I think it will tend to count them as teleworking. The question text for the telework due to COVID-19 part is:

>At any time in the LAST 4 WEEKS, did (you/name) telework or work at home for pay BECAUSE OF THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC?

For the 2019 baseline it is likely to be less inclusive, as the question is:

>How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK?

Here's a short post describing these estimates, with some more charts.

The data is from IPUM-USA and IPUMS-CPS. Code for calculating the estimates is here.

Yes, in fact that’s exactly what happens when you award automatic admission based on relative performance within one’s high school. Economically disadvantaged students have improved education and employment outcomes, while kids at top-ranked feeder schools have essentially the same outcomes, but some of them attend less prestigious colleges.

I don’t care about Harvard either, to be honest. I care much more about public universities. It simply doesn’t follow that admitting the “most qualified” students maximizes the benefits of the education system. It doesn’t. It is actually less efficient than a design like in Texas.

And in response to the first paragraph, the question is whether you want the post secondary education to simply reflect people’s advantages up to that point, or whether you also want to capitalize on ability that has been underdeveloped and under-recognized. If you want the former, reward standardized test (or straight-up family wealth). If you think the latter has benefits you can use policies like Texas‘s top percent policy which gives automatic acceptance based on percentile performance within schools. This is empirically shown to increase college attainment among economically disadvantaged students with no real downsides.

Edit: here’s the Texas Top Percent research

That’s not really true (about Asians). If you look at, say, the Hmong population in Minnesota, or the Burmese population where I currently live, they are less successful academically than average. Everyone loves to talk about “Asian culture” as a reason for Asian-American academic success, but it’s way overstated. The main reason Asians are successful is simply that a large portion of us are children or grandchildren of immigrants and immigration to America (aside from poor refugees) selects from the highest socioeconomic strata of foreign countries.

Edit for sources: for a general overview of what causes immigrant success in America I recommend Boustan and Abramitzky’s recent book, Streets of Gold. I also like Ed Lazear’s paper on the nuts and bolts of selection in America’s immigration system, but that’s a bit technical.

It’d be nice if it worked that way. After accounting for academic performance in high school, a lot of the remaining variation in college success explained by standardized tests reflects student background.

Edit: source for the downvoters

Family wealth is also predictive of future success. Should colleges try to admit students from wealthy families?

Yeah I’m afraid the Census links don’t seem to work. That’s fine. I use the microdata and calculate that black non-Hispanics are 13.4% of the 18-44 population, and 15.7% of the 18-44 population when you exclude foreign-born and limit to the racial categories you are using.

Edit, I put the wrong link: https://imgur.com/a/PvEWW3o

I don’t understand your calculation. You’ve effectively divided by population twice (% of degrees)/((% of population)^2 ). Put it simply: according to your data, black people earn 11% of all master’s degrees. Your Census link isn’t working, but the black percent of the age 18-44 population is somewhere over 13%. How does this end up as overrepresented?

I don’t know where OP has gone wrong, but it’s just false that black people are over-represented among MA-holders. 8% of black non-Hispanic people age 25-44 have an MA or more, compared to 12.5% of all races/ethnicities (not visible on that table because I filtered to non-Hispanics).

This is a popular idea, but it’s mostly false. The main reasons immigrant groups today are unusually successful is the same as it has been throughout American history: with a few exceptions, immigrant groups are selected from the higher socioeconomic strata of their home countries. This is partly because mobile people tend to be wealthier and more educated in the first place, but it’s also a function of our immigration restrictions.

A recent book by Leah Boustan and Ran Abramitzy covers this topic over the past century. Research by Ed Lazear covers the part about how current country-specific numerical limits function to select higher-educated groups.