Academic Performance of Persistent University Students in Chile

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to identify the relative importance of various determinants of universityof
university student academic performance. The conclusions are based on data describing characteristics
and behavior of students who successfully completed three consecutive years of study in 11 public and
private universities in Chile. Admission to each university was selective but admission standards
(average secondary school grades and scores on national standardized tests of Language and
Mathematics) varied widely. The student participants were volunteers drawn from a randomly selected
list of all non-repeating students who entered the university in 2016 or in 2017. Data were collected
from admission files and using a self-administered 39-item questionnaire focused on family attributes,
sources of finance and student concerns about their academic progress. Data were analyzed using
correlations and multiple linear regression. The analysis findings showed a clear difference between the
variables associated with grade point average (GPA) in the 1 st year of university study as compared
variables that explained performance in the 2 nd and 3rd academic years. Pre-enrollment variables (family
attributes, secondary GPA and university admission test scores) were associated with academic
performance in the 1st year, but post-enrollment variables were more important in the 2 nd and 3rd years.
Gender was not a consistently important factor. The variables associated with academic performance
differed across the students’ field of study.

Keywords: academic performance, integration, computer access, gender, ¿¿¿ethnic identity??, field of
study

INTRODUCTION

University student persistence to graduation is a critical concern not just for students and their
families, but also for universities themselves. The financial survival of universities hinges on their ability
to graduate professionals who will play critical roles in the future development of society. Low student
achievement and abandonment of their studies before certification of their readiness implies a misuse
of valuable resources.

Academic performance reflected in the university student’s graduate point average (GPA), is a
major predictor of graduation (Yue & Fu, 2107). As the literature review that follows below shows,
however, student persistence to graduation in influenced by other factors as well. Earlier research
focused on variables measuring pre-university experiences. For example, the probability of graduation
was associated with the kind of high school attended (Engberg & Wolniak, 2010). Universities relied on
achievement tests to predict university GPA, but some researchers questioned their predictive validity
(e.g., Galla, 2019). Other researchers identified post-enrollment factors that influenced GPA and
persistence. Classic research by Tinto and others (Tinto,1971, 2006; Bean, 2005) identified social and
academic integration as critical influences on academic performance and on graduation. Parent
experience with higher education was shown to have an effect (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). Prior to
massification, financial difficulties had a major impact on persistence (Cabrera, 1992; Paulsen, 2002).
The gap in graduation rates between men and women also has changed over time (Conger, 2010).
 2

The influence of these diverse factors varies across individuals, programs (fields of study), and
institutions. The explanation of why some students leave (dropout) before graduation and others persist
is complex. Student success in the university may not be a function of just intelligence, or motivation, or
social class, or good teaching. It may be the product of the interaction of several factors. The likelihood
of moving from admission to graduation is perhaps not a constant that can be determined at admission,
because other factors appear at different moments and interact with each other. The objective of this
study is to assess the extent ¿¿who which?? persistence and graduation are a joint product of the
actions of students, and the institution, a result of the context in which they function.

Review of Research

Without successful academic performance, there is no graduation from the university. Good
grades by themselves, however, do not ensure that a student will graduate. Graduation is related not
just to academic performance but also persistence, of obtaining passing grades every year. In general,
the largest number of withdrawals occurs during or at the end of the first year of university study. The
rate of withdrawal declines sharply each year after that (Delaney & Yu, 2013; OECD, 2008). This finding
suggests that the sets of factors associated with the first year differ from those operative in later
academic years. The review distinguishes between pre-enrollment factors and those that come into play
after enrollment.

Pre-Enrollment Factors

In most countries university admission is granted to the institution. The choice or assignment of
which field of study (or major) to pursue is made at the end of the first or second year (Quadlin, 2020).
In Chile, however, admission is granted to a specific field of study within a given university (Bordon & Fu,
2010). Requirements for admission vary across fields and universities.

Students’ choices of where to apply and what to study are shaped by the culture in which their
family lived and are strongly related to their parents’ education, occupation and income (Bukodi &
Goldthorpe, 2013; Patfield et al., 2020; Storen & Helland, 2010; Norodien-Fataar, 2016; Wu et al.,
2015). The relationship between students’ pre-enrollment characteristics and choices is generally
stronger with fields of study than with institutions (Ayalon et al., 2021; Walsh et al., 2018).

The primary influence of parents and the larger culture on students’ university preferences
emerges at the secondary level. Not all students seek to imitate their parents’ careers. In some
countries parents with higher education and income are less likely to encourage their children to follow
the same path they took (Breen et al., 2014). Students with higher levels of academic performance in
secondary school are more likely to choose more challenging fields of study (Bukodi et al., 2021).

The expansion of higher education has meant that an increasing proportion of prospective
students are from families in which parents had little or no higher education themselves (Hardy &
Marcotte, 2020; Scanlon et al., 2019; Toutkoushian et al., 2021). Some research has shown that these
“first-generation” students have difficulty in adjusting to the unique characteristics of university
academic life (Jury et al., 2018; Markle & Stelzriede, 2020; Tibbetts et al., 2016).
First-generation students in Chile and elsewhere have been described as less well-prepared
academically than continuing-generation students (Centro de Estudios, 2013; DeAngelo et al., 2011;
 3

Royster et al., 2018; Stebleton & Soria, 2012). They are described as spending less time in the university
library and reading less before class (Arch & Gilmer, 2019) and spending more time in off-campus
activities (Yang, 2020). On average their secondary GPA is lower than that of continuing-generations
students (Aspelmeier et al., 2012). They are less likely to have developed a sense of self-confidence
(Williams et al., 2013).) and on entering the university are more likely to experience a sense of not
“belonging” (Canning et al., 2020; Mehta et al., 2011). They are less likely to have developed “executive
functioning” skills such as a working memory, planning skills, and self-regulation that facilitate university
learning (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). They also are less likely to initiate contact with and seek help
from their professors (Stebleton & Soria, 2012).
A second student characteristic linked to university academic performance and graduation is
gender. The relative academic performance of men and women in the 1 st year of university is not
consistent across countries. In Europe women more often have higher secondary GPAs (Fischer et al.,
2013) and 1st year university GPA is significantly related to secondary school GPA, but not necessarily to
gender (Danilowicz-Gösele et al., 2017). In some countries, e.g. Argentina and Uruguay, 1 st year
academic performance is highly related to gender (García de Fanelli & Adrogué, 2019). The superior
performance of women is sometimes attributed to greater conscientiousness or “grit” and executive
functioning (Verbree et al., 2022).
University academic performance and graduation are associated with the type of secondary
school attended in some but not all countries. In Mexico, no difference was found in the university
academic performance and graduate rate of public and private secondary students (Binelli & Rubio-
Codina, 2013). Studies in the U.S. and in Uruguay reported higher graduation rates of graduates from
private (as compared to public) secondary schools (Coughlin & Castilla, 2014; Katzkowicz & Arim, 2017).
The enrollment of a student in a university in which other students entered with higher levels of
secondary academic performance is called “academic undermatch”. An early study in the United States
showed that students have a higher probability of graduating if their prior academic abilities (class rank
and SAT scores) match the average of other students in the university they attend (Light & Strayer,
2000). Mismatched students, those with very high or very low scores on admission tests, are less likely
to graduate (Cragg, 2009).
But many low-income high school graduates choose to attend less selective universities,
reproducing educational inequality linked to social class. In the U.S. about 40% of low-income students
undermatch (Roksa & Deutschlander, 2018; Howell & Pender, 2016). In order to overcome this pattern,
the state of Texas offered free tuition in public universities to all secondary graduates ranked in the
upper 10% of their class. After several years it appeared that low-income upper 10% students continued
to choose less selective institutions (Cortes & Lincove, 2019). First-generation students in Chile are more
likely to have attended lower quality secondary schools and to apply to less selective universities, even
when their secondary GPA was relatively high (Planck Barahona, 2014).
Minority students (who are more likely to have attended lower quality secondary schools) have
more difficulty in certain fields, particularly STEM. Academic performance in the 1 st year is lower than
that of majority students (Chen & Soldner, 2013). The non-completion rate of minority students
attributable to lower academic performance is higher in STEM courses (Witteveen & Attewell, 2017,
2020). Students claiming ethnic identity are less likely to succeed in what are considered more rigorous
fields such as those in STEM (Arcidiacono et al., 2016).
Each of the various pre-enrollment factors mentioned can affect academic performance during
st
the 1 year of university enrollment. As indicated, high academic performance during secondary school
 4

contributes to development of self-efficacy (Richardson et al., 2012) which as part of executive

functioning (Callahan & Belcheir, 2017; Dorta-Guerra et al., 2019; Holder & Analytics, 2018) results in
persistent and focused attention on learning (Larsen, 2016). Several studies have emphasized that
measures of secondary academic performance (such as grade point averages) are more reliable and
accurate predictors of university academic performance than are one-time tests of cognitive abilities
(Danilowicz-Gösele et al., 2017b; Larsen, 2016; Stewart et al., 2015). Tests (such as the SAT or ACT) are
most valid (on a par with GPA) in predicting 1 st semester and 1st year grades, but less so in later years of
study. Secondary grade and cognitive ability test scores are relatively effective predictors of university
graduation overall, but not in all fields of study (Gunn et al., 2020).
Institutional Characteristics

A review of research (Haas & Hadjar, 2020) on post-enrollment factors and institutional
characteristics associated with university academic performance classified variables in three categories:
a. Micro. Exogenous situations such as family disruptions that distract from study associated
with student variables linked with performance, and university such as discrimination that
interact with student performance. These are equivalent to pre-enrollment factors.
b. Meso. Institutional structure or practices that affect student performance, such as program
size, selectivity and provision of support services.
c. Macro. Institutional size, costs and financial aid (Haas & Hadjar, 2020).
Completion rates in French universities are lowest for professional programs, and highest for
those programs that do not prepare for a specific occupation (Bodin & Millet, 2011). When programs
expand enrollments rapidly this often leads to reduced spending per student, which can be associated
with reduced graduation rates (Bound et al., 2010). The provision of both academic and non-academic
support services has been shown to increase retention rates (Hand & Payne, 2008; Roberts & Styron,
2010). Support services may be especially effective in improving performance and retention of first-
generation and minority students (Michalski et al., 2017). A related form of support is programs to
improve the instructional effectiveness of professors (Schmid et al., 2016).
Research Questions
1. Which pre-enrollment variables are most highly associated with academic performance during
the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of study? What combinations of variables yield the highest level of
academic performance?
2. Which institutional variables are associated with performance in the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd years in
which students were enrolled in the university?

Methodology

This is a quantitative study that uses a variety of analytical procedures including multinivel linear
regression. The objective of the study was to identify some of the factors that contribute to academic
performance of university students. Academic performance was operationally defined as the yearly
grade point average.

The study is based on an intentional sample (Cohen et al., 2007) of 11 Chilean universities
participants in the national Uniform Admission Process (SUA), who includes about half of the nation’s 60
universities. The institutions selected include public and private institutions of different sizes and
 5

different levels of selectivity (low, medium, and high) in admission of new students. The SUA admission
process requires applicants to be graduates of a secondary school, submit four years of grades, and to
take the Language and Mathematics sub-tests of the University Selection Test (PSU). The PSU, modeled
after the SAT was formally validated (Pearson PLC, 2013) but will be replaced by a new admission test in
2023. Universities and degree programs indicate the minimum scores required for admission and assign
weights to the three criteria, GPA and test scores. Applicants rank order programs and universities. Most
(over 80%) of applicants are admitted to their first choice. All students from families in the lower half of
the income distribution received free tuition in admitting SUA universities. The Chilean academic year
runs from March to December.

Data were collected in 2020 from two sources. First, the participating universities identified all
students from two cohorts, those admitted in 2016, and those admitted in 2017. A second step was to
identify in 2020 all members of the two cohorts still enrolled. This included 2016 entrants who had
successfully completed four years and 2017 entrants who had completed three. A random sample of
5% was drawn from each list for each university. The universities provided data collected as part of the
application process including age, secondary school attended and secondary school grade point average.
DEMRE provided admission test scores.

En segundo lugar, aA non-probability quota sample of 5% was drawn for each university. All
selected students were contacted by e-mail and invited to participate in the study by completing a 39-
item questionnaire. The sample of students included in this study is not representative of all students
that were admitted in 2016 and 2017. About 20% of the total withdrew from their university at the end
of the 1st year (Von Hippel & Hofflinger, 2021). This sample represents comprende students who
persisted for at least three years. Sumado a lo anterior, no todos los estudiantes contactados
respondieron la encuesta. Por lo tanto, si bien la muestra se escogió de manera aleatoria, la respuesta
fue voluntaria.

Variables

Respondents answered most of the questions. A few questions had as many as 10% missing
answers. En el caso de las variables continuas,All missing data was replaced by the average response on
that item. Con respecto a las variables categóricas, se eliminaron los casos perdidos. The N for all
variables was therefore 24252032.

Table 1 shows [xxx].

Table 1. Description of all students still enrolled in 2020 (11 selected universities)
2016 2017
Sex Male 5,982 49.1 7,163 48.0
FG Yes 5,785 47.5 7,051 47.3
Family Income  
Low 6,089 50.0 8,075 54.1
Medium 4,174 34.3 4,523 30.3
High 815 6.7 825 5.5
Very high 1,105 9.1 1,495 10.0
Secondary type  
 6

Private 1,472 12.1 1,733 11.6

Private Subsidized 7,080 58.1 8,566 57.4
Municipal 3,631 29.8 4,619 31.0
Mean SD Mean SD
Secondary GPA 6.09 .83 6.05 .85
PSU Language 5.88 .73 5.86 .75
PSU Mathematics 5.91 .70 5.85 .71
Total 12,183 14,918

Table 2 describes the means and standard deviation of the pre-enrollment variables.

Table 2. Pre-enrollment Variables, for Students Entering in 2016 and 2017

2016 2017
N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D.
Female (0,1) 1146 .616 0.48 1279 .624 0.48
Ethnic Identity (0,1) 1146 .146 0.35 1279 .145 0.35
Parents’ Education (1-6) 1146 2.78 2.14 1279 2.49 1.99
Family Income (1-12) 1146 4.76 3.01 1279 4.80 3.00
Private Secondary (0,1) 1146 .115 .35 1279 .116 .32
Secondary GPA 1146 610.9 79.6 1279 610.0 86.4
PSU Language 1146 586.7 70.3 1279 592.2 72.4
PSU Mathematics 1146 584.8 66.6 1279 586.9 71.5
Age at Entrance (17+) 1146 20.8 3.71 1279 19.9 3.4

2016 2017
N % N %
Sex Male 615 38.6 684 37.8
Ethnic Identity Yes 137 13.8 148 13.5
FG Yes 459 46.2 556 50.6
Technical Track 140 14.1 155 14.1
Family Income
Low 500 50.4 604 55.0
Medium 347 34.9 328 29.8
High 94 9.5 68 6.2
Very high 52 5.2 99 9.0
Secondary type
Private 116 11.7 133 12.1
Private Subsidized 576 58.0 661 60.1
Municipal 301 30.3 305 27.8
Mean SD Mean SD
Secondary GPA 6.10 .81 6.11 .88
 7

PSU Language 5.85 .71 5.92 .74

PSU Mathematics 5.84 .68 5.86 .73
Total 993 1099
Table 2*. Pre-enrollment Variables, for Students Entering in 2016 and 2017

Table 3 describes variables measuring activities and responses once enrolled in the university, including
the grade point averages at the end of the first three years. Students were asked about the number of
hours spent in (paid) employment outside the university (from 0 to 44 hours per week). Computer
Internet Availability was a 5-point Likert scale on access to an Internet-connected computer for study.
Integration was the average of three questions asking about relationships with fellow students and
professors and participation in university activities. Students could indicate any of 9 different events.
Family situations were most frequently mentioned. In response to a question as to whether they had
ever thought about dropping out, students could list up to 8 reasons why they might choose to do so.
Student’s level of concern about financial aid debt was measured on a 5-point scale. In the absence of
data about total applications for admissions, university selectivity was measured by the average level of
scores on GPA and PSU. Each score distribution was divided into three roughly equal parts, Low=1,
Medium=2, High=3; then averaged for each student. The most selective fields of study, using this scoring
scheme, were Health, Technology and Law in that order. Humanities and Agriculture were the two least
selective fields of study.

Table 3. Enrolled Variables, Years 2016 and 2017

2016 2017
N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D.
ComputerAvailability (1-5) 1146 3.89 0.74 1279 3.89 0.70
 8

Integration (1-5) 1146 3.92 0.98 1279 3.92 0.92

HoursWorked (0-44) 1146 8.41 10.3 1279 7.92 10.7
DisruptiveSituation (0-1) 1146 0.24 0.42 1279 0.26 0.44
MotivesWithdraw (0-7) 1146 1.20 1.30 1279 1.29 1.30
WorryAboutDebt (0-5) 1146 1.18 1.98 1279 0.82 1.76
UniversitySelectivity (1-3) 1146 1.98 0.57 1279 2.00 0.61
UniversityGPA1 1146 4.95 0.67 1279 5.04 0.74
UniversityGPA2 1146 5.03 0.61 1279 5.11 0.66
UniversityGPA3 1146 5.02 0.72 1279 5.22 0.68

Table 3*. Enrolled Variables, Years 2016 and 2017

2016 2017
N % N %
Worked
No 411 41.4 511 45.6
<=11 hours 364 36.7 360 32.8
22 hours 192 19.3 195 17.7
44 hours 26 2.6 43 3.9
Mean SD Mean SD
InternetAvailability (1-5) 3.64 .89 3.66 .85
Integration (1-5) 3.97 .72 3.96 .70
MotivesWithdraw (0,1) .61 .49 .67 .57
DisruptiveSituation (0-1) .69 .46 .68 .47
UniversityGPA1 5.04 .63 5.12 .66
UniversityGPA2 4.92 .71 5.02 .78
UniversityGPA3 5.01 .73 5.21 .76
Total 993 1099
 9

The two entering cohorts differed slightly in some of their pre-enrollment characteristics (Table 2).
Women Men were a larger shorter proportion of the second cohort. Parents had slightly less education
than those of the 2016 cohort. Test scores were slightly higher in the 2017 cohort. The two cohorts were
different once enrolled (Table 3). The 2017 entrants worked outside an hour less on average and were a
bit less worried about debt. There were slight differences in their academic performance. Given the
similarity between the two groups they were combined, and analyses reported below are based on the
larger sample of ¿¿2425 2092 students??.

Results
Linear regression models were constructed to assess the relative importance of pre-enrollment
and post-enrollment variables on academic performance. Es razonable esperar que el desempeño sea
similar entre estudiantes de una misma carrera, debido a criterios de evaluación propios de las
disciplinas. Si esto no se considera, los resultados obtenidos pueden estar sesgados, ya que no se
cumple con uno de los supuestos de las regresiones lineales, la independencia de los errores. Para evitar
esto último, se estimaron modelos de regresión lineal multinivel (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). De esta
forma, el intercepto del modelo pude variar entre clusters (carreras), por lo que se puede controlar por
la interdependencia entre los estudiantes de una mismo cluster.
Table 46 compares the adjusted standardized beta coefficients and the adjusted R 2 predicting
UGPA1 using only pre-enrollment variables, and then adding data collected once enrolled. The enrolled
data do not, however, indicate to which year or years they apply. When the enrollment variables are
taken into account, the contribution of male gender and higher family income to 1st year university
grades doesn’t declines, and the contribution of having attended a private school disappears.. Ninguna
de las otras variables pre ingreso se relaciona de manera significativa con las notas del primer año, a
excepción del rendimiento académico previo. Secondary school grades and scores on the PSU Language
and Mathematic continue to beare significantly associated with 1 st Year University grades,
independiente de si se trata del modelo Pre o Post, but the contribution of scores on the PSU
Mathematic sub-tests becomes insignificant.
None of the enrolled variables contribute as much to UGPA1 as do Secondary GPA and PSU
scores. Solamente haber considerado abandonar los estudios tiene una relación mayor a la PSU
Language.The negative relationship between UGPA1 and the number of reasons given to withdraw is
significant. There is a relatively small but significant relationship between the level of integration a
student feels and academic performance. Similar relación existe entre quienes experimentaron una
situación disruptiva y sus notas en el primer año.
 10

Table 6. Linear Regression of Pre-and Post-Enrollment Variables on 1st Year University GPA,
All Students Entering in 2016 and 2017 and Completing 3 rd Year

Model Pre- Post-

Variable β Sig. β Sig.
Constant 2.920 <.001 2.827 <.001
Female .101 <.001 .093 <.001
EthnicIdentity -.026 .221 -.017 .408
Parents’ Education -.039 .089 .-.027 .233
Family Income .074 .004 .050 .054
Private Secondary .046 .049 .034 .140
Secondary GPA .229 <.001 .210 <.001
PSULang .144 <.001 .133 <.001
PSUMath .056 .022 .035 .286
Computer Availability .042 .069
Integration .065 .004
Hours Worked .007 .754
Distracting Situations .013 .583
Motives to Drop Out -.127 <.001
Worry About Debt -.028 .175
University Selectivity .032 .560
N 2425 2425
Adjusted R2 .146 .174
F 46.66 29.58
Dependent Variable UGPA1

Table 46. Linear Regression of Pre-and Post-Enrollment Variables on 1st Year University GPA,
Variable Pre- Post-
Constant 2.073*** 1.888***
Male -.081** -.082**
EthnicIdentity -.034 -.014
FG Status .025 .027
Family Income (ref = Low)
Medium .024 .031
High -.031 -.056
Very High .039 .019
Secondary Type (ref = Private)
Private Subsidized -.047 -.022
Municipal -.093 -.066
Technical Track -.024 -.015
 11

Secondary GPA .211*** .206***

PSULang .111*** .112***
PSUMath .193*** .185***
Internet Availability (ref = 1)
2 .056
3 .004
4 .006
5 .003
Integration .085***
Hours Worked (ref = No)
<=11 hours .015
22 hours -.019
44 hours -.082
Disruptive Situations -.066**
Motives to Drop Out -.115***
N 2092 2092
R2 .17 .20
ICC .36 .36
All Students Entering in 2016 and 2017 and Completing 3 rd Year
 Table 57 compares the contribution of the various pre- and post- factors to academic
performance in years 2 and 3. Además, para cada año se estimó un tercer modelo que incluye las notas
del año inmediatamente anterior. Several variables were associated with higher grade point averages in
all three years. Women’s GPAs are higher than men’s in each year. Parents’ education is unrelated to
UGPA1 but significantly negatively correlated with performance in years 1, 2 and 3. Family Income is not
a significant predictor of academic performance in Years 1 and 2 but loses its significancebecomes
significant in year 3 when the post-enrollment variables are taken into account. Use of computer has a
persistent although not large relationship with performance para el año 2, una vez que se incluyen las
notas del año anterior (Modelo 3). Mientras la integración muestra una relación positiva con las notas
para los tres años, el haber pensado en abandonar se relaciona negativamente con el desempeño. En
ambos casos, para el segundo y tercer año esta relación disminuye casi a la mitad una vez que se
incluyen las notas del año anterior. De manera similar, el haber experimentado una situación disruptiva
afecta negativamente el desempeño, aunque esta relación deja de ser significativa cuando se controla
por las notas del año anterior (Modelo 3). As might be expected, students who continue to be enrolled
for at least 3 years are more integrated into university life than those in their first year.
En la Tabla 57 se puede apreciar que el rendimiento académico previo al ingreso a la educación
superior muestra un comportamiento interesante con el desempeño en la universidad. Cuando no se
incluyen las notas del año anterior, tanto los dos puntajes en la PSU como las notas en la secundaria
tienen una relación positiva con las notas en la universidad. Sin embargo, la situación cambia cuando
estas últimas son incluidas (Modelo 3). Mientras la PSU de matemáticas deja de tener una relación con
el desempeño desde el segundo año, la PSU de lenguaje lo hace a partir del tercero. De esta forma, la
única variable que mantiene una relación con las notas en la universidad son las notas en el nivel
secundario, aunque esta disminuye considerablemente cuando las notas del año anterior son incluidas.
The two variables most highly correlated with university performance in all years are Secondary
School performance, and ability in Language as measured by the PSU. Although these two factors are
correlated with each other, they each make a unique contribution to university academic performance,
indicating that they are measuring different student attributes. The secondary school grade average
could be the joint product of several non-cognitive ability factors such as motivation, planfulness
(executive functioning) and home conditions that maximize study time.
 13

Table 7. Linear Regression of Pre-and Post-Enrollment Variables on 2 nd and 3rd Year University GPA,
All Students Entering in 2016 and 2017 and Completing 3 years

Model Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

Variable β Sig. β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.
Constant 2.83 <.001 2.628 <.001 3.07 <.001 3.04 <.001
Female .188 <.001 .175 <.001 .203 <.001 .194 <.001
Parents’ Education -.085 <.001 -.070 .002 -.070 .003 -.053 .020
Family Income .105 <.001 .065 .011 .073 .004 .036 .174
Private Secondary .040 .091 .025 .270 .061 .013 .045 .056
Secondary GPA .195 <.001 .175 <.001 .184 <.001 .146 <.001
PSULang .178 <.001 .163 <.001 .154 <.001 .125 <.001
PSUMath -.016 .521 -.043 .186 -.012 .623 -.054 .109
Computer Availability .067 .003 .051 .031
Integration .089 <.001 .103 <.001
Hours Worked -.022 .299 -.020 .361
Distracting Situations .062 .009 .027 .265
Motives to Drop Out -.177 <.001 -.165 <.001
Worry About Debt -.010 .632 -.038 .074
University Selectivity .036 .510 .074 .188
N 2425 2425 2425 2425
Adjusted R2 .154 .174 .139 .191
F 53.83 31.65 45.51 33.70
2 nd Year 3 rd Year

Dependent Variable UGPA2 UGPA3

 14

Table 57*. Linear Regression of Pre-and Post-Enrollment Variables on 2 nd and 3rd Year University GPA,
All Students Entering in 2016 and 2017 and Completing 3 years

2nd Year 3rd Year

Variable Pre- Post- Xxx Pre- Post- Xxx
Constant 2.274*** 1.878*** 0.640** 2.785*** 2.457*** 1.309***
Male -.154*** -.161*** -.126*** -.204*** -.209*** -.109***
EthnicIdentity .012 .038 .043 -.088* -.054 -.073*
FG Status .027 .031 .014 .021 .022 .001
Family Income (ref = Low)
Medium .015 .019 -.003 .000 .007 -.006
High -.018 -.058 -.025 -.076 -.121* -.087
Very High .036 -.001 -.010 .016 -.027 -.031
Secondary Type (ref = Private)
Private Subsidized -.047 -.015 -.008 -.088 -.055 -.050
Municipal -.098 -.059 -.025 -.123* -.084 -.046
Technical Track .079 .093* .094* .048 .064 .009
Secondary GPA .215*** .206*** .062*** .216*** .207*** .071*
PSULang .116*** .117*** .049** .104*** .105*** .030
PSUMath .132*** .119*** -.019 .095*** .081** .002
Previous Year GPA .680*** .632***
Internet Availability (ref = 1)
2 .112 .078 .104 .031
3 .163 .170* .070 -.027
4 .169 .172* .089 -.011
5 .186 .191* .118 .004
Integration .119*** .064*** .128*** .058***
Hours Worked (ref = No)
<=11 hours .009 -.002 -.015 -.025
22 hours -.059 -.044 -.038 -.002
44 hours -.091 -.036 -.104 -.045
Disruptive Situations -.069* -.021 -.075* -.031
Motives to Drop Out -.133*** -.060* -.158*** -.077**
N 2092 2092 2092 2004 2004 2004
R2 .11 .14 .39 .10 .14 .45
ICC .35 .34 .19 .30 .29 .17

DISCUSSION

The study confirmed some conclusions of previous studies but contradicted others. Parents’
education has little or no impact on academic performance in the university (Bukodi & Goldthorpe,
 15

2013). Students who identify with an indigenous people do not perform at a lower level (Arcidiacono et
al., 2016). Women outperform men in almost all fields.
The findings provide clear evidence—low regression coefficients--that the current admission
procedures used by SUA do not capture many of those individual traits and experiences that predict to
high levels of academic performance. This is consistent with the findings of earlier studies (Vergara-Díaz
& Peredo López, 2017). Most striking is the apparent absence of any useful information provided by the
Mathematics sub-test of the PSU. The test’s lack of predictive power might be a function of the
construction of the test, or of the particular knowledge and skills that are included. As found by other
researchers, the test scores apparently have little relationship to student performance across the variety
of courses taught (Danilowicz-Gösele et al., 2017b; Larsen, 2016; Stewart et al., 2015).
A closer analysis, however, shows that the PSUMath scores are highly related to grades of
students in the Technology field of study (675 students). PSULanguage scores have no relationship,
while the beta coefficient for PSUMath is 0.259. Only Secondary GPA has a higher relationship with
performance in the Technology program. (In fact, only one other of the 12 variables excluding
Selectivity, Integration, has even a tiny relationship with UGPA1).
This finding is a consequence of the highly segmented academic structure of Chilean
universities. There are no university-wide core courses. Students take all their courses (most of which
are required) within their faculty. Transfer to another field of study requires beginning all over. Perhaps
this explains why integration, and satisfaction with the program as indicated by absence of reasons for
withdrawal, are significant contributors to academic performance.
A similar pattern is observed for students in the Health field (486 students). Although this field
of study includes Medicine and Nursing and attracts a much larger proportion of women than does
Technology, the pattern has similarities. PSU Math scores predict more powerfully to GPA than do PSU
Lang scores. Health students are even less likely to offer reasons to withdraw before graduation.
A third area, Social Sciences (325 students), generates a relatively small R 2 of 0.142 explaining 1st
year university grades with only two variables, Secondary GPA and PSU Lang. None of the other
variables explain initial performance. Only Secondary GPA and PSU Lang have any significance in
predicting university performance. In the 2 nd and 3rd years the predictive power improves slightly adding
female gender to the predictive equation.
Although the field of Education attracted more women than men (226 students), gender is
unrelated to academic performance. First year performance is associated only with Secondary GPA. In
the 2nd and 3rd years, however, women with a strong commitment to the profession become the high
performers. Administration and Commerce, with 264 students the fourth largest group in the sample,
attracts a various diverse group of students. Less than 10% of the variance in GPA is explained by the
pre-and post-variables.
The variables included in this study tell us little or nothing about the academic performance of
students attracted and admitted to Art and Architecture (153) and Law (141). Their enrollment is
unrelated to scores on any of the three admission criteria, which suggests that these are either fields
that take all applicants, or select students on the basis of less traditional characteristics. The sample
sizes of the other three fields, Agriculture, Basic Sciences and Humanities, are too small to support our
analysis.
The findings suggest that cost is the most common reason for dropping out of the university.
Cost is weighed in terms of the student’s identification with content, future activities and social values of
the field. Given the high level of academic performance in the secondary level by those admitted, and
the demonstrated cognitive abilities measured by the PSU, it is unlikely that students lacked the
intellectual tools necessary to succeed in the university.
The low academic performance of some students who drop out is most likely not attributable to
low ability. There are two plausible alternative explanations. For many students, the high costs of
 16

university study create a state of anxiety that distracts from an effective focus on their academic
responsibilities. For other students, the likely cause of poor performance is lack of motivation to
continue in the field they have chosen.
It may be that Gratuity, the provision of free tuition to lower income students, will reduce the
level of anxiety and hence poor academic performance, currently experienced. Early studies have
suggested increased participation by lower income students (Clontz, 2020). Drop outs resulting from
lack of identification with the field of study might be reduced by ensuring that applicants are better
informed in advance about the academic content and requirements of the field of study and features of
practice in the profession.
A new admissions process has been designed and will soon be implemented (Lissen & Bautista,
2022). A new entrance examination will assess not just knowledge but also skills.
This may be accomplished by providing information to potential applicants, or by delaying
commitment to a given field of study for a period after enrollment in the university. A Chilean study has
shown that advance provision of information about future earnings is helpful for some applicants but
that other students choose primarily on the basis on non-pecuniary characteristics of the profession
(Hastings et al., 2016). The Ministry of Education has opened a series of websites providing information
of about academic requirements and employment linked to specific programs.

CONCLUSION

The objective of this study was to identify critical factors linked to the academic performance of
university students. The results obtained, while informative, leave the sensation that we have barely
begun to understand the complex, dynamic system of higher education. The data obtained explains only
a minor fraction of the variance in the target variable, a measure of academic performance. Even in the
two short years covered by the study one can see new trends, set in motion by the introduction of
Gratuity, but also because of political and economic changes that affect both those contemplating
entrance into the university and those about to seek employment. Chile is highly attentive to political,
economic, and scientific developments in other countries. These two contribute to changes in the
aspirations and possibilities of new generations seeking through higher education to expand their life
horizons.
Free tuition has made it possible for many Chileans to now consider higher education as the
next step before adult life, as normal as secondary education has become. Chilean universities have
already begun to open programs in postgraduate education, primarily focused on research that will be
another source for change in Chilean society. Expansion of undergraduate programs will accelerate the
expansion of graduate programs. This too will contribute to increasing the complexity of university
education.
The study suggests that the factors that traditionally explained an individual’s education (and
consequent economic and social status) are changing, albeit slowly. Family education and income status
are less powerful predictors of university attendance than in the past. The bodies of knowledge once
presumed to define the “educated” person have less predictive power than once they did. The study
could not isolate the individual traits (abilities, values, ambitions) that contribute to successful
performance in the university. The study makes clear, however, that so-called non-cognitive or “soft”
skills are emerging as important for an individual’s learning, and that these soft skills have as much place
in the university as do the “disciplines” that up to now have provided the frame and content of
university curriculum.
The design of the study—essentially a review of the effectiveness of established structures and
practices—did not permit detection and assessment of the various “experiments” taking place in
universities in Chile. These include alternative pedagogies, changes in the pace and intensity of coverage
 17

of the curriculum, organization of learning groups, changes in forms and frequency of assessment, and a
many other innovations between tried out on a classroom, program or institutional level. Much of what
is going on has not been catalogued or evaluated. One cannot yet claim that the effects of those
changes that endure will be welcome.

REFERENCES
Arch, X., & Gilmer, I. (2019). First principles: Designing services for first-generation students. College &
Research Libraries, 80(9).
Arcidiacono, P., Aucejo, E. M., & Hotz, V. J. (2016). University differences in the graduation of minorities
in STEM fields: Evidence from California. American Economic Review, 106(3), 525–562.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130626
Aspelmeier, J. E., Love, M. M., Mcgill, L. A., Elliott, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2012). Self-Esteem, Locus of
Control, College Adjustment, and GPA Among First-and Continuing-Generation Students: A
Moderator Model of Generational Status. Research in Higher Education Res High Educ, 53(53).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl
Ayalon, H., Mcdossi, O., & Yogev, A. (2021). Institutional Selectivity, Curricular Policy, and Field of
Students’Stratification in Expanded Higher Education Systems: The Case of Israel. Higher Education
Policy, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-021-00248-8
Bean, J. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student
Retention, Formula for Student Success. Westport CT: Praeger
Binelli, C., & Rubio-Codina, M. (2013). The Returns to Private Education: Evidence from Mexico.
Economics of Education Review, 36, 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.06.004
Bodin, R., & Millet, M. (2011). L’université, un espace de régulation. L’« abandon » dans les 1ers cycles à
l’aune de la socialisation universitaire. Sociologie, 2(3), 225.
https://doi.org/10.3917/socio.023.0225
Bordon, P., & Fu, C. (2010). College-major choice to college-then-major choice. Review of Economic
Studies, 82(4), 1247–1288. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdv023
Bound, J., Lovenheim, M. F., & Turner, S. (2010). Why have college completion rates declined? an
analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources. In American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics (Vol. 2, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.3.129
Breen, R., van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Jæger, M. M. (2014). Deciding under Doubt: A Theory of Risk
Aversion, Time Discounting Preferences, and Educational Decision-making. European Sociological
Review, 30(2), 258–270. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24479880
Bukodi, E., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2013). Decomposing “social origins”: The effects of parents’ class, status,
and education on the educational attainment of their children. European Sociological Review,
29(5), 1024–1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs079
Bukodi, E., Goldthorpe, J. H., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Primary and secondary effects of social origins on
educational attainment: New findings for England. British Journal of Sociology, 72(3), 627–650.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12845
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A. / Castañeda, M. B. (1992). The Role of Finances in the Persistence Process:
A Structural Model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571’593
 18

Callahan, J., & Belcheir, M. (2017). Testing Our Assumptions: The Role of First Course Grade and Course
Level in Mathematics and English. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115611620
Canning, E. A., LaCosse, J., Kroeper, K. M., & Murphy, M. C. (2020). Feeling Like an Imposter: The Effect
of Perceived Classroom Competition on the Daily Psychological Experiences of First-Generation
College Students. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 647–657.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619882032
Centro de Estudios. (2013). Implementación del currículum de Educación Media en Chile. Serie
Evidencias. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Educación.
Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM Attrition: College Students’ Path Into and Out of STEM Fields: A
Statistical Analysis Report. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC., 2001–2014.
Clontz, C. (2020, January 27). Lessons Learned from Chile’s Shift to Tuition-Free College | Panoramas.
Panoramas: Scholarly Platform.
https://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/economy-and-development/lessons-learned-chile’s-shift-tuition-
free-college
Conger, D., Long, M. C. (2010). Why Are Men Falling Behind? Gender Gaps in College
Performance and Persistence. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 627. (184-214)
Coughlin, C., & Castilla, C. (2014). The effect of private high school education on the college trajectory.
Economics Letters, 125(2), 200–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.09.002
Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015). Movin’ on up (to college): First-generation college students’
experiences with family achievement guilt. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3),
420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037844
Cragg, K. M. (2009). Influencing the Probability for Graduation at Four-Year Institutions: A Multi-Model
Analysis. Research in Higher Education, 50, 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9122-2
Danilowicz-Gösele, K., Lerche, K., Meya, J., & Schwager, R. (2017a). Determinants of students’ success at
university. Education Economics, 25(5), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2017.1305329
Danilowicz-Gösele, K., Lerche, K., Meya, J., & Schwager, R. (2017b). Determinants of students’ success at
university. Education Economics, 25(5), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2017.1305329
DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing College: Assessing
graduation rates at four-year institutions.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ray_Franke/publication/249644731_Completing_College_A
ssessing_Graduation_Rates_at_Four-Year_Institutions/links/0046351e5bb5279e3a000000.pdf
Delaney, J. A., & Yu, P. (2013). Policy innovation and tertiary education graduation rates: a cross-country
analysis. Compare, 43(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.728375
Dorta-Guerra, R., Marrero, I., Abdul-Jalbar, B., Trujillo-González, R., & Torres, N. V. (2019). A new
academic performance indicator for the first term of first-year science degrees students at La
Laguna University: a predictive model. FEBS Open Bio, 9(9), 1493–1502.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.12707
 19

Engberg, M. E. & Wolniak, G. C. (2010). Examining the Effects of High School Contexts on
Postsecondary Enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 51
Fischer, F., Schult, J., Johannes Schuit, B., & Benedikt Hell, B. (2013). Sex differences in secondary school
success: why female students perform better. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 28(2),
529–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl
Galla, B., Shulman, E., Plummer, B. et al. (2019). American Educational Research Journal,
56(6), 2077-2115

García de Fanelli, A. M., & Adrogué, C. (2019). Equidad en el acceso y la graduación en la Educación
Superior: Reflexiones desde el Cono Sur. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(96), 96.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3943
Gunn, L. H., ter Horst, E., Markossian, T., & Molina, G. (2020). Associations between majors of
graduating seniors and average SATs of incoming students within higher education in the U.S.
Heliyon, 6(5), e03956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03956
Haas, C., & Hadjar, A. (2020). Students’ trajectories through higher education: a review of quantitative
research. Higher Education, 79(6), 1099–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00458-5
Hand, C., & Payne, E. M. (2008). First-Generation College Students: A Study of Appalachian Student
Success. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(12), 4–6. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42775649
Hardy, B. L., & Marcotte, D. E. (2020). Ties that bind? Family income dynamics and children’s post-
secondary enrollment and persistence. Review of Economics of the Household.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09516-9
Hastings, J. S., Neilson, C. A., Ramirez, A., & Zimmerman, S. D. (2016). (Un)informed college and major
choice: Evidence from linked survey and administrative data. Economics of Education Review, 51,
136–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.06.005
Holder, E., & Analytics, M. (2018). Trends in Freshman Retention & Graduation Autumn XRG Meeting
November 2018. November.
Jury, M., Bruno, A., & Darnon, C. (2018). Doing better (or worse) thn one’s parents: social status,
mobility, and performance -avoidance goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 659–
674.
Katzkowicz, N., & Arim, R. (2017). Trayectoria estudiantil: Determinantes de la deserción y culminación
del ciclo educativo de estudiantes universitarios. Inter-Cambios. Dilemas y Transiciones de La
Educación Superior, 4(2), 108–127. https://doi.org/10.29156/v4.i2/11
Larsen, M. A. (2016). Globalisation and internationalisation of teacher education: a comparative case
study of Canada and Greater China. Teaching Education, 27(4), 396–409.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1163331
Light, A., & Strayer, W. (2000). Determinants of college completion: School quality or student ability?
Journal of Human Resources, 35(2), 299–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/146327
Lissen, E. S., & Bautista, A. S. (2022). Higher Education entrance in Chile. A fairer new system with more
opportunities and more equity. Revista Espanola de Educacion Comparada, 41(41), 281–292.
https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.41.2022.33809
 20

Lohfink, M. & Paulsen, M. (2005). Comparing the Determinants of Persistence for First-
Generation and Continuing-Generation. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4).
409-428.

Markle, G., & Stelzriede, D. D. (2020). Comparing First-Generation Students to Continuing-Generation

Students and the Impact of a First-Generation Learning Community. Innovative Higher Education,
45(4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09502-0
Mehta, S. S., Newbold, J. J., & O’Rourke, M. A. (2011). Why do first-generation students fail? College
Student Journal, 45(1), 20–35.
Michalski, J. H., Cunningham, T., & Henry, J. (n.d.). The diversity challenge for higher education in
Canada: The prospects and challenges of increased access and student success. The Humboldt
Journal of Social Relations, 39(39), 66–89.
Norodien-Fataar, N. (2016). The pre-university pathways of disadvantaged students for gaining entry to
university study. Education as Change, 20(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-
9417/2016/568
OECD. (2008). Education at a Glance 2008 (Summary in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2008-
sum-zh
Patfield, S., Gore, J., & Fray, L. (2020). Reframing first-generation entry: how the familial habitus shapes
aspirations for higher education among prospective first-generation students. Higher Education
Research and Development, Early Acce. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1773766
Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. P. (2002). Social Class and College Costs: Examining the
Financial Nexus between College Choice and Persistence. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(2), 189-236.

Pearson PLC. (2013). Final Report Evaluation of the Chile PSU 22 January 2013.
http://portales.mineduc.cl/usuarios/mineduc/doc/201301311057540.Chile_PSU-Finalreport.pdf
Planck Barahona, U. (2014). Determinant factors of academic achievement of University of Atacama
students. Estudios Pedagogicos, 40(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07052014000100002
Quadlin, N. (2020). From Major Preferences to Major Choices: Gender and Logics of Major Choice.
Sociology of Education, 93(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719887971
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’
academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–
387. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0026838
Roberts, J., & Styron, R. (2010). Student satisfaction and persistence: factors vital to student retention.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 3–6. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09321.pdf
Roksa, J., & Deutschlander, D. (2018). Applying to college: The role of family resources in academic
undermatch. Teachers College Record, 120(6), Article Number 060301.
Royster, P., Gross, J., & Hochbeing, C. (2018). Timing is Everything : Getting Students Back on Track to
College Readiness in High School Author ( s ): Pamela Royster , Jacob Gross and Craig Hochbein
Published by : University of North Carolina Press Stable URL :
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44075294 REF. 98(3), 208–225.
 21

Scanlon, M., Powell, F., Leahy, P., Jenkinson, H., & Byrne, O. (2019). ‘No one in our family ever went to
college’: Parents’ orientations towards their children’s post-secondary education and future
occupations. International Journal of Educational Research, 93, 13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.005
Schmid, M. E., Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Kraemer, S., & Kueppers, M. (2016). Promoting Student Academic
Achievement Through Faculty Development about Inclusive Teaching. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 48(5), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2016.1227672
Stebleton, M. J., & Soria, K. M. (2012). Breaking Down Barriers: Academic Obstacles of First-Generation
Students at Research Universities. TLAR, 17(2), 7020.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1002281.pdf
Stewart, S., Lim, D. H., & Kim, J. (2015). Factors Influencing College Persistence for First-Time Students.
Journal of Developmental Education, 38(3), 12–20.
Storen, L. A., & Helland, H. (2010). Ethnicity Differences in the Completion Rates of Upper Secondary
Education: How Do the Effects of Gender and Social Background Variables Interplay? European
Sociological Review, 26(5), 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp041
Storen, Liv Anne, & Arnesen, C. Å. (2007). Women’s and men’s choice of higher education - What
explains the persistent sex segregation in Norway? Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), 253–275.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701267293
Tibbetts, Y., Harackiewicz, J. M., Priniski, S. J., & Canning, E. A. (2016). Broadening participation in the life
sciences with social-psychological interventions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0001
Tinto, V. (1971). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1)., 89-125.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next? Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 8(1), 1-19
Toutkoushian, R. K., May-Trifiletti, J. A., & Clayton, A. B. (2021). From “First in Family” to “First to Finish”:
Does College Graduation Vary by How First-Generation College Status Is Defined? Educational
Policy, 35(3), 481–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823753
Verbree, A.-R., Hornstra, L., Maas, L., & Wijngaards-de Meij, L. (2022). Conscientiousness as a predictor
of the gender gap in academic achievement. Research in Higher Education, Online.
Vergara-Díaz, G., & Peredo López, H. (2017). Relación del desempeño académico de estudiantes de
primer año de universidad en Chile y los instrumentos de selección para su ingreso. Revista
Educación, 41(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v41i2.21514
Von Hippel, P. T., & Hofflinger, A. (2021). The data revolution comes to higher education: identifying
students at risk of dropout in Chile. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(1), 2–
23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1739800
Walsh, S., Flannery, D., & Cullinan, J. (2018). Analysing the preferences of prospective students for
higher education institution attributes. Education Economics, 26(2), 161–178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2017.1335693
 22

Williams, S. M., Karahalios, V. S., & Ferrari, J. R. (2013). First-generation college students and U.S.
citizens: Is the university perceived like family or strangers? Journal of Prevention and Intervention
in the Community, 41(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2012.719798
Witteveen, D., & Attewell, P. (2017). The earnings payoff from attending a selective college. Social
Science Research, 66, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.01.005
Witteveen, D., & Attewell, P. (2020). The STEM grading penalty: An alternative to the “leaky pipeline”
hypothesis. Science Education, 104(4), 714–735. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21580
Wu, H., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International Student’s Challenge and Adjustment to College.
Education Research International, 2015, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/202753
Yang, C. C. (2020). Similar Patterns, Different Implications: First-Generation and Continuing College
Students’ Social Media Use and Its Association With College Social Adjustment. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120902755
Yue, H., & Fu, X. (2017). Rethinking Graduation and Time to Degree: A Fresh Perspective. Research in
Higher Education, 58(2), 184–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9420-4