Contextualizing Institutional Data: A Dialog

Ed Sullivan esullivan@fullerton.eduDirector of Institutional Research and Analytical Studies, CSU, Fullerton

Dolores Vura dvura@fullerton.eduAssist. VP, Institutional Research and Analytical Studies, CSU, Fullerton

CAIR 2003 Presentation November 14, 2003

“How did we get to 61% Female?”

“Four Year Degrees Elude Poor”

“Minority Students and Women Gain Share of Total Undergraduate Enrollment, Federal Report Says”

Telling the Hidden StoryCause-celebres

CSU, Fullerton Faculty Member, February, 2003

Los Angeles Daily News, February 24, 2003

The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 30, 2003

Is a different question actually being asked?

and maybe….

Could there be a change in policy that emerges from the discussion of the cause-

celebres?

Defusing the Cause-celebres

• Provide Context– Change was:

• Sudden• Fluctuating• Happened Over an Extended Period of Time

– Compared to our service area we are:• Different than our source High Schools and Colleges• Similar to our source High Schools and Colleges

Defusing the Cause-caliber (cont)

• Provide Context (cont)– Compared to our peers we are:

• Different than our peers• Similar to our peers

– Local data shows:• Change over time• Stability over time• What is likely to look like in the future?

“How did we get to 61% Female?”

• Local data– UG 1980 (51%) to 2002 (60%)– GR 1980 (56%) to 2002 (65%)– All 1980 (52%) to 2002 (61%)

• Compared to CSU Systemwide– UG 1980 (50%) to 2000 (56%)– GR 1980 (55%) to 2000 (62%)

“How did we get to 61% Female?”

(continued)• Compared to local HS graduates in 2000– 51% of HS graduates were female– 57% of CSU Eligible HS graduates were female

• Provided trend tables showing growth was gradual– UG 1990 (55%) to 1995 (56%) to 2000 (59%)– GR 1990 (59%) to 1995 (60%) to 2000 (66%)– All 1990 (56%) to 1995 (57%) to 2000 (60%)

“Four Year Degrees Elude Poor”• Newspaper Articles

– Reading Beyond the Headline• Article Focuses on Access to 4yr colleges and universities

(not degrees earned)

• Minor CPEC finding used as report basis

• Do our students fit the profile described?

• Finding the dangerous sweeping quotes or concepts

– Something is wrong (parent activist)– College graduation rates for Latinos is the lowest among the major

ethnic groups in the nation (senior research associate for The Pew Hispanic Center)

“Four Year Degrees Elude Poor”• Newspaper Articles (cont)

– Key concepts• Did the author identify a realistic group to compare

to students who transferred to the 4yr college?– For freshmen to the UC/CSU which is better?

» All HS graduates or UC/CSU eligible HS graduates?

• Would you expect a linear progression by ethnicity from CC to 4yr college?

• Are our experiences different from the ones in the article?

“Four Year Degrees Elude Poor”• Newspaper Articles (cont)

– Who is Correct? Our Findings (ay 2001-2002)• Compared to our Orange County Feeders

– underrepresented in White enrollment

• Compared to our primary feeders – overrepresented in Asian students – underrepresented in Black and Hispanic enrollment

• Compared to all California Community Colleges– overrepresented in Asian enrollment.– underrepresented in White, Hispanic and Black

enrollment

“Minority Students and Women Gain

Share of Total Undergraduate

Enrollment, Federal Report Says”When this article came out…

The topic had already been addressed at a level of detail that made further inquiries unnecessary. It was no longer among the local cause –celebres.

The new one was Enrollment Growth and Impaction….

The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 30, 2003

Enrollment Growth and Impaction

• Mantra: Growth is Good, Decline is Bad

– Meteoric Growth is Good• Unless it goes unfunded

– Changing the Course of the Meteor• Sledgehammer with a sponge attached approach

– No New Applicants for Spring 2004– Freshman Impaction for Fall 2004

Enrollment Growth and Impaction

• Decisions to be made (budget crisis)– Reduced growth in 2003-04 and expect no

growth in 2004-05

– Likely to overachieve 2003-04 and 2004-05 without change of course

• Too late to change Fall 2003 class• May be able to limit new student enrollment in

Spring 2004

Enrollment Growth and Impaction

• Make sound decision in late July based on anticipated Fall 2003 enrollment to curb growth in AY 2003-2004– No applications for Spring 2004 at opening of

application cycle

– Assume Fall 2003 will be similar to Fall 2002 in terms of enrollments and unit per student trends

– Rely on experts to properly describe new student admit to enrollment flow

Enrollment Growth and Impaction• What Happened

– Assume Fall 2003 will be similar to Fall 2002 in terms of enrollments and unit per student trends

• Continuing student enrollment grew, but units per students declined due to departmental constraints on adding courses

– Rely on experts to properly describe new student admit to enrollment flow

• Undershot expected undergraduate enrollment (freshman and upper division transfers)

– No applications for Spring 2004 at opening of application cycle• Opened late (September) for upper division transfers at El Toro• Opened late (September) for all graduate students

Enrollment Growth and Impaction• Now What Can We Do?

– Make good decisions about Fall 2004 based on application to enrollment flow

• First year of freshman impaction (realistic targets)• Restoring upper and lower division balance through new upper

division transfers• Understand trends in new masters and post bach credential

students

– Improve return rates

– Improve average units per student ratios at all levels

– Improve Graduation Rates/Time To Degree

Graduation Rates

Doing just a little more can pay large dividends

Assuming that the prior year’s graduation rate was .461, in a cohort of 2000 students, 922 need to graduate to match the prior year. 20 additional graduates (942 of 2000) results in a graduation rate of .471 (assuming a university with seven schools this means getting just three more graduates per school to improve by .01)

Actually an improvement of 10 students could be just as effective by tipping the rate from .461 (.46) to .466 (.47) for the same 2000 students

Graduation RatesHow are we doing? What we might say…

• For 1996 first-time full-time freshmen the six-year graduation rate:

– Was .47

– Improved by .04 (compared to fall 1995 cohort) to .47

– Improved by .04 (compared to fall 1995 cohort) to .47 exceeding the Fall 1996 cohort Systemwide rate by .05

Graduation RatesHow are we doing? What external audiences hear…

• For 1996 first-time full-time freshmen the six-year graduation rate:

– Was .47

• 53% of first-time freshmen do not earn degrees in six years or less. Why does it take more than 4 yrs to earn a 4 yr degree?

– Improved by .04 (compared to fall 1995 cohort) to .47

• 53% of first-time freshmen do not earn degrees in six years or less. Why does it take more than 4 yrs to earn a 4 yr degree? And last year was worse.

Graduation RatesHow are we doing? What external audiences

hear… (cont)

• For 1996 first-time full-time freshmen the six-year graduation rate:

– Improved by .04 (compared to fall 1995 cohort) to .47 exceeding the Fall 1996 cohort Systemwide rate by .05

• 53% of first-time freshmen do not earn degrees in six years or less. Why does it take more than 4 yrs to earn a 4 yr degree? And last year was worse… and the system had a lower rate (than the fall 1995 cohort at the school) for the Fall 1996 Systemwide cohort

Graduation Rates

Press release• News was positive (Six-Year Graduation Rate

Improves Drastically)

• Could be seen differently in press… headlines like

– Less than 1 in 2 students entering graduate in six-years or less

– Four-year degrees elude poor

– School grad rates surge, Systemwide rates lag behind

Graduation RatesAdvised by media relations to produce a press release

that could be used if there were inquiries related to graduation rate data in The Chronicle of Higher Education and US News and World Reports.

Advised by media relations to not proactively circulate the graduation rates externally to the press.

It was believed that there was too much room for potentially misunderstanding the concepts and context related to graduation rates.

Providing data to internal constituencies was encouraged

Years to Graduation For First-Time Freshmen

8%

9%

8%

10%

24%

22%

23%

25%

11%

11%

12%

12%

10%

11%

10%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60%

1993

1994

1995

1996

En

teri

ng

Co

lle

ge

Fa

ll

% graduated or likely to graduate in:

4yrs or less year 5 year 6 likely to graduate in more than 6 yrs

We developed an informational poster series for the door to our office (21” x 28”) that can be viewed on our website ( http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/posters.htm ).

The Posters cover topics of interest and the web versions contain links behind the graphs or tables.

This poster provides a profile of first-time freshmen across a variety of variables. It also provides information about the improvement in our six-year graduation rates.

We developed an informational poster series for the door to our office (21” x 28”) that can be viewed on our website ( http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/posters.htm ).

The Posters cover topics of interest and the web versions contain links behind the graphs or tables.

This poster describes the path from freshman to college graduate in six-years or less.

It provides comparisons of return rates and graduation rates based on the number of units attempted in a student’s first term at college.