Higher Education
Information Sharing Could Help Institutions Identify and Address Challenges Some Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Students Face Gao ID: GAO-07-925 July 25, 2007As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders represent about 5 percent of the U.S. population and hold about 8 percent of the college degrees. To better understand the educational attainment and average incomes of the subgroups that comprise this population, the Committee asked: 1) What are Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups' educational attainment and household income levels? (2) What challenges, if any, Asian American and Pacific Islander students face in pursuing and completing their post-secondary education? and (3) What federal and institutional resources do institutions with large Asian American and Pacific Islander student enrollment use to address the particular needs of these students? GAO analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education (Education) and spoke with officials and Asian American and Pacific Islander students at eight postsecondary institutions.
As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders have attained high levels of education and income, but differences among Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups exist. For example, a greater percentage of Asian Indians and Chinese in the United States had college degrees than Vietnamese, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and Indochinese--Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong. Asian Indians had the highest and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and Indochinese had the lowest average income among employed Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups. Data limitations, including challenges linking data sources, prevented GAO from fully exploring the reasons for the differences among subgroups. Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups--while in high school--face a range of challenges that may affect their ability to persist in college. According to GAO's analysis of Education's data, Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups differ in their levels of academic preparedness, ability to pay for college, and their need to balance academic, employment, and family obligations. The postsecondary institutions that GAO visited used both federal grants and their own resources to address the needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander students. The schools used federal aid to institutions to provide tutoring services and to supplement Pell Grants for selected students. The schools also applied their own funds to provide a range of services, including outreach to high school students, scholarships, tutoring, and financial aid application and tuition assistance. School officials told GAO that they could benefit from learning about programs and strategies other schools might be using to assist high school and college students.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-925, Higher Education: Information Sharing Could Help Institutions Identify and Address Challenges Some Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Students Face
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-925
entitled 'Higher Education: Information Sharing Could Help Institutions
Identify and Address Challenges Some Asian Americans and Pacific
Islander Students Face' which was released on July 26, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2007:
Higher Education:
Information Sharing Could Help Institutions Identify and Address
Challenges Some Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Students Face:
GAO-07-925:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-925, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders represent about 5
percent of the U.S. population and hold about 8 percent of the college
degrees. To better understand the educational attainment and average
incomes of the subgroups that comprise this population, the Committee
asked: 1) What are Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups‘
educational attainment and household income levels? (2) What
challenges, if any, Asian American and Pacific Islander students face
in pursuing and completing their post-secondary education? and (3) What
federal and institutional resources do institutions with large Asian
American and Pacific Islander student enrollment use to address the
particular needs of these students? GAO analyzed data from the U.S.
Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education (Education) and
spoke with officials and Asian American and Pacific Islander students
at eight postsecondary institutions.
What GAO Found:
As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders have attained high
levels of education and income, but differences among Asian American
and Pacific Islander subgroups exist. For example, a greater percentage
of Asian Indians and Chinese in the United States had college degrees
than Vietnamese, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and
Indochinese”Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong. Asian Indians had the
highest and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and Indochinese had
the lowest average income among employed Asian American and Pacific
Islander subgroups. Data limitations, including challenges linking data
sources, prevented GAO from fully exploring the reasons for the
differences among subgroups.
Figure: Education and Average Income, by Asian American and Pacific
Islander subgroup (2005):
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS data.
[End of figure]
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups”while in high school”face
a range of challenges that may affect their ability to persist in
college. According to GAO‘s analysis of Education‘s data, Asian
American and Pacific Islander subgroups differ in their levels of
academic preparedness, ability to pay for college, and their need to
balance academic, employment, and family obligations.
The postsecondary institutions that GAO visited used both federal
grants and their own resources to address the needs of Asian American
and Pacific Islander students. The schools used federal aid to
institutions to provide tutoring services and to supplement Pell Grants
for selected students. The schools also applied their own funds to
provide a range of services, including outreach to high school
students, scholarships, tutoring, and financial aid application and
tuition assistance. School officials told GAO that they could benefit
from learning about programs and strategies other schools might be
using to assist high school and college students.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education facilitate sharing of
information among postsecondary institutions that serve Asian American
and Pacific Islanders about strategies that foster low-income
postsecondary student recruitment, retention, and graduation and about
strategies to reach out to low-income students beginning in high
school. Education officials generally agreed with our recommendation.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-925].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-
7215 or scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Collectively, Asian American and Pacific Islanders Have Achieved High
Levels of Education and Income, but There are Differences among Asian
American and Pacific Islander Subgroups:
Students from Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups Differ in
the Challenges They Face When Pursuing Postsecondary Education:
Institutions Used Both Federal Aid and Their Own Funding and Resources
to Address the Needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander Students:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Description of Federal Student Aid:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Groupings for Analyses of Asian American and Pacific Islander
Populations:
Table 2: Estimated Income by Racial and Ethnic Group and College Degree
Attainment in 2005:
Table 3: Estimated Average Income for Asian American and Pacific
Islander Subgroups by Attainment of College Degree in 2005:
Table 4: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups
Fluent in English:
Table 5: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups
with and without College Degree Fluent in English:
Table 6: Percentage of Students Taking ESL Courses by Asian American
and Pacific Islander Subgroup:
Table 7: Percentage of Undergraduates Delaying Their Postsecondary
Enrollment, by Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups in 2000:
Table 8: Description of Federal Institutional Grant Programs Used at
Visited Institutions:
Table 9: Federal Institutional Grant Programs Used by Institutions
Visited On-site:
Table 10: Estimated Numbers and Percentages of College Graduates and
Non Graduates, by (1) Broad Racial/Ethnic Categories and (2) Specific
Asian American Subgroups, and Odds and Odds Ratios Derived from Them:
Table 11: Odds Ratios from Bi-variate and Multivariate Models
Estimating the Effects of Race and Ethnicity, Gender, Age and Nativity-
Date of Arrival on the Odds on Having a College Degree:
Table 12: Odds Ratios from Bi-variate and Multivariate Models
Estimating the Effects of Ethnicity, Sex, Age, and Nativity/Arrival
Status on the Odds on Having a College Degree for Asian American and
Pacific Islander Subgroups:
Table 13: Composition of the Asian American and Pacific Islander
Student Discussion Groups:
Figures:
Figure 1: A Map of Asia and the Pacific Islands:
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander
and Other Groups in the U.S. Population Age 25 or Older In 2005:
Figure 3: Estimated Percentage with at Least a 4-year College Degree
and Average Income by Racial and Ethnic Group in 2005:
Figure 4: Estimated Percentage with at Least a 4-year College Degree
and Their Average Income by Asian American and Pacific Islander
Subgroup in 2005:
Figure 5: Percentage of Foreign Born Asian American and Pacific
Islander Subgroups Arriving before and after 1980:
Figure 6: High School Academic Program, by Asian American and Pacific
Islander Subgroup in 2002:
Figure 7: High School Reading and Math Quartiles, by Asian American and
Pacific Islander Subgroup:
Figure 8: Socioeconomic Status Quartile of High School Students, by
Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroup in 2004:
Figure 9: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups
Setting Aside Money for Child's Future Education in 2002:
Figure 10: Work among Enrolled Undergraduates, by Asian American and
Pacific Islander Subgroups in 2000:
Figure 11: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Students
Who Applied for and Received Any Federal Aid in 2000:
Figure 12: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Students
Who Applied for and Received a Federal Loan, Grant, or Work Study in
2000:
Abbreviations:
AAPI: Asian American and Pacific Islander:
ACS: American Community Survey:
ACS PUMS: American Community Survey Public Use Microdata:
BRR: balanced repeated replication:
ELS: Education Longitudinal Study:
ESL: English as a second language:
FAFSA: Free Application for Federal Student Aid:
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:
NPSAS: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study:
MOE: margin of error:
OR: odds ratio(s):
PLUS: Parents Loan for Undergraduate Students:
SSS: Student Support Services:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 25, 2007:
The Honorable David Wu:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Howard "Buck" McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
Although Asian American and Pacific Islanders represent about 5 percent
of the general population, they hold about 8 percent of the college
degrees in the United States, leading some to characterize them as the
"model minority". However, viewing Asian American and Pacific Islanders
as a homogeneous group may mask differences in educational attainment
and income among Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups.
Asian American and Pacific Islanders are a diverse population,
comprised of as many as 43 ethnic groups that differ in their
languages, cultures, and countries of origin. Some Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroups, such as the Chinese and Japanese, have
large numbers of people who immigrated to the U.S. several generations
ago; other subgroups--such as the Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian
populations of Southeast Asia--arrived in the 1970s and, like other
immigrants, may face challenges in obtaining an education. Asian
American and Pacific Islanders also are one of the fastest growing
minority groups in the United States. As a group, Asian American and
Pacific Islanders increased about 76 percent between 1990 and 2000,
from about 7 million to 12 million.
To assist postsecondary institutions that serve both minority and low-
income students, the Congress appropriated about $514 million in fiscal
year 2007 to fund programs provided under Title III and Title V of the
Higher Education Act, as amended. The U.S. Department of Education
(Education) administers these programs by issuing grants to eligible
postsecondary institutions to help them improve their capacity to serve
minority and low-income students. Education also provides about $270
million in aid annually to postsecondary institutions under its TRIO
program (see Background section for more detail on TRIO) to assist,
among other groups, first generation college students.
To better understand educational attainment and income among the Asian
American and Pacific Islander subgroups, you asked us to determine: (1)
What are Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups' educational
attainment and household income levels? (2) What challenges, if any,
Asian American and Pacific Islander students face in pursuing and
completing their postsecondary education? and (3) What federal and
institutional resources do institutions with large Asian American and
Pacific Islander student enrollment use to address the particular needs
of these students.
To answer the first question, we used the Census Bureau's (Census) 2005
American Community Survey (ACS), to examine the present educational
attainment of Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups in the
United States relative to other racial or ethnic groups.[Footnote 1] We
conducted statistical analyses to identify the relationship between
educational attainment and income, gender, level of English fluency,
nativity, and date of arrival.[Footnote 2] We also constructed a
multivariate model to analyze the extent to which certain factors
affected the likelihood of having or not having a college degree.
Because of data limitations, including the time and resources needed to
link data sources or re-interview ACS respondents, we were unable to
include parents' education, income, degree status on entry to the U.S.,
and some other factors in the model that research has shown influence
educational attainment. To answer the second question, we analyzed
nationally representative data from two Education databases-- the
Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS) and the National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) of 2000.[Footnote 3] The Asian
American and Pacific Islander demographic data in both databases
provided separate categories for the most populous subgroups, but
combines data for the less populous subgroups, such as Cambodians,
Laotians and Hmong.[Footnote 4] We assessed the reliability of the ACS,
ELS, and NPSAS data by performing electronic testing of required data
elements, reviewing existing information about the data and the systems
that produced them, and by interviewing agency officials knowledgeable
about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report. We also visited eight 2-year and 4-
year postsecondary institutions in Hawaii, Minnesota and California and
conducted 14 discussion groups with students from 11 Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroups. We selected states and institutions with
high concentrations of Asian American and Pacific Islander students and
diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups. To answer the
third question, we analyzed the NPSAS 2000 data, interviewed officials
at the eight postsecondary institutions we visited, interviewed
Education officials about federal Title III, TRIO, Native Hawaiian
Education, and Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education program
requirements and reviewed program documentation.
Appendix I provides a detailed description of our methodology and its
limitations. We conducted our work from July 2006 through July 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders have attained high
levels of education and income, but differences among Asian American
and Pacific Islander subgroups exist. According to our analysis of the
2005 ACS data, almost half of the Asian American and Pacific Islanders
in the United States over the age of 25 had a 4-year college degree. In
comparison almost one third of whites and less than one fifth of
African Americans and Hispanics had degrees. In addition, Asian
American and Pacific Islanders had the highest income of any other
group followed by whites. Viewing Asian American and Pacific Islanders
as a single group, however, masks the fact that there are major
differences in educational attainment and income among their subgroups.
For example, a greater percentage of Asian Indians and Chinese in the
United States had college degrees compared to the Vietnamese, Native
Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and other Indochinese--the Cambodians,
Laotians, and Hmong. In addition, income among employed Asian American
and Pacific Islanders was lowest among Native Hawaiians and Pacific
Islanders and the Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong. The differences
among Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups are significant,
and research indicates that degree status on entry to the U.S. is an
important factor in those differences. In addition, our multivariate
analysis showed that immigration status explained some of the
differences in educational attainment among the subgroups.
Education's data on Asian American and Pacific Islanders while they
were in high school and college show that subgroups face a range of
challenges when pursuing postsecondary education. Specifically, the
data showed that subgroups differ in their levels of academic
preparedness, ability to pay for college, and their need to balance
academic, employment, and family obligations. For example, half of
Southeast Asian high school students were not in a college preparatory
program, nearly one quarter took English-as-a-second-language courses,
and more than half of Southeast Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander, and other Asian American and Pacific Islander students had
lower scores on reading and math tests. With respect to the ability to
pay for college, more than half of Southeast Asian and Native Hawaiian
and Pacific Islander students were in the lower socioeconomic
quartiles, and Southeast Asian and other Asian American and Pacific
Islander parents set aside less money for their children's future
education than parents in other subgroups. Finally, Asian American and
Pacific Islander students participating in our discussion groups told
us that they faced challenges balancing their work, family, and
academic responsibilities leading some to live at home, work while
enrolled, and even delay their education.
The postsecondary institutions we visited, all of which had large
concentrations of Asian American and Pacific Islander students, used
federal institutional grants and their own resources to address the
needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander students. For example,
federal aid that is targeted to colleges that serve students who are
low-income and at risk of not succeeding in college provided tutoring
to college students and supplemented Pell Grants for students
struggling to meet the cost of college. Similarly, schools used their
own funds to provide a range of services, including outreach to
students while they were still in high school, scholarships, tuition
assistance, tutoring, and help applying for financial aid to enrolled
college students. For example, one school provided scholarships to low-
income Hmong students. Another school used its own resources and
offered advising, tutoring, and assistance applying for financial aid
to Native Hawaiians, students of Filipino ancestry, and other
underrepresented ethnicities including Pacific Islanders and Southeast
Asians. These services were established to respond to challenges the
university faced recruiting and retaining underserved groups. Officials
at some of the schools we visited said that these programs and
strategies reached underserved student populations while they were
still in high school and equipped students enrolled in college with the
tools and resources they needed to persist in school. Officials at some
of the schools we visited also told us that they would benefit from
learning about strategies other colleges have used to assist AAPI high
school and college students. In past reports, GAO also has found that a
range of strategies--including providing low-income and minority
students with tutoring, mentoring, and instruction in various subjects,
including math and writing, beginning in high school--improved the
students' educational attainment.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Education facilitate
information sharing among postsecondary institutions that serve Asian
American and Pacific Islander students about strategies that foster low-
income Asian American and Pacific Islander student recruitment,
retention and graduation and about strategies to reach out to this
group beginning in high school. Education generally agreed with our
recommendation and agreed to examine options to facilitate information
sharing by encouraging more grantees to report successful practices on
their own Web pages. However, we believe that Education is uniquely
positioned to serve as a broker for information sharing, using its own
Web site to facilitate the exchange of information about successful
strategies for Asian American and Pacific Islander students.
Background:
Asian American and Pacific Islanders are U. S. residents who are
descendants of immigrants, or are immigrants themselves, from several
countries in Asia and the Pacific Islands. Of the 43 self-identified
subgroups in the 2005 ACS, about half are linked to Asian countries of
origin or ethnic groups and about half are linked to Pacific Island
cultures. The Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean and
Vietnamese subgroups accounted for about 88 percent of the Asian
American and Pacific Islander subgroups in 2005. The map in figure 1
displays the geographic region of Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Most Asian American and Pacific Islanders entered the country following
passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 or as
refugees, and a high percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islanders
age 25 or older in 2005--about 83 percent--are foreign born. However,
differences in immigration history and immigrant status also exist
among the Asian subgroups. For example, the Chinese were one of the
first Asian subgroups to immigrate to the U.S., arriving in the
nineteenth century, whereas most Vietnamese arrived in two waves, one
after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam in 1972 and the other before the
South Vietnamese government fell in 1975.
As shown in figure 2, among the major racial and ethnic groups, whites
accounted for the majority of the U.S. population (about 71 percent),
followed by Hispanics (12 percent) and African Americans (11 percent).
Asians accounted for about 4 percent of U. S. population members age 25
or older in 2005. When attempting to study individual Asian American
and Pacific Islander subgroups, the small number of people in some
subgroups makes analysis difficult.
Figure 1: A Map of Asia and the Pacific Islands:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Map Resources.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander
and Other Groups in the U.S. Population Age 25 or Older In 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS data.
Note: All estimates have a margin of error of two-tenths of 1 percent
or less.
[End of figure]
The Census Bureau, which has developed specialized techniques for
populations with limited English proficiency included questions that
allowed Asian American and Pacific Islanders to self-identify their 43
subgroups in the 2005 ACS survey. Education, which conducts national
surveys of postsecondary institutions and students, such as NPSAS and
ELS, to support program planning and research, includes questions in
the surveys asking respondents to self-identify the most populous
subgroups, such as the Chinese, Asian Indians and Filipinos, but not
the less populous ones. According to Education, collecting reliable
information on Asian American and Pacific Islander students from the
small subgroups--such as the Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong--is
difficult because: they tend to attend small postsecondary
institutions; all schools don't collect information for Asian American
and Pacific Islander subgroups; Education samples only 25 students at
each institution; and students don't self-identify their subgroup
accurately. As a result, research on Asian American and Pacific
Islanders' educational attainment and income that uses multiple sources
of data has incompatible Asian American and Pacific Islander categories
among the data sources. The Asian American and Pacific Islander
groupings used in our analyses are shown in table 1.
Table 1: Groupings For Analyses Of Asian American And Pacific Islander
Populations:
Groupings for our ACS analysis: (South) Asian Indians;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: South Asian--Asian Indian, Bangladeshi,
Sri Lankan;
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Asian Indian.
Groupings for our ACS analysis: South Asians--Pakistani, Bangladeshi,
and Sri Lankan;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: [Empty];
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: [Empty].
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Chinese;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: Chinese;
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Chinese.
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Japanese;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: Japanese;
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Japanese.
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Korean;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: Korean;
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Korean.
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Filipino;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: Filipino;
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Filipino.
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Vietnamese;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: [Empty];
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Vietnamese.
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Southeast Asians --Indonesian,
Malaysian and Thai;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: Southeast Asian-- Vietnamese, Laotian,
Cambodian/Kampuchean, Thai, Burmese;
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: [Empty].
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Indochinese--Cambodian, Laotian and
Hmong;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: [Empty];
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: [Empty].
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders-
-Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan, Polynesian, Guamanian, Chamorro,
Micronesian, Melanesian, and other or combined Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islanders;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders;
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Native Hawaiians and Pacific
Islanders.
Groupings for our ACS analysis: Other Asians--other specified Asian,
unspecified Asian and combinations of Asian groups;
Groupings for our ELS analysis: Other Asian American and Pacific
Islander and unspecified Asian American and Pacific Islander [A];
Groupings for our NPSAS analysis: Other Asian American and Pacific
Islander and unspecified Asian American and Pacific Islander [A].
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS, 2002 ELS, and 2000 NPSAS data.
[A] For our ELS 2002 and NPSAS 2000 analyses, we created an "Other
Asian American Pacific Islander/Unspecified Asian American Pacific
Islander" category that we refer to throughout this report as "Other
Asian American and Pacific Islander." For ELS 2002, we developed the
category that included the responses of (1) students who identified
themselves as Asian but did not specify to which Asian American Pacific
Islander subgroup they belonged and (2) students who identified
themselves as multiethnic as well as a member of an Asian American
Pacific Islander subgroup. In NPSAS 2000, we developed a category that
included the responses of (1) students who identified themselves as
Asian and selected "Other Asian American Pacific Islander" as their
subgroup, (2) students who identified themselves as Asian but did not
specify an Asian American Pacific Islander subgroup and (3) students
who identified themselves as Thai.
[End of table]
Federal Aid to Postsecondary Institutions and Individual Students:
The Department of Education provides grants directly to postsecondary
institutions to help schools improve their capacity to serve low-income
and minority students. Asian American and Pacific Islander students may
receive assistance under these programs either as participants in
institutions that received targeted grants or as individual recipients
of federal student financial aid. Federal assistance in each of these
areas gives special consideration to students from low-income families.
Title III, Institutional Aid, and Title V, Developing Institutions, of
the Higher Education Act, as amended, include a number of programs that
authorize Education to award grants to postsecondary institutions that
serve large proportions of low-income students and have limited
financial resources, such as endowment funds. The grants are generally
intended to increase postsecondary institutions' self-sufficiency and
build institutional capacity by improving academic quality, addressing
institutional management issues, and improving student services and
outcomes. The Title III and Title V programs have broad goals for
strengthening participating postsecondary institutions but also allow
them flexibility in developing approaches that will meet their own
objectives. As part of the program's application, participating
postsecondary institutions submit a plan for achieving growth and self-
sufficiency, focused in one or more authorized areas of activity, and
if selected, may use the grant to pursue the plan's objectives. While
funding is not specifically targeted to institutions that serve Asian
American and Pacific Islanders,[Footnote 5] postsecondary institutions
that meet the eligibility requirements of the Title III and Title V
programs may use the funding they receive to assist Asian American and
Pacific Islander students attending eligible institutions. Authorized
uses of grant funds include:
* construction, maintenance, or renovation of educational facilities;
* purchase of telecommunications equipment or services;
* support of faculty development;
* development and improvement of academic programs;
* purchase of library books, periodicals and other educational
materials;
* tutoring, counseling and other student service programs designed to
improve academic success;
* fiscal and administrative management improvement; and:
* establishing or improving a development office or endowment fund.
Title III's , part A, Strengthening Institutions program includes
grants directed at different types of postsecondary institutions that
meet the eligibility criteria specified under the title. These
institutions include Tribal Colleges and Alaskan Natives and Native
Hawaiian institutions. Title III, part B, funds are directed to
historically black colleges and universities, and title V funds are
directed to institutions that serve Hispanic students.[Footnote 6]
In addition to strengthening institutions, Education also awards grants
under the Student Support Services (SSS) program. One of the original
three of a set of Education programs known as TRIO, SSS awards grants
to institutions to support educational attainment for first generation,
low-income college students, and students with disabilities and in need
of academic support. The program aims to increase college retention and
graduation rates and to help students make the transition from one
level of higher education to the next.
Program services include:
* instruction in basic skills;
* tutorial services;
* academic, financial or personal counseling;
* assistance in completing applications for admission and financial aid
for enrollment in 4-year institutions and in graduate and professional
programs;
* information about career options;
* mentoring;
* special services for students with limited English proficiency; and:
* direct financial assistance to current SSS participants.
In addition to institutional funding, Education helps students and
families pay for the costs of postsecondary education through federal
student aid authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In
the 2004-2005 school year, Education provided approximately $74 billion
in new grant, loan, and work-study programs for undergraduate students,
including eligible Asian American and Pacific Islander students.
Education also has responsibilities for administration and oversight of
the department's postsecondary institutional support and financial aid
programs, including promoting educational quality and usefulness by
supporting research, evaluation, and information sharing. Information
sharing may involve strategies such as posting information on
Education's Web site and identifying and sharing information on best
practices.
Collectively, Asian American and Pacific Islanders Have Achieved High
Levels of Education and Income, but There are Differences among Asian
American and Pacific Islander Subgroups:
As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders have attained high
levels of education and income, but differences among Asian American
and Pacific Islander subgroups exist. For example, Asian American and
Pacific Islanders had the highest educational attainment and income of
any other racial and ethnic group. However, when we viewed Asian
American and Pacific Islanders as separate subgroups, a different story
emerges, with some subgroups having relatively low educational
attainment. While available data lend insights into some of the reasons
for these differences, data limitations prevented us from completely
exploring them.
As a Group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders Have Achieved High
Levels of Education and Income:
A high percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islanders have a
college degree. As shown in figure 3, almost half of Asian American and
Pacific Islanders age 25 or older in the United States in 2005 had a 4-
year college degree. In comparison, almost one third of whites, 17
percent of African Americans, and 12 percent of Hispanics had degrees.
In addition, the average income of employed Asian American and Pacific
Islanders, at $52,392, was the highest of any of the groups.[Footnote
7] The average income for whites was $52,097, $36,025 for African
Americans, and $32,106 for Hispanics.
Figure 3: Estimated Percentage with at Least a 4-year College Degree
and Average Income by Racial and Ethnic Group in 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS data.
Note: Percentage estimates of racial groups have margins of error of
21/2 percent or less. Overall, average income estimates have a margin
of error of less than $2,500.
[End of figure]
Across racial groups, average income was highest for people with at
least a college degree as shown in table 2, compared to those without a
degree. Among the major groups, the difference was highest for Asians
and whites where college graduates earned $35,700 and $35,200 more than
non-college graduates respectively.
Table 2: Estimated Income By Racial And Ethnic Group And College Degree
Attainment In 2005:
Major groups: Asian American and Pacific Islander;
Average income with at least a college degree: $68,549;
Average income without at least a college degree: $32,887;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: $35,662.
Major groups: White;
Average income with at least a college degree: 74,760;
Average income without at least a college degree: 39,554;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 35,206.
Major groups: Some other race and more than one race;
Average income with at least a college degree: 60,083;
Average income without at least a college degree: 33,914;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 26,168.
Major groups: African American, non-Hispanic;
Average income with at least a college degree: 55,271;
Average income without at least a college degree: 30,481;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 24,790.
Major groups: American Indian;
Average income with at least a college degree: 56,537;
Average income without at least a college degree: 30,860;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 25,677.
Major groups: Hispanic;
Average income with at least a college degree: $56,506;
Average income without at least a college degree: $27,916;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: $28,590.
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS data.
Note: Average income estimates by degree status have a margin of error
of less than $2,500, except for estimates for the American Indian
subgroup, which has a margin of error of less than $3,400 and Native
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander subgroup estimates, which have a margin
of error of less than $7,500.
[End of table]
Viewing Asian American and Pacific Islanders as a Group Masks
Differences in Educational Attainment and Income among the Subgroups:
Viewing Asian American and Pacific Islanders as a group, however, masks
major differences in educational attainment and income among their
subgroups. As shown in figure 4, a high percentage of Asian Indians (68
percent) and Chinese (53 percent) had at least a college degree. These
groups also had much higher percentages of graduate degrees. These two
subgroups accounted for 41 percent of the Asian American and Pacific
Islander population. In comparison, 25 percent of Vietnamese, 17
percent of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and 13 percent of
other Indochinese--Cambodians, Laotians and Hmong--had a college
degree. They are among the smaller Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroups and combined account for 17 percent of Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders. Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong also had the highest
percentage of adult subgroup members who had not completed high school.
In addition, the estimated average income of Asian Indians and Chinese
at $65,500 and $56,000 was relatively high compared to other subgroups.
In contrast, average income among employed Asian American and Pacific
Islanders was lowest among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders
($37,718) and other Indochinese ($31,614).
Figure 4: Estimated Percentage with at Least a 4-year College Degree
and Their Average Income by Asian American and Pacific Islander
Subgroup in 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS data.
Notes: Percentage estimates of ethnic groups have margins of error of 4
percent or less.
[End of figure]
Overall, average income estimates have a margin of error of less than
$3,000. Exceptions include estimates for the Pakistani, Bangladeshi and
Sri Lankan subgroup, which has a margin of error of less than $3,400
and estimates of the "Other" subgroup, which has a margin of error of
less than $4,300.
Within Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups estimated average
income was again higher for individuals with at least a college degree.
As shown in table 3, Asian Indians and Chinese with at least a college
degree had the highest estimated average incomes at $76,630 and $72,755
respectively. There was also a range in estimated income differences
between those with and without at least a college degree. This
difference was most pronounced with Asian Indian and Chinese college
graduates earning $42,000 more than their counterparts without college
degrees. The difference in average income between graduates and non
graduates was smallest for the other Indochinese at $17,000. Many
factors may explain the differences among subgroups. For example, the
proportion with an advanced degree may be an important factor in
differences in income. For those with less than a college degree,
subgroup differences in age and thus time on the job, along with having
an associates degree, may also be important.
Table 3: Estimated Average Income For Asian American And Pacific
Islander Subgroups By Attainment Of College Degree In 2005:
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Asian Indian;
Average income with at least a college degree: $76,630;
Average income without at least a college degree: $34,585;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: $42,046.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Chinese;
Average income with at least a college degree: 72,755;
Average income without at least a college degree: 30,515;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 42,240.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Japanese;
Average income with at least a college degree: 71,862;
Average income without at least a college degree: 42,654;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 29,208.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Vietnamese;
Average income with at least a college degree: 65,782;
Average income without at least a college degree: 29,783;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 36,000.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Other Asians;
Average income with at least a college degree: 65,547;
Average income without at least a college degree: 33,773;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 31,774.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Korean;
Average income with at least a college degree: 64,462;
Average income without at least a college degree: 35,241;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 29,221.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: South Asians;
Average income with at least a college degree: 60,987;
Average income without at least a college degree: 28,796;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 32,190.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Native Hawaiians and
Pacific Islander;
Average income with at least a college degree: 58,482;
Average income without at least a college degree: 32,705;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 25,777.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Filipino;
Average income with at least a college degree: 57,388;
Average income without at least a college degree: 34,363;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 23,025.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Southeast Asians;
Average income with at least a college degree: 50,227;
Average income without at least a college degree: 30,936;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: 19,291.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Indochinese;
Average income with at least a college degree: $45,549;
Average income without at least a college degree: $28,849;
Difference in average income with and without at least a college
degree: $16,700.
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS data.
Note: Average income estimates by degree status have a margin of error
of less than $5,500, except for estimates for the South Asian, Native
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander and Other subgroups which have a margin
of error of less than $7,800.
[End of table]
We looked at other characteristics of the population, such as date of
arrival in the U.S. and ability to speak English, to better understand
differences in education and income between groups. We found
differences in ability to speak English among the Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroups. (See table 4.) Many of these differences
may be attributed to whether the subgroup came from a country where
English was a second language or whether the group has been in the
United States for a long period of time. For example, we found that
over 90 percent of Filipino, Asian Indians, and Japanese identified
themselves as fluent in English. In comparison, only 70 percent of
Koreans, 62 percent of Vietnamese, and 60 percent of the other
Indochinese subgroups, whose members are more likely to have arrived in
the United States more recently, identified themselves as fluent.
Table 4: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups
Fluent in English:
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islander;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 97.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Filipino;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 93.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Asian Indian;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 90.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Japanese;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 90.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: South Asian;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 87.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Other Asians;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 85.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Southeast Asian;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 85.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Chinese;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 71.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Korean;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 70.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Vietnamese;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 62.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Indochinese;
Total fluent for subgroup (percent): 60.
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS data.
Note: Overall, percentage estimates of English fluency have margins of
error of three percent or less.
[End of table]
Among the Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups, for the most
part those with college degrees were more fluent than those without.
Even among those with a degree, however, there was some variation among
the groups. (See table 5.) For example, almost all Filipino, Asian
Indian, and other South Asians with college degrees (99 to 97 percent)
identified themselves as fluent compared to 80 percent of Koreans with
a degree. Among those without college degrees, only about one-half of
Koreans, other Indochinese, Chinese, and Vietnamese said they were
fluent in English.
Table 5: Percentage Of Asian American And Pacific Islander Subgroups
With And Without College Degree Fluent In English:
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islanders;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 99;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 96.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Filipino;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 98;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 89.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Asian Indian;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 98;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 75.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: South Asians;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 97;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 76.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Other Asians;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 96;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 75.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Japanese;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 93;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 87.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Chinese;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 92;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 48.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Vietnamese;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 91;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 53.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Southeast Asians;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 89;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 82.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Indochinese;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 88;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 56.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Korean;
Fluent with college degree (Percentage): 80;
Fluent without college degree (Percentage): 58.
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS data.
Note: Percentage estimates of English fluency by degree status have
margins of error of four and a half percent or less.
[End of table]
Among foreign born Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup members
age 25 or older in 2005, the majority of the subgroups arrived in the
United States after 1980. As shown in figure 5, for example, over three
quarters of Cambodian, Laotian and Hmong, and Asian Indians arrived
after 1980. Almost 85 percent of South Asians arrived after 1980.
Figure 5: Percentage of Foreign Born Asian American and Pacific
Islander Subgroups Arriving before and after 1980:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS data.
Note: The majority of the Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islanders and
Japanese subgroups were native born. Percentage estimates by nativity
and arrival status have margins of error of 4 percent or less.
[End of figure]
To further analyze factors related to differences in Asian American and
Pacific Islander educational attainment, we constructed a multivariate
logistic regression model to analyze the relationship between
educational attainment and population groups. We used the model to
measure the extent to which gender, age, nativity, and date of arrival
in the U. S. affected the likelihood of having or not having a college
degree. However, we did not include income or the ability to speak
English in the model because of data limitations. In addition, the data
did not provide information on such things as the parents' income or
educational level, which a large body of research has shown is a strong
predictor of their children's educational attainment.[Footnote 8] The
ACS also did not provide the date or in which country a degree was
attained.
The model showed that, while significant, the factors for which we had
data do not account for the differences in the likelihood of various
groups' having a college degree. We caution that the results of this
model do not imply differential treatment of the groups with respect to
access to higher education. Since many Asian American and Pacific
Islander immigrants arrive in the U.S. with at least a college degree,
the experience of Asian American and Pacific Islanders attending high
school or college in the U.S. may provide more illumination into
possible differences among subgroups. Appendix I provides additional
information about our multivariate model and results.
Students from Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups Differ in
the Challenges They Face When Pursuing Postsecondary Education:
Data on Asian American and Pacific Islanders while they were in high
school and college in the United States show that subgroups face a
range of challenges when pursuing and persisting in postsecondary
education. Specifically, the data showed that some Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroups are less academically prepared for college,
less able to afford college, and have difficulty balancing their
education, work, and family responsibilities.
Levels of Academic Preparedness Differ among Asian American and Pacific
Islander Subgroups:
Our analysis of ELS data showed that the percentage of high school
students in a college preparatory program differed among Asian American
and Pacific Islander subgroups. As shown in figure 6, fewer Southeast
Asian students than students in other Asian American Pacific Islander
subgroups reported being in a college preparatory program.[Footnote 9]
Figure 6: High School Academic Program, by Asian American and Pacific
Islander Subgroup in 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ELS data.
[End of figure]
The percentage of students taking English as a Second Language (ESL)
courses also differed among Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroups, as shown in table 6. Southeast Asian students--Vietnamese,
Laotian, Cambodian/Kampuchean, Thai, Burmese--were unique among the
subgroups in that they reported the highest percentage of students
taking ESL courses and the lowest percentage of students with English
as their native language. Part of the reason that Southeast Asian
students are unique in this way is that among Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroups, Southeast Asian students have the highest
percentage of parents with a high school education or less and the
lowest percentage of parents who speak English as their native
language. On the other hand, Japanese students, many of whom come from
families that have been in the United States for generations, have a
higher percentage of native English speakers than Southeast Asian
students, many of whom arrived in the United States since 1980 and
speak a language other than English in the home. As a result, Southeast
Asian students may have less familiarity with the English language and
may require additional language support.
Table 6: Percentage Of Students Taking PDF Courses By Asian American
And Pacific Islander Subgroup:
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Southeast Asian;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 23;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 13.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Native Hawaiian/ Other
Pacific Islander;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 21;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 74.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Korean;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 19;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 48.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Chinese;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 16;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 31.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Other Asian American and
Pacific Islander;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 15;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 70.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: South Asian;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 13;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 34.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Filipino;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 11;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 59.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Japanese;
Percentage of students who have taken ESL courses: 8;
Percentage of students with English as their native language: 71.
Source: GAO analysis of ELS 2002 base-year survey data.
[End of table]
Students' reading and math ability also differed by Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroup, with half or more of the students in each of
the Southeast Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, and Other
Asian American Pacific Islander subgroups in the lower reading and math
quartiles, as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7: High School Reading and Math Quartiles, by Asian American and
Pacific Islander Subgroup:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ELS data.
Note: The reading and math quartile rankings were derived from student
respondents' scores on cognitive reading and math tests administered as
part of the ELS 2002 base-year (reading) and first follow-up (math)
surveys. The reading and math tests used questions selected from tests
that were part of Education's other assessments, including the National
Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, and the Program for International Student
Assessment.
[End of figure]
Some Asian American and Pacific Islander students participating in our
discussion groups told us that they had been placed into remedial
English and math courses when they first enrolled in college. In
addition, some students told us that they felt that their high schools
had not prepared them well, saying that they had felt ignored by their
teachers, uninformed about their postsecondary options, and unprepared
for the changes that accompany the transition from high school to
college.
Some Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups Face Challenges
Meeting Postsecondary Education Costs:
The amount of savings that parents set aside for their children's
postsecondary education differed across Asian American and Pacific
Islander subgroups. The Southeast Asian and the Other Asian American
Pacific Islander subgroups had larger proportions of their population
in the lower socioeconomic quartiles, as shown in figure 8, and
reported lower savings amounts, as shown in figure 9. Of note, when we
compared these two subgroups with African Americans and Hispanics, we
found similar rates of savings.
Figure 8: Socioeconomic Status Quartile of High School Students, by
Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroup in 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ELS data.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups
Setting Aside Money for Child's Future Education in 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ELS data.
Note: This figure does not include findings for Native Hawaiian and
other Pacific Islanders due to insufficient sample size around which to
build a confidence interval.
[End of figure]
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups also differed in the
extent to which they could afford school without working. Our analysis
of NPSAS data showed that larger percentages of undergraduates in some
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups had parents help in
paying their tuition. For example, 33 percent of Japanese
undergraduates reported that their parents paid all their tuition. In
contrast, 81 percent of Vietnamese undergraduates reported that their
parents paid none of their tuition. Subgroups also differed in the
extent to which students could afford school without working, ranging
from 36 percent of Vietnamese to 68 percent of Chinese undergraduates
reporting that they could afford school without working. Finally, our
analysis of NPSAS data showed that subgroups with less savings and who
were less able to afford college had larger percentages of students who
applied for financial aid to help pay college expenses.
Some Asian American and Pacific Islander Subgroups Find It Challenging
to Balance Their Academic, Work, and Family Obligations:
Our analysis of NPSAS data showed that a greater percentage of
undergraduates in some Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups
than in others delay their college education. Nearly one-half of
Vietnamese undergraduates reported that they delayed their education
and one-third of them delayed their education by 1 year or more, as
shown in table 7. Some Asian American and Pacific Islander students
participating in our discussion groups told us that they faced
challenges balancing their work, family, and academic responsibilities
leading some to delay their education.
Table 7: Percentage Of Undergraduates Delaying Their Postsecondary
Enrollment, By Asian American And Pacific Islander Subgroups In 2000:
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Vietnamese;
More than 1 year: 33;
1 year: 12;
Did not delay: 54.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Other Asian American and
Pacific Islander;
More than 1 year: 31;
1 year: 9;
Did not delay: 60.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Filipino;
More than 1 year: 23;
1 year: 12;
Did not delay: 64.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander;
More than 1 year: 23;
1 year: 13;
Did not delay: 63.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Chinese;
More than 1 year: 20;
1 year: 8;
Did not delay: 72.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Asian Indian;
More than 1 year: 16;
1 year: 19;
Did not delay: 66.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Korean;
More than 1 year: 12;
1 year: 11;
Did not delay: 77.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Japanese;
More than 1 year: 9;
1 year: 19;
Did not delay: 71.
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS 2000 undergraduate data.
[End of table]
Our analysis of NPSAS data showed that undergraduates' working while
enrolled differed by Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup, with
undergraduates in some Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups
working more hours than others, as shown in figure 10.
Figure 10: Work among Enrolled Undergraduates, by Asian American and
Pacific Islander Subgroups in 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[End of figure]
The primary reasons that undergraduates gave for working varied among
the Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups. More than half of
undergraduates from all Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups
except Asian Indian and Korean said that they worked primarily to pay
tuition, fees, and living expenses. In addition, 43 percent of Korean
undergraduates said that they worked primarily to earn spending money,
and about 30 percent of Chinese and Asian Indian undergraduates said
that they worked primarily to gain job experience.
Asian American and Pacific Islander students participating in our
discussion groups provided several reasons why they worked, including
the need to pay for school; the need to pay such bills as rent,
insurance, and food; and the desire to have their own spending money
for entertainment. Others said that they worked to relieve their
family's financial burden, to gain financial independence from their
parents, or to fulfill their obligation as the eldest child by
financially supporting the family.
Several discussion group participants also said that they supported
their families in other ways, including living at home to share
expenses, providing transportation, tutoring, translating, reading
mail, writing letters, paying bills, answering calls, and doing
household chores. Large percentages of some Asian American and Pacific
Islander subgroups lived at home or attended schools within driving
distance of home. Our analysis of NPSAS data showed that 42 percent of
Vietnamese undergraduates lived at home while enrolled--the highest
percentage among Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups. It also
showed that a greater percentage of Vietnamese undergraduates (96
percent) attended institutions in their home states compared to 85
percent of Chinese and Koreans, and 80 percent of Japanese
undergraduates. Finally, 59 percent of Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander undergraduates, and 58 percent of Vietnamese undergraduates
attended institutions within 10 miles of home.
Institutions Used Both Federal Aid and Their Own Funding and Resources
to Address the Needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander Students:
The colleges we visited used federal aid and institutional resources to
address the needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander students.
Using these resources, colleges funded a range of services, including
services to enhance students' academic performance and scholarships.
Additionally, students also received federal financial aid to help them
pay for college.
Institutions Used Federal Aid Targeted to Institutions That Serve
Minority, Low-income, and First-Generation College Students to Assist
Asian American and Pacific Islander Students:
The institutions we visited--all of which serve large Asian American
and Pacific Islander populations--used federal funding that is awarded
to schools for serving low-income, disabled, minority, and first-
generation college students to respond to the needs of Asian American
and Pacific Islander students. As shown in table 8, colleges that meet
the eligibility criteria for funding had available a range of funding
from federal sources. A prior GAO report contains additional
information on the types of services that institutions provide with
Title III and V grants.[Footnote 10] For example, one college we
visited received a Title III Strengthening Institutions grant because
the college served a significant portion of low-income students and had
below average expenditures for institutions that offer similar
instruction, two key eligibility criteria for the grant. In addition,
some of the colleges we visited that serve low-income students, first-
generation college students, and disabled students, received TRIO
Student Support Services (SSS) grants. In addition, some colleges also
received funding under federal programs for Native Hawaiian students.
Table 8: Description Of Federal Institutional Grant Programs Used At
Visited Institutions:
Dollars in millions.
Program name: Title III, part A, Strengthening Institutions;
Program objective: Improve academic quality, address institutional
management issues, and improve student services and outcomes;
Eligibility criteria:
* An institution's average educational and general expenditures are low
compared to institutions that offer similar instruction[B];
* At least 50 percent of its students receive need-based federal
financial assistance or a substantial percentage of students receive
Pell Grants compared with those in other institutions[B];
* Is legally authorized to provide a bachelor's degree program or is a
junior or community college;
* Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency;
Fiscal year 2006 funding[A]: $80.
Program name: Title III, part A, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian;
Program objective: Improve academic quality, address institutional
management issues, and improve student services and outcomes;
Eligibility criteria: Institution must meet the eligibility
requirements for the Strengthening Institutions program and have an
enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least 10 percent Native
Hawaiian students;
Fiscal year 2006 funding[A]: 2[C,D].
Program name: TRIO Student Support Services;
Program objective: Provide opportunities for academic development,
assist students with basic college requirements, and serve to motivate
students toward the successful completion of their postsecondary
education;
Eligibility criteria: An institution must assure in its application
that at least two thirds of the students served with the grant will be
low-income individuals who are first-generation college students or
individuals with disabilities. The remaining students served will be
low-income individuals, first-generation college students, or
individuals with disabilities. In addition, at least one third of the
individuals with disabilities will be low-income individuals. An
institution must also show that students participating in the grant
program will be offered sufficient financial assistance to meet their
full financial need;
Fiscal year 2006 funding[A]: 271.
Program name: Native Hawaiian Education;
Program objective: Develop innovative education programs to assist
native Hawaiians and to supplement and expand programs and authorities
in the area of education;
Eligibility criteria: Organizations must be a Native Hawaiian
educational organization, Native Hawaiian community-based organization,
or a public or private nonprofit organization, agency, or institution
with experience in developing or operating Native Hawaiian programs or
programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language;
Fiscal year 2006 funding[A]: 34.
Program name: Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Educational Grant;
Program objective: Provide assistance to plan and administer programs
or portions of programs that provide vocational training and related
activities to native Hawaiians;
Eligibility criteria: Community-based organizations primarily serving
and representing Native Hawaiians. A community-based organization means
a public or private nonprofit organization that provides career and
technical education, or related services, to individuals in the Native
Hawaiian community;
Fiscal year 2006 funding[A]: $3.
Source: GAO analysis of program documentation from Education.
[A] This represents full funding to all grant recipients in fiscal year
2006. Figures are rounded.
[B] These criteria may be waived.
[C] This figure represents grants awarded to institutions with at least
10 percent Native Hawaiian students.
[D] Education has proposed discontinuing funding for Title III, Part A,
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions in its fiscal year 2008
budget proposal. According to Education, the types of activities
supported by this program may be carried out under the Title III
Strengthening Institutions program. Institutions whose projects would
be discontinued would be eligible to seek funds under the Strengthening
Institutions program.
[End of table]
The schools we visited funded a range of services with the federal
institutional grants they received, and more schools received funding
under the TRIO SSS grants than other grants. (See table 9). For
example, Century College in Minnesota, San Francisco State University,
and City College of San Francisco all received a TRIO SSS grant.
Century College provides tutoring and counseling services with its
grant and supplements Pell Grants to help students struggling to meet
college costs. The TRIO SSS director at Century College said that each
of the Pell Grants awarded to 30 students is supplemented with $414
each year. He also said that 90 percent of the students in the TRIO SSS
program are Hmong. San Francisco State University uses its TRIO SSS
grant to fund a program that provides eligible students, many of whom
are Asian American, with academic advising, tutoring, counseling and
workshops. City College of San Francisco uses its TRIO SSS to fund the
Writing Success Project which provides writing instruction, group
tutoring, academic counseling, and a variety of workshops. City College
of San Francisco also uses a Title III Strengthening Institutions grant
to fund an instruction lab. Through the lab, students receive
instruction in English, math, and ESL. A university official said that
about 80 percent of the students who are served by the lab are Asian.
Kapi'olani Community College in Honolulu uses a portion of its Title
III Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian grant to provide freshman Native
Hawaiians with mentoring and peer tutoring. It also provides its
broader student body with remedial courses. It also used the grant to
help fund courses on Hawaiian and Pacific Islander cultures and history
and provide academic services to students including peer mentoring and
academic advising, tutoring, and help applying for financial aid.
Table 9: Federal Institutional Grant Programs Used By Institutions
Visited On-Site:
Program: Title III, part A, Strengthening Institutions;
Century College in Minn.: [Empty];
City College of San Francisco in Calif.: X;
Concordia University in Minn.: [Empty];
De Anza College in Calif.: [Empty];
Kapi'olani Community College in Ha.: [Empty];
Leeward Community College in Ha.: [Empty];
San Francisco State University in Calif.: [Empty];
University of Hawaii-Manoa in Ha.: [Empty].
Program: Title III, part A, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian;
Century College in Minn.: [Empty];
City College of San Francisco in Calif.: [Empty];
Concordia University in Minn.: [Empty];
De Anza College in Calif.: [Empty];
Kapi'olani Community College in Ha.: X;
Leeward Community College in Ha.: [Empty];
San Francisco State University in Calif.: [Empty];
University of Hawaii-Manoa in Ha.: [Empty].
Program: TRIO Student Support Services;
Century College in Minn.: X;
City College of San Francisco in Calif.: X;
Concordia University in Minn.: [Empty];
De Anza College in Calif.: [Empty];
Kapi'olani Community College in Ha.: X;
Leeward Community College in Ha.: [Empty];
San Francisco State University in Calif.: X;
University of Hawaii-Manoa in Ha.: X.
Program: Native Hawaiian Education Grant;
Century College in Minn.: [Empty];
City College of San Francisco in Calif.: [Empty];
Concordia University in Minn.: [Empty];
De Anza College in Calif.: [Empty];
Kapi'olani Community College in Ha.: [Empty];
Leeward Community College in Ha.: [Empty];
San Francisco State University in Calif.: [Empty];
University of Hawaii-Manoa in Ha.: X.
Program: Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Educational Grant;
Century College in Minn.: [Empty];
City College of San Francisco in Calif.: [Empty];
Concordia University in Minn.: [Empty];
De Anza College in Calif.: [Empty];
Kapi'olani Community College in Ha.: X;
Leeward Community College in Ha.: X[A];
San Francisco State University in Calif.: [Empty];
University of Hawaii-Manoa in Ha.: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of on-site interviews and related documentation.
[A] Information on Leeward Community College's use of Native Hawaiian
Career and Technical Educational Grant was not available at the time of
our site visit.
[End of table]
Federal grants targeted to Native Hawaiians also supported a range of
services. The University of Hawaii at Manoa runs three programs for
Native Hawaiian students using its Native Hawaiian Education Grant.
Under one program, the university helps prepare 25 Native Hawaiian
students for college, by providing, among other things, a 6-week-
remedial-writing course. This program also funds up to 50 tuition
scholarships each year for Native Hawaiian students. Another program
provides tuition stipends to 30 Native Hawaiian students who are
enrolled or interested in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
(STEM)-related degrees. These students receive academic guidance and
counseling and exposure to professionals in their fields of study.
Lastly, the Native Hawaiian Science and Engineering Mentorship Program
provides summer internships for 30 freshmen engineering students.
Kapiolani provides Native Hawaiian students in certificate or
associates programs with computer access, peer mentoring, academic
advising, career counseling, leadership training, and internships
through a Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Educational Program
grant.[Footnote 11]
Colleges Use Their Own Resources to Provide Asian American and Pacific
Islander Students with Tuition Assistance or Academic Services:
Officials at some of the institutions we visited reported that
institutional resources supported a diversity of approaches including,
outreach to high school students as well as scholarships and academic
services for Asian American and Pacific Islander college students. For
example, officials at Concordia University located in Minnesota and at
Leeward Community College in Hawaii both reported that they make
presentations to recruit high school students to their institutions and
inform them about federal student aid. The schools also offer to help
students and parents complete the Free Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA), which is often a stumbling block for some students in the
student financial aid application process. An official at Concordia
University said one staff member who conducts outreach to high school
students is Hmong, a factor that helps recruiting because he is aware
of Hmong cultural norms and is able to share information in the Hmong
language. The official also said that this staff member is vital to the
retention of Hmong students at Concordia University because his role
extends beyond admissions into general counseling. Century College also
has a Hmong staff member who successfully recruited Hmong students to
the college from area high schools.
Officials at some of the schools we visited said that these programs
and strategies reached underserved populations while they were still in
high school and equipped students enrolled in postsecondary education
with the tools and resources needed to persist in earning their
certificate or degree. In past reports, GAO also has found that
providing low-income and minority students with tutoring, mentoring,
and instruction in various subjects, including math and writing,
beginning in high school, improved the students' educational
attainment. The officials we interviewed also said that they wanted to
know about the diversity of strategies other institutions were using to
assist Asian American and Pacific Islanders. For example, one community
college official had taken the initiative to collaborate with
colleagues at her institution and other community colleges to develop
strategies for improving the retention rates of minority students,
including Asian American and Pacific Islanders. In another state, state
college and university officials meet each year to share information
about best practices they use to assess and assist students, including
Asian American and Pacific Islander students.
The University of Hawaii at Manoa offers in-state tuition rates to
students who come from Pacific Islands that do not have postsecondary
public institutions that offer bachelor's degrees.[Footnote 12] The
funding assists Pacific Island students who are severely
underrepresented on campus. Similarly, Concordia University in
Minnesota has a scholarship that targets Hmong students, who we were
told comprise the majority of Asian American and Pacific Islander
students on campus and tend to come from low-income families. An
official said the scholarship fund is about $1,000, and it is typically
awarded to one or two students annually. His office is trying to find
ways to provide Hmong and other needy students with additional
assistance. University of Hawaii at Manoa provides Native Hawaiian
students with advising, tutoring, and assistance applying for financial
aid through the Office of Student Affairs. The services were
established in 1988 to respond to challenges the university faced in
recruiting and retaining Native Hawaiian students. The university also
provides institutional resources to help fund similar services for
students of Filipino ancestry and other underrepresented ethnicities
including Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, and African Americans
through the Office of Multicultural Student Services.
Eligible Asian American and Pacific Islander Students Also Received
Federal Student Aid:
Federal student financial aid is available to eligible Asian American
and Pacific Islander students, and according to the NPSAS 2000, many of
them received financial aid. See appendix II for the types of federal
student aid. According to the 2000 NPSAS, the percent of Asian American
and Pacific Islander students who reported applying for and receiving
any federal aid varied by subgroup. Twenty-nine percent of Japanese
students, a subgroup with a high average income, applied for and
received federal aid, compared to 46 percent of students identified as
other Asian American and Pacific Islander in the NPSAS data.[Footnote
13] A significant percent of Korean students, 45 percent, also reported
applying for and receiving any federal aid. (See fig. 11).
Figure 11: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Students
Who Applied for and Received Any Federal Aid in 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[End of figure]
A small percentage of Japanese students, 12 percent, applied for and
received grants. By contrast, nearly 35 percent of the other Asian
American and Pacific Islander students in the NPSAS data and 39 percent
of Vietnamese students reported applying for and receiving grants. The
percent of students who reported applying for and receiving a federal
loan[Footnote 14] was 20 percent or more across all subgroups. Over a
quarter of Filipino, Indian, and Vietnamese students and over a third
of Korean students said they had applied for and received federal
student loans. The percent of students that reported applying for and
receiving federal work-study was 8 percent or below across all
subgroups. Just over 1 percent of Japanese students applied for and
received work-study grants. By contrast, close to 8 percent of Korean
students reported applying for and receiving work-study grants. Few
Japanese students may have received federal grants and work-study
because they come from a subgroup with high average incomes and both
types of aid have family income limits. (See fig. 12.)
Figure 12: Percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander Students
Who Applied for and Received a Federal Loan, Grant, or Work Study in
2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NPSAS data.
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
Because Asian American and Pacific Islanders are a rapidly growing
population, an increasing number of postsecondary institutions may find
a higher percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander students
represented in their student bodies. While Asian American and Pacific
Islanders, as a group, have high levels of education and income,
members of some subgroups are more likely to face challenges,
especially with English as a second language and math, in pursuing and
persisting in postsecondary education. The schools such students attend
will need to identify strategies and services to support these
students. The institutions that we visited had a range of programs,
activities, and efforts in place to reach out to underserved Asian
American and Pacific Islander students in high school and support them
academically when they enroll in postsecondary institutions. Moreover,
GAO's prior work has confirmed that providing supports to both to low-
income and minority students and the institutions that serve them
improves educational attainment. GAO has also acknowledged the value of
information sharing as an effective method for disseminating
information more broadly on diverse practices aimed at improving
educational attainment. Postsecondary institutions with a new influx of
Asian American and Pacific Islander students needing assistance could
learn from the experience of those we visited. However, currently, no
effective mechanism exists for sharing these approaches among
institutions that serve Asian American and Pacific Islander students.
Recommendation:
To assist postsecondary institutions that serve Asian American and
Pacific Islander students, particularly students from low-income
families, we recommend that the Secretary of Education facilitate the
sharing of information among institutions about strategies that foster
low-income postsecondary student recruitment, retention, and graduation
and also sharing of information about strategies to reach out to Asian
American and Pacific Islanders beginning in high school. There are
various ways that Education could facilitate sharing information. For
example, Education might develop a link on the department's Web site
that postsecondary institutional officials could use to share
information about their student assistance activities or develop a
compendium of best practices for assisting Asian American and Pacific
Islander students.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of the report to the Department of Education for
review and comment. Education generally agreed with our recommendation
concerning sharing information among postsecondary institutions about
strategies for assisting Asian American and Pacific Islander students.
Education pointed out two types of efforts that are in place. The first
effort is information about minority-serving institutions' successful
practices that the Office of Postsecondary Education makes available to
the public and all grantees on its program "Success Stories" Web page.
However, Education provided us with examples of Hispanic-serving
institutions' successes from this Web page, not of strategies for
assisting Asian American and Pacific Islander students. Education also
said that minority-serving institutions make a project abstract for
each grantee available on the institutions' own Web pages. Education
agreed to examine options for facilitating information sharing by
encouraging more grantees to report successful practices on their Web
pages. However, we believe that Education is uniquely positioned to
serve as a broker for information sharing, using its own Web site to
facilitate the exchange of information about successful strategies
related to Asian American and Pacific Islander students.
Education also interpreted our recommendation to suggest that increased
efforts be made in the area of outreach to Asian American and Pacific
Islanders students while in high school. While the postsecondary
officials we interviewed and our own prior work confirm that outreach
to students beginning in high school improves educational attainment,
the intent of our recommendation was sharing information about outreach
strategies to Asian American and Pacific Islander students. In
response, we have made some minor revisions in wording to clarify the
recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This appendix discusses in detail our methodology for determining
whether differences exist in Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroups' educational attainment and income and the resources
available to address any challenges they may face in pursuing and
completing postsecondary education. The study was framed around three
questions: (1) What are Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups'
educational attainment and household income levels? (2) What
challenges, if any, Asian American and Pacific Islander students face
in pursuing and completing their postsecondary education? (3) What
federal and institutional resources institutions with large Asian
American and Pacific Islander student enrollment use to address the
particular needs of these students?
Procedures for Determining Asian American and Pacific Islander
Subgroups' Educational Attainment and Household Income Levels:
To determine the educational and other demographic characteristics of
the Asian American and Pacific Islander population and subgroups, we
analyzed data from the 2005 American Community Survey Public Use
Microdata Sample (ACS PUMS) file.
Data Collection:
The ACS survey data were the most recent existing data source available
containing complete information on Asian and Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islander subgroups. The ACS is an annual household survey
conducted by the Census Bureau that obtains estimates of the
demographic and social characteristic of the US population, including
racial and ethnic groups, income, educational attainment, age, and
others. The ACS annually surveys a sample of 3 million households and
currently provides estimates for population areas of at least 65,000.
To ensure that most ACS respondents in our analyses would have had
enough time to complete their postsecondary education, we limited our
analysis to adults in the sample 25 years of age or older.
We used the SUDAAN software package for statistical analyses to produce
the weighted estimates, standard errors, and tests of significance.
Estimates calculated from the ACS data are weighted based on each
individual's weight in the sample. Standard errors for estimates for
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups were calculated using the
80 balanced repeated replicate weights with a Fay's adjustment of k=0.5
supplied by Census in the 2005 ACS PUMS data. Standard errors for
estimates for the entire population were calculated using Taylor series
variance estimation. The precision of estimates based on the ACS data
is identified as the 95 percent confidence level margin of error (MOE)
and is footnoted in tables and figures where estimates are presented.
To assess the reliability of the ACS, we reviewed the technical
documentation for these data files, including the coding and definition
of variables of interest, the procedures for handling missing data,
coding checks, and imputation procedures for missing data. We also
interviewed Census Bureau staff about selected variables--such as race,
ethnicity and English fluency--used in our analysis. We considered the
response rate, allocation rate--the rate at which responses are imputed
for unanswered questions--and size of confidence intervals. Because the
ACS had a very high response rate, a low allocation rate, and narrow
confidence intervals, we found the 2005 ACS data to be sufficiently
reliable for our study objectives.
Data Analysis:
We analyzed the ACS data using both descriptive statistical analysis
procedures and a multivariate logistic regression model. For our
descriptive analyses, we reviewed summary statistics of the individual
variables as well as bi-variate and three-way analyses of the broad
racial and ethnic groups--American Indian, white, black, Hispanic,
Asian-American, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders--and the
individual Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups by educational
attainment, mean (or average) income, gender, level of English fluency,
nativity, and date of arrival in the United States. In addition, we
conducted multivariate analysis of the likelihood of graduating from
college across racial and ethnic groups and Asian American and Pacific
Islander subgroups. The multivariate analysis is discussed in more
detail below.
To analyze the individual Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups
in both the descriptive and multivariate analyses, we used the ACS
definition of "Asian", that is, a person who resides in the United
States and has origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asian, or the Indian subcontinent. The ACS definition of
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander is a person who resides in
the United States and has origins in any of the original peoples of
Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
To minimize sampling error in Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroup estimates, we combined some of the ACS racial and ethnic
categories with limited sample size. Any distinct category with a
sample size of at least 1,000 individuals age 25 or older was included
as an Asian subgroup for this analysis. Those that had fewer than 1,000
individuals were combined with other subgroups based on geographic
origins. For example, 'other South Asians' included individuals with
origins from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Further, there were
six ACS categories with origins in Southeast Asia which we combined
into two different subgroups based on grouping subpopulations with
similar college degree attainment, mean income, and fluency in English.
The resulting ACS categories that were used as Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroups in our analyses were:
* (South) Asian Indian,
* South Asians (Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan),
* Chinese,
* Japanese,
* Korean,
* Filipino,
* Vietnamese,
* Southeast Asians (Indonesian, Malaysian and Thai),
* Indochinese (Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian),
* Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders (Native Hawaiian,
Samoan, Tongan, Polynesian, Guamanian, Chamorro, Micronesian,
Melanesian, and other or combined Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islanders), and:
* other Asians (other specified Asian, unspecified Asian, and
combinations of Asian groups).
Having found in our descriptive analyses that there were differences in
educational attainment among Asians and other racial and ethnic groups
and among subgroups of Asians themselves, we were interested in whether
these differences were affected, or could be accounted for, by
differences in selected factors. To investigate this, we used data from
the 2005 American Community Survey, restricted our attention to adults
in that sample who were 25 years of age or older, and considered how
many of them did and did not graduate from college, an important
indicator of educational attainment. We first considered the numbers
and percentages of individuals in the broad racial and ethnic
categories who had and had not completed college, and then did the same
for the individual Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups. After
first obtaining estimates of the bi-variate differences between groups
of the likelihood of being a college graduate, we then used
multivariate logistic regression models to re-estimate those
differences after controlling for gender, age (under 45 versus 45 or
over), nativity (native-born versus foreign born), and date of arrival
in the United States (before 1980 and in or after 1980). Because date
of arrival is pertinent only for foreign-born individuals, nativity and
date of arrival were represented by a single three-category composite
variable that contrasted individuals who were 1) native born, 2)
foreign born and arrived before 1980, and 3) foreign born and arrived
in or after 1980. We chose these variables because, unlike others--
linguistic isolation, income, ability to speak English, and so forth--
they clearly were causally prior to educational attainment. In
addition, the data did not provide information on such things as
parents' income or educational level that might have been predictive of
the respondent's educational attainment.
Table 10 shows the weighted numbers and percentages of adults who were
and were not college graduates, first across broad racial and ethnic
categories and then across the Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroups. The top panel of the table shows that, among those
identified as a specific race or ethnicity, Asian American and Pacific
Islanders had the highest percentage of college graduates (48 percent),
followed by whites (30 percent), African Americans (17 percent),
American Indian/Alaskan Natives (14 percent), and Hispanics (12
percent). The other non-Hispanics--mostly persons who indicated that
they belonged to multiple racial categories--had 26 percent college
graduates. The bottom panel shows the marked differences in percentages
of college graduates across the Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroups. More than two thirds (68 percent) of Asian Indian adults
were college graduates, and the same was true of 54 percent of South
Asians in the same region--Sri Lankan, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi--and
just over half of all adults among the Koreans (54 percent) and Chinese
(53 percent). Slightly less than half of all Filipino adults (48
percent) were college graduates, as were 44 percent of Southeast
Asians--Indonesians, Malaysians and Thai--and 44 percent of Japanese
adults. The groups that were behind in terms of college graduation
rates included Vietnamese adults (25 percent), other Indochinese (17
percent), and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (13 percent). The
other Asians category--which included other specified Asian,
unspecified Asian and combinations of Asian groups--had a 47 percent
graduation rate.
Table 10: Estimated Numbers And Percentages Of College Graduates And
Non Graduates, By (1) Broad Racial/ethnic Categories And (2) Specific
Asian American Subgroups, And Odds And Odds Ratios Derived from Them:
Racial/ethnic group: White non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 93,900,456;
College graduate: Graduate: 40,199,138;
Total: 134,099,594;
Odds: 0.43;
Odds ratios: REF.
Racial/ethnic group: White non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 70.0%;
College graduate: Graduate: 30.0%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Racial/ethnic group: Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 19,887,007;
College graduate: Graduate: 2,784,588;
Total: 22,671,595;
Odds: 0.14;
Odds ratios: 0.33.
Racial/ethnic group: Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 87.7%;
College graduate: Graduate: 12.3%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Racial/ethnic group: Black non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 16,715,992;
College graduate: Graduate: 503,929;
Total: 20,219,921;
Odds: 0.21;
Odds ratios: 0.49.
Racial/ethnic group: Black non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 82.7%;
College graduate: Graduate: 17.3%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Racial/ethnic group: American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 1,060,964;
College graduate: Graduate: 176,376;
Total: 1,237,340;
Odds: 0.17;
Odds ratios: 0.39.
Racial/ethnic group: American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 85.7%;
College graduate: Graduate: 14.3%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Racial/ethnic group: Asian non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 4,445,008;
College graduate: Graduate: 4,181,071;
Total: 8,626,079;
Odds: 0.94;
Odds ratios: 2.20.
Racial/ethnic group: Asian non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 51.5%;
College graduate: Graduate: 48.5%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Racial/ethnic group: Other non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 1,543,436;
College graduate: Graduate: 532,601;
Total: 2,076,037;
Odds: 0.35;
Odds ratios: 0.81.
Racial/ethnic group: Other non-Hispanic;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 74.3%;
College graduate: Graduate: 25.7%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Total;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 137,552,863;
College graduate: Graduate: 51,377,703;
Total: 188,930,566;
Odds: 0.37;
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Total;
College graduate: Non-graduate: 72.8%;
College graduate: Graduate: 27.2%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Chinese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 952,420;
College graduate: Graduate: 1,056,270;
Total: 2,008,690;
Odds: 1.11;
Odds ratios: REF.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Chinese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 47.4%;
College graduate: Graduate: 52.6%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Korean;
College graduate Non-graduate: 399,283;
College graduate: Graduate: 464,533;
Total: 86,816;
Odds: 1.16;
Odds ratios: 1.05.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Korean;
College graduate Non-graduate: 46.2%;
College graduate: Graduate: 53.8%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Japanese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 380,346;
College graduate: Graduate: 301,075;
Total: 681,421;
Odds: 0.79;
Odds ratios: 0.71.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Japanese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 55.8%;
College graduate: Graduate: 44.2%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Vietnamese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 685,592;
College graduate: Graduate: 230,885;
Total: 916,477;
Odds: 0.34;
Odds ratios: 0.30.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Vietnamese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 74.8%;
College graduate: Graduate: 25.2%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other Indochinese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 266,411;
College graduate: Graduate: 38,674;
Total: 305,085;
Odds: 0.15;
Odds ratios: 0.13.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other Indochinese;
College graduate Non-graduate: 87.3%;
College graduate: Graduate: 12.7%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Filipino;
College graduate Non-graduate: 814,657;
College graduate: Graduate: 739,667;
Total: 1,554,324;
Odds: 0.91;
Odds ratios: 0.82.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Filipino;
College graduate Non-graduate: 52.4%;
College graduate: Graduate: 47.6%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other Southeast Asians;
College graduate Non-graduate: 92,802;
College graduate: Graduate: 72,287;
Total: 165,089;
Odds: 0.78;
Odds ratios: 0.70.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other Southeast Asians;
College graduate Non-graduate: 56.2%;
College graduate: Graduate: 43.8%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Asian Indian;
College graduate Non-graduate: 495,114;
College graduate: Graduate: 1,058,139;
Total: 1,553,253;
Odds: 2.14;
Odds ratios: 1.93.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Asian Indian;
College graduate Non-graduate: 31.9%;
College graduate: Graduate: 68.1%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other South Asians;
College graduate Non-graduate: 76,663;
College graduate: Graduate: 90,051;
Total: 166,714;
Odds: 1.17;
Odds ratios: 1.06.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other South Asians;
College graduate Non-graduate: 46.0%;
College graduate: Graduate: 54.0%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Native Hawaiians and
Pacific Islanders;
College graduate Non-graduate: 174,757;
College graduate: Graduate: 34,855;
Total: 209,612;
Odds: 0.20;
Odds ratios: 0.18.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Native Hawaiians and
Pacific Islanders;
College graduate Non-graduate: 83.4%;
College graduate: Graduate: 16.6%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other Asians;
College graduate Non-graduate: 106,963;
College graduate: Graduate: 94,635;
Total: 201,598;
Odds: 0.88;
Odds ratios: 0.80.
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Other Asians;
College graduate Non-graduate: 53.1%;
College graduate: Graduate: 46.9%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Total;
College graduate Non-graduate: 4,445,008;
College graduate: Graduate: 4181,071;
Total: 8,626,079;
Odds: [Empty];
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Total;
College graduate Non-graduate: 51.5%;
College graduate: Graduate: 48.5%;
Total: 100.0%;
Odds: 0.94;
Odds ratios: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS data for individuals 25 years of age
or older.
[End of table]
An alternative way to estimate the difference between groups is to
calculate odds and odds ratios, which are the parameters that underlie
the logistic regression models that we used to estimate those
differences before and after adjusting for other factors. The odds on
being a college graduate for each group, which are shown in the next to
last column of table 10, are simply the number of graduates divided by
the number of non-graduates or, alternatively, the percentage of
graduates divided by 100 minus the percentage of graduates. For whites,
the odds on being a college graduate are 40,199,138/93,900,456 = 0.43,
which can be interpreted as meaning that among whites 0.43 graduate for
every 1 who does not (or that 43 graduate for every 100 who do not).
For Hispanics, by contrast, the odds of being a college graduate are
considerably lower, and equal to 2,784,588/19,887,007, or 0.14. The
odds on being a college graduate for the other broad groups, and for
the Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups, can be similarly
calculated, and then differences between groups can be calculated by
choosing one group as the referent category and calculating how
different other groups are by taking the ratios of these odds, or odds
ratios (OR). These are shown in the last column of table 10. When we
choose whites as the referent category to estimate the differences
across the broad racial categories, we find that prior to controlling
for other factors Asian American and Pacific Islanders have higher odds
than whites of being a college graduate (by a factor of 0.94/0.43 =
2.20), all other groups have lower odds than whites, by factors ranging
from 0.33 (for Hispanics) to 0.81 (for the other non-Hispanic
category). Similarly, when we choose the Chinese--the largest group of
Asian Americans for whom the odds of being a college graduate are 1.11-
-as the referent category for comparing AAPI subgroups, we find that
Asian Indians have markedly higher odds than the Chinese (by a factor
of 1.93), and that Koreans (OR = 1.05) and other South Asians from the
India region (1.06) have slightly higher odds. All other groups had
lower odds of being a graduate than the Chinese and, as the percentages
showed previously, the lowest odds ratios were for the Vietnamese (OR =
0.30), other Indochinese from that region (OR = 0.13) and Native
Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (OR = 0.18).
In tables 11 and 12 below, we show how much or little these differences
change as a result of controlling for other factors. The first column
of numbers in table 11 shows the unadjusted odds ratios reflecting the
gross differences in the odds on graduating across the broad racial and
ethnic categories and across categories of sex, age, and the nativity-
date of arrival composite variable from bi-variate logistic regression
models, and the latter columns show the adjusted odds ratios from
models which adjust for each of the non-racial and ethnic factors one
at a time and then all together. The odds ratios from the bi-variate
logistic regression models for race and ethnicity are the same as those
calculated directly from the weighted numbers in the top panel of table
10, and all but one of them are significant at the .01 level. As
mentioned previously, the bi-variate odds ratios in the first column of
table 11 indicate that in general, when other factors are ignored,
Asian American and Pacific Islanders are the only minority group that
have higher odds (by a factor of 2.20) of being a college graduate than
whites. African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indian/Alaskan
Natives all have lower odds of being a college graduate than whites, by
factors ranging from 0.49 to 0.33. Models 1 thru 3, shown in table 11,
re-estimate the differences between groups after controlling for sex,
age, and nativity-date of arrival variable one at a time, respectively.
Very little change in the estimated difference in the likelihood of
being a college graduate between groups is produced by controlling for
these factors individually, though controlling for the nativity-date of
arrival variable does reduce the odds ratio indicating the difference
between Asian American and Pacific Islanders and whites from 2.20 to
1.96. When all of the factors are controlled simultaneously, as in
Model 4, the odds on being a college graduate for Asian American and
Pacific Islanders remains 1.92 times greater than for whites, and the
differences between other minorities and whites are virtually
unaltered.
Table 11: Odds Ratios From Bi-Variate And Multivariate Models
Estimating The Effects Of Race And Ethnicity, Gender, Age And Nativity-
Date Of Arrival On The Odds On Having A College Degree:
White Non-Hispanic;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Hispanic (All Races);
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.33[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.33[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.30[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.30[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.28[A].
Black Non-Hispanic;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.49[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.49[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.47[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.48[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.47[A].
American Indian Alaskan Native Non-Hispanic;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.39[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.39[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.38[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.39[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.38[A].
Asian Non-Hispanic;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 2.20[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 2.20[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 2.11[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 1.96[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 1.92[A].
Other Non Hispanic;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.81[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.81[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.77[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.79[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.76[A].
Male;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Female;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.89[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.88[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.89[A].
Under 45;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Over 45;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.80[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.73[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.73[A].
Native Born;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Foreign born - before 1980;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.91[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 1.01;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 1.11[A].
Foreign born - after 1980;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 1.00[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 1.20[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 1.14[A].
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS data.
[A] Indicates differences with the referent category that are
statistically significant at the 0.01 level.
Notes: "REF" identifies the group chosen as the referent category.
[End of table]
In the first column of numbers, table 12 shows the odds ratios
indicating the unadjusted differences in the odds on being a college
graduate across Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups and
across gender, age and nativity-date of arrival, from bi-variate
logistic regression models, and the latter columns show the adjusted
odds ratios from models which adjust for each of the factors one at a
time and then all together. Odds ratios from the bi-variate logistic
regression models that estimate differences between racial and ethnic
groups are the same as those calculated directly from the weighted
numbers in the top panel of table 10. All of them are significant at
the .01 level, with the exception of the odds ratios indicating the
differences between the Koreans, (OR=1.05), other South Asians
(OR=1.06) and the Chinese, and the odds ratio indicating the difference
between foreign born Asian American and Pacific Islanders who arrived
before 1980 (OR = 0.98) and native born Asian American and Pacific
Islanders. Here too very little change in the estimated difference in
the likelihood of being a college graduate between groups is produced
by controlling for these factors simultaneously. That is, all of the
odds ratios comparing subgroups of Asian American and Pacific Islanders
after the individual controls (in Models 1 through 3) and the full set
of controls (in Model 4) are similar to the unadjusted odds ratios,
even though here the effects of gender (OR = 0.74), age (OR = 0.46),
and being a foreign born Asian American and Pacific Islander who
arrived after 1980 (OR = 0.83) are significant and fairly pronounced.
Even after controls, Asian Indians (OR = 1.78) have much higher odds
than the Chinese of being a college graduate, while the Vietnamese (OR
= 0.28), other Indochinese (OR = 0.11) and Native Hawaiians and Pacific
Islanders (OR = 0.15) have much lower odds of being a college graduate
than the Chinese.
Table 12: Odds Ratios From Bi-Variate And Multivariate Models
Estimating The Effects Of Ethnicity, Sex, Age, And Nativity/arrival
Status On The Odds On Having A College Degree For Asian American And
Pacific islander Subgroups:
Chinese;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Korean;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 1.05;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 1.06;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 1.03;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 1.07;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 1.04.
Japanese;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.71[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.73[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.76[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.65[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.73[A].
Vietnamese;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.30[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.30[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.28[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.31[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.28[A].
Other Indochinese;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.13[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.13[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.11[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.13[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.11[A].
Filipino;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.82[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.83[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.83[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.82[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.82[A].
Other Southeast Asians;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.70[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.72[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.64[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.71[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.65[A].
Indian;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 1.93[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 1.90[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 1.77[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 1.96[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 1.78[A].
Other south Asians;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 1.06;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 1.03;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.98;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 1.08;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.99.
Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.18[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.18[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.17[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.16[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.15[A].
Other;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.80[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.79[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.73[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.78[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.72[A].
Male;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Female;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.73[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): 0.74[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.74[A].
Under 45;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Over 45;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.49[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): 0.48[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.46[A].
Native Born;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): REF;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): REF.
Foreign born - before 1980;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 0.98;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.78[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 1.06.
Foreign born - after 1980;
Bi-variate Odds Ratios: 1.06;
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (1): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (2): [Empty];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (3): 0.81[A];
Odds ratios from multivariate models: Model (4): 0.83[A].
Source: GAO analysis of 2005 ACS data.
[A] Indicates differences with the referent category that are
statistically significant at the 0.01 level.
Notes: "REF" identifies the group chosen as the referent category.
[End of table]
Procedures for Identifying What Challenges, If Any, Asian American and
Pacific Islander Students Face in Pursuing and Completing Their
Postsecondary Education:
To determine what challenges Asian American and Pacific Islander
students face when pursuing postsecondary education, we first conducted
an extensive literature search on Asian American and Pacific Islander
students' experiences in postsecondary education. We synthesized our
findings to identify the challenges and develop a framework for our
analyses. We also interviewed representatives from a variety of Asian
American and Pacific Islander organizations, including umbrella
organizations and groups devoted to a single Asian American and Pacific
Islander subgroup, to gain their views on Asian American and Pacific
Islander student challenges.
Data Collection:
Existing data: We reviewed publicly available Education databases
seeking quantitative data on Asian American and Pacific Islander
students' challenges. While many of the databases contained aggregate
data on Asians and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, we found
only two data sources--the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) of 2002
and the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) of 2000--that
contained categories for individual Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroups.
* ELS 2002 follows a nationally representative cohort of students from
the time they were high school sophomores through the rest of their
high school careers. In 2004, the sample was augmented to make it
representative of seniors as well. We selected ELS because it contains
a variable "NBASIAN" that provides breakout data on the following Asian
American and Pacific Islander subgroups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese,
Korean, South Asian, and Southeast Asian. We used data from the 2004
First Year Follow-up Survey of high school seniors because we assumed
that responses made closer to the time period when they attended
postsecondary education were more likely to influence their decisions
to attend postsecondary education than responses made 2 years earlier.
We decided to use variables from the 2002 base year survey if they were
not available in the 2004 follow-up.
* NPSAS 2000 is a comprehensive nationwide study designed to determine
how students and their families pay for postsecondary education, and to
describe some demographic and other characteristics of those enrolled.
The study uses data from nationally representative sample surveys of
students in postsecondary education institutions, including
undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. Students
attending all types and levels of institutions are represented,
including public and private not-for-profit and for-profit
institutions, and less-than-2-year institutions, community colleges,
and 4-year colleges and universities. Although not the most recent
iteration of the database, we decided to use the NPSAS 1999 to 2000
Undergraduate Survey because unlike the NPSAS 2004 Undergraduate Survey
it included a "type of Asian origin" variable that provides breakout
data on the following Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups:
Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Other Asian American and Pacific
Islander, Asian Indian, and Vietnamese.
We reviewed the data dictionaries for each database to select variables
that represented the Asian American and Pacific Islander student
challenges identified in our literature search. We determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
On-site visit data: To obtain more in-depth information on the
challenges that Asian American and Pacific Islander students face, we
visited eight colleges and universities in three states--California,
Minnesota, and Hawaii--and conducted discussion groups with Asian
American and Pacific Islander students. We selected institutions in
urban areas with high concentrations of Asian American and Pacific
Islander students and diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander
subgroups. To locate urban areas with high concentrations of Asian
American and Pacific Islander subgroups, we analyzed data from the 2000
U.S. Census. Next, we analyzed data contained in Education's Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2004 database to identify
accredited 2-year and 4-year institutions that reported Asian American
and Pacific Islander undergraduate student enrollment of at least 10
percent. From this list, we selected a nonprobability sample of seven
public institutions located in the Honolulu, San Francisco, and St.
Paul metropolitan areas to visit. Wanting also to obtain the views of
Asian American and Pacific Islander students in a private institution,
we selected an additional private 4-year institution in Minnesota.
In the course of our on-site visits in January and February 2007, we
conducted 14 discussion groups with 84 Asian American and Pacific
Islander students. The number of participants in the discussion group
ranged from 2 to 11. We relied on administrative officials at the
postsecondary institutions to recruit and select participants for our
discussion groups.
Table 13: Composition Of The Asian American And Pacific Islander
Student Discussion Groups:
State: Hawaii[A];
Postsecondary institution: University of Hawaii at Manoa;
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Samoan; Filipino;
Hawaiian;
Number of participants: 11; 11; 2.
State: Hawaii[A];
Postsecondary institution: Kapi'olani Community College;
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Japanese; Pacific
Islander;
Number of participants: 2; 6.
State: Minnesota;
Postsecondary institution: Concordia University of St. Paul;
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Hmong;
Number of participants: 7.
State: Minnesota;
Postsecondary institution: Century College;
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Hmong;
Number of participants: 7.
State: California;
Postsecondary institution: DeAnza College;
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Vietnamese; Cambodian;
Number of participants: 7; 3.
State: California;
Postsecondary institution: San Francisco State University;
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Japanese, Filipino, Asian
Indian; Vietnamese, Filipino, Chinese and Taiwanese; Filipino;
Number of participants: 3; 8; 3.
State: California;
Postsecondary institution: City College of San Francisco;
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup: Vietnamese; Chinese;
Number of participants: 7; 8.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] We also visited Leeward Community College in Hawaii but did not
conduct student discussion groups.
[End of table]
To guide the discussions, we developed a standard set of open-ended
questions about the following topics:
* decision to attend college,
* college affordability,
* academic preparation,
* institutional climate,
* work, and:
* family expectations.
All 14 discussion groups were lead by the same team member to ensure
consistency. Small group discussions are designed to gain in-depth
information about specific issues that cannot easily be obtained from
single or serial interviews. Methodologically, discussion groups are
not designed to provide results generalizable to a larger population or
provide statistically representative samples or reliable quantitative
estimates. Discussion group findings represent the responses only of
the students who participated in our 14 groups. In addition, while the
composition of the groups was designed to include students from
different Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups, the discussion
groups were not random samples of Asian American and Pacific Islander
students.
Data Analysis:
We conducted descriptive statistical analyses of the ELS and NPSAS data
using means and proportions and tested the statistical significance of
any differences in proportions that we identified.
During our exit conference with the Department of Education, an
Education official expressed concern that the weights in the ELS and
NPSAS samples may have affected our estimates. He was concerned that
the weights themselves might produce differences in the estimates. He
said that an unusual respondent with a large weight could control an
estimate that appears to be different from the others. He said that it
is possible that the sampling errors for the estimates might not
reflect this problem. The official suggested that we calculate the
estimates with and without the weights. He believed that the
differences we saw in the data might disappear when the unweighted
results are compared. He recommended that we use either the balanced
repeated replication (BRR) or "jackknife" procedures to calculate the
variances for the variables of interest. To respond to these concerns,
we calculated the estimates with and without weights, as suggested. The
results showed only a few percentage points difference between the
weighted and unweighted data on our variables of interest and thus it
was not necessary to change the methodology for calculating the
confidence intervals. The variance estimation procedure we used--Taylor
Series--is a conservative method for calculating the confidence
intervals. It was also one of two recommended in the NPSAS 2000
documentation. The ELS 2002 documentation also recommended using a
statistical package that could handle complex sample designs and we
used SUDAAN. However, to ensure the quality of our results, GAO's Chief
Statistician reviewed the methodology and tabulations from NPSAS
prepared for our draft report.
Procedures for Determining What Federal and Institutional Resources
That Institutions with Large AAPI Student Enrollment Use to Address the
Particular Needs of These Students:
To determine what federal and institutional resources institutions with
large Asian American and Pacific Islander student enrollment use to
address the particular needs of these students, we visited the same
states and postsecondary institutions identified to select student
discussion groups, listed in table 13. At each of the eight
postsecondary institutions, we interviewed officials responsible for
the financial aid, academic support services, and student life support
services available to Asian American and Pacific Islander students and
collected related documentation. To guide the interviews, we asked a
standard set of questions about:
* types of assistance provided to Asian American and Pacific Islander
students with federal and institutional resources,
* postsecondary institutions' efforts to inform students about the
availability of financial aid,
* types of academic support services available to Asian American and
Pacific Islander students and students' use of the services, and:
* initiatives the institutions had undertaken to foster Asian American
and Pacific Islander students' involvement in campus life.
To collect information about the eligibility criteria and objectives of
the federal programs used to fund the academic and student support
services the postsecondary institutions provided, we also interviewed
Education officials about Title III, TRIO, Native Hawaiian Education,
and Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Educational Program grants and
reviewed program documentation. Lastly, we analyzed NPSAS 2000 data to
determine the extent to which Asian American and Pacific Islander
students applied for and received federal student aid, including loans,
grants, and work-study.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Description of Federal Student Aid:
Federal student aid program: Subsidized Stafford loans;
Description: Loans made to students enrolled at least half-time in an
eligible program of study who have federally defined financial need.
The federal government pays the interest costs on the loan while the
student is in school.
Federal student aid program: Pell Grants;
Description: Grants to undergraduate students who are enrolled in a
degree or certificate program and have federally defined financial
need.
Federal student aid program: Perkins Loans;
Description: Low-interest loans to undergraduate and graduate students.
Interest does not accrue while the student is enrolled at least half
time in an eligible program. Priority is given to students who have
exceptional federally defined financial need.
Federal student aid program: Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants (SEOG);
Description: Grants for undergraduate students with federally defined
financial need. Priority given for this aid is given to Pell Grant
recipients.
Federal student aid program: Work-study;
Description: On-or-off-campus jobs in which students who have federally
defined need earn at least the current federal minimum wage. The
institution or off-campus employer pays a portion of their wages.
Federal student aid program: Unsubsidized Stafford loans;
Description: Non-need-based loans made to students enrolled at least
half-time in an eligible program of study. Although the terms and
conditions of the loan (i.e., interest rates, etc.) are the same as
those for subsidized loans, students are responsible for paying all
interest costs on the loan.
Federal student aid program: Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students
(PLUS) loan;
Description: Non-need-based loans made to credit worthy parents of
dependent undergraduate students enrolled at least half-time in an
eligible program of study. Borrowers are responsible for paying all
interest on the loan.
Source: GAO-03-508.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Postsecondary Education:
The Assistant Secretary:
Jul 18 2007:
Mr. George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for providing the Department of Education (Department) with a
draft copy of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's)
report entitled, "Higher Education: Information Sharing Could Help
Institutions Identify and Address Challenges That Some Asian Americans
and Pacific Islander Students Face" (GAO-07-925). The report examines
the difference in educational achievement and income levels between
Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) ethnic groups. It also
examines the challenges these groups face pursuing and completing
postsecondary education, and how institutions with large AAPI student
enrollments use their institutional and federal resources to address
the needs of AAPI students.
Recommendation: To assist postsecondary institutions that serve Asian
American and Pacific Islander students, particularly students from low-
income families, we recommend that the Secretary of Education
facilitate sharing of information among institutions about strategies
that foster low-income postsecondary student recruitment, retention,
and graduation and outreach to Asian American and Pacific Islanders
while in high school.
Response: In its report, GAO specifically suggests that the Department
use the Web as a tool for sharing information among institutions. The
Office of Postsecondary Education is already sharing information about
minority-serving institutions' successful practices and making this
information available to the public and all grantees on program
"Success Stories" Web pages. Examples of the successful practices
minority-serving institutions have identified may be found at
hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/practiceshtml.
Additionally, all of the institutions funded under the Title III and
Title V minority-serving institutional programs currently make a
project abstract for each grantee available on their Web pages. Some of
these abstracts for current grantees include activities related to
retention. We will examine options for encouraging more grantees to
report successful practices related to recruitment, retention, and
graduation and to use these Web pages as resources. We will examine
these options and make a decision no later than July 31, 2008.
GAO's recommendation specifically states that increased efforts should
be made in the area of outreach to AAPI students while in high school.
Please note that although the minority-serving institutions programs do
not specifically target high school students, programs such as TRIO
Upward Bound and Talent Search do serve populations of at-risk AAPI
students.
I appreciate your examination of this important issue, and note that
GAO's report highlighted ample evidence to support that institutions
use a variety of grants, including federal aid, and their own resources
to address the needs of AAPI students. The Department is committed to
serving AAPI students in an effort to increase their educational
achievements.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James F. Manning:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
Office of Postsecondary Education:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott (202) 512-7215, scottg@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Sherri Doughty, Assistant Director:
Sara Edmondson, Analyst-in-charge:
Jonathan McMurray, Susan Pachikara, Luann Moy, Carol Bray, Douglas
Sloane, Nancy Hess, John Mingus, James Rebbe, and Susannah Compton,
also made significant contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Unless otherwise noted, the coefficient of variation for all
estimates based on the 2005 American Community Survey data is less than
.04. That is, the standard error for each estimate is less than 4
percent of the estimate. See appendix I for more information.
[2] We limited our scope to the U.S population age 25 or older. This
was done to restrict focus to those that might have completed their
education. As a result, our estimates may vary from other published
population statistics, such as American Community Survey population
profiles, or other published Census data. These other estimates would
include individuals aged 24 and younger, whom our analyses excluded.
Since different racial and ethnic groups in the United States may have
varied age distributions, we might expect our results to vary from
other published data.
[3] As a longitudinal study, the ELS database captures data from the
same respondents at different times in their lives. In this report, we
use data from the base year survey of 2002 (when respondents were high
school sophomores) and data from the follow up survey of 2004 (when
respondents were high school seniors). We cite data for "high school
students" to reflect student responses, not the year in which they were
collected.
[4] The ACS data contain categories for over 43 Asian American and
Pacific Islander subgroups, but we collapsed some of the smaller
homogeneous subgroups to allow for more meaningful analysis. For
example, the findings for the Indochinese include Cambodians, Laotians
and Hmong. However, in the ELS data, the Southeast Asian category
includes survey respondents who identified themselves as Southeast
Asian, but the countries of origin for these respondents were not
identified. The NPSAS data include some Southeast Asian categories, but
did not identify the smaller subgroups. The correspondence among the
Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroup categories in our ACS, ELS
and NPSAS analyses is described in more detail in the background.
[5] However, funds directed to Native Hawaiians are provided under
Title III, part A, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.
[6] See GAO, Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Department
of Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance, GAO-04-961
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2004).
[7] Average incomes are calculated for individuals reporting that they
were employed.
[8] The research literature on status attainment, beginning in the
1960s with the work of sociologist Otis Dudley Duncan at the University
of Michigan, firmly established parents' education as a predictor of
socioeconomic status, a measure that includes income, occupation, and
educational attainment.
[9] All differences reported were statistically significant at the 95
percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. If no difference
actually existed in the population, we would only expect to find a
difference as large as the one found in the ELS and NPSAS samples less
than 5 percent of the time.
[10] GAO, Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Department of
Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance, GAO-04-961
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2004).
[11] This grant was awarded to ALU LIKE, Inc. which is a nonprofit
organization for Native Hawaiians based in Honolulu. Kapi'olani
Community College is a subgrantee. An official said non-Native Hawaiian
students who request these services (except for internship placements)
may be served as long as they do not displace Hawaiian students who
take priority.
[12] This includes residents of American Samoa, Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia,
Futuna, Kiribati, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Republic of Belau,
Republic of the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga,
Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Wallis.
[13] As noted above, the amount of federal aid a student receives
depends partly on the cost of attendance, except for Unsubsidized
Stafford loans. However, NPSAS data does not include information on the
cost of attendance. As a result, we could not determine how cost
differences affected which subgroups received federal aid.
[14] These data include students who applied for and received Perkins
and/or Stafford federal loans and/or PLUS loans and/or federal loans
through the Public Health Service in 1999 to 2000.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
