduates who receive a Pell 

grant.

Annual, institution level IPEDS

Enrollment by major Percentage of students enrolled in each 

undergraduate major by income and highest level 

of parental education.

Less than annual, student 

level (national sample)

Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study

Persistence / 

retention

Percentage of students who continue to enroll in a 

postsecondary program at any institutions 

(persistence) or continue to enroll at the same 

institution (retention) by income and highest level 

of parental education.

Infrequent, student level 

(national sample)

Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study

Educational 

attainment after 

enrollment

Level of educational attainment students attain 

after one to six years, including categories 

bachelor’s, associate, certificate, still enrolled (but 

no degree), and not enrolled (no degree) by income 

and highest level of parental education.

Infrequent, student level 

(national sample)

Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study
76

Appendix E: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Definitions of Race 

and Ethnicity Categories

This report presents information from federal data sources that define race and ethnicity categories 

according to OMB Directive 15 as adopted in 1997. In most cases, the data available are disaggregated 

by the following standard categories as defined by the OMB guidance: 

• American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or 

community attachment.

• Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or 

the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, 

Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

• Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. 

Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “Black or African American.”

• Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or 

other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term “Spanish origin” can be used in 

addition to “Hispanic or Latino.”

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples 

of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

• White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or 

North Africa.

For brevity, the exhibits in this report refer to “Black or African American” and “Hispanic or Latino” as 

“black” and “Hispanic,” respectively. Whenever possible, the figures for the Asian category are 

separated from figures on Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. However, before OMB Directive 15 

was fully implemented, these two groups were typically grouped into the same race and ethnicity 

category. For instance, IPEDS transitioned to OMB Directive 15 between the 2008 collection and the 

2010 collection, being fully compliant in the 2011–12 collection cycles. During the three transition 

years, institutions could report under the old race and ethnic coding or the new race ethnic coding with 

all institutions reporting the new coding structure in 2011–12. In those cases, exhibits refer to the 

category as “Asian,” but also note that the figures include Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. In 

a few cases, this report only displays data after the early 2000s to allow for better comparability over 

time.

Before the 1970s, the Census sources cited in this report did not track statistics on Hispanic individuals 

as a distinct ethnic category. Thus, Hispanics fell into the American Indian or Alaskan Native, black, Asian 

or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and white categories. Moreover, because Hispanic was 

considered an ethnicity category (rather than race), some figures reported from the 1970s and 1980s 

double count these individuals in both the Hispanic (ethnic) category and one of the other (race) 

categories. Figures from 1994 onwards provide unduplicated statistics on these individuals.
77

Endnotes

 

1 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Employment Status of the Civilian Population 25 

Years and Over by Educational Attainment [Data file]. Available at 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm. 2 Leonhardt, David. “Is College Worth It? Clearly, New Data Say,” The New York Times, (May 27, 2014). Available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-new-data-say.html. 3 Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl (2013). Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements 

Through 2020. (Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Policy Institute Center on Education and the Workforce), 1-14. 

Available at https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.FR_.Web_.pdf. 4 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2014). Median Annual Earnings of 

Full-Time Year-Round Workers 25 to 34 Years Old and Full-Time Year-Round Workers as a Percentage of the Labor 

Force, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Educational Attainment: Selected Years, 1995 Through 2013 [Data file]. Available 

at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_502.30.asp. 5 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional 

Population 25 Years and Over by Educational Attainment, Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity [Data file]. 

Available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm. 6 Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl (2013). Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements 

Through 2020. (Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Policy Institute Center on Education and the Workforce), 1-14. 

Available at https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.FR_.Web_.pdf. 7 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2014

(NCES 2016-006), Chapter 2. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84. 8 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2014

(NCES 2016-006), Chapter 3. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/ch_3.asp. 9 Brief for the NAACP LDF, pp. 20 and 29 of Justice Alito’s dissent, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (II), 579 

U.S. (2016). Available at http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/14-

981%20bsac%20The%20Black%20Student%20Alliance%20at%20the%20University%20of%20Texas%20at%20Austi

n%20et%20al._1_1.pdf. 10 Thelin, John R. (2013). A History of American Higher Education. (Baltimore, MD: JHU Press). 11 E.g., Anthony Lising Antonio, Mitchell J. Chang, Kenji Hakuta, David A. Kenny, Shana Levin, and Jeffrey F. Milem. 

“Effects of Racial Diversity on Complex Thinking in College Students,” Psychological Science 15(8) (2004): 507-10; 

Hurtado, Sylvia and Chelsea Guillermo-Wann (2013). Diverse Learning Environments: Assessing and Creating 

Conditions for Student Success – Final Report to the Ford Foundation. (Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los 

Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute). 12 While outside the data focus of this report, we note that recent data from the U.S. Department of Education’s 

2013-14 Civil Rights Data Collection also spotlight disparities that occur much earlier in the pipeline — such as gaps 

by race and ethnicity in access to high rigor and accelerated high school courses.

13 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009). High School Longitudinal Study of 

2009 (HSLS:09). For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates in PowerStats 

(https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code ggbgbb9. 14 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009). High School Longitudinal Study of 

2009 (HSLS:09). Available at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsls09/. 15 Bailey, Martha and Susan Dynarski (2011). Gains and Gaps: Changing Inequality in U.S. College Entry and 

Completion. (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research). Available at 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17633.pdf. 16 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Educational Attainment. 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). Available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp. 10 Musu-Gillette, Lauren, Jennifer Robinson, Joel McFarland, Angelina KewalRamani, Anlan Zhang, Sidney 

Wilkinson-Flicker (2016). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). 
78

 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). Available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016007.pdf. 18 Espinosa, Lorelle, Hollie Chessman, and Lindsay Wayt. “Racial Climate on Campus: A Survey of College 

Presidents,” Higher Education Today, (March 8, 2016). Available at https://higheredtoday.org/2016/03/08/racialclimate-on-campus-a-survey-of-college-presidents/. 19 Burd, Stephen (2013). Undermining Pell: How Colleges Compete for Wealthy Students and Leave the Low-Income

Behind. (Sacramento, CA: New America). Available at https://www.newamerica.org/documents/821/underminingpell. 20 Burd, Stephen (2014). Undermining Pell: Volume II: How Colleges’ Pursuit of Prestige and Revenue Is Hurting 

Low-Income Students. (Sacramento, CA: New America). Available at 

https://www.newamerica.org/documents/820/undermining-pell-volume-ii. 21 Burd, Stephen (2016). Undermining Pell: Volume III: The News Keeps Getting Worse for Low-Income Students. 

(Sacramento, CA: New America). Available at https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policypapers/undermining-pell-volume-iii/. 22 “The Most Economically Diverse Top Colleges,” The Upshot, The New York Times (Sept. 9, 2014). Available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/09/upshot/09up-college-access-index.html?_r=0. 23 “Top Colleges Doing the Most for Low-Income Students,” The Upshot, The New York Times (Sept. 17, 2015). 

Available at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/17/upshot/top-colleges-doing-the-most-for-lowincome-students.html. 24 Nichols, Andrew (2015). The Pell Partnership: Ensuring a Shared Responsibility for Low-Income Student Success. 

(Washington, DC: The Education Trust). Available at https://edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/ThePellPartnership_EdTrust_20152.pdf. 25 Campbell, Colleen and Mamie Voight (2015). Serving Their Share: Some Colleges Could Be Doing a Much Better 

Job Enrolling and Graduating Low-Income Students. (Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy). 

Available at http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/ihep_washington_monthly_final_1.pdf. 26 Giancola, Jennifer and Richard D. Kahlenberg (2016). True Merit: Ensuring Our Brightest Students Have Access to 

Our Best Colleges and Universities. (Leesburg, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation). Available at 

http://www.jkcf.org/assets/1/7/JKCF_True_Merit_Report.pdf. 27 Jones, Jeffrey M (2016). “College Presidents Still Report Positive Race Relations on Campus.” Gallup. Available at 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190535/college-presidents-report-positive-race-relations-campus.aspx. 28 Myers, Ben. “The Flagship Diversity Divide,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, (Jan. 5, 2016). Available at 

http://chronicle.com/interactives/flagship-diversity. 29 See Culturally Engaging Campus Environments. http://cece.indiana.edu/. 30 Espinosa, Lorelle, Hollie Chessman, and Lindsay Way (2016). “Racial Climate on Campus: A Survey of College 

Presidents.” (Washington, DC: American Council on Education). Available at 

https://higheredtoday.org/2016/03/08/racial-climate-on-campus-a-survey-of-college-presidents/. 31 Gaertner, Matthew N. (2014). “Advancing College Access With Class-Based Affirmative Action: The Colorado 

Case,” in The Future of Affirmative Action: New Paths to Higher Education Diversity After Fisher v. University of 

Texas, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg, 175-186. (New York, NY: The Century Foundation Press). Available at 

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/14_Advancing-College-Access-with-Class-Based-Affirmative-Action.pdf. 32 U.S. Department of Education (2016). Fulfilling the Promise, Serving the Need: Advancing College Opportunity for 

Low-Income Students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/advancing-college-opportunity.pdf. 33 The Executive Office of the President, The White House (2014). Increasing College Opportunity for Low-Income 

Students: Promising Models and a Call to Action. (Washington, DC: The White House). Available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/increasing_college_opportunity_for_lowincome_students_report.pdf. 34 Colby, Sandra L. and Jennifer M. Ortman (2015). Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population; 

2014 to 2060. (Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau). Available at

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf. 
79

 35 Musu-Gillette, Lauren, Jennifer Robinson, Joel McFarland, Angelina KewalRomani, Anlan Zhang, and Sidney 

Wilkinson-Flicker (2016). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016. (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; and American Institute for Research). 36 But the gap between white and black students did not change during this period. Source: Musu-Gillette, Lauren, 

Jennifer Robinson, Joel McFarland, Angelina KewalRomani, Anlan Zhang, and Sidney Wilkinson-Flicke (2016). Status 

and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics; and American Institute for Research). 37 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Employment Status of the Civilian Population 25 

Years and Over by Educational Attainment [Data file]. Available at 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm. 38 Carnevale, Anthony, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish (2016). America’s Divided Recovery: College Haves

and Have-Nots. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce). Available at 

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Americas-Divided-Recovery-web.pdf. 39 Western, Bruce, and Becky Pettit). “Incarceration and Social Inequality,” Dædalus, (Summer 2010): 8-19. 

Available at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/DAED_a_00019. 40 Corak, Miles (2010). Chasing the Same Dream, Climbing Different Ladders: Economic Mobility in the United 

States and Canada. (Washington, DC: Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts). Available at

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/chasing-the-same-dream-climbingdifferent-ladders. 41 Ibid. 42 Haskins, Ron, Harry Holzer, and Robert Lerman (2009). “Figure 2: Chances of Getting Ahead for Adult Children

With and Without a College Degree From Families of Varying Income,” in Promoting Economic Mobility by 

Increasing Postsecondary Education. (Washington, DC: Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts). 

Available at http://www.urban.org/research/publication/promoting-economic-mobility-increasing-postsecondaryeducation/view/full_report. 43 Lopoo, Leonard (2012). Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations. (Washington, DC: 

The Pew Charitable Trusts). Available at 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf. 44 Ibid. 45 Flores, Stella M., Toby J. Park, and Dominique J. Baker (forthcoming). The Racial College Completion Gap: 

Evidence from Texas. (Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project at UCLA). 46 Johnson, Rucker C. (Jan. 2011). “Long-Run Impacts of School Desegregation and School Quality on Adult 

Attainment,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 16664. Available at 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16664. 47 Buka, Stephen L., Theresa L. Stichick, Isolde Birdthistle, and Felton J. Earls. “Youth Exposure to Violence: 

Prevalence, Risks, and Consequences,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 71(3) (2001): 298–310. 48 Burdick-Will, Julia, Jens Ludwig, Stephen W. Raudenbush, Robert J. Sampson, Lisa Sonbonmatsu, and Patrick 

Sharkey (2010). Converging Evidence for Neighborhood Effects on Children’s Test Scores: An Experimental, QuasiExperimental, and Observational Comparison. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Project on Social Inequality 

and Educational Disadvantage). Available at http://cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/education/files/2010/03/BurdickWill-Ed-Workshop-20100301.pdf. 49 Farah, Martha J., David M. Shera, Jessiva H. Savage, Laura Betancourt, Joan M. Giannetta, Nancy L. Brodsky, and 

Hallam Hurt. “Childhood Poverty: Specific Associations With Neurocognitive Development,” Brain Research

1110(1) (2006): 166-174. 50 Sampson, Robert J., Patrick Sharkey, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. “Durable Effects of Concentrated 

Disadvantage on Verbal Ability Among African-American Children,” Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 105(3) (2008): 845-852. 51 Orfield, Gary (2009). Reviving the Goal of an Integrated Society: A 21st Century Challenge. (Los Angeles, CA: The 

Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles). Available at http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-
80

 

education/integration-and-diversity/reviving-the-goal-of-an-integrated-society-a-21st-century-challenge/orfieldreviving-the-goal-mlk-2009.pdf. 52 Orfield, Gary and Erica Frankenberg with Jongyeon Ee and John Kuscera (2014). Brown at 60: Great Progress, a 

Long Retreat and an Uncertain Future. (Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles). 

Available at http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/brown-at-60-

great-progress-a-long-retreat-and-an-uncertain-future/Brown-at-60-051814.pdf. 53 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2016). 2013-2014 Civil Rights Data Collection: A First Look. 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education). Available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf. 54 Ibid. 55 Bryan, Julia, Cheryl Moore-Thomas, Norma L. Day-Vines, and Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy. “School Counselors as 

Social Capital: The Effects of High School College Counseling on College Application Rates,” Journal of Counseling 

and Development 89(2) (2011): 190-199. 56 Hurwitz, Michael and Jessica Howell. “Estimating Causal Impacts of School Counselors with Regression 

Discontinuity Designs,” Journal of Counseling and Development 92(3) (2014): 259-372. 57 Pham, Chung and Tracy Keenan . “Counseling and College Matriculation: Does the Availability of Counseling

affect College-Going Decisions Among Highly Qualified First-Generational College-Bound High School Graduates?” 

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research 1 (2011). 58 Bryan, Julia, Cheryl Moore-Thomas, Norma L. Day-Vines, and Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy. “School Counselors as 

Social Capital: The Effects of High School College Counseling on College Application Rates,” Journal of Counseling 

and Development 89(2) (2011): 190-199. 59 Castleman, Benjamin L., Lindsay C. Page, and Korynn Schooley. “The Forgotten Summer: Does the Offer of 

College Counseling After High School Mitigate Summer Melt Among College-Intending, Low-Income High School 

Graduates?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(2) (2014): 320-344. 60 Hurwitz, Michael and Jessica Howell. “Estimating Causal Impacts of School Counselors with Regression 

Discontinuity Designs,” Journal of Counseling and Development 92(3) (2014): 259-372. 61 Pham, Chung, and Tracy Keenan. “Counseling and College Matriculation: Does the Availability of Counseling 

Affect College-Going Decisions Among Highly Qualified First-Generation College-Bound High School Graduates?”

Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research 1(1) (2011): 12-124. 62 LoGerfo, Laura, Elise M. Christopher, and Kristin Denton Flanagan (2011). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 

(HSLS:09). A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders’ Parents, Teachers, School Counselors, and School Administrators, 

table 8, (NCES 2011-355). (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics). When disaggregated by socioeconomic status, the disparity in counselling programs focusing on college 

preparation is even greater: 41 percent for low-income students vs. 58 percent for upper-income students. 

Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011355.pdf. 63 Retention is often used to refer to persistence. However, for this report, the term persistence is used because it 

includes students who transfer out of the original institution and continue their education. Retention only refers to 

students who continue their education within the original institution and excludes transfer students who persist.

64 Bers, Trudy H. and Pamela M. Galowich. “Using Survey and Focus Group Research to Learn about Parents’ Roles

in the Community College Choice Process,” Community College Review 29(4) (2002): 67. 65 Butner, Bonita, Yvonne Caldera, Patricia Herrera, Francesca Kennedy, Mary Frame, and Chandra Childers. “The 

College Choice Process of African American and Hispanic Women: Implications for College Transitions,” Journal of 

College Orientation and Transition 9(1) (2001): 24–32. 66 Cabrera, Alberto F. and Steven M. La Nasa (2000). Understanding the College Choice of Disadvantaged Students. 

(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). 67 Roderick, Melissa, Jenny Nagaoka, Vanessa Coca, and Eliza Moeller (2008). From High School to the Future: 

Potholes on the Road to College. (Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research). 68 Castleman, Benjamin and Lindsay Page. “A Trickle or a Torrent? Understanding the Extent of Summer ‘Melt‘ 

Among College-Intending High School Graduates,” Social Science Quarterly 95(1) (2013): 202-220.
81

 69 Bird, Kelli and Benjamin Castleman. “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Investigating Rates and Patterns of Financial 

Aid Renewal Among College Freshmen,” Research in Higher Education 57(4) (2015): 395-422. 70 Nunez, Anne-Marie and Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin (1998). First-Generation Students: Undergraduates Whose 

Parents Never Enrolled in Postsecondary Education (NCES 98-082). (Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education). 71 Carnevale, Anthony P. and Jeff Strohl (2013). Separate and Unequal: How Higher Education Reinforces the

Intergenerational Reproduction of White Racial Privilege. (Washington, DC: Georgetown Center on Education and 

the Workforce). Available at https://cew.georgetown.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/SeparateUnequal.FR_.pdf. 72 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2015 High 

School Graduates. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor). Available at 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm. 73 Note that these enrollment estimates are higher and show smaller overall gaps than the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) figures because they measure longitudinal outcomes of students who were high school freshman 

2009 and graduated from high school four years later. BLS figures include a broader population of all young adults 

who have recently graduated from high school, including those who did graduate from high school on time. 74 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:12). For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates in PowerStats 

(https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve codes hgbe18, hgbgeaf. 75 Cahalan, Margaret, Laura Perna, Mika Yamahita, Roman Ruiz, and Khadish Franklin (2016). Indicators of Higher 

Education Equity in the United States. (Washington, DC: The Pell Institute). Available at 

http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publicationsIndicators_of_Higher_Education_Equity_in_the_US_2016_Historical_Trend_Report.pdf. 76 Ibid. 77 Zaback, Katie, Andrew Carlson, Sophia Laderman, and Sharmila Mann (2016). Serving the Equity Imperative: 

Intentional Action Toward Greater Student Success. (Boulder, CO: SHEEO; Indianapolis, IN: Complete College 

America). Available at http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/2016_SHEEO_CCA_ServingEquityImperative.pdf. 78 Ibid. 79 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:12). For PowerStats users wishing to recreate the estimates in PowerStats 

(https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve codes hgbe18, hgbgeaf. 80 Ibid. 81 Huelsman, Mark (2015). The Debt Divide: The Racial and Class Bias Behind the “New Normal" of Student 

Borrowing. (New York, NY: Demos). Available at http://www.demos.org/publication/debt-divide-racial-and-classbias-behind-new-normal-student-borrowing. 82 Grinstein-Weiss, Michal, Dana C. Perantie, Samuel H. Taylor, Shenyang Guo, and Ramesh Raghavan. “Racial 

Disparities in Education Debt Burden Among Low- and Moderate-Income Households,” Children and Youth Services 

Review 65, (2016): 166–174. 83 Scott-Clayton, Judith and Jing Li (2016). Black-White Disparity in Student Loan Debt More Than Triples After 

Graduation. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution). Available at https://www.brookings.edu/research/blackwhite-disparity-in-student-loan-debt-more-than-triples-after-graduation/. 84 Ibid. 85 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Higher Education General Information 

Survey, Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities (1980); Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS), Fall Enrollment Survey (IPEDS-EF:90); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment 

component. Based on enrollment totals available at 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.10.asp. 86 Page, Lindsay C. and Judith Scott-Clayton (2015). Improving College Access in the United States: Barriers and 

Policy Responses. (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research). Working paper 21781 available at 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21781.pdf. 
82

 87 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Higher Education General Information 

Survey (HEGIS), “Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” survey 1980; Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey”IPEDS-EF:90); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall 

Enrollment component. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.10.asp. 88 Note this report does not focus on the first-time, full-time graduation rates for students of color attending 

community college, but graduation rates for these students are low compared to those at four-year institutions. 

This analysis is limited to the bachelor’s degree-seeking cohort because the available data only include a limited 

subset of students seeking associate or certificate degrees, which are the predominant degrees at community 

colleges.

89 Dale, Stacy and Alan Krueger. “Estimating the Effectiveness of College Characteristics Using Administrative 

Earnings Data,” The Journal of Human Resources 49(2) (2014): 323–358. 90 Wolfe, Barbara and Jason Fletcher (2013). Estimating Benefits From University-Level Diversity. (Cambridge, MA: 

National Bureau of Economic Research). Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w18812. 91 Carnegie classifies more selective institutions as four-year institutions in the top quartile on a composite of 

SAT/ACT scores. Inclusive and open enrollment institutions generally admit all or nearly all students who apply for 

admission.

92 The other category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, two or more 

races, and nonresident students. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09). For PowerStats 

users wishing to recreate the estimates in PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/datalab), use the QuickRetrieve code 

cagbga5d.

93 Ibid. 94 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information 

Survey (HEGIS) (2015).Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, 

sex, attendance status, and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2014, Digest of Education 

Statistics 2014 [Data file]. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.10.asp “Fall

Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” surveys, 1976 and 1980; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS), Fall Enrollment Survey (IPEDS-EF:90); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment 

component.

95 Ibid. 96 Calculations based on U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (2015). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by control and level of institution, level of enrollment, and race/ethnicity of student: 2014 [Data file]. 

Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.50.asp. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 100 Calculations based on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Graduation Rate Survey, 2007–

08 cohort provisional data; Ginder, Scott A., Janice E. Kelly-Reid, and Farrah B. Mann (2015). Graduation Rates for 

Selected Cohorts, 2006–11; Student Financial Aid, Academic Year 2013-14; and Admissions in Postsecondary

Institutions, Fall 2014 (NCES 2015-181). (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), National Center for Educational Statistics). Available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015181.pdf. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid. 103 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information 

Survey (HEGIS) (2015). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, 

sex, attendance status, and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2014 [Data file]. Available at

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.10.asp. “Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” 
83 

 

surveys, 1976 and 1980; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey” 

(IPEDS-EF:90); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment component. 104 Ibid. 105 Calculations based on information from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (2015). Table 306.50: Total fall enrollment in degreegranting postsecondary institutions, by control and level of institution, level of enrollment, and race/ethnicity of 

student: 2014 [Data file]. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.50.asp. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Calculations based on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Graduation Rate Survey,2007–

08 cohort provisional data; Ginder, Scott A., Janice E. Kelly-Reid, and Farrah B. Mann (2015). Graduation Rates for 

Selected Cohorts, 2006–11; Student Financial Aid, Academic Year 2013–14; and Admissions in Postsecondary 

Institutions, Fall 2014: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2015-181). (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), National Center for Educational Statistics). 

Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015181.pdf. See table 1. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information 

Survey (HEGIS) (2015). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, 

sex, attendance status, and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2014 [Data file]. Available at 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.10.asp. Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities 

surveys, 1976 and 1980; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey” 

(IPEDS-EF:90); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment component. 113 Ibid. 114 Calculations based on U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (2015). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by control and level of institution, level of enrollment, and race/ethnicity of student: 2014 [Data file]. 

Available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.50.asp. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid. 121 Calculations based on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Graduation Rate Survey, 2007-

08 cohort provisional data; Ginder, Scott A., Janice E. Kelly-Reid, and Farrah B. Mann (2015). Graduation Rates for 

Selected Cohorts, 2006-11; Student Financial Aid, Academic Year 2013-14; and Admissions in Postsecondary 

Institutions, Fall 2014: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2015-181). (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), National Center for Educational Statistics). 

Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015181.pdf. See table 1. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 124 The 95 percent confidence interval ranges from about 37 percent to about 53 percent among Asian students. 

Interpret with caution.

125 These estimates, however, are not statistically significant at the 95 percent level. 126 Taylor, Teresa E., Jeffrey F. Milem, and Arthur F. Coleman (2016). Bridging the Research to Practice Gap: 

Achieving Mission-Driven Diversity and Inclusion Goals. (New York, NY: College Board). Available at 

http://aacu.org/sites/default/files/BridgingResearchPracticeGap.pdf. 127 Ibid.
84

 128 McNair, Tia Brown. “The Time Is Now: Committing to Equity and Inclusive Excellence,” 

Diversity and Democracy 19(1) (Winter, 2016). 129 Ibid. 130 See, e.g., Sylvia Hurtado and Adriana Ruiz Alvarado. “Diversity in Teaching and Learning: Affirming Students as 

Empowered Learners,” Diversity and Democracy 16(3) (Summer 2013). 131 Egalite, Anna J. and Brian Kisida (2016). The Many Ways Teacher Diversity May Benefit Students. (Washington, 

DC: Brookings Institution). Available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-centerchalkboard/2016/08/19/the-many-ways-teacher-diversity-may-benefit-students/. 132 See also Dee, Thomas S. (2005). “A Teacher Like Me: Does Race, Ethnicity, or Gender Matter?” The American 

Economic Review 95(2): 158-165. 133 See also van Ewijk, Reyn. “Same Work, Lower Grade? Student Ethnicity and Teachers’ Subjective Assessments,” 

Economics of Education Review 30(5) (2011): 1045-1058. 134 Gasman, Marybeth, Ufuoma Abiola, and Christopher Travers. “Diversity and Senior Leadership at Elite 

Institutions of Higher Education,” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 8(1) (2015): 1-14. 135 Zambrana, Ruth Enid, Rashawn Ray, Michelle M. Espino, Corinne Castro, Beth Douthirt Cohen, and Jennifer 

Eliason. “’Don’t Leave Us Behind’: The Importance of Mentoring for Underrepresented Minority Faculty,” American 

Educational Research Journal 52(1) (2015): 40-72. 136 Taylor, Orlando, Cheryl Burgan Apprey, George Hill, Loretta McGrann, and Jianping Wang. “Diversifying the 

Faculty,” Peer Review 12(3) (2010). 137 U.S. Department of Education (2016). Fulfilling the Promise, Serving the Need: Advancing College Opportunity 

for Low-Income Students. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education). Available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/advancing-college-opportunity.pdf. 138 Espinosa, Lorelle L., Matthew N. Gaertner, and Gary Orfield (2015). Race, Class, and College Access: Achieving 

Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape. (Washington, DC: American Council on Education). Available at 

https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Race-Class-and-College-Access-Achieving-Diversity-in-a-ShiftingLegal-Landscape.pdf. 139 Page, Lindsay C. and Judith Scott-Clayton (2015). Improving College Access in the United States: Barriers and 

Policy Responses. (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research). Available at 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21781.pdf. 140 See, e.g., Avery, Christopher, Jessica S. Howell, and Lindsay Page (2014). A Review of the Role of College 

Applications in Students’ Postsecondary Outcomes. (New York, NY: College Board). Available at 

https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2015/1/college-board-research-brief-reviewrole-college-applications-postsecondary-outcomes.pdf. 141 Dynarski, Susan M., and Judith Scott-Clayton. “The Cost of Complexity in Federal Student Aid: Lessons from 

Optimal Tax Theory and Behavioral Economics,” National Tax Journal 59(2) (2006): 319-56. 142 Castleman, Benjamin L., and Lindsay C. Page. “A Trickle or a Torrent? Understanding the Extent of Summer 

‘Melt’ Among College-Intending High School Graduates,” Social Science Quarterly 95(1) (2014): 202-220. 143 See, e.g., Avery, Christopher, Jessica S. Howell, and Lindsay Page (2014). A Review of the Role of Counseling, 

Coaching, and Mentoring in Students’ Postsecondary Outcomes. (New York, NY: College Board). Available at 

http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2015/1/college-board-research-brief-rolecollege-counseling-coaching-mentoring-postsecondary-outcomes.pdf. 144 Sherman, Jay (2012). Make Me a Match: Helping Low-Income and First-Generation Students Make Good College 

Choices. (New York, NY: MDRC). Available at http://www.mdrc.org/publication/make-me-match/file-full. 145 Bettinger, Eric P., Bridget Terry Long, Philip Oreopoulos, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu. “The Role of Application 

Assistance and Information in College Decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA Experiment,” Quarterly Journal 

of Economics 127(3) (2012): 1205-1242. 146 Karp, Melinda Mechur. “Dual Enrollment, Structural Reform, and the Completion Agenda,” New Directions for 

Community Colleges 169 (2015): 103-111. 147 Reviewed in Goldrick-Rab, Sara. “Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Community College Student 

Success,” Review of Educational Research 80(3) (2010): 437-469, at pages 451-452.
85

 148 Chaney, Bradford W. (2010). National Evaluation of Student Support Services: Examination of Student Outcomes 

After Six Years. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education). Available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/student-support/final-report.pdf. 149 Ibid. 150 Page, Lindsay C. and Judith Scott-Clayton (2015). Improving College Access in the United States: Barriers and 

Policy Responses. (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research). Available at 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21781.pdf. 151 See, e.g., Evans, Brent J., and Gary T. Henry (2015). Self-Paced Remediation and Math Placement: A Randomized 

Field Experiment in a Community College. Working paper presented at University of California-Irvine. 152 Oakley, Eloy Ortiz (2014). Written testimony of Eloy Ortiz Oakley, Superintendent-President of Long Beach City 

College, to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Strengthening Minority 

Serving Institutions: Best Practices and Innovations for Student Success, March 13, 2014. Available at 

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Oakley_Updated.pdf. 153 Howell, Jessica S., Michal Kurlaender, and Eric Grodsky (2010). “Postsecondary Preparation and Remediation: 

Examining the Effect of the Early Assessment Program at California State University,” Journal of Policy Analysis and 

Management 29(4)(: 726-748. 154 Yamada, Hiroyuki and Anthony S. Bryk. “Assessing the First Two Years’ Effectiveness of Statway: A Multilevel 

Model with Propensity Score Matching,” Community College Review 44 (3) (2015): 179-204. 155 Bettinger, Eric and Rachel Baker (2011). The Effects of Student Coaching in College: An Evaluation of a 

Randomized Experiment in Student Mentoring. (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research). Available 

at https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/bettinger_baker_030711.pdf. 156 Ibid. 157 U.S. Department of Education, Institution of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse (2016). Supporting 

Postsecondary Success Intervention Report: First Year Experience Courses. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institution of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse). Available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_firstyear_071916.pdf. 158 Ibid. 159 Sackett, Chase (2015). Barriers to Success: Housing Insecurity for U.S. College Students. (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research). Available at 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_2.pdf. 160 Goldrick-Rab, Sara, Katharine Broton, and Daniel Eisenberg (2015). Hungry to Learn: Addressing Food and

Housing Insecurity Among Undergraduates. (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin HOPE Lab). 

Available at http://wihopelab.com/publications/Wisconsin_HOPE_Lab_Hungry_To_Learn.pdf. 161 Sackett, Chase, Sara Goldrick-Rab, and Katharine Broton (2016). Addressing Housing Insecurity and Living Costs

in Higher Education. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research, and the Wisconsin HOPE Lab). Available at 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/HousingInsecurityInHigherEd.html. 162 Scrivener, Susan, Michael J. Weiss, Alyssa Ratledge, Timothy Rudd, Colleen Sommo, and Hannah Fresques 

(2015). Doubling Graduation Rates: Three-Year Effects of CUNY’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) 

for Developmental Education Students. (New York, NY: MDRC). http://www.mdrc.org/publication/doublinggraduation-rates. 163 Ibid. 164 Hurtado, Sylvia and Chelsea Guillermo-Wann (2013). Diverse Learning Environments: Assessing and Creating 

Conditions for Student Success – Final Report to the Ford Foundation. (Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los 

Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute). 165 Ibid. 166 Hurtado, Sylvia, Kimberly A. Griffin, Lucy Arellano, and Marcela Cuellar. “Assessing the Value of Climate 

Assessments: Progress and Future Directions.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1(4) (2008): 204-221. 167 Moss-Racusin, Corrine A., Jojanneke van der Toorn, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo 

Handelsman. “Scientific Diversity Interventions,” Science 343(6171) (2014): 615-616.
86

 168 Ibid. 169 Kuh, George D. “Understanding Campus Environments,” in The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration: 

Third Edition, McClellan, George S., Jeremy Stringer, and Associates, eds., 59-80. (San Francisco, CA: NAPSA – 

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2009).

170 Locks, Angela M., Sylvia Hurtado, Nicholas A. Bowman, and Leticia Oseguera. “Extending Notions of Campus 

Climate and Diversity to Students’ Transition to College,” The Review of Higher Education 31(3) (2008): 257-285. 171 Bezrukova, Katerina, Karen A. Jehn, and Chester S. Spell. “Reviewing Diversity Training: Where We Have Been

and Where We Should Go,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 11(2) (2012): 207-227. 172 Quaye, Stephen John, Kimberly A. Griffin, and Samuel D. Museus (2012). “Engaging Students of Color,” in 

Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse 

Populations, Stephen John Quaye and Shaun R. Harper, eds., 21-48. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2012). 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid. 175 The Other category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, two or 

more races, and nonresident students. 176 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information 

Survey (HEGIS), Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred, 1980-81. Available at 

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/series/00030. 177 Finkelstein, Martin J., Valerie Martin Conley, and Jack H. Schuster (2016). Taking the Measure of Faculty 

Diversity. (Washington, DC: TIAA Institute), 3. 178 Ibid, 5. 179 Ibid, 8. 
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for

global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov