institutional and student characteristics that predict graduation and retention rates

Institutional and Student Characteristics that Predict Graduation and Retention Rates

Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.Director of Institutional Research & Assessment

November 4, 2008

North East Association for Institutional Research Annual MeetingProvidence, RI

This presentation and paper are online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira

http://www.ccsu.edu/oira

Overview

Impetus for Study – Institutional Findings

Methodology

Correlations and Major Factors in Isolation

Results from Regression Analyses

Implications

Caveats

Graduation/retention rates of full-time, first-time students have serious limitations as metrics

Institutions participating in data sharing consortium have a special interest in progress rates

Institutional metrics include only students who enroll at these institutions

Institutional Profile: Central Connecticut State University Public – part of Connecticut State Univ. System Carnegie 2005 Master’s-Larger Programs New Britain, CT (Hartford MSA) Fall 2008 Enrollment:

12,233 headcount (9,906 undergraduate, 23% residential); 9,429 full-time equivalent enrollment

52% female; 17% minority Full-time, first-time students: 1,303 (57% residential) Full-time, new transfer students: 779

Six-year graduation rates: 46% full-time, first-time students entering F ‘02 57% transfer students (full-time upon entry F ‘02)

CCSU Six-Year Graduation Rates and One-Year Retention Rates

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

77%69%

80%

76%

79%

45%41%

43%

40%

44% 46%

1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate

Year of Entry

CCSU Six-Year Graduation Rates Disaggregated (Entry F’99-F’01)

Fem

ale

Mal

e

Not M

inor

ity

Min

ority

3.00

-4.0

0

2.00

-2.9

9

Belo

w 2.

0 or

WD

Gender Race/Ethnicity First Semester GPA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

48%

35%43%

31%

63%

48%

9%

Six-

year

Gra

duat

ion

Rate

Graduation Rates of FT, FT Students by Number of Course Grades of D, F, or W

Zero (5

5% of

coho

rt)

One (2

1% of

Coh

ort)

Two (11

% of C

ohort

)

Three o

f More

(13%

of C

ohort

)0%

20%

40%

60% 59%

40%24%

5%

Number of Final Course Grades of D, F, or W in 1st Semester

Six-

Year

Gra

duat

ion

Rat

e

Full-Time, First-Time Students Entering CCSU in Fall 2001

Methodology

Data requested from Consortium for the Study of Retention Data Exchange (Appendix 3) for Full-Time, First-Time Cohort Entering Fall 2001

Institutions missing data about HS performance excluded

Supplemented with Data from IPEDS Peer Analysis System

Institutions in Study Population

Carnegie Classification Private Public Total

Baccalaureate-Associate's 1 0 1

Baccalaureate-General 18 16 34

Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts 3 9 12

Others 0 2 2

Master's I 57 119 176

Master's II 10 5 15

Doctoral/Research Intensive (DRI) 13 46 59

Doctoral/Research Extensive (DRE) 7 89 96

Grand Total 109 286 395

Correlations with Six-Year Graduation Rates and Other Progress Rates

Factors Related to 6-Year Graduation Rate NPearson’s

R R2

Current Cohort’s Five-Year Graduation Rate 392 0.966 0.933

Previous Cohort’s Six-Year Graduation Rate 390 0.964 0.929

Current Cohort’s One-Year Retention Rate(Fall to Fall) 395 0.889 0.790

Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rates and One-Year Retention Rates

Factors that Correlate with Six-Year Graduation RatesFactors Related to 6-Year Graduation Rate N

Pearson’s R R2

SAT (Math + Verbal) or ACT Composite Score 391 0.797 0.635

High School Rank (Percent in Top Quartile) 320 0.743 0.552

Percent of All Undergraduate Who Attend Part-Time 395 -0.611 0.373

Cohort’s Mean First Semester GPA 363 0.603 0.364

Percent of Cohort with First Term GPA Below 2.0 350 -0.569 0.324

Percent of Cohort that Resided in Campus Housing (1st Year) 323 0.527 0.278

Percent of Cohort Over Age 24 385 -0.509 0.259

Financial Aid: Percent of Cohort Receiving Federal Grants 394 -0.456 0.208

Expenditures on Instruction and Academic Support per FTE 388 0.424 0.180

Percent of Cohort from Underrepresented Minority Groups 391 -0.355 0.126

Percent of Undergraduates in Headcount 394 -0.316 0.100

Financial Aid: Percent of Cohort Receiving Institutional Grants 394 0.270 0.073

Relationship Between SAT Scores and Success Rates

Below 900 (N=22)

900-990 (N=111)

1000-1090 (N=157)

1100-1190 (N=80)

1200+ (N=21)

0102030405060708090

100

69 6976

8392

3541

5365

82


Mean Institutional SAT Score*

Perc

ent R

etai

ned/

Gra

duat

ed

*Includes converted ACT scores

Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rates and SAT Scores

Math + Verbal SAT Score; includes converted ACT scores

Relationship Between HS Rank and Success Rates

0-10 (N=5)

11-20 (N=21)

21-30 (N=54)

31-40 (N=52)

41-50 (N=76)

51-60 (N=53)

61-70 (N=28)

71-80 (N=9)

81-90 (N=10)

91-100 (N=12)

0102030405060708090

100

6469 70 71 75

80 82 8691 93

3239

44 4653

60 6374

7984


Percent of Cohort Graduating in Top Quartile of HS Class

Perc

ent R

etai

ned/

Gra

duat

ed

Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and HS Rank

Relationship Between 1st Semester GPA and Success Rates

0-10 (N=82) 11-20 (N=176) 21-30 (N=81) 31+ (N=11)0

102030405060708090 81

7670

656353

4133


Percent of Cohort Earning 1st Semester GPA < 2.0

Perc

ent R

etai

ned/

Gra

duat

ed

Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and First Semester GPA

Relationship Between Campus Housing and Success Rates

00-40 (N=35)

41-50 (N=22)

51-60 (N=29)

61-70 (N=43)

71-80 (N=46)

81-90 (N=73)

91-100 (N=75)

0102030405060708090

69 74 72 75 77 7682

3947 47 50

55 5665


Percent of Cohort Residing in Campus Housing

Perc

ent R

etai

ned/

Gra

duat

ed

Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and Housing

Relationship Between Federal Grant Aid and Success Rates

00-10 (N=11)

11-20 (N=114)

21-30 (N=127)

31-40 (N=69)

41-50 (N=32)

51-60 (N=20)

61-100 (N=21)

0102030405060708090 84 80

75 71 71 70 727161

5246 44 43 40


Percent of Cohort Receiving Federal Grant Aid

Perc

ent R

etai

ned/

Gra

duat

ed

Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and Federal Grant Aid

Relationship Between Expend On Instruction + Academic Support per FTE on Success Rates

4.9 or less

5.0-7.4 7.5-9.9 10.0-12.4 12.5-14.9 15.0 or more

0102030405060708090

69 74 77 80 81 85

4349 54 60 62

69


Expenditures ($000) on Instruction and Academic Support per FTE Enrollment

Perc

ent R

etai

ned/

Gra

duat

ed

One-Year Retention Rate Regression Model Using SAT ScoresInstitutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.642) β S.E. t Sig.

(Constant) 2.472 4.054 .610

Combined Math and Verbal SAT score* .067 .004 16.140 ***

Baccalaureate Institution (dummy var.) -4.348 1.074 -4.049 ***

Pct of Cohort Resided in Campus Housing .058 .016 3.656 ***

Addition of following factors can increase model power by 4.1% (R2=0.681): percent graduating in the top quartile of HS class; percent of cohort receiving student loans, and the percent of the cohort receiving federal grants; Percent of Cohort with 1st Term GPA Under 2.0.

Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model Using SAT ScoresInstitutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.764) β S.E. t Sig.

(Constant) -60.401 6.670 -9.055

Combined Math and Verbal SAT score† .102 .006 17.125 ***


Percent of Cohort w1st Term GPA Under 2.0 -.269 .071 -3.788 ***

Addition of following factors can increase model power by 4.5% (R2=0.811): Percent of all undergraduates who attend part-time, baccalaureate institution (dummy var.), percent graduating in the top quartile of HS class; percent of cohort receiving student loans, and the percent of the cohort receiving federal grants.

One-Year Retention Rate Regression Model NOT Using SAT ScoresInstitutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.595) β S.E. t Sig.

(Constant) 55.50 1.363 40.72

Pct of Cohort Graduated in Top HS Quartile .286 .020 14.07 ***


Baccalaureate Institution (dummy var.) -5.681 1.130 -5.03 ***

Addition of following factors can increase model power by 6.7% (R2=0.662): percent of the cohort receiving federal grants; expenditures on instruction and academic support per FTE; percent of cohort with a 1st term GPA under 2.0, public (dummy var.); percent of undergraduates who attend part-time, and percent of the cohort receiving student loans.

Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model NOT Using SAT ScoresInstitutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.732) β S.E. t Sig.(Constant) 32.99 3.219 10.25



Pct of Cohort that Received Federal Grants -.202 .039 -5.18 ***

Percent of Cohort w1st Term GPA Under 2.0 -.333 .075 -4.43 ***

Addition of following factors can increase model power by 4.5% (R2=0.811): Percent of all undergraduates who attend part-time, baccalaureate institution (dummy var.), percent graduating in the top quartile of HS class; percent of cohort receiving student loans, and the percent of the cohort receiving federal grants.

Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model Using Academic Inputs ONLYInstitutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.790) β S.E. t Sig.(Constant) -45.13 6.935 -6.51

Mean Institutional SAT score .0786 .0080 9.79 ***


Percent of Cohort 24+ years -1.04 .232 -4.50 ***


Implications and Conclusions (1)

Results confirm and extend previous research:

Most predictive factors: Admission inputs (SAT, followed by HS rank) Proportion living in campus housing First semester performance

Race, gender, and SES appear not to add significant predictive power AFTER controlling for above factors


Policy implications: Evaluate institutional graduation rates in the

context of an expected graduation rate

Communicate realistic expectations to stakeholders


Recognize the impact of academic inputs BEFORE and DURING college experience Selectivity is a significant factor that intersects

degree production as well as access; consider implications of resource allocation in context of degree yield rates

Set incentives to promote performance during college, e.g. loan forgiveness vs. merit-based scholarships


Gaming the system - Institutions may continue to realize incentives to inflate grades

Public 4-year Private nonprofit 4-year All private for-profit0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

10.9%16.7%

27.8%11.2%

15.5%

17.5%

Undergraduate Grade Point Averages by Institution Type

A's and B'sMostly A's

Institution Type


Arms race in selectivity will be exposed by demographic change in next decade; downward pressure on graduation rates is likely

SOURCE: Knocking at the College Door (2008, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education)Reproduced in The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.29.

Projections of Graduates of Public High Schools, by Racial and Ethnic Group in North East

White, Non-Hispanic

HispanicBlack, Non-HispanicAsian/Pacific Islander

Institutional and Student Characteristics that Predict Graduation and Retention Rates

Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.Director of Institutional Research & Assessment

November 4, 2008

North East Association for Institutional Research Annual MeetingProvidence, RI

This presentation and paper are online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira

http://www.ccsu.edu/oira

institutional and student characteristics that predict graduation and retention rates

Documents

year graduation ratesfactors

year graduation rate3900

year retention rates

percent of cohort

firsttime students

year retention ratesccsu

year retention ratefall

firsttime cohort