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

not because they are less qualified, but because the selection procedures are (unintentionally) biased against them [19–21]. This is a major problem, as socio-economic conditions are likely the most important underlying factor influencing educational inequalities [1, 22]. Parental occupations may also influence odds of HE participation [1] or odds of admission in a selection process. For example, students with at least one parent in a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related job show higher levels of STEM interest, moti- vation and achievement, and choice to major in a STEM field [23]. Their higher achievement levels [23] are likely to result in higher odds of admission in selection procedures which give weight to previous scholastic achievement. Another example are the higher odds of admission to health professions education programs for applicants with at least one parent who is a regis- tered healthcare professional [13]. Interviews with high school students who were interested in health professions education programs also showed how a social network connection in the medical field helped students to develop their interest for such programs, and why a network connection was the most important facilitator in preparing for the selection procedure [24]. Furthermore, having an underrepresented ethnic or migration background is associated with educational disadvantage and barriers to optimal achievement due to e.g. microaggres- sions and racism [25], lower expectations by the education system [26], the effects of testing

language [27], and differential access to high-quality and highly-resourced schools [3, 26, 28]. As a consequence, in many countries, applicants with such backgrounds have lower odds of admission than their white peers without a migration background [13, 29–31]. Finally, rural applicants may be at a disadvantage in entering HE. For example, Canadian research has reported lower performance in a multiple mini interview of applicants graduating from a rural high school [32]. In China, educational stratification is mainly driven by a rural- urban divide in which rural schools are disadvantaged in numerous ways. For example, they receive lower levels of funding and have poorer teacher qualifications, negatively affecting school enrollment and educational attainment [33]. Elite universities have witnessed an increasing rural-urban enrollment disparity: In the 1970s, one in two first-year students were from a rural background; whereas in 2011, this was one in seven [34]. Altogether, the aforementioned examples of unequal access to HE represent a major prob- lem for educational quality, as a diverse, representative student population has been shown to be associated with better educational experiences for students [3–5]. Furthermore, disadvan- taging applicants who are already underrepresented in HE reproduces societal and educational inequities [14, 21]. Admissions committees should use valid selection methods [35], but research by the Dutch Inspectorate of Education suggests that this is not always the case [36].

However, it is unknown what the effects are of belonging to multiple (dis)advantaged groups at the same time. This study aims to address the gap in the literature of the intersectional (dis) advantages which applicants face in accessing selective programs in HE, based on nationwide data from The Netherlands. The context: Higher education in The Netherlands In The Netherlands, the typical route to HE consists of several steps. In the transition from ele- mentary to high school, around ages 11–12, pupils are placed in either the pre-vocational (vmbo, 4 years), higher general (havo, 5 years), or pre-university (vwo, 6 years) track. Research has shown that there is inequality of opportunity in the placement into these tracks, and that the capabilities and potential of certain groups of children (e.g. lower SES, with certain migra- tion backgrounds, from rural areas) are underestimated [37–39]. Although transitioning between tracks is possible, this is an exception [26], and the rates at which this happens differ greatly between provinces [40]. This means that for many children, their educational route is 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 3 / 24