Inequality of opportunity in selection procedures limits diversity in higher education: An intersectional study of Dutch selective higher education programs

Introduction Globally, the odds of entering higher education (HE) are neither divided equally nor equitably amongst all adolescents [1, 2]. There are several sociodemographic characteristics which, around the world, can result in barriers to accessing HE. These relate to socio-economic status (SES), ethnic/migration background, parental education and occupation, age, sex and having an urban versus rural background. However, these factors are often studied separately from each other, instead of combining elements of applicants’ identities in one analysis (e.g., analyz- ing outcomes by combining sex, ethnic background, and age). Therefore, this retrospective cohort study conducts an innovative intersectional analysis of the inequality of opportunity in admissions to selective HE programs. By doing so, we aim to improve intersectional insights into educational (dis)advantage in selective admissions, which affects the diversity of the matriculating student population. As a diverse and representative student population is essen- tial to achieving a better quality of education [3–5], stimulating improved representation is crucial. Furthermore, a diverse classroom prepares students for their role as professional in a labor market where they will work with patients, customers, clients, and colleagues from a wide range of backgrounds [6]. Additionally, for certain labor sectors, such as healthcare, it is essential to educate a diverse workforce to be able to provide the best care to a diverse patient population [7].

Intersectionality is a theory developed by Kimberle´ Crenshaw [8] which holds that identi- ties are multi-layered. On each layer, a person can occupy a position which is privileged in their particular society and seen as ‘the Norm’, or a position which is disadvantaged, and seen as the non-normative ‘Other’. This places an individual on multiple hierarchical axes of privi- lege/oppression relating to social structures [8–10]. Each axis, therefore, may relate to struc- tural advantages or disadvantages of students in the educational sphere. From an intersectional point of view, a person’s experience cannot be understood sufficiently by consid- ering these layers or axes independently [11]. Instead, the combination of their position on these axes influences a person’s experience and opportunities in a given context. Using inter- sectionality theory to analyze the inequality of opportunity in HE selection is important, because applicants to selective HE programs can belong to multiple groups which are disad- vantaged in the education system. For example, they may have a lower SES and an underrepre- sented migration background and be ‘social newcomers’ [12] in their chosen field of study (meaning: no social ties such as parents in that field). These applicants could thereby face mul- tiple barriers in the route to entering a selective HE program, such as in the case of health pro- fessions education [13]. Similarly, applicants without a migration background, from high SES families, who are ‘insiders’ in the field (e.g. they have parents who practice the same profession

as the program is intended to train the student in), may experience accumulated advantages which are not earned on the basis of their own merit [14]. However, the size and significance of these combined (dis)advantages are unknown. This study aims to fill that gap in the literature. Background characteristics and educational inequality On the level of individual background characteristics, there are several general patterns of edu- cational inequities. For example, students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are known to face numerous obstacles on the route to HE [15], including disadvantages in com- petitive selection procedures [3, 16, 17]. Applicants from a low SES background are often already underrepresented in the applicant pools of competitive HE programs [18]. There, they find themselves contending against applicants from high SES backgrounds, who had more resources to adequately prepare them [1]. Oftentimes low SES applicants lose this competition, PLOS ONE Inequality of opportunity in Dutch selection procedures limits diversity in higher education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292805 October 13, 2023 2 / 24 7114b77c9f8b4062ab31f885ce331a65) is now public will remain public forever. The rest of the data availability statement is accurate. Funding: This work was supported by a Microdata Access Discount award from ODISSEI, the Open Data Infrastructure for Social Science and Economic Innovations (https://ror.org/03m8v6t10) (awarded to LM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.