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.



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%




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%


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%




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%


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%


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



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


ACT Mean 25.19 25.08


Entire Cohort Count 3826 4118

% of Cohort 100.00 100.00


ACT Mean 24.75 24.01


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.



12 - 14 12 - 14

SCHSCH

15 -17 15 -17

SCHSCH

18+18+

SCHSCH


AndAnd


79.6%79.6% 86.5%86.5% 89.6%89.6%


OrOr


61.1%61.1% 72.9%72.9% 70.3%70.3%




12 - 14 12 - 14

SCHSCH

15 -17 15 -17

SCHSCH

18+18+

SCHSCH


AndAnd


79.6%79.6%

61.1%61.1%

86.5%86.5%

70.7%70.7%

89.6%89.6%

75.0%75.0%


OrOr


61.1%61.1%

39.2%39.2%

72.9%72.9%

50.8%50.8%

70.3%70.3%

49.1%49.1%


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%




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%




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%




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%




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%




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?



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’



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


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’



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


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


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


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 . . .

Documents

An Overview of Retention and Graduation Rates at UK Roger P. Sugarman, Ph.D