Purpose – This study aims to identify patterns in the achievement records and socioeconomic characteristics of KIP Kuliah recipients to support institutional monitoring, differentiated student development, and administrative data-quality evaluation. Design/methods/approach – A quantitative unsupervised learning approach was employed using two complementary analytical streams. Achievement records were processed using text preprocessing, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Truncated Singular Value Decomposition, and K-Means clustering, with cluster selection and stability assessment used to evaluate the resulting segmentation. Socioeconomic characteristics of verified recipients were analyzed using Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN), supported by parameter-sensitivity and alternative-distance analyses. Findings – The achievement analysis revealed distinct segments reflecting district-level academic and sports achievements, general district-level championships, national-level and olympiad achievements, and diverse sports and non-academic accomplishments. However, the achievement segments showed limited separation and should therefore be interpreted as descriptive patterns rather than definitive natural groupings. Socioeconomic clustering revealed heterogeneous recipient profiles and a substantial group of observations that did not form dense patterns. Sensitivity analysis further demonstrated that apparent low-income clusters were primarily driven by incomplete administrative records rather than verified economic vulnerability. Research implications/limitations – The findings support descriptive monitoring, differentiated achievement development, and improved verification of administrative data. Individual-level integration was not possible because the achievement and socioeconomic datasets lacked a common identifier. Originality/value – This study demonstrates how complementary text and socioeconomic clustering can reveal both meaningful recipient patterns and critical data-quality limitations in scholarship monitoring.