Student cognitive abilities and college institutional factors both shape outcomes, but the historical evidence suggests student characteristics play an outsized role.
Key Facts:
- In the research paper, student cognitive aptitude accounted for 41-47% of the variance in long-term salary outcomes.
- Institutional factors collectively accounted for more variance when entered first into models, suggesting both student and institutional factors matter.
- Findings aligned with decades of research showing student characteristics, especially cognitive abilities, account for most variance in student achievement.
- The evidence indicates student cognitive aptitude puts bounds around how much schools can influence achievement.
Source: J Intell. 2022
Debate: Innate Intellect vs. Effect of College on Outcomes
A long-running debate in education research concerns the extent to which student characteristics versus institutional factors shape educational outcomes.
Specifically, how much do the personal attributes and background factors students bring to college matter relative to what the college contributes through its education and programs?
Recently, researchers examined contemporary data on U.S. colleges and universities to address this question.
Their findings provide insight into the relative importance of student versus institutional characteristics in higher education outcomes like long-term salary and college rankings.
While both student and college factors matter, the evidence indicates student characteristics account for an outsized proportion of variance in higher education outcomes.
This aligns with decades of research emphasizing the importance of student cognitive aptitude in achievement.
SAT & ACT Scores (Cognitive Abilities) Determine Post-Grad Income
In the recent study, the researchers found that differences in average student cognitive aptitude, as measured by SAT/ACT scores, accounted for a substantial proportion of variance in long-term salary outcomes across universities.
Specifically, average SAT/ACT scores accounted for 41-47% of the variance in alumni salary around 10 years after graduation.
This means nearly half of the differences in university salary outcomes can be attributed to differences in the academic aptitudes students possessed when entering college.
This result aligns with past findings that general cognitive ability predicts occupational outcomes throughout life.
It suggests student aptitudes constrain how much salary outcomes colleges can influence, since students bring extensive ability differences.
Institutional Factors Also Play a Role
However, the study also found that collectively, institutional characteristics like selectivity, cost, and resources accounted for even more salary outcome variance when entered first into statistical models.
This illustrates college factors do matter and add value beyond student abilities alone.
But it also shows the findings depend on how the models are specified and which variables take priority.
The main takeaway is that both student characteristics and institutional factors have important shaping roles in higher education outcomes like salary.
But historically, the contribution of student factors like cognitive aptitude appears dominant based on a broader view of the evidence.
Findings Align With Decades of Research on Student Ability
In fact, these findings closely mirror results from decades of research examining the role of cognitive abilities in student achievement.
For example, the famous 1966 Coleman Report on over 600,000 U.S. students found that around 80-90% of variance in student achievement was attributable to student background characteristics, while just 10-20% was due to differences between schools.
Similarly, studies of twins have concluded differences between classrooms account for only around 2-3% of variance in academic achievement.
The findings also parallel results from other natural experiments and longitudinal analyses.
Across contexts and eras, the historical research clearly emphasizes the outsized role of student characteristics, especially cognitive aptitudes like general intelligence, in achievement outcomes relative to institutional factors.
The recent study demonstrates this general pattern continues to hold in contemporary higher education settings when examining long-term salary outcomes.
Student Aptitude Constrains Institutional Achievement Effects
What do the collective findings suggest?
Primarily, that student cognitive abilities set bounds around how much schools and teachers can influence student achievement and outcomes.
Students enter educational settings with extensive ability differences due to factors like genetics and upbringing.
These differences account for massive variation in achievement, as decades of research shows.
As such, institutional characteristics can only shape outcomes to the degree student characteristics allow.
This highlights the constrained role institutions play against the backdrop of student abilities.
Of course, this does not negate that high quality schools and teachers impact outcomes.
But it does contextualize such effects within the wider variance attributed to students historically.
Remaining Questions and Limitations
The recent study had limitations, like missing data and restrictions to certain outcomes.
And it could not definitively determine causality. Further research with longitudinal designs can provide additional insight.
More work is also needed on how educational interventions can improve cognitive abilities and whether any such effects persist over time.
Understanding how practices interact with student aptitudes represents another key area.
Additionally, the aggregate level of analysis leaves open questions about precise effects on individual students.
Multilevel studies examining cross-level interactions between students and institutions can prove illuminating.
But the overall historical pattern remains – student characteristics, especially cognitive abilities, account for an outsized portion of variance in academic achievement and higher education outcomes.
Appreciating this historic evidence provides helpful perspective moving forward.
Conclusion: Cognitive Aptitude Matters Most
In sum, the recent study found similarities between contemporary data and decades of research emphasizing student cognitive aptitudes over institutional factors in achievement variance.
This underscores the primary role student abilities play in constraining the educational effects institutions can achieve.
While college characteristics do add value, the historical backdrop suggests student characteristics deserve greater policy attention in education.
Overall, recognizing the role of student aptitudes sets reasonable expectations for institutional achievement effects within the broader bounds set by students.
References
- Study: Student characteristics, institutional factors, and outcomes in higher education and beyond
- Authors: Jonathan Wai & Bich Tran (2022)
