Increasing Student Retention and Graduation: Findings from the ASAP Evaluation
An Overview of Retention and Graduation Rates at UK Roger P. Sugarman, Ph.D.
description
Transcript of An Overview of Retention and Graduation Rates at UK Roger P. Sugarman, Ph.D.
An Overview of Retention and An Overview of Retention and Graduation Rates at UKGraduation Rates at UK
Roger P. Sugarman, Ph.D.Roger P. Sugarman, Ph.D.Director of Institutional ResearchDirector of Institutional Research
April 13, 2007April 13, 2007
Organization of the Presentation Organization of the Presentation Efforts to Improve Retention: The ContextEfforts to Improve Retention: The Context Past Efforts to Understand Why Students Leave UK Past Efforts to Understand Why Students Leave UK Admission Criteria and Academic CredentialsAdmission Criteria and Academic Credentials Student Outcomes Student Outcomes
Cumulative first-year grades Cumulative first-year grades DEW RatesDEW Rates Retention and graduation ratesRetention and graduation rates
Relevant Survey DataRelevant Survey Data Expected odds of being successfulExpected odds of being successful Time spent studying/doing homeworkTime spent studying/doing homework Perceived academic challenge Perceived academic challenge Overall satisfaction with UKOverall satisfaction with UK
Concluding thoughts on understanding and improving Concluding thoughts on understanding and improving retention at UKretention at UK
Thoughts on Retention RatesThoughts on Retention Rates
Retention rates are widely regarded as an indicator of Retention rates are widely regarded as an indicator of institutional effectivenessinstitutional effectiveness
Low retention rates may indicate that an institution has Low retention rates may indicate that an institution has difficulty meeting students’ needs and expectations difficulty meeting students’ needs and expectations
Half of all students who fail to earn a bachelor’s Half of all students who fail to earn a bachelor’s degree drop out either during or just after their first degree drop out either during or just after their first yearyear
UK’s retention rate for the 2004 cohort, tied for last UK’s retention rate for the 2004 cohort, tied for last among its benchmarks, is 14 percentage-points below among its benchmarks, is 14 percentage-points below the median ratethe median rate
Retention Rates at UK’s Benchmark InstitutionsRetention Rates at UK’s Benchmark Institutions
The Fall 2004 CohortThe Fall 2004 Cohort
Michigan St.Michigan St. 91%91%North Carolina St.North Carolina St. 89%89%Ohio St.Ohio St. 90%90%Penn St.Penn St. 93%93%PurduePurdue 84%84%Texas A&MTexas A&M 92%92%ArizonaArizona 79%79%UCLAUCLA 97%97%FloridaFlorida 94%94%GeorgiaGeorgia 93%93%
IllinoisIllinois 93%93%IowaIowa 84%84%MarylandMaryland 93%93%MichiganMichigan 96%96%MinnesotaMinnesota 87%87%North CarolinaNorth Carolina 96%96%VirginiaVirginia 97%97%WashingtonWashington 93%93%WisconsinWisconsin 94%94%
University of Kentucky 79%
Source: CSRDE; data are for internal planning and policy development purposes only.
Thoughts on Graduation RatesThoughts on Graduation Rates
The graduation rate for UK’s 1999 cohort is The graduation rate for UK’s 1999 cohort is second to last among its benchmark institutionssecond to last among its benchmark institutions
UK’s graduation rate is 16 percentage-points UK’s graduation rate is 16 percentage-points below the benchmarks’ median ratebelow the benchmarks’ median rate
Six of UK’s benchmarks have graduation rates Six of UK’s benchmarks have graduation rates that exceed our retention rate!that exceed our retention rate!
Graduation Rates at UK’s Benchmark InstitutionsGraduation Rates at UK’s Benchmark Institutions
The Fall 1999 CohortThe Fall 1999 Cohort
Michigan St.Michigan St. 76%76%North Carolina St.North Carolina St. 70%70%Ohio St.Ohio St. 68%68%Penn St.Penn St. 86%86%PurduePurdue 67%67%Texas A&MTexas A&M 77%77%ArizonaArizona 59%59%UCLAUCLA 87%87%FloridaFlorida 79%79%GeorgiaGeorgia 73%73%
IllinoisIllinois 80%80%IowaIowa 66%66%MarylandMaryland 76%76%MichiganMichigan 87%87%MinnesotaMinnesota 61%61%North CarolinaNorth Carolina 84%84%VirginiaVirginia 93%93%WashingtonWashington 74%74%WisconsinWisconsin 78%78%
University of Kentucky 60%
Source: CSRDE; data are for internal planning and policy development purposes only.
The 2004 Retention StudyThe 2004 Retention Study
Phase I: National Students Clearinghouse SearchPhase I: National Students Clearinghouse Search
Phase II: Analysis of the Status of Non-Returning StudentsPhase II: Analysis of the Status of Non-Returning Students
Phase III: Telephone Survey of Non-Returning StudentsPhase III: Telephone Survey of Non-Returning Students
Results of the National Student Results of the National Student Clearinghouse DatabaseClearinghouse Database Search Search
Over 90% of the nation’s colleges furnish enrollment data Over 90% of the nation’s colleges furnish enrollment data to the NSC databaseto the NSC database
The study focused initially on 3,718 first-time, first-year The study focused initially on 3,718 first-time, first-year students from the Fall 2002 cohortstudents from the Fall 2002 cohort
IR staff found that 865 students (23%) did not return to UK IR staff found that 865 students (23%) did not return to UK for their sophomore yearfor their sophomore year
The NSC was able to find records that 619 of these 865 The NSC was able to find records that 619 of these 865 students had transferredstudents had transferred
Nearly half of the transfers had enrolled at: LCC (131), Nearly half of the transfers had enrolled at: LCC (131), UofL (63), NKU (38), JCC (32), and WKU (29) UofL (63), NKU (38), JCC (32), and WKU (29)
The Fall 2002 Cohort of First-Year Students:The Fall 2002 Cohort of First-Year Students: Collegiate Status in 2003-04Collegiate Status in 2003-04
Not Enrolled6.6%
Out-of-State Institutions
4.3%
Other KY Institutions
12.4%
Returned to UK
76.7%Transferred
16.7%
Source: UK Office of Institutional Research and National Student Clearinghouse
Academic Status of First-Year Students Academic Status of First-Year Students Who Left UK During or After Their First YearWho Left UK During or After Their First Year
Good Standing48.5%
Probation16.6% Probation
(suspen. pending)
4.8%
Suspension30.1%
OIR/SRC Telephone Survey of OIR/SRC Telephone Survey of Non-Returning First-Year StudentsNon-Returning First-Year Students
Survey targeted 583 first-year students who Survey targeted 583 first-year students who were either in good standing or on were either in good standing or on probationprobation
SRC staff eventually contacted 293 of these SRC staff eventually contacted 293 of these studentsstudents
250 students consented to be interviewed, 250 students consented to be interviewed, which constitutes a response rate of 85%.which constitutes a response rate of 85%.
Students’ Most Important Students’ Most Important Reasons for Leaving UKReasons for Leaving UK
39.2%
6.1%
8.5%
13.8%
15.0%
17.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Other reasons
Problems at home
Changed major
School too large/classes too big
Too expensive
Wanted to be closer to home
““I would recommend UK to another I would recommend UK to another student as a good place to go to school”student as a good place to go to school”
4.1% 6.1%
46.7%43.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Stronglydisagree
Somewhatdisagree
Somewhatagree
Stronglyagree
What are students’ reasons for What are students’ reasons for transferring to their new institution?transferring to their new institution?
Students’ most important reasons for transferring Students’ most important reasons for transferring were highly consistent with their reasons for were highly consistent with their reasons for leaving UKleaving UK
Relative to UK, students reported that their new Relative to UK, students reported that their new institution . . .institution . . . was closer to home (42.0%)was closer to home (42.0%) was less expensive (9.8%)was less expensive (9.8%) offered a program/major not at UK (9.8%) offered a program/major not at UK (9.8%) was smaller in size (7.3%)was smaller in size (7.3%)
Trends in the Academic Credentials Trends in the Academic Credentials of Incoming First-year Cohortsof Incoming First-year Cohorts
Applied, Admitted and EnrolledApplied, Admitted and EnrolledFall 2000 – Fall 2006Fall 2000 – Fall 2006
10,0241051510,608
9,4188,879
8,4498,318
8,0738,1238,1417,603
7,2506,9146,644
4,1903,8353,9613,6883,718
3,0372,928
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Applied
Admitted
Enrolled
First-year Student Profile: 1997 - 2006First-year Student Profile: 1997 - 2006
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Governor’s Scholars/School for the Arts
Valedictorians
National Merit Scholars
Applicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsApplicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsPercent with HS GPA above 3.0 Percent with HS GPA above 3.0
By Race/EthnicityBy Race/Ethnicity
BlackBlack 2005 20062005 2006
WhiteWhite 2005 20062005 2006
OtherOther 2005 20062005 2006
AppliedApplied 57.9%57.9% 57.2%57.2% 83.1%83.1% 83.3%83.3% 79.4%79.4% 80.7%80.7%
Note: students who did not present HS GPAs are excluded from percentages.
Applicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsApplicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsPercent with HS GPA above 3.0 Percent with HS GPA above 3.0
By Race/EthnicityBy Race/Ethnicity
BlackBlack 2005 20062005 2006
WhiteWhite 2005 20062005 2006
OtherOther 2005 20062005 2006
AppliedApplied 57.9%57.9% 57.2%57.2% 83.1%83.1% 83.3%83.3% 79.4%79.4% 80.7%80.7%
AdmittedAdmitted 72.1%72.1% 66.5%66.5% 88.0%88.0% 85.1%85.1% 86.7%86.7% 84.4%84.4%
Note: students who did not present HS GPAs are excluded from percentages.
Applicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsApplicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsPercent with HS GPA above 3.0 Percent with HS GPA above 3.0
By Race/EthnicityBy Race/Ethnicity
BlackBlack 2005 20062005 2006
WhiteWhite 2005 20062005 2006
OtherOther 2005 20062005 2006
AppliedApplied 57.9%57.9% 57.2%57.2% 83.1%83.1% 83.3%83.3% 79.4%79.4% 80.7%80.7%
AdmittedAdmitted 72.1%72.1% 66.5%66.5% 88.0%88.0% 85.1%85.1% 86.7%86.7% 84.4%84.4%
EnrolledEnrolled 61.6%61.6% 69.5%69.5% 89.8%89.8% 83.5%83.5% 85.1%85.1% 77.6%77.6%
Note: students who did not present HS GPAs are excluded from percentages.
Applicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsApplicants, Admitted and Enrolled StudentsPercent with HS GPA above 3.0 Percent with HS GPA above 3.0
By Race/EthnicityBy Race/Ethnicity
BlackBlack 2005 20062005 2006
WhiteWhite 2005 20062005 2006
OtherOther 2005 20062005 2006
AppliedApplied 57.9%57.9% 57.2%57.2% 83.1%83.1% 83.3%83.3% 79.4%79.4% 80.7%80.7%
AdmittedAdmitted 72.1%72.1% 66.5%66.5% 88.0%88.0% 85.1%85.1% 86.7%86.7% 84.4%84.4%
EnrolledEnrolled 61.6%61.6% 69.5%69.5% 89.8%89.8% 83.5%83.5% 85.1%85.1% 77.6%77.6%
Note: students who did not present HS GPAs are excluded from percentages.
High School GPAs High School GPAs 1997 – 2006 Cohorts1997 – 2006 Cohorts
3.48
3.56
3.53
3.56
3.50
3.46
3.45
3.51
3.49
3.53
3.30
3.35
3.40
3.45
3.50
3.55
3.60
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: Office of Institutional Research
ACT Composite Scores ACT Composite Scores 1999 – 2006 Cohorts1999 – 2006 Cohorts
2525thth/75/75thth Percentile Percentile
2006 21/262006 21/26
20052005 22/27 22/27
2004 21/272004 21/27
2003 22/272003 22/27
2002 21/262002 21/26
2001 21/262001 21/26
2000 21/262000 21/26
1999 22/271999 22/27
24.324.0 24.1
23.824.3 24.2
24.6
23.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Note: Some students submit SAT scores rather than ACT scores. These students’ scores are not reflected in the table and graph.
Selective Admissions CriteriaSelective Admissions CriteriaFall 2005 - Fall 2006Fall 2005 - Fall 2006
3.50 HS GPA 3.50 HS GPA andand 20 or above on ACT 20 or above on ACT
3.00 – 3.49 HS GPA 3.00 – 3.49 HS GPA andand 21 or above on ACT 21 or above on ACT
2.50 – 2.99 HS GPA 2.50 – 2.99 HS GPA andand 22 or above on ACT 22 or above on ACT
2.00 – 2.49 HS GPA 2.00 – 2.49 HS GPA andand 28 or above on ACT 28 or above on ACT
In the selective admissions process, students must meet one of the four sets of criteria below:
Students who do not meet the above criteria may be admitted through the competitive admissions process
Competitive vs. Selective Pool: Fall 2005 - 2006Competitive vs. Selective Pool: Fall 2005 - 2006
2005 2006
Competitive Count 313 788
% of Cohort 8.18 19.14
HS GPA Mean 3.06 2.97
ACT Mean 19.86 19.48
First Fall GPA Mean 2.07 1.87
Selective Count 3513 3330
% of Cohort 91.82 80.86
HS GPA Mean 3.60 3.60
ACT Mean 25.19 25.08
First Fall GPA Mean 2.86 2.81
Entire Cohort Count 3826 4118
% of Cohort 100.00 100.00
HS GPA Mean 3.56 3.48
ACT Mean 24.75 24.01
First Fall GPA Mean 2.79 2.63
Competitive vs. Selective PoolCompetitive vs. Selective Pool
Note: Retention and graduation rates were modeled using current admission criteria
Retention RatesRetention Rates
(2000 – 2005)(2000 – 2005)
Graduation RatesGraduation Rates
(1994 – 2000)(1994 – 2000)
CompetitiveCompetitive
PoolPool67.5%67.5% 42.4%42.4%
Selective Selective
PoolPool79.7%79.7% 60.3%60.3%
Student Outcomes:Student Outcomes:Grades, Retention and Grades, Retention and
Graduation RatesGraduation Rates
First-semester GPAs by SexFirst-semester GPAs by SexFall 2001 – Fall 2006Fall 2001 – Fall 2006
2.792.54
2.822.62
2.892.62
2.86
2.54
2.922.65 2.74
2.51
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Female Male
First-semester GPAs by Race/EthnicityFirst-semester GPAs by Race/EthnicityFall 2001 – Fall 2006Fall 2001 – Fall 2006
2.28
2.542.70
2.39
2.652.74
2.23
2.83 2.79
2.15
2.73 2.76
2.20
2.702.83
2.31
2.59 2.66
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
African American Other White
DEW Rates in Selected CoursesDEW Rates in Selected Coursesfor Fall 2006 First-Year Studentsfor Fall 2006 First-Year Students
8%
23%
13%
1%
25%
15%7%
15%11% 8% 5%
5%
10%
11%
9%
6%
7%
5%
22%
10%
5%7%
4%
5%
8%
2%
13%
4%
7%
5%
16%
8%2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
BIO102
CHE104
CHE105
ENG104
GEO130
GEO160
HIS108
MA108R
MA109
MA123
PSY100
D E W
Percent of Cohort Qualifying for Suspension or Percent of Cohort Qualifying for Suspension or Probation Based on Their First Fall Semester GPAProbation Based on Their First Fall Semester GPA
3.8% 3.3% 3.9% 4.2% 2.9%5.4%
15.6%14.8% 13.4%
14.5%
13.7%
16.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0.00-0.59 0.60-1.99
Percent of African American Student Cohorts Percent of African American Student Cohorts Qualifying for Suspension or Probation Qualifying for Suspension or Probation Based on Their First Fall Semester GPABased on Their First Fall Semester GPA
5.3% 4.3%6.9%
9.2% 7.0% 7.0%
31.1%
27.3%
28.2%
29.9%
25.4%24.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0.00-0.59 0.60-1.99
N = 286N = 142
N = 261N = 202
N = 165
N = 151
Student Success MeasuresStudent Success MeasuresFirst-Semester Grade Point Average by H.S. GPA Range: First-Semester Grade Point Average by H.S. GPA Range: 2000 - 2006 Cohorts2000 - 2006 Cohorts
1.0001.250
1.5001.750
2.0002.250
2.5002.750
3.0003.250
3.500
2.00 - 2.49 2.50 - 2.99 3.00 - 3.49 3.50 - 3.99 4.0 and above
High School GPA
In good academic standing
Student Success MeasuresStudent Success MeasuresFirst-Semester Grade Point Average by ACT Scores*:First-Semester Grade Point Average by ACT Scores*:2000 - 2006 Cohorts2000 - 2006 Cohorts
1.000
1.2501.500
1.750
2.0002.250
2.500
2.750
3.0003.250
3.500
17 and under 18 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 25 - 27 28 and over
ACT Composite Scores*
In good academic standing
*Note: includes converted SAT Scores
Retention Rates: 1996 Cohort – 2005 CohortRetention Rates: 1996 Cohort – 2005 Cohort
78.9%78.4%
77.1%
79.3%
77.8%77.7%
80.3%
78.9%
79.8%
77.9%
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
84%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note: Retention rates reported here may differ slightly from other sources due to minor differences in reporting criteria.
Figure 4: Retention Rates by Initially Declared CollegeFall 2005 Cohort
47.5%
64.3%
55.1%
65.8%
56.2%
70.7%
59.6%
69.1%
66.0%
71.0%
65.0%
28.8%
8.2%
23.6%
14.2%
23.3%
5.5%
23.5%
7.9%
14.1%
10.1%
11.4%
65.1%
7.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
University Studies
Social Work
Nursing
Health Sciences
Fine Arts
Engineering
Education
Design
Com. & Info. Studies
Business &Economics
Arts & Sciences
Agriculture
Retained within College Retained within University
Student Success MeasuresStudent Success MeasuresFirst-to-Second Year Retention Rates by H.S. GPA:First-to-Second Year Retention Rates by H.S. GPA: 2000 - 2005 Cohorts2000 - 2005 Cohorts
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
2.0 - 2.49 2.50 - 2.99 3.00 - 3.49 3.50 - 3.99 4.00 and above
Strategic Plan
Indicator
Most Recent
Ret. Rate
Academic Credentials and Outcomes Academic Credentials and Outcomes for the Past Seven UK Cohorts for the Past Seven UK Cohorts
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Admit Rate 79.9% 81.8% 81.7% 80.7% 76.7% 77.3% 80.5%
Yield Rate 44.1% 43.9% 51.3% 48.5% 48.7% 47.2% 51.9%
HS GPA 3.49 3.53 3.50 3.56 3.53 3.56 3.48
ACT 24.2 24.3 24.0 24.5 24.4 24.7 24.0
Spring to Fall Rate
91.1% 91.6% 90.8% 91.8% 91.2% 90.9% 89.4%*
Fall to Fall Rate
77.7 79.3 77.1 78.4 78.9 77.8 ?
* Based on preliminary enrollment data
Academic Credentials and Outcomes Academic Credentials and Outcomes for the Past Seven UK Cohorts for the Past Seven UK Cohorts
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Admit Rate 79.9% 81.8% 81.7% 80.7% 76.7% 77.3% 80.5%
Yield Rate 44.1% 43.9% 51.3% 48.5% 48.7% 47.2% 51.9%
HS GPA 3.49 3.53 3.50 3.56 3.53 3.56 3.48
ACT 24.2 24.3 24.0 24.5 24.4 24.7 24.0
Spring to Fall Rate
91.1% 91.6% 90.8% 91.8% 91.2% 90.9% 89.4%*
Fall to Fall Rate
77.7 79.3 77.1 78.4 78.9 77.8 ?
* Based on preliminary enrollment data
Retention and Graduation Rates by HS GPA, Retention and Graduation Rates by HS GPA, ACT and First-term Credit Hour LoadACT and First-term Credit Hour Load
Admissions GroupAdmissions Group
12 - 14 12 - 14
SCHSCH
15 -17 15 -17
SCHSCH
18+18+
SCHSCH
3.5 or above HS GPA 3.5 or above HS GPA
AndAnd
20 or higher ACT20 or higher ACT
Under 3.5 HS GPAUnder 3.5 HS GPA
OrOr
Less than 20 ACTLess than 20 ACT
Note: Note: Retention ratesRetention rates averaged from fall 2000 – 2005 cohorts; averaged from fall 2000 – 2005 cohorts;Graduation ratesGraduation rates averaged from fall 1994 – 2000 cohorts. averaged from fall 1994 – 2000 cohorts.
Retention and Graduation Rates by HS GPA, Retention and Graduation Rates by HS GPA, ACT and First-term Credit Hour LoadACT and First-term Credit Hour Load
Admissions GroupAdmissions Group
12 - 14 12 - 14
SCHSCH
15 -17 15 -17
SCHSCH
18+18+
SCHSCH
3.5 or above HS GPA 3.5 or above HS GPA
AndAnd
20 or higher ACT20 or higher ACT
79.6%79.6% 86.5%86.5% 89.6%89.6%
Under 3.5 HS GPAUnder 3.5 HS GPA
OrOr
Less than 20 ACTLess than 20 ACT
61.1%61.1% 72.9%72.9% 70.3%70.3%
Note: Note: Retention ratesRetention rates averaged from fall 2000 – 2005 cohorts; averaged from fall 2000 – 2005 cohorts;Graduation ratesGraduation rates averaged from fall 1994 – 2000 cohorts. averaged from fall 1994 – 2000 cohorts.
Retention and Graduation Rates by HS GPA, Retention and Graduation Rates by HS GPA, ACT and First-term Credit Hour LoadACT and First-term Credit Hour Load
Admissions GroupAdmissions Group
12 - 14 12 - 14
SCHSCH
15 -17 15 -17
SCHSCH
18+18+
SCHSCH
3.5 or above HS GPA 3.5 or above HS GPA
AndAnd
20 or higher ACT20 or higher ACT
79.6%79.6%
61.1%61.1%
86.5%86.5%
70.7%70.7%
89.6%89.6%
75.0%75.0%
Under 3.5 HS GPAUnder 3.5 HS GPA
OrOr
Less than 20 ACTLess than 20 ACT
61.1%61.1%
39.2%39.2%
72.9%72.9%
50.8%50.8%
70.3%70.3%
49.1%49.1%
Note: Note: Retention ratesRetention rates averaged from fall 2000 – 2005 cohorts; averaged from fall 2000 – 2005 cohorts;Graduation ratesGraduation rates averaged from fall 1994 – 2000 cohorts. averaged from fall 1994 – 2000 cohorts.
Retention Rates by Course Completion ScenariosRetention Rates by Course Completion Scenarios
Status of Courses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Passed all classes 91.2% 88.9% 90.0% 90.7% 87.3%
Overall Rates 79.3% 77.2% 78.4% 78.9% 77.8%
Retention Rates by Course Completion ScenariosRetention Rates by Course Completion Scenarios
Status of Courses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Passed all classes 91.2% 88.9% 90.0% 90.7% 87.3%
Passed 1+/W 1+ 86.9% 88.9% 84.5% 90.0% 81.7%
Overall Rates 79.3% 77.2% 78.4% 78.9% 77.8%
Retention Rates by Course Completion ScenariosRetention Rates by Course Completion Scenarios
Status of Courses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Passed all classes 91.2% 88.9% 90.0% 90.7% 87.3%
Passed 1+/W 1+ 86.9% 88.9% 84.5% 90.0% 81.7%
Passed 1+/D or E 1+ 73.7% 74.4% 73.7% 72.9% 75.2%
Overall Rates 79.3% 77.2% 78.4% 78.9% 77.8%
Retention Rates by Course Completion ScenariosRetention Rates by Course Completion Scenarios
Status of Courses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Passed all classes 91.2% 88.9% 90.0% 90.7% 87.3%
Passed 1+/W 1+ 86.9% 88.9% 84.5% 90.0% 81.7%
Passed 1+/Failed 1+ 73.7% 74.4% 73.7% 72.9% 75.2%
Passed 1+/W 1+/D or E 1+ 68.9% 60.6% 67.5% 69.0% 67.2%
Overall Rates 79.3% 77.2% 78.4% 78.9% 77.8%
Retention Rates by Course Completion ScenariosRetention Rates by Course Completion Scenarios
Status of Courses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Passed all classes 91.2% 88.9% 90.0% 90.7% 87.3%
Passed 1+/W 1+ 86.9% 88.9% 84.5% 90.0% 81.7%
Passed 1+/D or E 1+ 73.7% 74.4% 73.7% 72.9% 75.2%
Passed 1+/W 1+/D or E 1+ 68.9% 60.6% 67.5% 69.0% 67.2%
Only DEW outcomes 6.0% 3.6% 10.9% 8.3% 4.7%
Overall Rates 79.3% 77.2% 78.4% 78.9% 77.8%
Retention Rates by Course Completion ScenariosRetention Rates by Course Completion Scenarios
Status of Courses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Passed all classes 91.2% 88.9% 90.0% 90.7% 87.3%
Passed 1+/W 1+ 86.9% 88.9% 84.5% 90.0% 81.7%
Passed 1+/Failed 1+ 73.7% 74.4% 73.7% 72.9% 75.2%
Passed 1+/W 1+/Failed 1+ 68.9% 60.6% 67.5% 69.0% 67.2%
W 1+/Failed 1+ 6.0% 3.6% 10.9% 8.3% 4.7%
Overall Rates 79.3% 77.2% 78.4% 78.9% 77.8%
Graduation Rates: 1991 Cohort – 2000 CohortGraduation Rates: 1991 Cohort – 2000 Cohort
57.2%
55.3%53.0%
50.8%
48.2%
59.1%
59.8%
59.6%
61.1%
57.7%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Note: Graduation rates reported here may differ slightly from other sources due to minor differences in reporting criteria.
Figure 5: Graduation Rates by Initially Declared CollegeFall 2000 Cohort
85.7%
53.1%
12.7%
42.2%
30.9%
40.9%
38.0%
46.7%
47.7%
39.3%
42.3%
0.0%
15.7%
50.8%
17.3%
26.2%
20.8%
28.2%
11.3%
13.5%
20.6%
19.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Social Work
Nursing
Health Sciences
Fine Arts
Engineering
Education
Design**
Com. & Info. Studies
Business & Economics
Arts & Sciences
Agriculture*
Graduated from College Graduated from University
Student Success MeasuresStudent Success MeasuresGraduation Rates by High School GPA: Graduation Rates by High School GPA: 1996 - 1999 Cohorts1996 - 1999 Cohorts
20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%
2.00 - 2.49 2.50 - 2.99 3.00 - 3.49 3.50 - 3.99 4.00 and above
Strategic Plan
Indicator
Most Recent
Grad Rate
Retention Rates by RegionRetention Rates by Region 2000 – 2005 Average: 78.2%2000 – 2005 Average: 78.2%
Out-of-state 75.0%Out-of-state 75.0% Appalachian 76.7%Appalachian 76.7% Central KY 77.7%Central KY 77.7%
Northern KY 81.1%Northern KY 81.1% Other KY Ctys. 80.3%Other KY Ctys. 80.3% Louisville Metro 79.7%Louisville Metro 79.7%
Lowest Highest
Retention Rates by High School AttendedRetention Rates by High School Attended 2000 – 2005 Average: 78.2%2000 – 2005 Average: 78.2%
Scott Cty 73.8%Scott Cty 73.8% G.R. Clark 75.9% G.R. Clark 75.9% South Oldham 76.5%South Oldham 76.5% Trinity 77.5%Trinity 77.5% Henry Clay 77.7%Henry Clay 77.7%
Notre Dame 90.0%Notre Dame 90.0% Sacred Heart 88.4%Sacred Heart 88.4% Eastern 85.3%Eastern 85.3% Dupont Manual 84.9%Dupont Manual 84.9% St. Xavier 84.5% St. Xavier 84.5% Larry Riley 83.7%Larry Riley 83.7% Daviess Cty 83.6%Daviess Cty 83.6% Male 83.3%Male 83.3%
Lowest Highest
Graduation Rates by RegionGraduation Rates by Region 1994 – 2000 Average: 58.3%1994 – 2000 Average: 58.3%
Appalachian 52.9% Appalachian 52.9% Central KY 55.1%Central KY 55.1% Out-of-state 56.3%Out-of-state 56.3%
Northern KY 66.9%Northern KY 66.9% Other KY Ctys. 62.5%Other KY Ctys. 62.5% Louisville Metro 59.8%Louisville Metro 59.8%
Lowest Highest
Graduation Rates by High School AttendedGraduation Rates by High School Attended 1994 – 2000 Average: 58.3%1994 – 2000 Average: 58.3%
G.R. Clark 44.4%G.R. Clark 44.4% Woodford Cty 51.8% Woodford Cty 51.8% Scott Cty 51.9%Scott Cty 51.9% Jessamine Cty 54.7%Jessamine Cty 54.7%
Notre Dame 77.4%Notre Dame 77.4% Sacred Heart 73.3%Sacred Heart 73.3% Dixie Heights 72.4%Dixie Heights 72.4% Daviess Cty 72.2%Daviess Cty 72.2% Highlands 69.0%Highlands 69.0% Assumption 68.5%Assumption 68.5% Ballard 67.1%Ballard 67.1% Male 66.3%Male 66.3%
Lowest Highest
Recent Research Undertaken by the Recent Research Undertaken by the Office of Institutional ResearchOffice of Institutional Research
Regression Model Designed to Explain Regression Model Designed to Explain Students’ Grades and RetentionStudents’ Grades and Retention
Models were based on demographic data, academic Models were based on demographic data, academic credentials and information obtained from the fall credentials and information obtained from the fall Survey of First-year StudentsSurvey of First-year Students
Because samples and data sometimes have ‘oddities,’ Because samples and data sometimes have ‘oddities,’ IR staff . . .IR staff . . . started by randomly taking 90% of the total sample and started by randomly taking 90% of the total sample and
developing a model from the observed data developing a model from the observed data then repeated this procedure 1,000 times to develop a final then repeated this procedure 1,000 times to develop a final
model that captured the variables that appeared most model that captured the variables that appeared most frequentlyfrequently
The GPA model explained 36% of the variance in The GPA model explained 36% of the variance in students’ gradesstudents’ grades
The logistic retention model produced a ‘Maximum The logistic retention model produced a ‘Maximum Re-scaled R-Square’ of .33 Re-scaled R-Square’ of .33
Regression Model Designed to Explain Regression Model Designed to Explain Students’ First-Semester GPAsStudents’ First-Semester GPAs
Grades were positively associated with . . .Grades were positively associated with . . . High school GPAsHigh school GPAs ACT Composite scores ACT Composite scores Being femaleBeing female Participation in UK 101Participation in UK 101 The distance between a students’ home and UKThe distance between a students’ home and UK The number of hours students reported studying or doing The number of hours students reported studying or doing
homework during their HS senior yearhomework during their HS senior year Self-reported ‘drive to achieve’Self-reported ‘drive to achieve’ Students’ level of identification with being a good studentStudents’ level of identification with being a good student
Regression Model Designed to Explain Regression Model Designed to Explain Students’ First-Semester GPAsStudents’ First-Semester GPAs
Grades were negatively associated with . . .Grades were negatively associated with . . . Being a first-generation college studentBeing a first-generation college student The number of hours students planned to be The number of hours students planned to be
employed during their first termemployed during their first term Intentions to join a fraternity or sororityIntentions to join a fraternity or sorority Self-reported procrastination tendenciesSelf-reported procrastination tendencies Self-reported ‘serious financial difficulties’ during Self-reported ‘serious financial difficulties’ during
the previous yearthe previous year
Regression Model Designed to Explain Regression Model Designed to Explain Fall-to-Fall RetentionFall-to-Fall Retention
Retention was positively associated with . .Retention was positively associated with . . . . Cumulative fall, first-year GPACumulative fall, first-year GPA Family income Family income Number of AP Courses takenNumber of AP Courses taken Being femaleBeing female Students’ level of identification with being a Students’ level of identification with being a
good studentgood student
Regression Model Designed to Explain Regression Model Designed to Explain Fall-to-Fall RetentionFall-to-Fall Retention
Retention was negatively associated with . . .Retention was negatively associated with . . . Self-reported involvement in a Self-reported involvement in a serious romantic serious romantic
relationship relationship during the previous yearduring the previous year Self-reported Self-reported serious financial difficultiesserious financial difficulties during during
the previous yearthe previous year The number of hours students planned to be The number of hours students planned to be
employed during their first termemployed during their first term The distance between a students’ home and UK The distance between a students’ home and UK Being African AmericanBeing African American First-generation student statusFirst-generation student status
Selected Results of Surveys Conducted by Selected Results of Surveys Conducted by the Institutional Research Officethe Institutional Research Office
How important are students’ How important are students’ expectations for the academic expectations for the academic
demands of college-level work?demands of college-level work?
Unrealistic Expectations about Unrealistic Expectations about Academic Life at UK?Academic Life at UK?
On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance of earning a 3.0 GPA or better your first of earning a 3.0 GPA or better your first year at UK?year at UK?
Unrealistic Expectations about Unrealistic Expectations about Academic Life at UK?Academic Life at UK?
On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance of earning a 3.0 GPA or better your first of earning a 3.0 GPA or better your first year at UK?year at UK?
Expectation:Expectation: One-half (48%) of first-year One-half (48%) of first-year students rate their chances of earning a B students rate their chances of earning a B average as a ‘9’ or ’10’average as a ‘9’ or ’10’
Unrealistic Expectations about Unrealistic Expectations about Academic Life at UK?Academic Life at UK?
On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance of earning a 3.0 GPA or better your first of earning a 3.0 GPA or better your first year at UK?year at UK?
Expectation:Expectation: One-half (48%) of first-year One-half (48%) of first-year students rate their chances of earning a B students rate their chances of earning a B average as a ‘9’ or ’10’average as a ‘9’ or ’10’
Fact:Fact: Over the past five years, the average Over the past five years, the average first-year GPA has ranged from 2.75 – 2.81first-year GPA has ranged from 2.75 – 2.81
Unrealistic Expectations about Unrealistic Expectations about Academic Life at UK?Academic Life at UK?
On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance of graduating from UK in four years?of graduating from UK in four years?
Unrealistic Expectations about Unrealistic Expectations about Academic Life at UK?Academic Life at UK?
On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance of graduating from UK in four years?of graduating from UK in four years?
Expectation:Expectation: Over half (56%) of first-year Over half (56%) of first-year students rate their chances of graduating in students rate their chances of graduating in four yearsfour years as a ‘9’ or ’10’as a ‘9’ or ’10’
Unrealistic Expectations about Unrealistic Expectations about Academic Life at UK?Academic Life at UK?
On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your chance of graduating from UK in four years?of graduating from UK in four years?
Expectation:Expectation: Over half (56%) of first-year Over half (56%) of first-year students rate their chances of graduating in students rate their chances of graduating in four yearsfour years as a ‘9’ or ’10’as a ‘9’ or ’10’
Fact:Fact: Over the past five years, the four-year Over the past five years, the four-year graduation rate has ranged from 27.1% to graduation rate has ranged from 27.1% to 30.0%30.0%
Hours Reported Studying/Doing Homework in a Typical Hours Reported Studying/Doing Homework in a Typical Week During the HS Senior Year and Freshman YearWeek During the HS Senior Year and Freshman Year
26%
52%
13%
5% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than 1 1-5 6-10 11-15 More than 15
Source: First-year Surveys conducted in Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
Hours Reported Studying/Doing Homework in a Typical Hours Reported Studying/Doing Homework in a Typical Week During the HS Senior Year and Freshman YearWeek During the HS Senior Year and Freshman Year
26%
1%
52%
36%
13%
33%
5%
18%
4%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than 1 1-5 6-10 11-15 More than 15
Source: First-year Surveys conducted in Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
High School GPAs High School GPAs 1997 – 2006 Cohorts1997 – 2006 Cohorts
3.48
3.56
3.53
3.56
3.50
3.46
3.45
3.51
3.49
3.53
3.30
3.35
3.40
3.45
3.50
3.55
3.60
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: Office of Institutional Research
Self-reported Academic Challenge During Self-reported Academic Challenge During the HS Senior Year and Freshman Year at UKthe HS Senior Year and Freshman Year at UK
15%
48%
27%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Not at allChallenging
SomewhatChallenging
Challenging Very Challenging
Source: First-year Surveys conducted in Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
Self-reported Academic Challenge During Self-reported Academic Challenge During the HS Senior Year and Freshman Year at UKthe HS Senior Year and Freshman Year at UK
15%
1%
48%
26% 27%
58%
10%15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Not at allChallenging
SomewhatChallenging
Challenging Very Challenging
Source: First-year Surveys conducted in Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
How well did UK students do relative to their How well did UK students do relative to their peers at like institutions on NSSE 2005?peers at like institutions on NSSE 2005?
UK seniors did not differ significantly from their UK seniors did not differ significantly from their peers on the five benchmarkspeers on the five benchmarks
UK first-year students . . . UK first-year students . . . Did not differ from their counterparts on the Did not differ from their counterparts on the
“Level of Academic Challenge” and “Student-“Level of Academic Challenge” and “Student-Faculty Interaction” benchmarksFaculty Interaction” benchmarks
Performed significantly below their peers on:Performed significantly below their peers on: Active and Collaborative Learning (effect size = -.33)Active and Collaborative Learning (effect size = -.33) Enriching Educational Experiences (effect size = -.41)Enriching Educational Experiences (effect size = -.41) Supportive Campus Environment (effect size = -.22)Supportive Campus Environment (effect size = -.22)
Satisfaction with the Entire Educational ExperienceSatisfaction with the Entire Educational Experience
3.06 3.162.97
3.15 3.13 3.213.05
3.183.06
3.183.06
3.17
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
First-Year Senior First-Year Senior First-Year Senior
UK Doc.-Ext
2001 2003 2005
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement
Thoughts on RetentionThoughts on Retention
From fall 2005 to 2006… From fall 2005 to 2006… The number of students presenting HS GPAs of 2.00 – The number of students presenting HS GPAs of 2.00 –
2.49 tripled (49 to 150)2.49 tripled (49 to 150) Two-thirds (98) of the fall 2006 students with these Two-thirds (98) of the fall 2006 students with these
credentials are either on probation or have been credentials are either on probation or have been suspendedsuspended
The number students presenting HS GPAs of 2.5-2.99 The number students presenting HS GPAs of 2.5-2.99 increased by 58% (350 to 553) increased by 58% (350 to 553) Just under half (254) of these students are on either Just under half (254) of these students are on either
probation or have been suspended probation or have been suspended In sum, of the 703 students admitted with HS GPA less In sum, of the 703 students admitted with HS GPA less
than 3.0, half of them were either suspended or on than 3.0, half of them were either suspended or on probation after their first termprobation after their first term
Thoughts on Retention Thoughts on Retention
The average incoming HS GPA, incoming ACT The average incoming HS GPA, incoming ACT scores, and first fall GPA are lower for the 2006 scores, and first fall GPA are lower for the 2006 cohort than any cohort between 2001-2006 cohort than any cohort between 2001-2006
The fall 2006 African-American cohort is not only The fall 2006 African-American cohort is not only the largest but also the best prepared academically the largest but also the best prepared academically of all AA cohorts between 2001-2006. of all AA cohorts between 2001-2006.
The less-academically-prepared class of 2006 is The less-academically-prepared class of 2006 is somewhat attributable to increases in the somewhat attributable to increases in the admittance and yield rates for less-academically-admittance and yield rates for less-academically-prepared white students prepared white students
Penultimate Thoughts on RetentionPenultimate Thoughts on Retention
The present admissions criteria “matrix” is flawedThe present admissions criteria “matrix” is flawed A ‘high’ ACT score and ‘low’ HS GPA do not A ‘high’ ACT score and ‘low’ HS GPA do not
predict the same level of success as a ‘low’ ACT predict the same level of success as a ‘low’ ACT score and ‘high’ HS GPAscore and ‘high’ HS GPA
A regression model that statistically weights GPA A regression model that statistically weights GPA and ACT scores—accompanied by a systematic and ACT scores—accompanied by a systematic and testable way of deciding borderline cases—and testable way of deciding borderline cases—offers the best chance of increasing UK’s retention offers the best chance of increasing UK’s retention and graduation ratesand graduation rates
Final Thoughts: Final Thoughts: Where do we (still!) go from here?Where do we (still!) go from here?
Communicating expectations to high school Communicating expectations to high school students and their parents about the demands of students and their parents about the demands of college-level workcollege-level work
Developing and improving UK’s learning Developing and improving UK’s learning communities communities
Analyzing the effectiveness of admission criteria, Analyzing the effectiveness of admission criteria, including ‘global’ questions appearing on the including ‘global’ questions appearing on the applicationapplication
Developing an ‘early warning system’ for Developing an ‘early warning system’ for academically at-risk studentsacademically at-risk students
UK Office of Institutional UK Office of Institutional ResearchResearch
Roger Sugarman, Ph.D.Roger Sugarman, Ph.D.Director of Institutional ResearchDirector of Institutional Research
University of Kentucky University of Kentucky
[email protected]: 257-7989Phone: 257-7989www.uky.edu/IR/www.uky.edu/IR/
For more information . . .