1. Running
Head:
INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
1
Institutional
Undermatching
Tyler
Guenette
Michigan
State
University

2. INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
2
An
issue
that
has
recently
come
to
light,
and
that
will
gain
more
attention
in
the
coming
years
is
the
undermatching
of
students
to
institutions
of
higher
education.
Undermatching
is
the
phenomenon
in
which
a
student,
typically
from
a
low
socioeconomic
background,
chooses
to
attend
an
institution
that
is
less
selective
and
less
rigorous
than
others
that
they
might
have
attended
based
upon
their
academic
history
(Bastedo
&
Jaquette,
2011;
Viadero,
2009).
This
paper
will
work
to
describe
what
makes
undermatching
an
issue,
some
of
the
tensions
that
surround
undermatching,
to
which
constituents
of
postsecondary
education
this
issue
is
most
relevant,
and
how
these
constituents
might
utilize
Bolman
and
Deal’s
frames
to
address
the
undermatching
issue.
Upon
hearing
this
term,
undermatching,
it
might
be
easy
to
write
off
the
significance
and
conclude
that
a
student
who
attends
a
school
for
which
they
are
overqualified,
they
will
simply
be
more
likely
to
succeed.
This,
however,
is
not
the
case.
Research
in
fact
indicates
the
contrary,
to
where
students
who
choose
a
school
for
which
they
are
overqualified
are
less
likely
to
graduate
within
four
years,
or
even
at
all
(Viadero,
2009).
Because
of
a
lack
of
support
and
guidance
from
family,
this
is
often
seen
most
frequently
in
first
generation
students
and
those
of
low
socioeconomic
status
who
decide
to
attend
a
community
college
(Pharris-­‐Ciurej,
Herting,
Hirschman,
2012;
Viadero,
2009).
These
students
are
13%
less
likely
to
obtain
a
bachelors
degree
than
if
they
had
initially
attended
a
four
year
institution
(Bastedo
&
Jaquette,
2011;
Pharris-­‐Ciurej,
Herting,
Hirschman,
2012).
Further,
more
selective
institutions
have
greater
expectations
that
the
students
will
graduate,
but
if
the
student
attends
a
school
in
which
there
is
not
the
same
expectation
of
graduating,
their
peers
and
family
will
also
have
lesser
expectations,
thus
resulting
in
a
decreased
likelihood
of
graduation
(Viadero,
2009).

3. INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
3
It
appears
that
the
undermatching
issue
for
the
students
often
stems
from
the
college
application
process
(Viadero,
2009),
it
is
not
that
these
students
are
not
being
accepted
in
to
the
more
selective
schools,
but
rather
are
deciding
not
to
apply
or
choosing
not
to
go
after
being
accepted.
The
decision
on
the
students’
part
to
not
attend
the
more
prestigious
schools
has
been
attributed,
in
part,
to
multiple
things.
One
deterrent
may
be
the
initial
list
price
at
the
more
prestigious
schools.
A
student
who
does
not
have
a
parent
of
whom
is
familiar
with
the
financial
aid
processes
may
assume
the
list
price
will
be
what
they
are
paying
and
will
not
know
about
scholarships,
grants,
and
loans
which
he
or
she
may
be
eligible
to
receive
(Viadero,
2009).
Another
factor
that
may
be
contributing
to
undermatching
is
the
ease
with
which
students
find
in
attending
the
school
that
their
high
school
peers
-­‐
who
might
be
less
motivated
to
succeed
-­‐
most
frequently
choose
(Viadero,
2009).
Choosing
this
common
school
might
at
first
seem
a
good
idea,
but
if
the
student
did
not
look
in
to
the
institution
and
is
over
qualified,
as
mentioned
previously,
the
student
has
greater
chances
of
dropping
out
of
school.
As
the
issue
of
undermatching
is
a
relatively
new
concept
within
higher
education,
tensions
have
not
seemingly
made
their
way
to
the
surface
of
the
literature
as
of
yet.
However,
there
are
likely
a
few
varying
perspectives
to
be
had
that
may
bring
about
some
tension.
The
tension
that
seems
most
evident
to
occur
will
be
in
higher
education
constituents
stating
that
it
is
an
individual
characteristic
of
the
students
who
attend
the
less
prestigious
institutions,
which
leads
the
student
to
drop
out,
rather
than
the
mismatch
with
the
institution.
Further
tension
will
likely
stem
from
a
lack
of
knowledge
about
the
challenges
faced
by
first
generation
and
low
socioeconomic
status
students.
An
administrator
or
policy
maker
not
knowledgeable
about
the
challenges
may
attribute
the

4. INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
4
levels
of
attrition
to
laziness
or
to
students
not
having
the
necessary
intelligence
to
succeed
rather
than
attributing
the
issue
to
the
current
systemic
shortcomings
which
do
not
allow
this
population
of
students
to
be
as
successful
as
their
peers.
These
inherent
tensions
may
prevent
or
prolong
administrative
or
policy
attempts
at
decreasing
the
rates
of
undermatching,
thus
continuing
the
under-­‐stimulation
and
utilization
of
the
bright,
often
underrepresented
minds
of
the
first
generation
and
low
socioeconomic
status
students.
The
issue
of
undermatching
impacts
many
constituents
of
higher
education,
some
of
whom
are
not
directly
involved
with
any
particular
institution
of
higher
education.
The
primary
constituents
include
high
school
staff,
college
admissions
and
financial
aid
departments,
and
educational
policy
makers.
For
each
of
these
impacted
constituents
I
will
describe
how
this
issue
is
relevant
and
what
they
might
do
in
order
to
decrease
the
rates
of
undermatching
through
the
utilization
of
Bolman
and
Deals
(2008)
frame
model.
High
school
staffs
create
the
building
blocks
from
which
students
begin
their
individual
development
and
preparation
for
higher
education
and
the
rest
of
their
life.
It
is
clear
that
these
influential
people
will
play
a
crucial
role
in
ensuring
better
educational
matching
for
the
students
that
they
work
with.
Starting
early
in
students
high
school
careers,
the
staff,
especially
guidance
counselors,
should
utilize
the
symbolic
frame
to
inspire
in
their
students’
minds
that
a
higher
education
is
attainable
for
all
students.
From
there,
in
order
to
allow
their
students
to
be
as
successful
as
possible,
the
staff
should
utilize
the
human
resource
frame
(Bolman
&
Deal,
2008)
to
educate
the
students
about
what
it
means
to
get
a
higher
education,
the
many
opportunities
it
affords,
and
what
the
students
should
do
now
to
better
their
chances
of
getting
in
to
an
institution
of
higher
education
later.
As
the
students
progress
through
high
school
it
will
be
important
for
the
schools

5. INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
5
guidance
and/or
college
counselors
to
work
with
the
student
in
developing
ideas
on
what
the
student
would
like
to
do
in
the
future
in
regard
to
career
aspirations.
The
counselor(s)
should
also
help
the
student
in
gauging
which
institutions
they
might
best
be
suited
for
based
upon
their
academic
history,
test
scores,
and
interests.
While
these
pieces
of
support
seem
small,
it
will
likely
necessitate
the
use
of
the
structural
frame
(2008),
because
these
small
pieces
of
support
will
require
a
great
deal
of
time
on
behalf
of
the
school’s
staff,
and
so
additional
funds
may
be
needed
to
hire
additional
staff
or
create
new
methods
of
interaction
to
meet
with
and
track
students
throughout
their
time
in
school
and
during
the
college
application
stages.
Within
the
institution
of
higher
education,
the
constituents
most
relevant
to
the
issue
of
undermatching
are
the
departments
of
admissions
and
financial
aid.
As
mentioned
previously,
the
application
process
seems
to
be
where
students
decide
upon
institutions
to
which
they
are
overqualified
(Viadero,
2009),
which
is
often
due
to
a
lack
of
knowledge
about
higher
education
and
the
involved
components,
especially
financial
aid.
As
the
students
are
applying
to
various
institutions
of
higher
education,
it
is
likely
that
they
will
not
know
exactly
what
components
of
the
schools
they
should
be
looking
at.
This
is
where
admissions
will
be
important.
Admissions
recruiters
and
officers,
utilizing
the
human
resources
frame
(Bolman
&
Deal,
2008),
can
better
serve
the
students
by
not
only
highlighting
the
important
information
about
their
institution,
but
also
by
explaining
the
importance
of
determining
the
right
fit
with
an
institution
and
discussing
various
strategies
for
determining
if
an
institution
is
the
right
one.
It
will
additionally
be
important
for
financial
aid
to
form
a
coalition,
through
the
political
frame
(2008),
with
admissions
recruiters
so
that
the
recruiters
can
convey
early
on,
the
most
accurate
information
about

6. INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
6
the
financial
aid
processes
and
aid
provided
to
the
students.
The
collaboration
between
admissions
and
financial
aid
will
allow
the
students
to
discover
how
they
might
afford
their
education
before
they
receive
their
financial
aid
packages.
Making
greater
use
of
the
political
frame,
and
in
further
trying
to
lessen
the
number
of
students
undermatching
due
to
financial
constraints
and
misunderstandings,
financial
aid
offices
likely
would
find
it
beneficial
to
develop
consortiums
with
other
institutions
financial
aid
departments.
Through
these
consortiums,
the
various
schools
could
come
together
and
divide
up
the
state’s
school
districts,
only
needing
to
send
one
financial
aid
officer
who
is
knowledgeable
on
the
practices
of
each
school.
This
type
of
consortium
would
allow
institutions
to
create
an
affordable
way
to
give
students
a
better
understanding
of
the
financial
aid
processes
and
the
amount
of
financial
support
they
might
receive
at
any
one
of
the
schools
since
the
cost
of
the
financial
aid
advisors
will
be
divided
across
all
of
the
state
institutions.
Having
one
advisor
for
each
district
will
also
allow
the
students
to
grow
familiar
with
their
respective
advisor
and
may
assist
them
in
becoming
more
comfortable
to
ask
this
individual
any
questions
that
they
might
have.
The
concept
of
a
consortium
of
financial
aid
departments
from
various
institutions
working
together
also
has
implications
for
policy
makers.
To
truly
make
the
best
use
of
the
schools
within
a
state’s
higher
education
system,
creating
policy
that
provides
funding
to
and
necessitates
the
collaboration
might
be
required.
The
involvement
of
policy
makers
to
create
this
type
of
policy
will
help
in
initially
developing
the
consortium
to
make
it
as
successful
as
it
can
be.
Policy
makers
becoming
involved
and
working
to
lessen
the
amount
of
undermatching
will
further
be
important
in
using
the
structural
and
human
resources
frame
to
create
support
programs
that
reach
students
while
still
in
high
school.
By
creating

7. INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
7
and
funding
additional
programs
such
as
GEAR
UP
and
Upward
Bound
(Pharris-­‐Ciurej,
Herting,
Hirschman,
2012),
some
of
the
burden
of
financing
support,
such
as
counselors
and
other
programs,
will
be
removed
from
the
high
school,
while
providing
a
more
universal
support
system
for
students.
Additionally,
with
the
price
to
attend
a
selective
institution
serving
as
a
primary
deterrent
for
many
first
generation
and
low
socioeconomic
status
students
(Viadero,
2009),
policy
makers
can
also
work
to
adjust
current
financial
aid
policies
so
that
receiving
an
education
at
even
the
most
selective
institutions
will
be
viewed
as
possible
to
these
students.
In
the
coming
years,
undermatching
will
continue
to
gain
the
attention
of
administrators
and
other
higher
education
constituents.
As
the
issues
of
undermatching
continue
to
be
discovered
it
will
be
necessary
for
administrators
within
secondary
education,
higher
education,
and
in
policy
to
work
toward
assisting
the
first
generation
and
low
socioeconomic
status
students
be
more
successful
and
find
the
right
institution
for
them.
Through
the
use
of
the
four
frames
proposed
by
Bolman
and
Deal
in
creating
possible
solutions,
the
impact
of
undermatching
will
eventually
be
lessened
as
the
students
will
be
more
supported
and
feel
more
confident
in
their
abilities
to
perform
successfully
at
more
selective
institutions
of
higher
education.

8. INSTITUTIONAL
UNDERMATCHING
8
References
Bastedo,
M.
N.,
&
Jaquette,
O.
(2011).
Running
in
place:
Low-­‐income
students
and
the
dynamics
of
higher
education
stratification.
Educational
Evaluation
and
Policy
Analysis,
33(3),
318-­‐339.
Retrieved
from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/889924601?
accountid
Bolman,
L.
G.,
Deal,
T.
E.
(2008).
Reframing
Organizations:
Artistry,
Choice,
and
Leadership
(4th
ed.).
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass.
Pharris-­‐Ciurej,
N.,
Herting,
J.
R.,
&
Hirschman,
C.
(2012).
The
impact
of
the
promise
of
scholarships
and
altering
school
structure
on
college
plans,
preparation,
and
enrollment.
Social
Science
Research,
41(4),
920-­‐935.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.007
Viadero,
D.
(2009).
Student-­‐to-­‐college
'mismatch'
seen
as
graduation-­‐rate
issue.
Education
Week,
29(4),
1-­‐1,
13.
Retrieved
from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/2027618
97?accountid=12598