A Study on Completion Rates and Time to Completion of Graduate Students

A Study on Completion Rates and Time to Completion of Graduate Students

Methodology Adopted by the G10 Data Exchange

2

Background

Started in 2001 at the request of the G10 Presidents

G10DE consortium Provide statistics for benchmarking & long term

planning G10 institutions include: University of Alberta,

University of British Columbia, Université Laval, McGill University, McMaster University, Université de Montreal, Queen’s University, University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario.

3

Objectives Track individual graduate students:

Completion rates In-progress rates Attrition rates Length of studies

Produce comparative data across 10 universities

4

Methodology Variables:

1) students: ID,age, gender, citizenship; full-time or part-time status

2) programs: type of program, names of program and host department, interdisciplinary aspect of the program; six-digit CIP codes assigned

3) academic progression: start year and session, end year and session, standing in winter 2001, number of registered sessions to the program

Note: dataset comprised of two files from each institution: (1) a research Master’s degree file, (2) a Doctoral degree file.

5

Methodology (cont.)

each student’s academic situation in 2001 was characterized as one of five possibilities : Graduation Promotion to the PhD (Master’s degree

file) In-progress Withdrawal, or Absence from the program of study for

less than two sessions

6

Discipline grouping

Six-digit CIP code was assigned to each record (department level);

CIP codes grouped into four major disciplinary divisions to: Simplify presentation of results Ensure adequate sample sizes

7

1st-Year Statistical Results

1992 cohort: Includes over 9,000 Master’s students &

3,807 Doctoral students

AAUDE presentation limited to Doctoral students

Note: Data reported by number of terms (3 terms = 1 year).

1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange UniversitiesAll Disciplines

Percent Graduated or Still Registered as of Winter 2001

48.9%

54.4%

62.9%

64.4%

68.5%

68.2%

65.4%

71.6%

71.1%

74.6% 2.4%

4.5%

1.4%

7.4%

2.3%

3.6%

3.3%

5.7%

1.4%

0.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

D (n=564)

G (n=436)

TOTAL (n=3,300)

Toronto (n=749)

C (n=165)

McGill (n=387)

F (n=231)

A (n=218)

E (n=381)

B (n=169)

Completion rate % Still Registered


Median Number of Terms Registered to Degree for Graduates

13.0

13.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

16.0

16.0

18.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

A (n=156)

B (n=126)

C (n=113)

TOTAL (n=2,076)

Toronto (n=482)

F (n=151)

G (n=237)

E (n=271)

McGill (n=264)

D (n=276)


Median Number of Terms Registered for Withdrawn Students

5.5

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

9.0

15.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

C (n=52)

A (n=59)

E (n=93)

F (n=63)

G (n=174)

TOTAL (n=1,114)

D (n=280)

B (n=39)

McGill (n=114)

Toronto (n=240)

1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange UniversitiesHumanities


37.7%

34.4%

40.9%

45.5%

48.0%

50.6%

58.1%

50.0%

48.9%

50.0%

0.9%

5.7%

12.5%

13.3%

8.1%

0.0%

8.0%

6.4%

4.5%

10.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

D (n=114)

G (n=90)

A (n=22)

TOTAL (n=605)

B (n=25)

Toronto (n=176)

C (n=31)

McGill (n=62)

F (n=45)

E (n=40)




16.0

16.5

16.5

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.5

18.5

18.5

19.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

G (n=31)

C (n=18)

F (n=22)

TOTAL (n=275)

Toronto (n=89)

D (n=43)

E (n=20)

B (n=12)

McGill (n=31)

A (n=9)



5.0

8.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.0

14.5

18.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

G (n=50)

E (n=15)

D (n=70)

F (n=17)

TOTAL (n=291)

A (n=12)

C (n=13)

B (n=11)

McGill (n=26)

Toronto (n=77)

1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange UniversitiesSocial Sciences


42.0%

46.3%

54.4%

59.0%

62.5%

57.3%

63.3%

69.1%

69.4%

62.3%

0.0%

3.1%

2.4%

6.0%

4.7%

5.4%

9.0%

4.1%

2.8%

10.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

D (n=250)

G (n=149)

TOTAL (n=998)

Toronto (n=205)

McGill (n=96)

E (n=89)

A (n=49)

C (n=55)

B (n=36)

F (n=69)




13.0

14.0

15.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

19.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

A (n=31)

B (n=25)

C (n=38)

TOTAL (n=543)

Toronto (n=121)

F (n=43)

E (n=51)

D (n=105)

G (n=69)

McGill (n=60)



4.0

4.0

4.5

5.0

7.0

8.0

8.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

C (n=17)

F (n=19)

A (n=16)

E (n=30)

G (n=71)

TOTAL (n=408)

B (n=10)

D (n=139)

McGill (n=33)

Toronto (n=73)

1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange UniversitiesPhysical & Applied Sciences


58.2%

67.3%

70.3%

72.4%

73.4%

71.4%

78.3%

78.9%

79.5%

80.1%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

0.9%

3.7%

1.5%

5.2%

0.8%

1.2%

2.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

D (n=91)

G (n=107)

Toronto (n=212)

C (n=58)

TOTAL (n=1,036)

F (n=77)

A (n=129)

McGill (n=133)

B (n=83)

E (n=146)




12.0

13.0

13.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

15.0

15.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

A (n=101)

F (n=55)

B (n=66)

C (n=42)

TOTAL (n=760)

Toronto (n=149)

McGill (n=105)

G (n=72)

E (n=117)

D (n=53)



4.5

4.5

4.5

6.0

6.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

8.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

C (n=16)

E (n=26)

B (n=16)

TOTAL (n=260)

Toronto (n=61)

A (n=28)

D (n=37)

McGill (n=27)

G (n=31)

F (n=18)

1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange UniversitiesLife Sciences


68.8%

70.8%

71.4%

72.2%

75.3%

77.5%

78.3%

78.8%

83.3%

92.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.3%

2.6%

1.2%

0.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

D (n=109)

McGill (n=96)

C (n=21)

G (n=90)

TOTAL (n=661)

F (n=40)

E (n=106)

Toronto (n=156)

A (n=18)

B (n=25)




13.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

16.0

18.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

A (n=15)

F (n=31)

B (n=23)

G (n=65)

C (n=15)

TOTAL (n=498)

Toronto (n=123)

McGill (n=68)

E (n=83)

D (n=75)



3.0

3.0

4.5

5.0

6.5

7.0

8.0

9.5

12.5

15.0

0 4 8 12 16 20

A (n=3)

F (n=9)

G (n=22)

C (n=6)

E (n=22)

McGill (n=28)

TOTAL (n=155)

B (n=2)

D (n=34)

Toronto (n=29)

23

Evaluation - 1st Year’s Experience

the data validation - painstaking exercise, manual modifications; months of coordination with institutions’ reps

most significant difficulties related to institutions’ student information systems (lack/format of certain key data elements)

Modifications to student systems between 1992 & 2001 - difficult to reconstruct a student’s academic history

Difficult to harmonize the distinction between research & professional Master’s programs across participating institutions

Needed to develop a working definition of “attrition”

24

Next Steps Collection of data on the 1993 cohort: Analysis

& Final Report complete.

Collection of data on the 1994 and 1998 cohorts: almost complete

Data set now sufficiently large to permit analysis at the CIP level by gender & citizenship status

Follow-up analyses to improve best practices, eg. study of attrition

25

Next Steps (cont.)

UofT conducted a survey of students who had withdrawn from the 1992 Doctoral cohort

143 students surveyed; 71 responses

26

Major Reasons for Withdrawal:

Reason for Leaving Program Frequency %

Family concerns & responsibilities 29 40.8

Lack of academic support from Faculty/Dept. 22 31.0

Job opportunity became available 21 29.6

Poor employment prospects for my discipline 21 29.6

Financial support from university was inadequate for individual need

19 26.8

Poor working relationship with supervisor 17 23.9

Inadequate monitoring of satisfactory progress 17 23.9

Financial support no longer available from the university 16 22.5

Personal health problems 14 20.0

Lost interest in program/subject matter 14 20.0

Next Steps (cont.)

27

Next Steps (cont.)

Follow-up studies will examine the role played by:

Regulatory Environment – existing policies, regulations and rules re: student progression in doctoral study

Academic Environment – quality of supervision, faculty-student relationships, and support (financial & other)

Documents

A Study on Completion Rates and Time to Completion of Graduate Students