Welcoming Communities Initiative Immigrant and Visible Minority Applicants
Welcoming Communities Initiative Immigrant and Visible Minority Applicants to PSE November 17, 2011 Presented by Peggy Sattler, Academica Group 1
Academica Group • WCI partner organization • Research and consulting firm • 15 years experience in higher education • Policy research, marketing, communications, and enrollment management expertise • Annual studies (UCAS, ADS, DNA, etc. ) survey more than 300, 000 PSE applicants annually (40+ institutions) • Daily newsbrief Academica’s Top Ten (12, 000 subscribers) 2
PSE Experiences and Outcomes • Experience of immigrant and visible minorities applicants to PSE in the GTA and 2 nd and 3 rd tier cities • Current education research projects: 1. 2010 applicants to Ontario colleges and universities 2. Longitudinal study of Ontario college applicants (2007 -2010) 3. Educational and labour market outcomes of 2005 -2009 applicants to PSE (in partnership with the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) 4. Work-integrated Learning in Ontario’s Postsecondary Sector Graduating Student Survey (in partnership with HEQCO) 3
Today’s Presentation • UCAS Dataset • 2010 preliminary findings • Differences in demographic profiles of immigrant applicants to college and university based on locale (2 nd/3 rd tier cities vs. GTA) • Analysis of applicants from 2 nd/3 rd tier cities – Influence of word of mouth – Exploration of reasons for applying to PSE – Key decision factors in selection of first-choice institution 4
UCAS Methodology and Analytics • 2010 sample of 167, 073 applicants – 63, 418 applicants to Ontario colleges randomly selected by the Ontario College Application Service (OCAS) – 103, 655 applicants to six Ontario universities (Waterloo, Laurier, Western, UOIT, Brock, York) • Survey administered online March-June , 2010 • University applicant response rate of 22% – Margin of error +/- 0. 57% 19 times out of 20 • College applicant response rate of 19% – Margin of error +/- 0. 85% 19 times out of 20 • Statistical tests (p<. 001) – Chi-square, ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc 5
Applicant Profile 6
Immigrant Status 100 87 90 82 80 70 64 64 60 50 Immigrant 40 37 36 Non-Immigrant 30 20 18 13 10 0 2 nd/3 rd Tier (n=3130) College GTA (n=2707) 2 nd/3 rd Tier (n=6144) GTA (n=10105) University 7
Arrival in Canada 100 90 80 70 60 50 50 49 47 43 2001 - 2005 40 30 26 27 25 Before 2001 29 2006 - 2010 33 30 20 20 20 10 0 2 nd/3 rd Tier GTA College 2 nd/3 rd Tier GTA University 8
Visible Minority Status - College 100 93 90 80 85 76 70 60 60 50 Immigrant 40 Non-immigrant 40 30 24 20 10 15 7 0 Visible Minority Non-Visible Minority 2 nd/3 rd Tier Visible Minority Non-Visible Minority GTA 9
Visible Minority Status - University 100 87 90 80 90 78 70 60 52 48 50 Immigrant Non-immigrant 40 30 20 22 13 10 10 0 Visible Minority Non-Visible Minority 2 nd/3 rd Tier Visible Minority Non-Visible Minority GTA 10
Ethnicity – College 2 nd/3 rd Tier GTA Immigrant Non-Immigrant Black 24% 2% 15% Latin American 11% 2% 7% 4% South Asian 10% >1% 29% 6% Arab 9% >1% 3% >1% East Asian 8% >1% 13% 7% Other Asian 7% >1% 5% 3% Filipino 7% >1% 12% 4% 11
Ethnicity – University 2 nd/3 rd Tier GTA Immigrant Non-Immigrant East Asian 25% 3% 35% 21% South Asian 17% 3% 37% 17% Arab 10% 1% 3% 1% Other Asian 8% 2% 4% 4% Latin American 8% 1% 2% 1% Black 7% 2% 5% 6% Filipino 3% >1% 4% 2% 12
Commuting and Age Commuting Age • 2 nd/3 rd tier immigrants more likely to commute • 70% college and 44% universitycommuters vs. 61% and 32% non-immigrants • More college commuters, fewer university commuters among GTA immigrants • Immigrant college applicants more likely to be older (30+), particularly in 2 nd/3 rd tier cities (36% vs. 10% non-immigrant) 13
Gender and Marital/Family Status Gender • Similar gender distribution for college applicants • More male university applicants (Waterloo effect? ) Marital Status • Immigrant college applicants more likely to be married, especially from 2 nd/3 rd tier cities (36% vs. 11% non-immigrant) Family Status • Immigrant college applicants more likely to have dependent children, especially from 2 nd/3 rd tier cities (32% vs. 9% non-immigrant) 14
Employment – College 100 90 80 70 65 59 60 50 52 51 49 48 41 40 34 Immigrant Non-immigrant 30 20 10 0 Working Unemployed/NILF 2 nd/3 rd Tier Working Unemployed/NILF GTA 15
Employment – University 100 90 80 68 70 65 60 50 53 53 47 47 40 32 Immigrant Non-immigrant 35 30 20 10 0 Working Unemployed/NILF 2 nd/3 rd Tier Working Unemployed/NILF GTA 16
Grade Averages – College 2 nd /3 rd Tier GTA Immigrant Non-Immigrant 90%+ 13% 6% 11% 5% 80%-89% 37% 36% 32% 70%-79% 37% 45% 39% 47% 60 -69% 11% 13% 15% 17
Grade Averages – University 2 nd /3 rd Tier GTA Immigrant Non-Immigrant 90%+ 29% 20% 23% 17% 85%-89% 27% 28% 26% 27% 80%-84% 24% 31% 25% 29% 75%-79% 13% 15% 17% >75% 8% 7% 11% 9% 18
Entry Type - College 100 90 80 70 60 60 54 50 44 43 38 36 40 30 Immigrant Non-immigrant 24 20 20 10 0 Direct Former PSE 2 nd/3 rd Tier Direct Former PSE GTA 19
Entry Type - University 100 92 90 80 87 85 78 70 60 50 Immigrant Non-immigrant 40 30 16 20 12 8 10 6 0 Direct Former PSE 2 nd/3 rd Tier Direct Former PSE GTA 20
First Generation - College 80 74 73 73 67 70 60 50 40 Immigrant 33 30 27 26 Non-immigrant 27 20 10 0 First Generation Not First Gen 2 nd/3 rd Tier First Generation Not First Gen GTA 21
First Generation - University 100 89 90 89 88 84 80 70 60 50 Immigrant Non-immigrant 40 30 20 11 16 12 11 10 0 First Generation Not First Gen 2 nd/3 rd Tier First Generation Not First Gen GTA 22
Ultimate Degree Intention - College 2 nd /3 rd Tier GTA Immigrant Non-Immigrant College Certificate 8% 6% 5% 5% College Dip. /Adv. Dip. 51% 61% 48% 51% College Degree 8% 7% 11% 12% College Grad. Cert. 2% 3% 4% 4% University Undergrad 12% 10% 12% Post-Grad (eg. MA, Ph. D) 11% 7% 12% 10% 23
Ultimate Degree Intention - University 2 nd /3 rd Tier GTA Immigrant Non-Immigrant University Undergrad 20% 29% 21% 25% Master’s Degree 25% 27% 26% Ph. D 15% 11% 13% 10% Medical Degree 19% 10% 16% 13% MBA 10% 6% 13% 11% Law Degree 6% 6% 5% 7% Teaching Degree 2% 8% 3% 6% 24
Marketing Efforts 25
College Marketing - Word of Mouth 55 Friends 58 57 55 Current Students 44 *Family 2 nd /3 rd Tier 35 Non-Immigrant 40 High School Guidance Counselors 34 33 High School Teachers 28 9 *High School Coach 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 26
University Marketing - Word of Mouth 76 75 *Current Students 70 *Friends 74 66 68 *Family 2 nd /3 rd Tier Non-Immigrant 56 54 High School Guidance Counselors 52 54 *High School Teachers 17 17 High School Coach 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 27
PSE Decision Making Process 28
Reasons for Applying to College *Career preparation 82 69 Explore future options 58 Support personal and intellectual growth 57 Increase earning potential 57 *Increase knowledge 56 65 65 62 61 41 43 Pursue future graduate or professional study 2 nd /3 rd Tier 40 39 Enhance confidence and self-esteem 19 *Improve social status 35 28 Give back to society *Meet new people 18 Immigrant 34 46 30 *Career advancement Non-Immigrant 29 31 29 Improve leadership skills *Encouragement from parents, friends or teachers 22 Participate in student life and campus activities 17 0 10 20 31 21 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 29
Reasons for Applying to University Increase knowledge 79 80 *Career preparation 79 Explore future options 76 76 *Support personal and intellectual growth 76 *Pursue future graduate or professional study 69 Increase earning potential 67 69 *Meet new people 57 84 81 74 2 nd/3 rd Tier 65 Non-Immigrant 50 51 Encouragement from parents, friends or teachers 43 *Improve leadership skills 38 *Enhance confidence and self-esteem Immigrant 48 46 Participate in student life and campus activities 37 *Give back to society 20 *Improve social status 16 *Career advancement 0 10 20 45 35 23 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 30
Key Decision Factors 31
Key Decision Factors • 50 key factors in five areas – Academic Factors – Outcome Factors – Campus Factors – Nurturing Factors – Financial Factors • Impact on selection of first-choice institution • Seven-point scale from strongly negative (-3) to strongly positive (+3) • Perceived strengths and weaknesses of applicant’s first-choice institution 32
Academic Factors - College Academic reputation of program/major 1, 6 *Academic reputation of institution 1, 6 Quality of faculty 1, 5 1, 6 0, 9 *Institution rankings/guidebook ratings 1 Investments in latest technology 1, 8 1, 3 2 nd/3 rd Tier 1, 2 Non-Immigrant 0, 700000001 1, 2 *Library collections/facilities Immigrant 0, 600000001 1, 1 *High-profile research *Undergraduate research opportunities 0, 5 *High admission average 0, 5 0, 2 *Special programs for academically gifted students 0 1 0, 8 0, 700000001 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 33
Academic Factors - University 2, 1 2, 2 Academic reputation of program/major 2 *Academic reputation of institution 2, 2 1, 8 1, 9 Quality of faculty 1, 2 *Institution rankings/guidebook ratings 1, 1 *Undergraduate research opportunities 1 *Investments in latest technology 2 nd /3 rd Tier 1, 4 Non-Immigrant 0, 9 *High-profile research 1, 4 1, 3 Immigrant 1, 2 1, 1 1, 2 *Library collections/facilities 0, 8 *High admission average 0, 3 *Special programs for academically gifted students 0 0, 5 1, 1 0, 700000001 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 34
Outcome Factors - College 1, 6 1, 7 Graduates get high-quality jobs 1, 3 Co-op programs/internships 0, 8 *National/professional accreditation 1, 3 1, 1 Relevant industry in the area 1, 3 2 nd/3 rd Tier 0, 8 *Graduates get into top professional and grad schools 1, 5 1, 2 Non-Immigrant Can transfer credits earned to another institution 0, 700000001 1, 1 *Can transfer credits earned from another institution 0, 700000001 1 *Opportunities for student leadership 0, 700000001 0, 9 Immigrant 0, 600000001 0, 9 Easy to get accepted 0, 2 *International exchange options 0 0, 600000001 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 35
Outcome Factors - University 1, 7 *Graduates get high-quality jobs *Graduates get into top professional and grad schools 1, 2 *Co-op programs/internships 1, 2 1, 1 *National/professional accreditation 1 *Opportunities for student leadership 0, 8 *Relevant industry in the area 1, 9 1, 6 1, 5 1, 3 2 nd/3 rd Tier 1, 3 Non-Immigrant 1 0, 8 0, 9 International exchange options 0, 5 0, 600000001 Can transfer credits earned from another institution 0, 4 *Can transfer credits earned to another institution 0, 600000001 0, 1 Easy to get accepted 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 36
Financial Factors - College 1, 5 1, 6 Institution is close to home 0, 8 *Availability of needs-based financial aid/bursaries 0, 700000001 1, 1 *Flexible course delivery (evening classes, online etc. ) 0, 8 Costs of attending excluding tuition 0, 4 *Availability of merit-based scholarships -0, 3 *Availability of child care Non-Immigrant 1 0, 8 Cost of tuition 2 nd /3 rd Tier 1, 1 0, 8 Part-time job opportunities -0, 5 1, 2 1 0, 9 0, 2 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 37
Financial Factors - University 0, 9 Institution is close to home 0, 9 *Part-time job opportunities 0, 8 *Availability of needs-based financial aid/bursaries 1, 1 0, 8 Availability of merit-based scholarships 1, 1 2 nd /3 rd Tier 1 *Flexible course delivery (evening classes, online etc. ) 0, 600000001 0, 8 Costs of attending excluding tuition 0, 5 0, 600000001 Non-Immigrant 0, 4 Cost of tuition -0, 4 *Availability of child care -0, 3 -0, 5 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 38
Nurturing Factors - College 1, 1 *Faculty-student interaction 0, 9 *Campus safety/security 0, 8 Personal attention during application/admission process 1, 3 1, 1 1 Small class sizes 1, 1 2 nd/3 rd Tier 0, 600000001 1 *Student evaluations of professors Small surrounding community 0, 5 Friends attending 0, 5 Small student population 0, 4 0, 5 -0, 1 *Religious considerations 0, 4 -0, 5 1, 4 0 0, 5 Non-Immigrant 0, 700000000000001 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 39
Nurturing Factors - University 1, 2 Faculty-student interaction 1, 1 Campus safety/security Personal attention during application/admission process 0, 9 Student evaluations of professors 0, 8 0, 9 2 nd/3 rd Tier 1 Non-Immigrant Small class sizes 0, 8 0, 5 Friends attending Immigrant 0, 8 0, 600000001 0, 5 Small surrounding community 0, 5 0, 4 Small student population 0 *Religious considerations 0 0, 2 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 40
Campus Factors - College 1, 3 Reputation for student experience 0, 600000001 1, 2 *Diversity of student population 0, 600000001 0, 9 *History/tradition of institution 0, 700000001 0, 9 Recreational sports/fitness facilities *Attractive campus 0, 9 0, 5 *Large student population 1 2 nd /3 rd Tier 0, 8 Off-campus urban life 0, 600000001 0, 700000001 Non-Immigrant Clubs and social activities 0, 600000001 0, 700000001 Immigrant 0, 4 Availability of off-campus housing 0, 3 Campus cafeteria/food service options *Varsity athletic teams 0, 2 *Campus housing/residences 0, 2 0, 600000001 0, 5 0, 4 Same institution -0, 3 as parent(s) -0, 3 -0, 5 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 41
Campus Factors - University Reputation for student experience 1, 6 *Attractive campus 1, 4 0, 9 *Diversity of student population 1, 7 1, 6 1, 2 Clubs and social activities Recreational sports/fitness facilities 1, 1 History/tradition of institution 1 1 Off-campus urban life 1 0, 5 *Large student population 1, 2 2 nd /3 rd Tier 1, 1 Non-Immigrant 0, 700000001 0, 9 0, 700000001 *Campus housing/residences 0, 600000000000001 Availability of off-campus housing 0, 700000001 0, 600000001 Campus cafeteria/food service options 0, 600000000000001 Varsity athletic teams -0, 4 as parent(s) Same institution -0, 4 -0, 5 0 0, 5 1 1, 5 2 2, 5 42
Implications and Next Steps 43
Implications • 2 nd and 3 rd tier mmigrants represent a smaller proportion of the PSE applicant pool than GTA immigrants, but immigrant applicant pool is not homogenous • Compared to GTA immigrants, 2 nd/3 rd tier immigrants are: – – – Less likely to be visible minority Older, married, dependent children More likely to have former PSE More likely to be first generation PSE Higher educational aspirations 44
Implications - College • Within 2 nd/3 rd tier cities, differences between immigrant and nonimmigrant applicants – – More likely to attend local institutions Less influenced by family in deciding where to apply More motivated to apply by improving social status, career advancement More influenced by several factors in selection of first-choice institution • • • Institutional reputation Faculty/student interaction Campus safety/security Guidebook rankings Professional accreditation Diversity of student population Graduate study options Library holdings Needs-based bursaries 45
Implications - University • Within 2 nd/3 rd tier cities, differences between immigrant and nonimmigrant applicants – More likely to attend local institutions – More influenced by friends and family in deciding where to apply – More motivated to apply by an interest in post-graduate study, improving leadership skills, enhancing confidence, giving back to society, improving social status, and career advancement – More influenced by several factors in selection of first-choice institution • • Institutional reputation Graduate employment outcomes Graduate study options Co-ops Guidebook rankings Undergraduate research opportunities Attractive campus 46
Further Analysis • Hierarchical logistic regression to further explore key decision factors – – Immigrant status Place of residence Age Visible minority status 47
Thank you! Peggy Sattler, Director Policy Studies peggy@academicagroup. com 48
- Slides: 48