Approximation to vulnerable students’ academic trajectories: between background

effects and academic merits potential.

Javiera Esturillo Pinet 1

Valentina Flores Castro 1

Diego Pacheco Sandoval 1

Sandra Flores Alvarado 1

Natalia Harden Díaz 1

Shenda Orrego Molina 1

Luz Salazar Contreras 3

José Peralta Camposano 1, 2

1. Dirección Académica, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile.

1027 Avenida Independencia, Independencia, Santiago.
2. Dirección de Pregrado, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile.
1027 Avenida Independencia, Independencia, Santiago.
3. Programa Futuro Estudiante, Dirección de Pregrado, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile.
1027 Avenida Independencia, Independencia, Santiago.

Correspondent Author:
José Peralta Camposano
+56 9 8731 7618
jperalta@uchile.cl
Acknowledgments:

We thank the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidad de Chile for giving us access to the
study´s required data. To Mariuska Alarcón and Áurea Argomedo for their collaboration to
the research team.

Funding: This study was funded by Faculty of Medicine of Universidad de Chile.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Abstract

There exists, at a worldwide level, an increase in access to higher education by new social

sectors; however, these new students show inferior academic performance, associated to their

socioeconomic condition. Admission to higher education doesn’t settle the inclusion

problem, rather demanding attention to the student’s educational process. This study’s

purpose was to determine if there exist different academic trajectories between regular and

socioeconomic prioritized admissions measured by performance, identifying whether this

difference can be explained by academic merits, the student’s vulnerability condition or a

combination of both. This was addressed by modeling the half-year term grade average and

the half-year term approval rate through mixed linear models over the total of students that

entered the Universidad de Chile’s Medicine Faculty between the years of 2013 and 2018.

The results show a gap in the performance according to the admission pathway, evidencing

its effect on academic trajectory. This is, however, independent from the remaining used

variables, such as sex, score at the national admission test and student’s high school ranking.

Considering the utilized academic and demographic variables, the results agree with

literature, except at the prediction granted by the students’ high school performances. Finally,

we suggest that the performance gap between different entrance pathways might be explained

by the higher vulnerability of those students that are admitted via equity prioritized pathways.

Keywords: academic trajectory; academic performance; social vulnerability; University

entrance pathways; academic merit.

2
Introduction

Worldwide increase on access of new social sectors to higher education has meant an

improvement on academic and work possibilities of students who, until a few decades ago,

could not qualify for this educational level (Ferreyra et al. 2017; OECD 2018). However, the

unequal socio-economic conditions under which these students enter higher education are

still strongly associated with lower academic performance (Ferreyra et al. 2017; OECD 2018;

Cerdeira et al. 2018), becoming possible barriers to success at this stage, resulting, in some

cases, in dropout and abandonment of the tertiary system (Proyecto ALFA GUIA 2013).

This increase in enrollment is a process that began in the mid-twentieth century

progressively encompassing the different regions of the world (Rama 2009). Particularly in

Latin America, the increase has been explosive in recent decades, favoring the medium and

low income sectors. Thus, the representation in higher education of the poorest 50% of the

population, in this region, increased from 16% to 24% between the years 2000 and 2012

(Ferreyra et al. 2017). The foregoing accounts for a process of de-elitization of this

educational level (Rama 2009).

However, as mentioned above, international studies suggest that students of lower

socioeconomic status may present lower performance and levels of approval. For the year

2018, a comparative study of the countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD) shows that first-generation students entering the tertiary

level are still underrepresented among graduates of higher education programs, reaching only

44% of graduation among the different post-secondary programs compared to 61% of the

general population of graduation age that actually does (OECD 2018). This shows that

3
performance differences from students, to this day, continue to have a direct relationship with

their socioeconomic condition of origin (Smeding et al. 2013; Brunner and Ganga-Contreras

2017).

These socioeconomic conditions of origin are expressed in a multiplicity of

educational, social, cultural and symbolic aspects (Casillas et al. 2007; Stephens et al. 2014;

Jury et al. 2015) that affect both entry and performance in higher education. This is the

concretion in the educational field of what various authors conceptualize as vulnerability,

that is, a risk condition in which individuals can be found due to personal, family and

structural conditions (McLeod and Kessler 1990; Alwang et al. 2001; Filgueira 2001; Pizarro

2001). In this way, certain socially vulnerable students can be led to educational failure

because their background exposes them to difficulties and disadvantages in their academic

performance.

Chile is an example of the process of changes in higher education described above.

This country presents an important school segregation (Bellei 2013) as consequence of a high

income difference and a poor wealth distribution (OCDE 2017). Although by 2018 the

proportion of students’ admission to higher education continues the upward trend, there is

still an entrance gap between students in the first income quintiles and those in the last

quintile (Bellei and Pérez 2009; Ministerio de Desarrollo Social 2018). On the other hand,

following the global trend, vulnerable youth who manage to overcome the difficulties of

entering higher education in Chile, face an academic performance gap that places them at a

disadvantage compared to students of higher social status (Canales and De los Ríos 2009;

Catalán and Santelices 2014).

4
 Particularly faced with the entrance gap, several Chilean universities have created

alternative entrance policies that take into account the disadvantaged conditions of

preparation that students of lower social status may carry turn, which turn into worse results

at the University Selection Test (Prueba de Selección Universitaria, PSU) (Canales and De

los Ríos 2009; Orellana et al. 2015). These policies propose that if underprivileged students

are helped to overcome this entry barrier and their academic merit at the preceding schooling

level was outstanding, they may have a good university performance (OCDE 2017). This

relation between exceptional previous academic merit and the university performance is

shown by several studies (Ferrari and Parker 1992; Wolfe and Johnson 1995; DeBerard et al.

2004; Barahona and Aliaga 2013; Hein and Smerdor 2013; Orellana et al. 2015).

In the Universidad de Chile, there are alternative entrance pathways that meet the

aforementioned purpose. Among them, the Educational Equity Priority Access System

(Sistema de Ingreso Prioritario de Equidad Educativa, SIPEE) enables a way of access for

those students graduated from public schools who, although deserving, do not achieve the

required score by the conventional entry pathway to higher education in the country (Prueba

de Selección Universitaria, PSU) (Universidad de Chile). This admission method operates in

the Faculty of Medicine of this university since 2013.

Some of the requirements for SIPEE admission, as belong to the lower income

population or study in vulnerable public schools (Universidad de Chile), are directly related

to vulnerability dimensions and could affect SIPEE students’ academic performance.

However, the students who enter via SIPEE have a meritorious academic level in relation to

their context (since they obtain good results during high school) along with obtaining scores

on the admission test that allow them to apply to highly selective institutions.

5
 In sum, the antagonistic effects of previous academic merit and social vulnerability

are important determinants of academic performance. The joint presence of these

characteristics constitutes the distinctive profile of a part of the new group of students who

have entered higher education for the first time in the last decades. Therefore, establishing

which of the two factors is a more important predictor of academic performance for this

group of students, it is necessary to assess the effect and potential of higher education entry

policies. In this sense, the study of the academic trajectory of the students who enter through

SIPEE, in comparison with those who do it via PSU, constitutes a valuable opportunity to

evaluate the problem of equitable access and successful graduation of tertiary education.

Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the possible different trajectories

among students who entered the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidad de Chile (FMUCH)

between 2013 and 2018 through regular pathways (admission via PSU) and those who access

based on vulnerability criteria (admission via SIPEE). Along with this, we sought to establish

which are the factors that would explain this possible disbalance in performance.

Academic performance trajectory as a tool to understand the educational gap

A perspective to approach the problems of social vulnerability and school failure

comes through the study of academic trajectories. This approach constitutes a diagnostic tool

for institutions, providing inputs to promote the overall development of the student, thereby

improving their university experience and the chances of success at the study program

(Anderton et al. 2016; García and Barrón 2011; Lara-Barrón and Valadez-Díaz 2011;

Proyecto ALFA GUIA 2013).

6
 The approach to trajectories is associated with the measurement of phenomena such

as lag, abandonment, academic performance, approval, disapproval, terminal efficiency,

among others (García and Barrón 2011; Lara-Barrón and Valadez-Díaz 2011). In the same

line, three dimensions are identified to understand academic trajectories: one associated to

time, another to school efficiency and one to performance (García and Barrón 2011; Proyecto

ALFA GUIA 2013).

Many studies approach trajectories from their students’ performance, understood as

the knowledge that the educational system recognizes students have, expressed in a grade

(García and Barrón 2011). Therefore, it is relevant to study performance since it constitutes

an indicator of the quality of an institution and the scope of its educational objectives

(Rodríguez et al. 2004). Thus, by studying the different factors that condition students’

performance, institutions gather useful data that guides towards educational efficiency

(Gutiérrez-García et al. 2011).

For the purposes of this work, academic performance trajectories will be studied as

a way to quantify the students’ academic behavior throughout the school cycles, specified in

cohorts (García and Barrón 2011; Proyecto ALFA GUIA 2013). The indicators to address

performance are varied, many studies suggest measuring the phenomenon through grade

average and the approval of subjects taken by the student (García de Fanelli 2014; Gutiérrez-

García et al. 2011; Rodríguez et al. 2004). Particularly, grades as indicators of academic

performance, turn out to have more resolution character than the approval of credits or

subjects (Rodríguez et al. 2004).

7
 Regarding the individual factors that affect academic trajectories, and performance in

particular, it is possible, according to García de Fanelli (2014) to distinguish three major

factor categories: socioeconomic, academic and demographic. Considering several studies

(Tinto 1975; Pascarella and Terenzini 1980; McKenzie and Schweitzer 2001; DeBerard et

al. 2004; Win and Miller 2005; Casillas et al. 2007; Sheard 2009; Ebenuwa-Okoh 2010;

González et al. 2011; Ali et al. 2013; Tomul and Polat 2013; Anderton et al. 2016) it is

possible to identify relevant factors for each of these categories.

Socioeconomic factors include social status, family income, educational and parental

occupational level and the source of educational funding. In relation to academic aspects

several factors are used as indicators, such as performance in secondary education, score

obtained in the admission test, type of establishment, educational expectations, among others.

Finally, some of the most studied demographic indicators are sex, age, nationality and race

or ethnicity.

Methodology

Study population

The present study’s data was obtained from the institutional records of the Faculty of

Medicine of the Universidad de Chile. It corresponds to the entry cohorts from 2013 to 2018

and covers the 8 undergraduate programs of the faculty. The data set includes all students

from the selected cohorts who have entered through the SIPEE or PSU pathways (‘SIPEE

students’ and ‘PSU students’); all academic subjects studied between 2013 and 2018 that

correspond to the respective degree programs were included, excluding courses held in

8
extraordinary periods (summer) and those eliminated by the student, which do not have

qualification.

The total number of students who entered undergraduate programs in the faculty

between 2013 and 2018 is 3,910, of which 3,588 were admitted through PSU and 322 through

SIPEE. This corresponds to 125,203 records from taken courses.

Statistical analysis

The academic trajectory was approached from the longitudinal academic

performance of the students and was measured through the semester average of grades and

the semester approval rate. These variables were described by adjusting mixed linear models,

which allowed the longitudinal pattern to be represented by random effects.

The biannual grade point average (GPA) was modeled by a mixed beta regression.

This model adjusts a beta distribution, with support in the (0,1) interval, as the conditional

distribution of the response variable. Since the scale of grades of the Chilean educational

system is defined in the interval [1,7], a transformation was applied to scale the variable to

the interval (0,1) (Smithson and Verkuilen 2006). In this model, the beta distribution is

parameterized by μ; the expectation of the variable, and φ; the precision parameter. In this

parameterization, the variance of the variable, Var[y], is related to the parameters of the

distribution in the following way:

Var [y] = μ (1-μ) / (1 + φ)

That is, when φ is greater, given the value of μ, the variance of the variable decreases.

This allows heteroskedasticity and asymmetry modeling in GPA. In the beta regression,

unlike usual regression models, a linear sub-model is adjusted for μ and another one for φ.

9
In the mean sub-model a logit function is used to link the definition interval of the μ

parameter, (0, 1), with the linear predictor defined in ℝ. Therefore, variable's effect is

expressed as exponentiated coefficient which is interpreted in a similar way as a logistic

binomial regression's odds ratio. So, hereafter, μ/(1-μ) is referred as odds. While in the

precision sub-model a logaritmic link function was used. For both sub-models, the following

predictive variables were considered: student’s sex; score awarded by the Chilean integrated

admission system to the ranking of the student's grades in establishments and cohorts at

which he/she attended high school, ‘ranking score’ (DEMRE 2018); PSU tests’ score in

Science, Language and Communication and Mathematics, according to the Faculty of

Medicine (Universidad de Chile 2018) score´s ponderation, ‘PSU score’; and if the student's

admission pathway was SIPEE (binary). Ranking score was preferred over the grades or the

score awarded to them in the admission system, since this kind of ranking offers a better

representation of academic performance in the educational context of each student (DEMRE

2018). Both ranking score and PSU score were centered and scaled according to their

standard deviations before adjusting the model. In addition, the student's permanence time in

the study program, measured in the number of semesters associated with each semi-term

GPA, was included as a discrete predictor. This way, a linear effect of the semester on GPA

is estimated. Interaction effects were also adjusted between both the entrance pathway and

semester, and the entrance pathway and the PSU score. Finally, in the sub-model of μ, a

random intercept and a random effect of the semi-term were added for each student to account

for the longitudinal pattern in the data.

Regarding approval rate, mixed logistic regression models were adjusted. Fixed

predictors and random factors are the same as those considered in the sub-model for μ in the

10
beta regression. Additionally first-order interactions between semester, ranking score and

PSU score are considered.

To obtain a parsimonious model, a variable selection process was applied based on

the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). In the case of the mixed beta regression all the

combinations that include the effects of the semester and sex were estimated. Conversely, in

the logistic regression, and thanks to the lower computational cost, all combinations of fixed

predictors that include the semester were adjusted. The selected model was the one with

highest BIC.

The models were estimated using R (R Core Team 2018) and the glmmTMB package

(Brooks et al. 2017). The utilized model selection algorithm can be found at the MuMIn

package (Barton 2018).

Results

Biannual GPA

Models were adjusted using the complete cases (i.e. with all the available predictors),

corresponding to 3247 and 274 students through PSU and SIPEE, respectively. The selected

semester average grade model presented a BIC weight of 0.787, followed by another one

with a BIC weight of 0.138. The odds ratios associated with the selected predictors are shown

in Table 1. The model showed that male students (34.0% of students) obtained a grade

average odds 0.84 times lower than female students. Meanwhile, semester average grade per

student (Fig 1) increases along the academic trajectory of the students, estimating an odds

increase of 1.049 times per biannual term, this increase being independent of the entrance

11
pathway. This last result contrasts with the more pronounced increase in the mean of the

SIPEE students’ semester average grade. This can be explained by the lower permanence of

SIPEE students indicated by the model, which implies the progressive loss of

underperforming students (Fig. 2). This difference decreases as PSU score increases. It

should be noted that the model predicts that average biannual grades will be matched among

the entrance pathways, but in a range of PSU scores above that observed in SIPEE students.

Table 1 Exponential of the coefficients of the mixed beta regression (odds ratio-like)

Predictor Mean sub-model Precision sub-model

Intercept 2,91 44.97

PSU score (standarized) 1.18 1.29

Admission path (SIPEE) 0.93 1.26

Semester 1.05 0.97

Sex (Male) 0.84 0.77

PSU score x admission path 1.15 1.37

12
 (SIPEE)

On the contrary, the effect of ranking score was discarded from the chosen model,

which suggests that academic merit in the student’s educational context has little influence

on the average of semester grades.

Approval rate

The selected logistic model obtained a BIC weight of 0.770, followed by a model

with a BIC weight of 0.123. The odds ratios estimated in the selected model are shown in

Table 2. The chosen model does not consider the effect of any of the interactions, but the

effect of the 5 simple predictors. An independent effect of the entrance pathway was

estimated, with a semester approval odds 0.11 times lower for SIPEE students (Fig. 3),

according to the previous result in the biannual grade average. Similarly, the direction of the

effects of the semester, PSU score and sex are the same as in the biannual average of grades

with odds ratios of 1.81, 4.78, and 0.38, respectively. On the contrary, the ranking score has

an estimated odds ratio of 0.92. In the case of approval rate, the gap between SIPEE students

and PSU students is wide until the 6th semester, at a disadvantage of the former; then the

difference ceases to be significant.

13
Table 2 Estimated odds ratios in the logistic model for approval rate.

Predictor Odds ratio

Intercept 551.56

PSU score (standardized) 4.78

Ranking score (standardized) 0.92

Semi-term 1.81

Sex (Male) 0.38

Admission path (SIPEE) 0.11

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine if there are different academic trajectories,

measured on performance, between SIPEE and PSU entry pathway, identifying whether this

difference is explained by academic merit, the student's vulnerability condition or a

combination of both. This was addressed by modeling both biannual grade average and

approval rate. The main results show a gap in the academic trajectory according to entrance

14
pathway, reflected through its effect on performance. This is independent from the other

considered variables, such as sex, PSU score and ranking score. In conclusion, it is suggested

that this gap’s explanation could be found in the greater vulnerability of students who enter

via SIPEE.

The results showed that PSU score has a direct influence in the students’ performance.

In other words, a lower score on the admission test is associated with a lower performance

during higher education. This is considered for both admission paths and for the two variables

considered in the performance (approval rate and half-year term grade average). The

relationship between results in the admission tests and the subsequent performance is

consistent with international studies that state that admission’s score correlates positively

with first years’ GPA (Ferrari and Parker 1992; McKenzie and Schweitzer 2001; Barahona

and Aliaga 2013).

On the other hand, the results’ difference in PSU test according to different

socioeconomical groups has been studied in other researches for the Chilean case. These have

shown that PSU scores depend on the socioeconomic level of the establishment previously

attended by the students, reflecting the socioeconomic inequality that underlies the Chilean

educational system (Contreras et al. 2007; Canales and De los Ríos 2009; Koljatic and Silva

2010; Orellana et al. 2015; Faúndez et al. 2017). This can be understood as a higher

probability for people of lower socioeconomic status and higher vulnerability to have a worse

performance in this test, a situation that correlates to SIPEE students.

It is interesting to note that the model describes a smaller difference in grades between

the studied entry pathways when students’ PSU scores increase, suggesting a nonlinear effect

15
of this predictor. This could be due to a lower association between the PSU score and, either

socioeconomic level or knowledge handled by students, as PSU scores increase.

The results of the academic variable Ranking score show its low and negative effect

on the approval rate and no effect on biannual grade average. The model discards the

influence of ranking on students' grade average, i.e. no changes are expected in the average

of biannual grades given an increase in ranking score. This contrasts with studies that showed

a positive relation between high school’s academic merit and academic outcomes in higher

education (Ferrari and Parker 1992; Wolfe and Johnson 1995; Meneses et al. 2005; Meneses

and Toro 2012; Barahona and Aliaga 2013; Orellana et al. 2015).

Regarding the above, it must be considered that the Universidad de Chile is a highly

selective institution, particularly its Faculty of Medicine (Brunner and Uribe 2007), which

implies high entry scores to its careers, including ranking score. Because of this, its low

variability would not allows to clearly estimate the effect of this variable on performance in

the model. Thus, it is relevant that in future research the effects of ranking on academic

trajectory get more deeply investigated. Studying this relationship in the context of less

selective higher education establishments would enable the generation of a broader

description of this issue.

In synthesis, it can be observed that the PSU score of students' admission has a greater

influence than the Ranking score when studying performance; a situation shared by both

admission pathways.

Regarding the demographic factors, it is observed that women have a better

performance than men, in both approval rate of credits and on biannual grade average. This

16
agrees with international literature (DeBerard et al. 2004; García de Fanelli 2014; Anderton

et al. 2016), but contrasts with some works that not found a significant difference according

to the student’s sex or gender (McKenzie and Schweitzer 2001; Ebenuwa-Okoh 2010; Ali et

al. 2013; Cerdeira et al. 2018).

The results corroborate the influence of demographic variables and previous

academic merit in academic trajectories of students between the cohorts 2013 to 2018 in the

Faculty of Medicine of Universidad de Chile. However, these variables do not explained the

lower performance of SIPEE students in comparison with PSU students. This result agrees

with the scarce international studies centered on socioeconomic performance gap, which also

show a negative effect of low socioeconomic status on performance, entrance and

abandonment in higher education (Choy 2001; Ali et al. 2013; Ferreyra et al. 2017; Cerdeira

et al. 2018; OECD 2018). According to this, the PSU/SIPEE performance gap that is not

completely explain by previous academic merit and demographic factors, could be mainly

explained by the vulnerability condition of SIPEE students.

In this way, as Brunner and Ganga-Contreras (2017) mention, although the weight

that vulnerability has on performance seems to be a common and obvious fact, it is still

surprising to realize that the gap that it produces is contrary to any ideal of justice, equity,

equal opportunities, meritocracy and the value of effort.

In sum, according to what was stated in this study, university policies aimed to

promoting equitable admission to higher education would not solve the problem of

educational inequality by themselves. Thus, despite the merit of the students who enter

through alternative pathwaysof equity, their condition of greater vulnerability continues to

17
be an obstacle to achieving success in higher education. So, for educational equity to be such,

the educational system must ensure it in all its dimensions, looking for more equitable

academic trajectories among students with different social background (Canales and De los

Ríos 2009; Mayer and Cerezo 2018; Orellana et al. 2015).

To achieve this goal it is essential to consider that vulnerable students could

counteract the economic, social and cultural conditions that make them prone to failure and

abandonment (González et al. 2005; Solar et al. 2010; Jiménez and Lagos 2011; Leyton et

al. 2012) by means of an adequate management policy of tangible and intangible assets

available to them (Moser 1998). These resources would have to do mainly with their previous

academic merit, but also with their resilience, commitment to graduation and relevant

friendly and family ties (Canales and De los Ríos 2009; Villalta M. 2010).

For this, the study of student’s trajectories according to their admission path,

constitutes a diagnostic tool that can contribute to the construction and strengthening of

higher education entrance and accompaniment policy oriented towards permanence and

graduation of their vulnerable students, and in this way advancing to a greater educational

equity. The above constitute an invitation not only to replicate this study design, but also to

incorporate the measurement of vulnerability not only for special admission pathways but for

all students, thereby obtaining more accurate estimation of the vulnerability effect on their

academic trajectory.

18
References

Ali S., Haider Z., Munir F., Khan H., & Ahmed A. (2013). Factors Contributing to the

Students Academic Performance: A Case Study of Islamia University Sub-Campus.

American Journal of Educational Research. 1(8):283–9. Available from:

http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/1/8/3

Alwang J., Siegel PB., & Jørgensen SL. (2001). Vulnerability: a view from different

disciplines. Social Protection Discussion Series Paper. 0115:1–42. Available from:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-

papers/Social-Risk-Management-DP/0115.pdf

Anderton RS., Evans T., & Chivers PT. (2016). Predicting academic success of health

science students for first year anatomy and physiology. International Journal of Higher

Education [Internet]. 5(1):250–60.

Barahona P., & Aliaga V. (2013). Variables predictoras del rendimiento académico de los

alumnos de primer año de las carreras de humanidades de la Universidad de Atacama,

Chile. Revista Internacional de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales [Internet]. 9(2):207–20.

Barton K. (2018). [Internet]MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. Available from: https://cran.r-

project.org/package=MuMIn

Bellei C. (2013). El estudio de la segregación socioeconómica y académica de la educación

chilena. Estudios Pedagógicos [Internet]. 39(1):325–45.

Bellei C., & Pérez V. (2009). Conocer más para vivir mejor. Educación y conocimiento en

Chile en la perspectiva del bicentenario. In: Lagos R, editor. Cien años de luces y sombras

[Internet]. Santiago: Aguilar Chilena de Ediciones S.A; p. 235–345.

19
Brooks ME., Kristensen K., van Benthem KJ., Magnusson A., Berg CW., Nielsen A., et al.

(2017). glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated

generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal. 9(2):378–400. Available from:

https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066

Brunner JJ., & Ganga-Contreras F. (2017). Vulnerabilidad educacional en América Latina:

una aproximación desde la sociología de la educación con foco en la educación temprana.

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. 33(84):12–37. Available from:

http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=31054991002

Brunner JJ., & Uribe D. (2007). Mercados universitarios: el nuevo escenario de la

educación superior. Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales;

Canales A., & De los Rios D. (2009). Entendiendo la permanencia de estudiantes

vulnerables en el sistema universitario. Centro de Investigación en Creatividad y

Educación Superior [Internet]. :38.

Canales A., & De los Ríos D. (2009). Retención de estudiantes vulnerables en la educación

universitaria chilena. Calidad en la educación [Internet]. 30(1):50–83.

Casillas M., Chain R., & Jácome N. (2007). Origen social de los estudiantes y trayectorias

estudiantiles en la Universidad Veracruzana. Revista de la Educación Superior. Asociación

Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de Enseñanza Superior; XXXVI(2):7–29. Available

from: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0185-

27602007000200001&script=sci_arttext

Catalán X., & Santelices M V. (2014). Rendimiento académico de estudiantes de distinto

nivel socioeconómico en universidades : el caso de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de

20
Chile. Calidad en la Educación [Internet]. 40:22.

Cerdeira JM., Nunes LC., Reis AB., & Seabra C. (2018). Predictors of student success in

higher education: secondary school internal scores versus national exams. Higher

Education Quarterly [Internet]. 72(4):304–13.

Choy SP. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: postsecondary access,

persistence and attainment.

Contreras M., Corbalán F., & Redondo J. (2007). Cuando la suerte está echada: estudio

cuantitativo de los factores asociados al rendimiento en la PSU. REICE. Revista

Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación [Internet]. 5(5e):259–63.

Cornejo AB., Céspedes P., Escobar DR., Núñez R., Reyes G V., & Rojas K V. (2005).

[Internet]Sistema nacional de Asignación con Equidad para Becas JUNAEB. Una nueva

visión en la construcción de igualdad de oportunidades en la infancia. Santiago de Chile:

Gobierno de Chile JUNAEB; Available from: papers3://publication/uuid/0C1B44E9-B529-

4F67-8A9F-7497FD1299F8

DeBerard MS., Spielmans GI., & Julka DL. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement

and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal

[Internet]. 38(1):66–80.

DEMRE. (2018). [Internet]Puntaje Ranking. Proceso de admisión. Available from:

https://psu.demre.cl/proceso-admision/factores-seleccion/puntaje-ranking

Ebenuwa-Okoh EE. (2010). Influence of Age, Financial Status, and Gender on Academic

Performance among Undergraduates. Journal of Psychology. 1(2):99–103. Available from:

https://doi.org/10.1080/09764224.2010.11885451
21
Faúndez R., Labarca JP., Cornejo MF., Villarroel M., & Gil FJ. (2017). Ranking 850,

transición a la educación terciaria de estudiantes con desempeño educativo superior y

puntaje PSU insuficiente. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigación Educacional

Latinoamericana [Internet]. 54(1):1–11.

Ferrari J., & Parker J. (1992). High school achievement, self-efficacy, and locus of control

as predictors of freshman academic performance. Psychological Reports [Internet]. 71:515–

8.

Ferreyra MM., Avitabile C., Botero J., Haimovich F., & Urzúa S. (2017). At a Crossroads.

Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Directions in Development, editor.

Washington: The World Bank group;

Filgueira CH. (2001). Estructura de oportunidades y vulnerabilidad social aproximaciones

conceptuales recientes. Semin. Int. Las Difer. expresiones la vulnerabilidad Soc. en

América Lat. y el Caribe.

García de Fanelli AM. (2014). Rendimiento académico y abandono universitario: vodelos,

resultados y alcances de la producción académica en la Argentina. Revista Argentina de

Educación Superior. 6(8):09-38. Available from:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007125000277040/type/journal_articl

García O., & Barrón C. (2011). Un estudio sobre la trayectoria escolar de los estudiantes de

doctorado en pedagogía. Perfiles educativos. Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la

Universidad y la Educación, UNAM; 33(131):94–113. Available from:

http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0185-

22
26982011000100007&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

González A., Castro E., & Bañuelos DD. (2011). Trayectorias escolares. El perfil de

ingreso de los estudiantes de Ciencias Químicas : un primer abordaje para contrastación

ulterior con otras disciplinas. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos (México).

Centro de Estudios Educativos; 41(3–4):119–38. Available from:

http://www.redalyc.org/html/270/27022351006/

González LE., Uribe Jorquera D., & González Vidal S. (2005). Estudio sobre la repitencia

y deserción en la educación superior chilena. Digit. Obs. High. Educ. Lat. Am. Caribb.

Santiago de Chile;

Gutiérrez-García AG., Granados-Ramos DE., & Landeros-Velázquez MG. (2011).

Indicadores de las trayectorias escolares de los alumnos de psicología de la Universidad

Veracuazana. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación. 11(3):1–30. Available from:

http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=44722178009

Hein V., & Smerdor B. (2013). Prepared for the college and career readiness and uccess

center.

Jiménez M., & Lagos F. (2011). Nueva geografía de la educación superior y de los

estudiantes. Ediciones Universidad San Sebastián;

Jury M., Smeding A., Court M., & Darnon C. (2015). When first-generation students

succeed at university: On the link between social class, academic performance, and

performance-avoidance goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Elsevier Inc.;

41:25–36. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.001

Koljatic M., & Silva M. (2010). Algunas Reflexiones a siete años de la implementación de
23
la PSU. Estudios Publicos. 120:1–22. Available from:

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3705815

Lara-Barrón AM., & Valadez-Díaz D. (2011). Factores que afectan la trayectoria escolar de

egresadas(os) de enfermería. Revista de Enfermería del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro

Social [Internet]. 19(3):143–8.

Leyton D., Vásquez A., & Fuenzalida V. (2012). La experiencia de estudiantes de

contextos vulnerables en diferentes Intituciones de Educación Superior Universitaria

(IESU): Resultados de investigación. Calidad en la educación. (37):61–97. Available from:

http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-

45652012000200003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

Mayer L., & Cerezo L. (2018). Análisis de las contribuciones de un programa social a la

trayectoria universitaria de jóvenes en situación de vulnerabilidad social. Páginas de

Educación. Universidad Católica del Uruguay; 11(2):130–52. Available from:

http://www.scielo.edu.uy/scielo.php?pid=S1688-74682018000200130&script=sci_arttext

McKenzie K (Queensland U of T., & Schweitzer R (Queensland U of T. (2001). Who

Succeeds at University? Factors predicting academic performance in first year Australian

university students. Higher Education Research & Development. 20(1):21–33. Available

from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07924360120043621

McLeod JD., & Kessler RC. (1990). Socioeconomic status differences in vulnerability to

undesirable life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 31(2):162–72. Available

from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2137170

Meneses F., Parra A., & Zenteno L. (2005). ¿Se puede mejorar el sistema de ingreso a las

24
universidades chilenas? El uso del ranking en la Universidad Católica de Chile,

Universidad de Chile y Universidad de Santiago de Chile. Munich Personal RePEc

Archive. Available from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/23048/

Meneses F., & Toro J. (2012). Predicción de notas en Derecho de la Universidad de Chile:

¿sirve el ranking? Isees [Internet]. (10):43–58.

Ministerio de Desarrollo Social. (2018). [Internet]Informe de Desarrollo Social 2018

Ministerio de Desarrollo Social. Available from:

http://www.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/storage/docs/Informe_de_Desarrollo_Social_

2018_v21.pdf

Moser C. (1998). The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction

strategies. World Development. 26(1):1–19. Available from:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X97100158

OCDE. (2017). [Internet]Evaluaciones de políticas nacionales de educación: educación en

Chile. Santiago; Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/educacion-en-

chile_9789264288720-es

OECD. (2018). [Internet]Education at a glance 2018. Paris: OECD; Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en%0A

Orellana M., Moreno K., & Gil FJ. (2015). [Internet]Inclusión a la universidad de

estudiantes meritorios en situación de vulnerabilidad social. Santiago; Available from:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002433/243371s.pdf

Pascarella ET., & Terenzini PT. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary

dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education. 51(1):60–75.
25
Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981125

Pizarro R. (2001). [Internet]La vulnerabilidad social y sus desafíos: una mirada desde

América Latina. Ser. Estud. estadísticos. Available from:

http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/4762/S0102116_es.pdf;jsessionid=5EB

6316C346859D7B1C71D8680EB5C61?sequence=1%5Cnhttp://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstr

eam/handle/11362/4762/S0102116_es.pdf;jsessionid=F94EE6CA3F70BC2A40ED610774

D3228B?sequenc

Proyecto ALFA GUIA. (2013). [Internet]Marco conceptual sobre el abandono. Hacia la

construcción colectiva de un marco conceptual para analizar, predecir, evaluar y atender

el abandono estudiantil en la educación superior. Antioquia; Available from:

http://www.alfaguia.org/www-alfa/index.php/es/resultados-guia.html

R Core Team. (2018). [Internet]A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.

Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Available from: http://www.r-

project.org/

Rama C. (2009). La tendencia a la masificación de la cobertura de la educación superior en

América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación (RIE) [Internet]. 50:173–95.

Rodríguez S., Fita E., & Torrado M. (2004). El rendimiento académico en la transción

secundaria-universidad. Revista de Educación [Internet]. 334:391–414.

Sheard M. (2009). Hardiness commitment, gender, and age differentiate university

academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology [Internet]. 79:189–204.

Smeding A., Darnon C., Souchal C., Toczek-Capelle MC., & Butera F. (2013). Reducing

the Socio-Economic Status Achievement Gap at University by Promoting Mastery-

26
Oriented Assessment. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 8(8).

Smithson M., & Verkuilen J. (2006). A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood

regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods. 11(1):54–71.

Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03820-004

Solar MI., Domínguez L., Sánchez J., & Acuña ME. (2010). Factores que inciden en el

logro académico de estudiantes universitarios de alta vulnerabilidad: estudio de caso en

las Universidades de Chile y Concepción. Prim. Congr. Interdiscip. Investig. en Educ.

Santiago de Chile;

Stephens NM., Hamedani MG., & Destin M. (2014). Closing the Social-Class Achievement

Gap. Psychological Science [Internet]. 25(4):943–53.

Tinto V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research.

Review of Educational Research [Internet]. 45(1):89–125.

Tomul E., & Polat G. (2013). The effects of socioeconomic characteristics of students on

their academic achievement in higher education. American Journal of Educational

Research [Internet]. 1(10):449–55.

Universidad de Chile. [Internet]Requisitos. Available from:

http://www.ingresoequidad.uchile.cl/requisitos_sipee.php

Universidad de Chile. [Internet]SIPEE || Sistema de Ingreso Prioritario de Equidad

Educativa. Available from: http://www.ingresoequidad.uchile.cl/

Universidad de Chile. (2018). [Internet]Requisitos generales de postulación 2019.

Available from: http://www.uchile.cl/portal/admision-y-matriculas/admision-regular-

27
pregrado/4815/requisitos-generales-de-postulacion-2019

Villalta M. (2010). Factores de resiliencia asociados al rendimiento académico en

estudiantes de contextos de alta vulnerabilidad social. Rev. Pedagog. la Univ. Cent. Venez.

p. 159–88.

Win R., & Miller PW. (2005). The effects of individual and school factors on university

students’ academic performance. The Australian Economic Review [Internet]. 38(1):1–18.

Wolfe R., & Johnson S. (1995). from the SAGE Social Science Collections . All Rights.

Educational and Psychological Measurement. 55(2):177–85. Available from:

http://hjb.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/9/2/183.full.pdf+html

28