The High School (HS) Ranking is an equity policy aimed at increasing the enrolment of students from underprivileged contexts in selective higher education institutions in Chile. However, HS Ranking is considered as an admission criterion for all applicants, regardless of their contextual characteristics. In this study, we delve into how students from different high school settings interpret and deploy actions to increase their HS Ranking score. Through a Structural Equation Model with validated survey data (9 schools, N = 1.831), our results show that the role of the schools’ context in the deployment of academic strategies to increase HS Ranking score is significant, even after controlling for academic individual motivation. In a scenario of a highly segregated secondary system these results are relevant for the discussion of the role of HS Ranking – an equity-oriented admission policy – in maintaining the higher education inequalities.
BadenierC. (2003). Reliability and validity of the learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI) in a sample of students from the metropolitan region (Chile). Psykhe, 12(2), 193–206.
2.
BallS. J.MaguireM.BraunA. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
3.
BernasconiA. (2015). La educación superior de Chile: Transformación, desarrollo y crisis. Ediciones UC.
4.
BourdieuP. (2001). Poder, derecho y clases sociales. Desclée.
5.
BrunnerJ. J. (2015). Medio siglo de transformaciones de la educación superior chilena: Un estado del arte. In BernasconiA. (Ed.), La educación superior en Chile. Transformación, desarrollo y crisis (pp. 21–107). Ediciones UC.
6.
CanalesA. (2016). Diferencias socioeconómicas en la postulación a las universidades chilenas: El rol de factores académicos y no académicos. Calidad en la Educación, 44, 129–157. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-45652016000100006
7.
Cabrera, A., & La Nasa, S. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing America's disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119–149.
CullenJ. B.LongM. C.RebackR. (2013). Jockeying for position: Strategic high school choice under Texas’ top 10 percent plan. Journal of Public Economics, 97, 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.08.012
DeoM. E. (2012). The promise of Grutter: Diverse interactions at the University of Michigan Law School. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 17(1), 63–120.
12.
DominaT. (2007). Higher education policy as secondary school reform: Texas public high schools after Hopwood. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707304995
13.
EspinozaO.González FiegehenL. E.SandovalL.McGinnN.CorradiB. (2021). Reducing inequality in access to university in Chile: The relative contribution of cultural capital and financial aid. Higher Education, August. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00746-z
14.
EyzaguirreS.GazmuriJ.San MartínH. (2021). Sesgo socioeconómico en las notas de enseñanza media. Puntos de Referencia, 585. Centro de Estudios Públicos.
15.
FajnzylberE.LaraB.LeónT. (2018). Increased learning or GPA inflation? Evidence from GPA-based university admission in Chile. Economics of Education Review, 72, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.05.009
16.
Fernández-VavrikG.PironeF.van ZantenA. (2018). Discrimination positive, méritocratie et l’inclusion en tension: Les conventions éducation prioritaire de sciences Po. Raisons éducatives, 1(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.3917/raised.022.0019
17.
GilF.ParedesR.SánchezI. (2013). Ranking de Notas: Inclusión con Excelencia. Centro de Políticas Públicas UC. Temas de la Agenda pública. https://politicaspublicas.uc.cl/publicacion/serie-temas-de-la-agenda/serie-no-60-el-ranking-de-las-notas-inclusion-con-excelencia/.
18.
GonzálezA.DupriezV. (2017). Acceso a las universidades selectivas en Chile: ¿Pueden las estrategias institucionales de los establecimientos secundarios atenuar el peso del capital cultural?Revista Complutense de Educación, 28(3), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2017.v28.n3.51492
19.
GonzálezF.JohnsonE. (2018). University inclusion policies and strategic behavior in secondary education. Estudios Públicos, 149, 41–73.
20.
GrauM. (2015). Análisis de la capacidad del ranking de notas para predecir el resultado académico de los estudiantes de la FCFM. Master’s dissertation – Applied Economics, University of Chile.
21.
HurtadoS. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.
22.
JärveläS. (2001). Shifting research on motivation and cognition to an integrated approach on learning and motivation in context. In VoletS.JärveläS. (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 3–14). Pergamon/Elsevier.
23.
KirstM.VeneziaA. (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education. Jossey-Bass.
24.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
25.
KoljaticM.SilvaM. (2013). Opening a side-gate: Engaging the excluded in Chilean higher education through test-blind admission. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1427–1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.623299
26.
LareauA. (2011). Class, race, and family life, with an update a decade later. University of California Press.
27.
LucasS. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education, transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642–1690. https://doi.org/10.1086/321300
28.
ManziJ. (2006). Segmented access to higher education in Chile. In Diaz-RomeroP. (Ed.), Avenues for equity in access to higher education (pp. 187–204). Fundación Equitas.
29.
Maramba, D. C., Thandi Sulè, V. & Winkle-Wagner, R. (2015). What discourse on the Texas top ten percent plan says about accountability for diversity. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(5), 751–776. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00221546.2015.11777382
30.
MarginsonS. (2016). High participation system of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0007
31.
McDonoughP. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. State University of New York Press.
32.
MilemJ. F. (2003). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiple sectors. In ChangM. J.WittD.JonesJ.HakutaK. (Eds.), Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities (pp. 126–169). Stanford University Press.
PaulusN.BlancoC. (2020). Deseos, creencias y oportunidades en la toma de decisiones de estudiantes secundarios en tránsito a la universidad. Acciones y reacciones en torno a la implementación del puntaje ranking. Calidad en la Educación, 52, 263–295. https://doi.org/10.31619/caledu.n52.649
36.
PernaL. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (vol. 21, pp. 99–157). Springer.
37.
PittD. G. W. (2015). On the scaling of NSW HSC marks in mathematics and encouraging higher participation in calculus-based courses. Australian Journal of Education, 59(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944115571943
38.
RafteryA. E.HoutM. (1993). Maximally maintained inequality: Expansion, reform, and opportunity in Irish education, 1921–75. Sociology of Education, 66(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112784
39.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Erlbaum.
40.
ReayD.DavidM.BallS. (2001). Making a difference? Institutional habituses and higher education choice. Sociological Research Online, 5(4), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.548
41.
Santelices, M. V., Catalán, X., Horn, C., & Venegas, A. (2018). High school ranking in university admissions at a national level: Theory of action and early results from Chile. Higher Education Policy, 31(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0048-6
42.
SegoviaN.ManziJ. (2016). La validez predictiva del ranking de notas. El rendimiento académico en los dos primeros años de universidad. Cuadernos de Inclusión en Educación Superior, 1, 46–59.
TrowM. (1972). The expansion and transformation of higher education. International Review of Education, 18, 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01450272
48.
UrzúaS. (2012). La rentabilidad de la educación superior en Chile. Revisión de las bases de 30 años de políticas públicas. Estudios Públicos, 125, 1–52.
49.
VallerandR. J.PelletierL. G.BlaisM. R.BriereN. M.SenecalC.VallieresE. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Education and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025
50.
VillalobosC.QuaresmaM. L.FranetovicG. (2020). Mapeando a la élite en las universidades chilenas. Un análisis cuantitativo-multidimensional. Revista Española de Sociología, 29(3), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2020.33
51.
WeinsteinC.PalmerD.AceeT. (2016). LASSI user’s manual: For those administering the learning and study strategies inventory (3rd ed.). H & H Pub.
52.
WeisL.CipolloneK.JenkinsH. (2014). Class warfare: Class, race, and college. Admissions in top-tier secondary schools. University of Chicago Press.
53.
ZwickR. (2012). The role of admissions test scores, socioeconomic status, and high school grades in predicting college achievement. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 49(2), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.7764/PEL.49.2.2012.3
