Auditing Fairness and Imputation Impact in Predictive Analytics for
  Higher Education
  Nowadays, colleges and universities use predictive analytics in a variety of
ways to increase student success rates. Despite the potentials for predictive
analytics, there exist two major barriers to their adoption in higher
education: (a) the lack of democratization in deployment, and (b) the potential
to exacerbate inequalities. Education researchers and policymakers encounter
numerous challenges in deploying predictive modeling in practice. These
challenges present in different steps of modeling including data preparation,
model development, and evaluation. Nevertheless, each of these steps can
introduce additional bias to the system if not appropriately performed. Most
large-scale and nationally representative education data sets suffer from a
significant number of incomplete responses from the research participants.
Missing Values are the frequent latent causes behind many data analysis
challenges. While many education-related studies addressed the challenges of
missing data, little is known about the impact of handling missing values on
the fairness of predictive outcomes in practice.
  In this paper, we set out to first assess the disparities in predictive
modeling outcome for college-student success, then investigate the impact of
imputation techniques on the model performance and fairness using a
comprehensive set of common metrics. The comprehensive analysis of a real
large-scale education dataset reveals key insights on the modeling disparity
and how different imputation techniques fundamentally compare to one another in
terms of their impact on the fairness of the student-success predictive
outcome.
