Undermatching?

In the following article I am going to look at the phenomenon, the assumptions, and the research of undermatching in higher education. .

Phenomenon. “‘Undermatching,’ the phenomenon in which students enroll at less-selective colleges than their academic qualifications suggest they could have attended,” as stated in a brief article at The Chronicle. To start off, I am not sure why this is a phenomenon; students and people are rarely perfectly matched based on their qualifications, abilities, intelligence, or drive. Rather than being a rare occurrence, undermatching in higher education and in many aspects of people’s lives, in my opinion, is common.

Assumptions. Undermatching assumes that high performing students need to be matched to an equivalent institution to reach their full potential. As stated later in the article, “the undermatched students reported a less-challenging academic environment, lower satisfaction, and fewer gains. Those findings, the paper states, may explain why students who undermatch are less likely to graduate, as other research has found.”

Question: if a high performing student is less-challenged why would they not graduate? These students are not young teenagers in high school, they are not fourteen and full of angst, they are not trying to proving themselves (as young teenagers need to); these are college students who by the undermatched definition, are high performing. The assumption that a high performing, less-challenged student might not graduate is...interesting. This assumption puts all of the responsibility to graduate high performing student on the institution and not on the student. The student is the one who attends class, turns in the assignments, and earns the grades. If the student is less-challenged then they can study on the side, be a student leader, read additional books, practice their writing skills on a blog that allows them to push their abilities and constantly strive for self-improve rather than expecting the institution to do all for them.

Research. The quotable quote from the study by Kevin Fosnacht at the American Educational Research Association, on of the articles referenced in The Chronicle article, states, “this study found that undermatches encounter a less challenging academic environment, report fewer gains in their learning and development, and have less satisfaction with their institution.” Logical.

When I was in undergrad I was bored at times so part of my learning and development was affected and because of this, I was not always satisfied with my institution. The same thing happened during my graduate studies but by then I realized that when it comes to learning and development, this responsibility was not me and not the institution; I had to and made the best of my educational situation.

Another quote from the paper by Fosnacht is that undermatched students had fewer gains in their learning and development might come from “the lack of academic rigor may be a result of a less rigorous curriculum, but more likely due to the differences in the student body composition.” To me this is key.

Fewer gains in learning and development for an undermatched student is related to the student body, or peers. A portion of what a student will learn and develop as an individual is because of the pressures and interactions that come from the  circles he or she is part of while attending college. These social and academic interactions push students to improve or not improve. The different between highly selective and other institutions is that at highly selective institutions most of your peers are high performing while at less selective schools, a minority of your peers are high performing (I will not include percentages that I cannot back-up).

In addition to the student body composition, I don’t think anyone would publicly say that an education at UT-El Paso, Missouri State University, or the University of Arizona is less challenging or has less rigorous curriculum than at a highly selective school; curriculum is curriculum. Faculty members at less selective institutions have doctorates, publish, and are dedicated to quality and just because someone teaches at a highly selective institution does not mean they are better teachers. The ability to research and publish does not automatically mean you know how to teach undergraduates. One of the distinct advantages of a highly selective institution is a low student to faculty ratio, at Grinnell College the ration is 9 to 1 while at Missouri State it is 21 to 1.

The final quote from Fosnacht’s paper states, “simply, if a student perceives that the costs of college outweigh the benefits, they will drop out.” I think no matter what a person does in life, if they perceive the cost outweigh the benefit, they will drop out. If a person is working somewhere and the cost outweigh the benefit, they will quit. If a person is trying to keep a relationship together but the cost outweigh the benefit, they will break-up with their partner. If a student attends a school where they are not thriving and the cost outweigh the benefit, the student will drop out and find somewhere else to go. (One a side note, it is notoriously difficult to track and statistically state what happens to students who drops out; graduation rates really only track four and six year graduation rates.)

Now that we have gone over the phenomenon, the assumptions, and the research of undermatching (not exhaustive at all) what can be done about undermatching? Well...nothing and everything.

First; the phenomenon of undermating as stated before is not uncommon but is exceedingly common. Although faculty are researching undermatching, writing papers, and presenting their findings at conferences, higher education should come to grips that not every student is matched perfectly with the institution they attend. With the Ivy League and Ivy equivalents educating well under 2% of the overall student population, there are a lot of students not attending ‘highly selective’ institutions. These high performing students can attend any college in the country and still get a great education; high performing students need to push themselves, faculty need to watch out for talent and develop it, institutions need to have the right support available, and students need to surround themselves with like-minded peers. (On a side note, what defines a high performing student: the top 0.5%; 2% or 5%; or the top 10% or 20%?)

Second, not being completely satisfied with one’s institution is not unheard of. The grass is not always greener somewhere else and students and faculty have to make the best of their situation. Maybe I have this point-of-view because I attended less-selective institutions and would have considered myself undermatched but after time to reflect these schools were a good match for me at the age I attended them. We cannot all be wunderkinder at age 18 and get into Princeton, Stanford, Williams College, or Grinnell, but if you attend one of these institutions maybe your satisfaction is100% while “less satisfaction” with your institution is only a provincial problem.

Finally, the responsibility of graduating is on the student. I understand that undermatched students are theoretically missing out on a golden opportunity to attend a highly selective school but an undergraduate degree is not the end of one’s education. What we learn and experience during the ages of 18-22 is formative but there is a lot of life to live afterwards. When I look back at my undergraduate years they were important but those years and experiences are a distant memory (I am much closer to 40 than 30). By stating that undermatching is a problem and that students will suffer because of it discounts what people do after their undergrad and assumes that a bachelor’s degree is the guiding light that determines what will happen from age 22 until...whenever.