Diversity Update 2010 September 2010. Equity Scorecard Framework AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Equity in Educational Outcomes The

Diversity Update 2010

September 2010

Equity Scorecard Framework

Access

Excellence

Institutional Receptivity

RetentionEquity in

Educational Outcomes

The Equity Scorecard was developed by Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon at the Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California (http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/).

Each of the four perspectives has an objective.

From this objective we can:-Measure baseline performance - Set an

improvement target

- Work towards equity in educational outcomes.

http://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

Identities for Analysis

Identities for AnalysisThis presentation is limited to identities for which we have quantitative information, including: Race/ethnicity Income level First-generation in college Gender Geographic diversity. Information is not systematically available for other groupsthat are important to inclusive excellence.


Components:• Enrollment

– Undergraduate– Graduate– Professional– School/College

• Pipeline• Financial Aid/Need-Based

Aid• Majors/Degrees

Access

Excellence


Retention

Access

Equity in Educational Outcomes


From 2000 to 2010 4.9 percentage

point increase in Minority Enrollment

3.9 percentage point increase in Targeted Minority Enrollment

Access: Enrollment

Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). Minorities include targeted minorities as well as Other Asians and Native Hawaiians. International students are not counted for targeted minority collections.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

UW-Madison Undergraduate Minority Enrollment (%)

RevisedRace/Ethnic Categories

Southeast Asian Collection BeginsRace/Ethnicity Collection Begins

Minority Students, 13.8%

Targeted Minority Students, 9.5%

Race/Ethnic Categories: Students

Continued terminology from Plan 2008

Useful for national comparisons

Excludes all Asians, useful for national peer comparisons.

• Targeted Minorities include:» African American» Native American» Hispanic/Latino/a» Southeast Asian (Cambodians,

Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong)

• Minorities include:» Targeted Minority categories» Other Asians» Native Hawaiians

• Underrepresented Minorities include:» African American» Native American» Hispanic/Latino/a» Native Hawaiian

Students self-identify their race/ethnicity at the time of application.http://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

International students are not counted in any of these collections.

Access: Enrollmenthttp://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

Reporting Methodologies for Race/Ethnicity Information

The relatively new ability to indicate multiple race/ethnic values results in a much richer picture of student diversity but data reporting is more complicated. To deal with these complexities, methodology options for data reporting have emerged . The method that is most appropriate depends on for what purpose the data will be used. The table below describes the features of each method and shows how the methods are similar and different from each other.

Reporting Feature Primary Federal Count All

Results in single count of students P P

Prioritizes Hispanic/Latina(a) over other values P

Creates new categories that are not reported by students themselves P

Displays race/ethnic values only for domestic (non international) students P P P

Displays ALL students who indicate a particularrace/ethnicity P

Prioritizes some race/ethnicities over others P P

Used in external data reporting and rankings P


Fall 2010 UW-Madison Students by Race/Ethnicity and Methodology

“Primary” Federal Count All

Hispanic/Latino(a) 1,584 1,610 1,610

Black or African American 1,233 1,089 1,313

American Indian or Alaska Native 383 179 395

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 80 33 91

Asian 2,438 2,216 2,205

White 31,301 31,301 32,278

Two or more races --- 591 ---

Unknown 1,317 1,317 1,317

International 4,262 4,262 4,262

Total 42,598 42,598 43,771

Subsequent slides use “Primary” race/ethnic methodology

2.1% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 2.8%

0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9%0.5% 0.5%

0.5% 0.5%0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

0.7% 0.7%0.8% 0.9%

2.2% 2.2%2.4% 2.4%

2.6%2.8%

3.1%3.3% 3.6%

3.8% 3.9%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% o

f Tot

al U

nder

grad

uate

s

Undergraduate Fall Semester Enrollment, Targeted Minority Students

Hispanic/ Latino/a

Native American

SE Asian

African American

From 2000 to 2010: Increases in

undergraduate enrollment in all race/ethnic categories

3.9 percentage point increase in undergraduate targeted minority enrollment

Access: Enrollment

Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.


2.2% 2.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.9% 3.3% 3.0% 2.6% 3.0% 2.6%

1.4% 1.2%2.1% 1.5% 1.9% 1.9%

2.0% 2.2%

1.6%

2.2%2.2%0.5% 0.4%

0.5%0.6%

0.8% 0.6%0.6% 0.9%

0.9%

1.2%1.0%2.2% 2.3%

2.8%2.6%

3.3% 3.4%3.7% 3.7%

4.2%

4.7%

3.7%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% o

f Tot

al F

irst

Yea

r U

nder

grad

uate

s

First Year Undergraduate Fall Semester Enrollment, Targeted Minorities

Hispanic/ Latino/a

Native American

SE Asian

AfricanAmerican

From 2000 to 2010: 3.2 percentage

point increase in first-year undergraduate targeted minority enrollment

Access: Enrollment



2.0% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6%

0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5%0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9%0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0%

2.7% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.7%2.8%

2.9% 2.9%3.2% 3.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% o

f Tot

al G

radu

ate

Stud

ent

Enro

llmen

t

Graduate Student Fall Semester Enrollment, Targeted Minority Students

Hispanic/ Latino/a

Native American

SE Asian

AfricanAmerican

Access: Enrollment


From 2000 to 2010: Increases in

graduate student enrollment in all race/ethnic categories

2.4 percentage point increase in graduate targeted minority enrollment


• From 2000 to 2010: Increases in

professional student enrollment in all race/ethnic categories

0.8 percentage point increase in professional targeted minority enrollment

Access: Enrollment



3.5% 2.9% 3.2% 3.6% 3.4%3.9% 4.0% 4.4% 4.5% 4.1% 4.2%

0.5%0.3% 0.4%

0.3% 0.4%

0.7% 0.9%1.3%

1.6%1.6% 1.3%1.4%

1.2% 1.2%1.1% 1.0%

0.9%1.1%

1.2%1.3%

1.2% 1.0%

3.7%

3.5% 3.5%4.0% 4.1%

3.5%3.6%

3.7%3.7%

3.4%3.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% o

f Tot

al p

rofe

ssio

nal

Stud

ent

Enro

llmen

t

Professional Student Fall Semester Enrollment, Targeted Minority Students

Hispanic/ Latino/a

Native American

SE Asian

African American

Professional, 3.4%

Graduate, 24.1%

Undergraduate, 5.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

International Enrollment as a Percent ofFall Semester Enrollment

Access: Enrollment

• International Enrollment: 1,672

Undergraduate Students

2,252 Graduate Students

93 Professional Students

International students make up 10% of all enrollment.


• From 2005 to 2010: ↑ 5.3% increase in Pell Grant Recipients Steady First Generation Enrollment ↑ 1.4% increase in Targeted Minorities


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010New Undergraduates (New Freshmen plus New Transfers)Pell Grant Recipient 10.7 11.4 11.7 11.1 14.1 16.0First Generation 21.9 23.0 23.4 22.9 23.1 21.4Targeted Minority 8.1 8.7 9.3 8.8 10.1 9.5

Percentage of UW-Madison New Students

• In 2010, the College of Letters and Science has the largest number of undergraduate targeted minority students enrolled.

• The School of Human Ecology has the largest percentage of undergraduate targeted minority students enrolled, with 15 percent of SoHE students identifying as targeted minorities.

Access: Enrollment



9%

8%

5%

9%

7%

15%

10% 11%

4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Total CALS Business Education Engineering SoHE L&S Nursing Pharmacy

% o

f Und

ergr

adua

te E

nrol

lmen

t

Undergraduate Targeted Minority Students, by School/College Fall 2010

N=2,732

N=201

N=81

N=135

N=263

N=138

N=1,770 N=84

N=1

From 2000-2010• Increases in targeted

minority enrollment in all schools and

colleges. • The largest

percentage increases in Pharmacy and the School of Human Ecology

Access: Enrollment



3%4%

2%

4%3%

8%

4% 4% 4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%


% o

f Und

ergr

adua

te E

nrol

lmen

t

Percentage Point Change of Undergraduate Targeted Minority Students, by School/College

Fall 2000 to Fall 2010

+ 1,142

+ 108

+ 37

+ 41+ 132

+ 81

+ 686 + 55 + 1

• Fall 2010• Education and Law

have the highest percentages (16% and 15%, respectively) of targeted minority graduate/professional students.

Access: Enrollment



8%

6%

8%

16%

6%

7% 7% 7%

15%

8%

3%

8%

4%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Total CALS Business Educ. Engin. SoHE Nelson L&S Law SMPH Nursing Pharm Vet Med

% o

f Tot

al G

rad/

Prof

Col

lege

Enr

ollm

ent

Targeted Minority Enrollment by School/College,Graduate/Professional Programs, Fall 2010

N=1,018

N=57

N=44

N=187

N=86

N=5 N=12 N=309

N=130

N=119

N=5

N=48

N=16

Access: Enrollment



Total 1590 28476 5.6% 2732 28900 9.5% 1142 424 3.9%CALS 93 2106 4.4% 201 2542 7.9% 108 436 3.5%

Business 44 1614 2.7% 81 1792 4.5% 37 178 1.8%Education 136 2487 5.5% 177 1885 9.4% 41 -602 3.9%

Engineering 131 3544 3.7% 263 3786 6.9% 132 242 3.3%SoHE 57 863 6.6% 138 906 15.2% 81 43 8.6%

L&S 1084 17179 6.3% 1770 17074 10.4% 686 -105 4.1%Nursing 29 440 6.6% 84 788 10.7% 55 348 4.1%

Pharmacy 0 30 0.0% 1 26 3.8% 1 -4 3.8%

% of Total Enrollment

Targeted Minority

EnrollmentTotal

Enrollment% of Total Enrollment

Targeted Minority Undergraduate Enrollment by School/College2000-2010

2000 2010 ChangeTargeted Minority

EnrollmentTotal

Enrollment% of Total

Enrollment

Targeted Minority

EnrollmentTotal

Enrollment

Access: Enrollment


Individuals who indicate more than one race have a primary race selected giving precedence to the least prevalent race/ethnicity within Wisconsin’s population.


CALS 2,542 2,024 62 80 122 39 20 5 141 49

Business 1,792 1,382 24 44 62 6 7 3 213 51Education 1,885 1,622 46 70 39 41 20 4 13 30

Engineering 3,786 2,994 65 113 162 55 30 5 290 72SoHE 906 709 65 39 16 28 6 3 21 19L &S 17,074 13,109 527 745 775 334 164 36 986 398

Nursing 788 661 28 24 20 27 5 3 6 14Pharmacy 26 19 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 0

Total 28,799 22,520 817 1,115 1,200 530 253 59 1,672 633

Primary Race/Ethnic Detail of Enrollment (Undergraduate), by School/College, Fall 2010

Total WhiteAfrican

AmericanHispanic/ Latino/a

South East Asian Other Asian

American Indian

Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander International Unknown

Access: Enrollment



Total 708 10994 6.4% 1018 12033 8.5% 310 1039 2.1%CALS 33 892 3.7% 57 967 5.9% 24 75 2.2%

Business 46 684 6.7% 44 575 7.7% -2 -109 1.0%Education 107 1108 9.7% 187 1139 16.4% 80 31 6.7%

Engineering 43 1204 3.6% 86 1493 5.8% 43 289 2.2%SoHE 7 98 7.1% 5 69 7.2% -2 -29 0.1%

Nelson 11 162 6.8% 12 162 7.4% 1 0 0.6%L&S 204 3818 5.3% 309 4222 7.3% 105 404 2.0%Law 129 917 14.1% 130 867 15% 1 -50 0.9%

SMPH 84 1059 7.9% 119 1404 8.5% 35 345 0.6%Nursing 3 150 2.0% 5 161 3.1% 2 11 1.1%

Pharmacy 22 529 4.2% 48 615 7.8% 26 86 3.6%Vet. Medicine 19 373 5.1% 16 359 4.5% -3 -14 -0.6%

% of Total Enrollment

Targeted Minority

Enrollment% of Total Enrollment

Total Enrollment

Targeted Minority

EnrollmentTotal

Enrollment

Targeted Minority

Enrollment% of Total

EnrollmentTotal

Enrollment

Change2000 2010

Targeted Minority Enrollment in Graduate/Professional Programs by School/College2000-2010

Access: Enrollment


Individuals who indicate more than one race have a primary race selected giving precedence to the least prevalent race/ethnicity within Wisconsin’s population.


CALS 967 602 14 33 27 5 5 5 245 31Business 575 387 21 16 31 3 4 2 77 34

Education 1,139 739 79 69 29 13 26 2 150 32Engineering 1,493 679 21 47 62 10 8 4 619 43

SoHE 69 39 1 4 4 0 0 0 19 2Law 162 115 3 6 8 0 3 2 15 10

L & S 4,222 2,639 89 131 107 49 40 4 975 188Medicine 1,404 977 55 43 137 16 5 0 98 73

Nelson 161 136 2 1 2 1 1 0 13 5Nursing 867 564 58 48 38 5 19 0 78 57

Pharmacy 615 482 14 15 32 16 3 1 41 11Vet Med 359 305 3 8 11 1 4 0 14 13

Total 12,033 7,664 360 421 488 119 118 20 2,344 499

UnknownTotal WhiteAfrican

AmericanHispanic/ Latino/a Other Asian

South East Asian

Primary Race/Ethnic Detail of Enrollment (Grad/Professional), by School/College, Fall 2010

American Indian

Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander International

• Fall 2010 Women make up over

60% of undergraduate enrollment in Education, SoHE, and Nursing

Women make up less than 40% of undergraduate enrollment in Engineering.


52%57%

42%

73%

19%

80%

53%

88%

54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Women as a Percentage of Undergraduate School/College Enrollment in Fall 2010

• Fall 2010 Women make up over

60% of graduate/professional student enrollment in Education, SoHE, Nelson Institute, Nursing, and Veterinary Medicine

Women make up less than 40% of graduate/professional student enrollment in Business and Engineering.


51% 52%

39%

67%

19%

84%

65%

54%47%

54%

93%

56%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total CALS Bus. Educ. Engin. SoHE Nelson L&S Law SMPH Nursing Pharm. Vet Med

Women as a Percentage of Grad/Professional School/College Enrollment in Fall 2010


Student Level 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Undergraduates

Men 13,302 13,454 13,271 13,437 13,229 13,232 13,337 13,621 13,880 13,778 13,969

Women 15,174 15,334 15,406 15,146 14,988 15,226 15,125 15,378 15,273 14,912 14,931

Percent Women 53.3 53.3 53.7 53.0 53.1 53.5 53.1 53.0 52.4 52.0 51.7

Graduate Students

Men 4,650 4,670 4,628 4,647 4,556 4,478 4,465 4,456 4,366 4,576 4,735

Women 3,970 4,074 4,194 4,277 4,387 4,363 4,367 4,404 4,344 4,540 4,624

Percent Women 46.1 46.6 47.5 47.9 49.1 49.3 49.4 49.7 49.9 49.8 49.4

Professional Students

Men 1,027 1,003 999 1,037 1,050 1,064 1,110 1,120 1,123 1,143 1,157

Women 1,347 1,337 1,381 1,393 1,410 1,469 1,469 1,443 1,447 1,497 1,525

Percent Women 56.7 57.1 58.0 57.3 57.3 58.0 57.0 56.3 56.3 56.7 56.9

Special Students

Men 790 768 818 755 703 736 718 745 759 788 821

Women 959 912 810 896 846 912 875 874 838 865 836

Percent Women 54.8 54.3 49.8 54.3 54.6 55.3 54.9 54.0 52.5 52.3 50.5

Total

Men 19,769 19,895 19,716 19,876 19,538 19,510 19,630 19,942 20,128 20,285 20,682

Women 21,450 21,657 21,791 21,712 21,631 21,970 21,836 22,099 21,902 21,814 21,916

Percent Women 52.0 52.1 52.5 52.2 52.5 53.0 52.7 52.6 52.1 51.8 51.4Source : Registrar's Enrollment Report

Fall Semester Enrollment by Gender

Access: EnrollmentHome County of UW-Madison Undergraduate Students (Wisconsin Residents)


Among the 72 Wisconsin counties, each is represented by at least 6 undergraduate students in Fall 2010.

There are 18,181 Wisconsin Resident undergraduates enrolled in Fall 2010.

Black: More than 4% of resident undergraduates from countyDark Gray: Between 2% and 4% of resident undergraduates from countyLight Gray: Less than 2% (but at least one student) of resident undergraduates from county

Access: EnrollmentStudents from Farms: Home County of UW-Madison Undergraduates from Wisconsin Farms* in 2010


*Students from farms are identified by the presence of farm income on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). There may be undergraduates from Wisconsin farms who did not apply for financial aid.

Black: More than 4% of undergraduates from farmsDark Gray: Between 2% and 4% of undergraduates from farms Light Gray: Less than 2% (but at least one undergraduate) from farms White: No undergraduates from farms

Access: EnrollmentHome County of UW-Madison Undergraduate FASTrack Participants in 2010


FASTrack is a financial aid program that assures a student’s financial need will be met each year for four years. Single, financially dependent students are considered for the program based on the family's current and past financial situation and need for assistance. Both work and borrowing are minimized to reduce the student's financial burden. All students who apply for aid are considered for FASTrack, there is no special application. Qualifying students are selected by the Office of Student Financial Aid.

Black: More than 4% of undergraduates in the FASTrack programDark Gray: Between 2% and 4% of undergraduates in the FASTrack programLight Gray: Less than 2% (but at least one student) of undergraduates in the FASTrack program White: No undergraduate participants in the FASTrack program

Access: Diversity Programs

Programs that increase access and success for underrepresented populations on campus• Programs with a Pre-College Component

– PEOPLE– POSSE

• Student Support Programs– CeO (formerly TRIO)– Academic Advancement Program

• Scholarship Programs– Chancellor’s Scholars– Powers/Knapp– First Wave

Academic Excellence Communitieshttp://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

Access: Enrollment

*Targeted Minorities include African American, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Hmong). International students are not counted within the targeted minority categories.

Academic Excellence Community

Total Participants

Targeted Minority* Male First

Generation

Academic Advancement Program (AAP) 431 95% 44% 18%

Center for EducationalOpportunity (CEO) 541 91% 38% 92%

PEOPLE 323 90% 40% 53%

Posse 120 81% 45% 68%

First Wave 43 100% 37% 63%

Chancellor’s Scholar Program 192 100% 38% 40%

Powers/KnappProgram 179 100% 44% 55%

All Undergraduates 28,880 9% 48% 22%

Fall 2010 Undergraduate Participation in Academic Excellence Communitieshttp://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

Access: Pipeline: Minority Students

“Well-prepared” high school graduates are in the top quartile of their graduating classes and score at least 22 (WI Average) on the ACT (or equivalent SAT score).

“Minority” refers to students who identify as African American, Asian, Hispanic/ Latino/a, or Native American.

South East Asians are unable to be separated from all other Asians in the Department of Public Instruction data.


3

4

5

6

46

100

5

7

9

21

65

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Enroll

Are Admitted

Apply For Admission

Are Academically Well-Prepared

Take the ACT

Graduate from High School

For Every 100 Wisconsin Minority High School Graduates ...All Minority

Proxy for potentially admissable high school graduates

At UW Madison ...

Access: PipelineHigh School Graduates 2,819 4,552

…in Top 50% of Class 819 1,309…...…with an ACT Score over 22 136 144………...…in the Top 25% of Class 93 100Percent applying (application rate) 53 83Percent enrolling (access/service rate) 28 50

African American 1999 2007

Average Annual Number of ...

Of "well prepared graduates" ….

High School Graduates 1,620 2,774…in Top 50% of Class 552 785…...…with an ACT Score over 22 175 278………...…in the Top 25% of Class 117 190Percent applying (application rate) 51 64Percent enrolling (access/service rate) 31 37

1999 2007



Hispanic/ Latino/a

High School Graduates 585 833…in Top 50% of Class 192 220…...…with an ACT Score over 22 80 72………...…in the Top 25% of Class 54 51Percent applying (application rate) 37 64Percent enrolling (access/service rate) 24 40


American Indian 1999 2007


High School Graduates 1,582 2,355…in Top 50% of Class 824 1,102…...…with an ACT Score over 22 329 391………...…in the Top 25% of Class 276 290Percent applying (application rate) 66 87Percent enrolling (access/service rate) 38 49

Asian



1999 2007

High School Graduates 57,368 58,632…in Top 50% of Class 33,369 33,870…...…with an ACT Score over 22 18,170 18,513………...…in the Top 25% of Class 13,677 13,901Percent applying (application rate) 37 42Percent enrolling (access/service rate) 22 21



White/Other 1999 2007

UW-Madison’s Wisconsin Resident Recruiting Pool, by Race/Ethnicity


Access: Pipeline

All groups except for Hispanic/Latino/a graduates are projected to see a decline in the number of high school graduates due to the current age structure of the population.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017

Asian American African American Hispanic/Latino/a American Indian

Projections of Minority High School Graduates,2010 and 2017

Well Prepared Total

Source: APL High School Graduate Projections, March 2008


Access: Pipeline: First Generation

*“Potential” First Generation Students does not imply any level of academic achievement, school enrollment, or preparedness. This estimate reflects the population 13-17 with no parent/guardian in the household with a Bachelor’s Degree. Sources: Overall WI Population (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005-2007 Estimates), Potential First Generation Students (“Parental Education and College Participation Rates in Wisconsin”, Sara Lazenby, August 2009), Applicants, Admits, and Enrolls for 2009-10 School Year

An estimated 75% of 13-17 year old Wisconsin residents live in households where no parent/guardian holds a bachelor’s degree.

Approximately 26% of UW-Madison Resident New Freshman are first-generation students.

We do not have a reliable data source on high school graduation or college preparedness by parental education levels for Wisconsin residents.

UW-Madison Enrolled

UW-Madison Admits

UW-Madison Applicants

Population 13-17"Potential"* First

Generation Students

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent of Group Total

Wisconsin's First-Generation College-Going Recruiting Pool

(290,550 of 385,907)

(2,323 of 8,140)

(1,409 of 5,637)

(908 of 3,452)

No data available on graduation rates or academic achievement by parental education levels within Wisconsin


Access: Pipeline: Low Income

“Economically Disadvantaged” represents those students who are eligible for free/reduced lunch.Sources: Wisconsin DPI WINSS, 2008-09 Enrollment by Student Group, Completions by Student GroupUW-Madison Data based on Fall 2009-10

• 34% of Public K-12 students in Wisconsin are Economically Disadvantaged (2008-09)

• 23% of Public High School Graduates are Economically Disadvantaged (2008-09)

• We have no reliable information on income of applicant students, all data based on financial aid applications

• 16% of Resident New Freshmen are Pell Grant Recipients0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%


Wisconsin's Low-Income Recruiting Pool

(88,196 of 279,103)

(13,042 of 66,266)

No Data Available on Low-Income Status of UW-Madison Applicants or Admits

(561 of 3,437)

Economically Disadvantaged High School Public School Students

Economically Disadvantaged Public High School Graduates

UW-Madison Enrolled


Access: Pipeline: Minority

• 21% of Public High School students in Wisconsin are minority students(2008-09)

• 18% of Public High School Graduates are minority students (2008-09)

• 15% of Resident New Freshmen are minority students


“Well-prepared” high school graduates are in the top quartile of their graduating classes and score at least 22 (WI Average) on the ACT (or equivalent SAT score). This does not reflect any policies by UW-Madison admissions with regards to academic preparation requirements.

UW-Madison Enrolled

UW-Madison Admits

UW-Madison Applicants

"Well-Prepared" Minority Public High

School Graduates

Minority Public High School Graduates

Minority Public High School Students

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%


Wisconsin's Minority Recruiting Pool

(290,550 of 385,907)

(1,114 of 8164)

(733 of 5,651)

(517 of 3,457)

(697 of 11,623)

(11,623 of 66,266)

(57,495 of 279,103)

Access: Pipeline

• Rural high school students apply at lower rates than other students

• Once they apply, they admit and enroll at rates proportional to their application rate.

Rural 51% 25% 17% 17% 17%(rural communities)Not Rural 49% 75% 83% 83% 83%(cities, suburbs, and towns)Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

by Rural Status of Sending High School

Enrolled 12th Graders and UW-Madison Applicants, Admits and Enrolled New Freshmen

Freshman Applicants

12th Graders

High Schools

Freshman Admits

Enrolled Freshmen

Source: High School Characteristics and Early Academic Performance at UW-Madison, Clare Huhn, APA, 2005


Access: Pipeline

Targeted Minority New Freshmen Fall 2009 / Fall 20012009 New Freshmen (630) 2001 New Freshmen (389)

Non-Residents(250)

WI Residents(380)

Non-Residents (143)

WI Residents(246)

Illinois(80)

POSSE (8) Milwaukee(97)

PEOPLE (27) Illinois(42)

Milwaukee(76)Other (72) Other (70)

Minnesota(57)

Dane(89)

PEOPLE (31) Minnesota(36)

Dane(54)Other (58)

California(18)

POSSE (9) Waukesha(25)

California(9)

Waukesha(16)Other (9)

DC/Maryland(12)

POSSE (7) Racine(14)

PEOPLE (2)New York (7) Brown

(12)Other (5) Other (12)

Other States(83)

Marathon(14)

Other States(49)

Outagamie(10)

Kenosha(10)

Kenosha (7)

Other Counties(131)

PEOPLE (6) Other Counties(71)Other (125)


• The first PEOPLE/POSSE students entered college in 2002

Access: Pipeline

Targeted Minority New Transfers in Fall 2009 / Fall 20012009 New Transfers(71) 2001 New Transfers (68)

Non-Residents(18)

WI Residents(53)

Non-Residents

(21)WI Residents

(47)

Dane(26)

Dane(22)

Milwaukee(6)

Milwaukee(6)

Other Counties(21)

Other Counties(19)

Note: The PEOPLE program existed in 2001 but its students were still in high school.


Access: Pipeline

New Targeted Minority Undergraduates in Fall 2001 and Fall 2009

• Large increases (389 to 630 students) in new freshmen targeted minority enrollments

• Stable population of new transfer targeted minority enrollments

• Increases in new freshman from several Wisconsin counties.

• Increases in both in-state and out-of-state new targeted minority students

• More out-of-state students from DC/Maryland


Access: Applicants, Admits, and Enrolls

• Targeted minority and first-generation admitted applicants are more likely to enroll than the overall population of admits.

• Domestic non-residents are the least likely to enroll after being admitted.


Overall 25,522 56.5 41.1

Male 12,542 53.4 42Female 12,980 59.5 40.3

Targeted Minorties 2,662 44.8 47.3Total Minority 4,463 51.2 37.7

First Generation 4,327 49.7 53.1

Resident 8,253 66.7 63.3

Domestic Non-Res. 10,633 56.3 22.7

International 3,461 33.4 32.2

New Freshmen Applicants, Admits, and Enrolled Students (Fall 2010)

Total Applicants

% Admitted

% Enrolled

Access: Applicants, Admits, and Enrolls

• Transfer students are more likely to apply without meeting the minimum requirements for admission

• Admit rates for transfer applicants are slightly lower than that for freshmen applicants for most groups.

• Transfer students are more likely to enroll at UW-Madison than their new freshmen counterparts. This is especially true of resident transfers.


Overall 4,753 44.6 61.3

Male 2,382 42 64.5Female 2,371 47.6 58.4

Targeted Minorties 430 36.7 58.9Total Minority 631 40.4 58.8

First Generation 1,500 40.9 65.8

Resident 2,445 53.1 71.3Domestic Non-Res. 1,152 38.7 37.9

International 813 26.4 52.6

New Transfer Applicants, Admits, and Enrolled Students (Fall 2010)

Total Applicants

% Admitted

% Enrolled

Percent of Undergraduates who are Underrepresented Minorities at AAU Public Institutions, Fall 2008Average Percent Underrepresented Minority for AAU Public Institutions: 13%

6 AAU Public Institutions have a lower percent of underrepresented minorities than UW-Madison.

9 AAU Public Institutions have a smaller number of underrepresented minorities than UW-Madison.

Access: Peers


N= 1,142N= 1,264N= 1,218N= 1,180N= 2,274N= 2,285N= 2,217N= 2,944N= 2,555N= 1,834N= 2,356N= 2,040N= 3,940N= 1,718N= 3,037N= 2,088N= 3,000N= 4,211N= 1,944N= 4,326N= 3,172

N= 3,448N= 3,936N= 2,496N= 3,936N= 2,954N= 6,625N= 5,078N= 4,987N= 5,110

N= 8,741N= 7,246N= 4,623N= 8,678

0 10 20 30 40 50

IowaIowa State

NebraskaOregonPurdueIndiana

WisconsinPenn StateMinnesota

KansasColoradoMissouri

Ohio StatePittsburgh

WashingtonSUNY - Buffalo

MichiganMichigan State

VirginiaIllinois

UC - San DiegoUC - Irvine

UC - BerkeleySUNY - Stony Brook

UC - DavisNorth Carolina

Texas A & MRutgers

UCLAMaryland

TexasArizona

UC - Santa BarbaraFlorida

Percent of Undergraduates

Source: IPEDS Fall Enrollment, Fall 2008Note: Underrepresented Minority does NOT include South East Asians when looking at peer data.

50%

Access: Comparisonshttp://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

• UW-Madison had 2,750 targeted minority undergraduates (Fall 2009)

• There are 2,528 institutions in the United States that grant bachelor’s degrees. Of these, only 816 (32.3%) have more total undergraduates enrolled than UW-Madison has targeted minority undergraduates enrolled

• There are 48 institutions in Wisconsin that grant bachelor’s degrees. Of these, only 18 (38%) have more total undergraduates enrolled than UW-Madison has targeted minority students enrolled

UW-Madison educates relatively large numbers of minority students

Percent of Undergraduates who Pell Recipients at AAU Public Institutions, Fall 2008

Average Percent Pell Recipients for AAU Public Institutions: 20%

1 AAU Public Institution has a lower percent of Pell recipients than UW-Madison.

9 AAU Public Institutions have a lower number of Pell recipients than UW-Madison.

Access: Peers

Source: IPEDS Fall Enrollment, Fall 2008http://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

N = 1,244N = 3,644N = 3,302N = 3,365N = 4,091N = 2,526N = 3,756N = 3,237N = 5,791N = 4,885N = 6,093N = 5,371N = 3,468N = 2,874N = 3,654N = 5,625

N = 6,793N = 5,411N = 3,438N = 6,704N = 7,500N = 3,309

N = 7,956N = 6,203N = 4,568

N = 4,489N = 6,757N = 5,543N = 4,974

N = 7,353N = 4,915N =7,461N = 8,354N = 7,148

0 10 20 30 40 50

VirginiaWisconsinMichiganColorado

IndianaNorth Carolina

MarylandKansas

Penn StateIllinois

Texas A & MPurdue

IowaPittsburgh

MissouriMinnesota

Michigan StateWashington

NebraskaFlorida

Ohio StateOregon

TexasArizona

Iowa StateUC - Santa Barbara

RutgersUC - Irvine

SUNY - BuffaloUC - Berkeley

SUNY- Stony BrookUC - Davis

UC - Los AngelesUC - San Diego

Percent of Undergraduates

50%

Pell Grants are federally funded grants for students with high financial need. This indicator is a proxy for low income student enrollments.

Components :• Retention• Course-taking• Success• Degree Completion

Access

Excellence

Institutional

Receptivity

Retention

Retention


Retention: All Studentshttp://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

Retention and Graduation Rates of New Freshmenby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort

Fall Cohort Cumulative Graduation / Retention Rates

Semester Head Retention Rate After— After 4 Years After 5 Years After 6 Years

of Entrance Count 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Graduated Retained Graduated Retained Graduated Retained1999 5,671 91.6 84.6 81.4 42.4 38.3 73.8 6.5 78.3 2.22000 5,717 91.8 85.6 82.0 45.7 35.5 75.3 5.6 79.3 2.22001 6,095 92.4 86.2 82.6 47.0 35.1 76.7 5.5 80.4 2.02002 5,514 92.8 87.0 83.6 50.7 33.3 79.4 4.3 82.4 1.72003 5,578 92.9 87.2 83.5 50.2 33.7 78.7 5.1 82.1 2.12004 5,642 94.0 89.3 85.5 50.9 34.9 80.0 5.02005 6,141 92.9 87.9 84.6 52.4 31.92006 5,643 93.2 88.1 84.62007 5,996 93.6 88.22008 5,774 93.8

Notes: Fall Semester entrance cohorts include undergraduates enrolled in the fall who were new freshmen in the immediately previous summer term. Studentswho enter Pharmacy, Vet Med or Med careers without a Bachelor's degree are counted as "graduated" in this tabulation when they complete 120 credits.

Retention: Targeted Minorities

Retention and Graduation Rates of New Freshmen Targeted Minoritiesby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort



of Entrance Count 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Graduated Retained Graduated Retained Graduated Retained1999 363 83.2 68.3 65.8 21.2 41.3 48.2 11.6 54.8 5.52000 362 82.9 74.3 68.2 20.7 44.8 51.1 9.9 58.0 5.02001 388 84.0 74.5 70.6 25.0 41.2 54.6 9.5 59.8 4.12002 437 88.6 81.5 77.3 32.3 41.2 62.2 10.1 67.5 3.42003 419 89.7 80.9 76.4 32.7 41.5 58.9 11.0 66.1 4.82004 494 88.3 81.8 76.7 26.9 47.2 58.1 11.52005 535 89.2 80.9 76.8 29.2 46.22006 541 89.5 81.0 76.72007 590 93.1 83.72008 541 90.8

Notes: Fall Semester entrance cohorts include undergraduates enrolled in the fall who were new freshmen in the immediately previous summer term.Students who enter Pharmacy, Vet Med or Med careers without a bachelor's degree are counted as "graduated" in this tabulation when they complete 120credits. Targeted minorities include African-American, Native American, Hispanic, and Southeast Asian (Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese and Hmong).


Retention: Targeted Minorities

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Fall Semester of Entrance

Percent of First Year Undergraduates Retained after One Year

All Students Targeted Minorities

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent G

radu

ated


Percent of First-Year Undergraduates Graduated After 6 Years

All Students Targeted Minorities


• The gap in 6-Year graduation rates for targeted minority students has narrowed in the past five years.

• For the 2003 cohort, the gap in the 6-year graduation rate was 16 percentage points

• Gap in one-year retention rates between Federal Pell Grant recipients and all students has narrowed since 1999.

• For the 2008 entrance cohort, the gap between one-year retention rates is 2.3 percentage points

Retention: Pell Recipients

Retention and Graduation Rates of New Freshmen Pell Grant Recipientsby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort




Notes: Includes only undergraduates who entered as new freshmen (first year) students. Fall Semester entrance cohorts include undergraduates enrolled in thefall who were new freshmen in the immediately previous summer term. Students who enter Pharmacy, Vet Med or Med careers without a Bachelor's degree arecounted as "graduated" in this tabulation when they complete 120 credits. Pell grants were received during student's first fall term at UW-Madison.



• Gap in one-year retention rates between targeted minority students and all students has narrowed since 1999.

• For the 2008 entrance cohort, the gap in one-year retention rates was 3 percentage points.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent G

radu

ated



All Students Pell Recipients

Retention: Pell Recipients

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent R

etai

ned



All Students Pell Recipients

• Gap in six-year graduation rates between Federal Pell Grant recipients and all students has narrowed in the past five years.

• For the 2003 entrance cohort the gap between the 6-year graduation rate was 8.4 percentage points.

Retention: First Generation

Retention and Graduation Rates of New Freshmen First Generation College Students

by Fall Semester Entrance CohortFall Cohort Cumulative Graduation / Retention Rates


of Entrance Count 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Graduated Retained Graduated Retained Graduated Retained1999200020012002200320042005 1,195 90.3 82.7 79.1 41.7 36.42006 1,182 91.4 85.6 80.52007 1,230 91.9 85.02008 1,170 91.4


• Information for First-Generation students available starting with 2005 Cohort

• Information on graduation rates for first-generation students will be available by the end of 2011.

• The current gap in one-year retention for the 2008 entrance cohort is 2.4 percentage points

Retention: First Generation

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent R

etai

ned



All Students First Generation StudentsUW-Madison begins asking about first-generation status on admissions application.


Retention: PEOPLE Program

Retention and Graduation Rates of PEOPLE Program Participantsby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort



of Entrance Count 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Graduated Retained Graduated Retained Graduated Retained1999200020012002 24 87.5 87.5 95.8 16.7 66.7 54.2 20.8 66.7 4.22003 20 100.0 90.0 85.0 15.0 55.0 60.0 10.0 70.02004 37 94.6 91.9 86.5 18.9 67.6 54.1 21.62005 41 95.1 95.1 87.8 9.8 82.92006 72 90.3 81.9 83.32007 78 94.9 80.82008 81 90.1

Notes: Includes only undergraduates who entered as new freshmen (first year) students. Fall Semester entrance cohorts include undergraduates enrolled in thefall who were new freshmen in the immediately previous summer term. Students who enter Pharmacy, Vet Med or Med careers without a Bachelor's degree arecounted as "graduated" in this tabulation when they complete 120 credits.



Retention: PEOPLE Program

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent G

radu

ated



All Students PEOPLE Program Participants

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent R

etai

ned



All Students PEOPLE Program Participants

• Smaller Cohort sizes lead to more variation in retention rates for PEOPLE participants.

• In four of the last seven years PEOPLE participants had higher retention rates than the overall cohort

• For the 2008 entrance cohort there was a 3.7 percentage point gap in one-year retention rates

• Despite similar retention rates, gaps in graduation rates for PEOPLE program students still exist.

• For the 2003 entrance cohort, the gap in 6-year graduation rate was 12.1 percentage points.

Retention: Chancellor’s Scholars

Retention and Graduation Rates of Chancellor's Scholarsby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort







Retention: Chancellor’s

Scholars

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent R

etai

ned



All Students Chancellor's Scholars

• Higher retention rates than the overall student body every year since 1999.

• For the 2008 entrance cohort, the retention rate for Chancellor’s Scholars was 4.1 percentage points higher than the overall student retention rate.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent G

radu

ated



All Students Chancellor's Scholars

• Chancellor’s Scholars have higher 6-year graduation rates than the overall student body.

• The 6-year graduation rate for the 2003 entrance cohort of Chancellor’s Scholars was 10.6 percentage points higher than the rate of the overall cohort.

Retention: AAP Participants

Retention and Graduation Rates of Academic Advancement Program Participantsby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort






40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent G

radu

ated



All Students AAP Participants

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent R

etai

ned



All Students AAP Participants


Retention: AAP

Participants

• Participants in FIGs have similar retention rates to their overall cohorts.

• In 2008, the one-year retention rate for FIGs participants was .7 percentage points lower than the retention rate of the overall student body.

• FIGS Participants have higher graduation rates than the overall cohorts

• The number of FIGS participants has increased over time from 106 in 2001 to 537 in 2008

• For the 2003 entrance cohort the 6-year graduation rate of FIGs participants was 1.6 percentage points higher than that of the overall cohort.

Retention: First Year Interest Groups (FIGs)

Retention and Graduation Rates of First Year Interest Group (FIG) Participantsby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort



of Entrance Count 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Graduated Retained Graduated Retained Graduated Retained199920002001 106 92.5 87.7 87.7 54.7 34.0 84.9 3.8 87.7 1.92002 228 98.7 93.0 89.5 57.9 32.5 87.3 3.9 89.5 2.22003 473 92.2 87.7 84.1 54.5 31.3 80.3 4.7 83.7 1.32004 468 94.0 89.3 86.5 52.4 32.3 77.8 5.62005 416 90.4 84.1 81.3 56.5 26.42006 496 94.2 89.3 86.12007 513 95.7 89.92008 537 93.1




Retention: FIG

Participants

• Participants in FIGs have similar retention rates to their overall cohorts.

• In 2008, the one-year retention rate for FIGs participants was .7 percentage points lower than the retention rate of the overall student body.

• FIGS Participants have higher graduation rates than the overall cohorts

• The number of FIGS participants has increased over time from 106 in 2001 to 537 in 2008

• For the 2003 entrance cohort the 6-year graduation rate of FIGs participants was 1.6 percentage points higher than that of the overall cohort.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent G

radu

ated



All Students FIG Participants

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent R

etai

ned



All Students FIG Participants

Retention: POSSE

Retention and Graduation Rates of POSSE Program Participantsby Fall Semester Entrance Cohort

Fall Cohort Cumulative Graduation / Retention RatesSemester Head Retention Rate After— After 4 Years After 5 Years After 6 Years

of Entrance Count 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Graduated Retained Graduated Retained Graduated Retained1999200020012002 18 83.3 83.3 77.8 22.2 55.6 61.1 5.6 66.72003 22 95.5 95.5 95.5 13.6 81.8 63.6 13.6 77.3 13.62004 23 95.7 91.3 91.3 43.5 47.8 82.6 8.72005 22 95.5 86.4 95.5 4.5 72.72006 20 95.0 95.0 100.02007 22 100.0 95.52008 21 100.0



Retention: Progression

Successive Retention and Graduation Rates for 2003 Freshman Entrance Cohort

Of Entrance Cohort, % Retained to 2nd Year

Of 2nd year cohort, % retained to 3rd Year

Of 3rd year cohort, % retained to 4th Year

Of 4th year cohort, % graduated after 4 years

Of 4th year cohort, % retained to 5th year

Of 5th year cohort, % graduated after 5 years

Of 5th year cohort, % retained to 6th year

Of those in the 6th year cohort, % graduated after 6 years

Of those in the 6th year cohort, % enrolled after 6 years

92.9

93.8

95.8

60.1

40.3

84.7

15.3

67.2

40.4

89.7

90.2

94.4

42.8

54.4

63.2

26.4

65.2

43.5

Targeted Minority Students

All Students

Closing the graduation rate gap will require working on retention in the first three years and helping more targeted minority students graduate by the 4 and 5 year milestones.


Retention: Student Subgroups


All New Freshmen 93.8 - 82.1 -Women 93.6 -0.2 83.4 1.3Men 94 0.2 80.7 -1.4Targeted Minority 90.8 -3 66.1 -16Non-Targeted 94.1 0.3 83.4 1.3African American 90.1 -3.7 58 -24.1Native American 83 -10.8 58.3 -23.8Hispanic/ Latino/a 91.4 -2.4 73 -9.1South East Asian 94.6 0.8 71.8 -10.3Non-Targeted Asian 89.5 -4.3 81 -1.1International 92.6 -1.2 73.6 -8.5PEOPLE 90.1 -3.7 70 -12.1POSSE 100 6.2 77.3 -4.8Chancellor's Scholars 97.9 4.1 92.7 10.6Powers/Knapp Scholars 92.6 -1.2 71.4 -10.7AAP Participants 92.5 -1.3 63.4 -18.7FIGs 93.1 -0.7 83.7 1.6Targeted Minorities in FIGs 90.2 -3.6 69.4 -12.7Wisconsin Residents 94.9 1.1 83.2 1.1Non-Residents 91.4 -2.4 78.8 -3.3First Generation College Students* 91.4 -2.4Freshmen Who Received Need-Based Aid 92.2 -1.6 76.8 -5.3Freshmen Recipients of Pell Grants 91.5 -2.3 73.7 -8.4

Note: 1-Year Retention Rate for 2008 Cohort, 6-Year Graduation Rate for 2003 Cohort* Graduation Rates not yet available for first-generation college students.

% Difference

Summary of Retention and Graduation Rates by Student Group

1-Year Retention Rate

6-Year Graduation

Rate% Difference


Retention: GraduationGraduation Rate Gap Among Major Research Universities

• UW-Madison’s graduation rate gap stands at about 17.7 percentage points.

• 4 AAU institutions had a wider gap for the 2001,2002, and 2003 combined entrance cohorts.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ari

zona

Kans

asSU

NY-

Buff

alo

SUN

Y-St

ony

Broo

kN

ebra

ska

Min

neso

taIo

wa

Colo

rado

Iow

a St

ate

Ore

gon

Mis

sour

iPu

rdue

Indi

ana

Ohi

o St

ate

Rutg

ers

Wei

ghte

d A

vera

gePi

ttsb

urgh

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Texa

s A&

MTe

xas

UC

Sant

a Ba

rbar

aU

C D

avis

UC

Irvi

neSy

racu

seFl

orid

aW

isco

nsin

Mar

ylan

dIll

inoi

sN

orth

Car

olin

aPe

nn S

tate

Mic

higa

nVa

nder

bilt

Brow

nCa

ltec

hU

CLA

Corn

ell

Colu

mbi

aV

irgi

nia

Nor

thw

este

rnM

ITH

arva

rd

Perc

ent

6-Year Graduation Rates of Fall 2001, 2002 and 2003 UndergraduateEntrance Cohorts Combined, AAU Universities

Underrepresented Minority Students Other Students


Retention: GraduationPercentage Point Graduation Gap of Fall 2001-2003 Entrance Cohorts AAU Universities

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Ari

zona

Kans

asSU

NY-

Buff

alo

SUN

Y-St

ony

Broo

kN

ebra

ska

Min

neso

taIo

wa

Colo

rado

Iow

a St

ate

Ore

gon

Mis

sour

iPu

rdue

Indi

ana

Ohi

o St

ate

Rutg

ers

Wei

ghte

d A

vera

gePi

ttsb

urgh

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Texa

s A&

MTe

xas

UC

Sant

a Ba

rbar

aU

C D

avis

UC

Irvi

neSy

racu

seFl

orid

aW

isco

nsin

Mar

ylan

dIll

inoi

sN

orth

Car

olin

aPe

nn S

tate

Mic

higa

nVa

nder

bilt

Brow

nCa

ltec

hU

CLA

Corn

ell

Colu

mbi

aVi

rgin

iaN

orth

wes

tern

MIT

Har

vard

Perc

enta

ge P

oint

Gap

• Average graduation gap among AAU institutions is 9.6%



• Among new freshmen students who have at least 54 cumulative credits by the end of the 2nd Spring Term, the gap in graduation rates between non-targeted and targeted students narrows from a 17.3 percentage point difference to 3.6 percentage point difference.

• 85% of Non-Targeted students meet the 54 credit threshold after the 2nd spring term, while only 61% of Targeted students meet this threshold.


Six-Year Graduation Rates of Fall 2003 FreshmenBy Targeted vs. Non-Targeted Status

Targeted Non-Targeted

Cumulative Percent Graduated Within Six Years:All Fall 2003 New Freshmen 66.1% 83.4%

By Cumulative Credits By the End of the 2nd Spring Term:54+ Credits 88.6 92.2 Fewer Than 54 Credits 31.5 32.5

Headcount:All Fall 2003 New Freshmen 419 5,159

By Cumulative Credits By the End of the 2nd Spring Term:54+ Credits 254 4,404 Fewer Than 54 Credits 165 755

The graduation rate gap narrows among students who complete 54 credits by the end of their 2nd Spring term.


• Targeted minority students are less likely to meet the 54 credit threshold by the end of their second spring term (among new freshmen).


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 104

109

114

119

124

129

134

139

144

149

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s in

Targ

eted

Sta

tus G

roup

Cumulative Credits at the End of the 2nd Spring Term

Fall Freshmen Cohorts of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 Combined Percentage Distribution by Cumulative Credits at the End of

the 2nd Spring TermByTargeted Student Status Group (Targeted, Non-Targeted)

Non-Targeted Targeted

• Grades• GPA• Honors and Awards• Participation in High

Demand Programs

Access

Excellence


Retention

Excellence



• “Wisconsin Experience” captures four inquiry-based high-impact practices and includes:– Substantial research experiences that

generate knowledge and analytical skills

– Global and cultural competencies and engagement

– Leadership and activism opportunities– Application of knowledge in the “real

world”

• In 2008-09, 89% of bachelor’s degree recipients participated in at least one Wisconsin Experience Program

• Participation rates were the same for targeted minorities and all students

Excellence: Wisconsin Experience


89% 89%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of Graduates with at Least One Wisconsin Experience Activity

All Graduates Targeted Minority Graduates




• Overall participation in at least one Wisconsin Experience activity did not differ by Targeted Minority Status

Non-Targeted Targeted* Non-Targeted Targeted*ALS 538 30 100 100BUS 596 26 74 65EDU 408 31 92 90EGR 550 34 90 94HEC 333 24 97 100L&S 3,494 267 89 88MPH 58 6 100 100NUR 152 14 100 100PHM 4 1 100 100Total 6,132 433 89 89

Number of GraduatesPercent of Graduates with at Least One

Wisconsin Experience Activity

Bachelor's Degree Recipients in 2008-09 by Targeted Minority Status




• Transfer-start graduates participated in Wisconsin Experience activities at lower rates (82%) than freshman-start graduates (90%).

ALS 452 116 100 100BUS 397 34 78 57EDU 230 85 94 88EGR 442 87 91 89HEC 274 74 97 99L&S 2,676 594 89 77MPH 33 31 100 100NUR 98 68 100 100PHM 3 2 100 100Total 4,686 1,121 90 82

Bachelor's Degree Recipients in 2008-09 by Type of Entrance to UW-Madison (Freshman or Transfer)

Number of GraduatesPercent of Graduates with at Least One

Wisconsin Experience Activity

Freshman-StartTransfer-

StartFreshman-Start

Transfer- Start


Excellence: Madison Initiative

Madison Initiative for Undergraduatessee http://madisoninitiative.wisc.edu/

Goals of MIU are to designed to advance the principles of Inclusive Excellence:

1. Preserve affordability of a UW-Madison education, primarily through expansion of need-based financial aid;

2. Increase the number of faculty and add instructional support to offer the courses, majors, and experiences that students need;

3. Expand best practices and innovation in teaching and learning, curricular design, and student services, in order to enhance student outcomes.

Assures that students of all income levels have access to a UW-Madison education.

Opportunity to hire approx. 75 faculty and 30 staff; attention to hiring for diversity in these searches, and all searches.

High-impact learning practices benefit all students and are tied to higher retention and graduation rates.



MIU Projects Especially Focused on Advancing Diversity Goals

• Expansion of Chemistry Learning Center• Expansion of Physics Learning Center • Development of e-Learning spaces (includes curricular reform

in pre-calculus Math courses)• Expanded First Year Interest Groups to serve up to 1200 first-

year students • e-tutorial for international students about life in Madison and

compliance with federal rules that govern immigration

EXAMPLES



MIU Projects Especially Focused on Advancing Diversity Goals

• Common Scholarship Application, to help all students find the scholarships they are eligible for

• Center for the First Year Experience Transfer Student Program, to assist transfer students in the transition

• McBurney Center On-line Scheduling System, for captioning and interpreting services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students

A FEW MORE EXAMPLES



MIU Need-based Financial Aid

• Funds from MIU added $5.1 million to institutional need-based grants in 2009-10

• 6,057 students received a total of $1.7M in “Hold Harmless Grants” for students with an adjusted family income of less than $80,000 annually (based on their FAFSA)

• A total of 1,260 students who had financial need received a UW-Madison Grant; $3.4M total, average award of $2,600

In the first year of MIU:

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

$6.2M$6.9M

$12.9MInstitutional Need-based

Grants


Excellence: Grades

Achievement Gap Evident in Course Grades

76

Targeted minority undergraduates have higher rates of adverse outcomes in course grades than other undergraduates.

Fall 2007 Targeted Minority

Non-Targeted

Drop 8.9% 4.8%

D/F/W/ NW/U/W

9.4% 3.0%

Adverse Outcome

Rate

18.3% 7.8%

% Undergraduate Course Enrollments Yielding Adverse Outcomes

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fall Term

Per

cen

t w

ith

Ad

vers

e O

utc

om

es

Non-Targeted Targeted Minority


Excellence: GradesCourses Enrolling At Least 100 Targeted Minority Undergraduates

in Fall 2005, 2006 and 2007 Combined (N=43 courses)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Targeted Minority, Adverse Outcome Rate

No

n-T

arg

eted

, Ad

vers

e O

utc

om

e R

ate

Average for these courses

Equality of Targeted and Non-Targeted Rates

• Specific courses with high adverse outcome rates for targeted students compared with other students have been identified.

• They are the focus of curricular reform projects.

Achievement Gap in Course Grades


Excellence: Grades

Achievement Gap: Curricular Reform Initiatives to Improve Student Learning

- Wide attention to data since 2008; several curriculum reform projects initiated in response to findings

Examples:- Intro Chemistry (Chem 103), a UW System funded project- Intro Psychology (Psych 202)- Introductory/Pre-calculus Math courses

Findings? Too soon to report impacts of curricular reform efforts.


• Diversity of:– Faculty– Staff– Administrators

• Climate

Access

Excellence


Retention




Institutional Receptivity: Employees

Employees self-identify their race/ethnicity at the time of hire.

Employees may choose any of the following designations, and may select more than one designation as of 2009:

• White• Black• Asian• American Indian• Hispanic/ Latino/a• Hawaiian

• A Campus survey was completed in 2009 to allow individuals to update their race/ethnic designation based on new reporting rules and the addition of Hawaiian/Pacific Islander to the race/ethnic categories.



2010 data available in December 2010

Employees by Category

Executive/ Instructional Other

Director/ Academic Academic Classified Employes- Graduate

Faculty Administrator Staff Staff Staff in-Training Assistants Total

Women

Black 21 11 13 44 68 11 86 254

Asian 64 4 77 193 128 105 540 1,111

Native American 6 0 6 15 10 0 19 56

Hispanic 32 8 21 53 131 20 132 397

White/other 540 169 856 2,446 2,567 288 1,550 8,416

Total 663 192 973 2,751 2,904 424 2,327 10,234

Men

Black 24 10 22 45 65 9 59 234

Asian 167 1 81 192 111 230 718 1,500

Native American 6 2 4 10 8 0 14 44

Hispanic 44 8 32 42 155 28 122 431

White/other 1,271 186 1,071 1,898 2,123 304 1,866 8,719

Total 1,512 207 1,210 2,187 2,462 571 2,779 10,928

Total 2,175 399 2,183 4,938 5,366 995 5,106 21,162

2009 Headcount of Faculty and Staff by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Source: October IADS data. Notes: Non-duplicating headcount reported- see Technical Note # 7. LTEs, Student and Unclassified hourly workers excluded. "White/other" includes people who chose not to report their race/ethnicity.




2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Faculty Women 519 546 563 586 603 617 638 643 648 663

Men 1,655 1,667 1,662 1,650 1,635 1,603 1,572 1,555 1,530 1,512Total 2,174 2,213 2,225 2,236 2,238 2,220 2,210 2,198 2,178 2,175

Executive/Director/ Women 172 171 183 187 187 188 179 182 186 192Administrator Men 200 205 198 202 201 200 197 201 201 207

Total 372 376 381 389 388 388 376 383 387 399Instructional Women 776 763 793 795 836 876 871 901 942 973Academic Staff Men 1,113 1,099 1,123 1,088 1,113 1,162 1,152 1,147 1,197 1,210

Total 1,889 1,862 1,916 1,883 1,949 2,038 2,023 2,048 2,139 2,183Other Women 2,219 2,373 2,475 2,482 2,522 2,494 2,530 2,597 2,667 2,751Academic Staff Men 1,824 1,902 2,004 2,091 2,150 2,158 2,133 2,181 2,179 2,187

Total 4,043 4,275 4,479 4,573 4,672 4,652 4,663 4,778 4,846 4,938Classified Staff Women 2,833 2,876 2,902 2,887 2,872 2,852 2,829 2,843 2,866 2,904

Men 2,178 2,236 2,252 2,287 2,365 2,333 2,353 2,385 2,399 2,462Total 5,011 5,112 5,154 5,174 5,237 5,185 5,182 5,228 5,265 5,366

Employes-in-Training Women 261 275 281 282 314 324 324 325 361 424Men 466 437 459 460 485 489 503 482 507 571Total 727 712 740 742 799 813 827 807 868 995

Graduate Assistants Women 1,907 2,001 2,128 2,243 2,341 2,398 2,310 2,261 2,279 2,327Men 2,728 2,794 2,788 2,876 2,881 2,888 2,828 2,822 2,728 2,779Total 4,635 4,795 4,916 5,119 5,222 5,286 5,138 5,083 5,007 5,106

Total Women 8,687 9,005 9,325 9,462 9,675 9,749 9,681 9,752 9,949 10,234Men 10,164 10,340 10,486 10,654 10,830 10,833 10,738 10,773 10,741 10,928

Grand Total 18,851 19,345 19,811 20,116 20,505 20,582 20,419 20,525 20,690 21,162

Source: October EEO and IADS data. Notes: Non-duplicating headcount reported- see Technical Note #7. LTEs, Student and Unclassified hourly workers excluded.

Headcount of Faculty and Staff by Gender


Institutional Receptivity: Faculty


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Professor Women 233 262 269 275 283 291 298 303 307 312

Men 1,127 1,103 1,098 1,084 1,060 1,044 1,019 1,012 987 969% Women 17.1 19.2 19.7 20.2 21.1 21.8 22.6 23.0 23.7 24.4

Associate Professor Women 125 107 101 106 110 113 135 137 151 153Men 266 267 250 257 253 244 259 264 278 281% Women 32.0 28.6 28.8 29.2 30.3 31.7 34.3 34.2 35.2 35.3

Assistant Professor Women 161 177 193 204 210 213 202 202 190 198Men 262 296 314 309 319 315 294 279 265 262% Women 38.1 37.4 38.1 39.8 39.7 40.3 40.7 42.0 41.8 43.0

Instructor Women 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0Men 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

Total Faculty Women 519 546 563 586 603 617 638 643 648 663Men 1,655 1,667 1,662 1,650 1,635 1,603 1,572 1,555 1,530 1,512Total 2,174 2,213 2,225 2,236 2,238 2,220 2,210 2,198 2,178 2,175

Women as Percent of Total Faculty 23.9 24.7 25.3 26.2 26.9 27.8 28.9 29.3 29.8 30.5

Faculty Headcount by Rank and Gender

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Women as Percent of Faculty by Rank

Professor Associate Assistant



• Increase in the percent of faculty hires that are minority hires.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Perc

ent

Year of Hire

UW-Madison Faculty Hires by Minority Status

Minority Faculty Non-Asian Minority Faculty

Madison Plan

Strategic HiresSHI - 2




• In 2009: 2,175 total faculty members

• 16.8% (364) of Faculty are racial/ethnic minorities.

• 7.2% increase in minority faculty since 1996


Black, 2.1% (45)

Asian,10.6% (231)

American Indian, 0.6% (12)

Hispanic/Latino/a, 3.5% (76)

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Minority Faculty as a Percent of the Total Faculty Headcount

16.8%16.9%16.2%

9.6%10.1% 10.5%

11%

12.1%13.2%

13.8%14.3%14.6%

15.1%15.4%


Institutional Receptivity: Staff

• In 2009, 2,183 Instructional Academic Staff members

• 11.7% (256) of Instructional Academic Staff are racial/ethnic minorities

• 2.6% increase in minority instructional academic staff since 1996


0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Minority Instructional Academic Staff as a Percent of the Total Headcount

11.7%12.1%11.2%

11.9%11.5%

10.5%9.8%

8.8%8.9%8.8%8.1%7.7%8.2%

9.1%

Black,1.6% (35)

Asian,7.2% (158)

American Indian,.5% (10)

Hispanic/Latino/a,2.4% (53)



• In 2009: 4,938 non-instructional Academic Staff

• 12% of non-instructional Academic Staff are minorities

• 3.4% increase in minority non-instructional academic staff since 1996


0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Minority Other Academic Staff as a Percent of the Total Headcount

Hispanic/ Latino/a, 1.9% (95)

AmericanIndian, .5% (25)

Asian,7.8% (385)

Black,1.8% (89)

12%12%11.7%11.2%11.1%10.9%

10.2%9.6%9.4%9.2%8.8%

8.3%8.7%8.6%



• In 2009: 5,366 Classified Staff members

• 12.6% (676) of classified staff are minorities

• 8.4% increase in minority classified staff since 1996


0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Minority Classified Staff as a Percent of the Total Headcount

12.6%12%11.8%11.3%11%

10%9.1%

8.5%8.1%

7%6.1%

5.2%4.8%

4.2%

Hispanic/ Latino/a, 5.3% (286)

American Indian,.3% (18)

Asian, 4.5% (239)

Black,2.5% (133)



• In 2009: 399 Executive/Director/Administrators

• 11.2% of Executive/Director/Administrators are racial/ethnic minorities

• Slight increase in the proportion who are minorities.


0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Minority Executive/Director/Administrators as a Percent of the Total Headcount

Hispanic/Latino/a, 4.1% (16)

American Indian, .5% (2)Asian, 1.3% (5)

Black,5.3% (21)

11.2%11.6%11.2%11.2%

10.8%10.8%11.1%

10.2%10.9%

11.1%10.6%10%

9.8%10.5%



• Minority faculty members make up almost 17% of all faculty members.

• This is the largest proportion among the various employment groups.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al

Minorities as a Percentage of Faculty and Staff

Faculty

Instructional Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Other Academic Staff




- Women made up around 50% of all employees at UW-Madison.

- A smaller proportion of faculty members are women (30%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Total Faculty Exec/Dir/ Admin

Instructional Acad. Staff

Other Acad. Staff Classified

Percent of Women Faculty and Staff by Employee Type

Minority Women




- Around 13% of all employees are minorities

- A larger proportion of faculty are minorities, especially among men.

0

5

10

15

20

Total Faculty Exec/Dir/ Admin

Instructional Acad. Staff

Other Acad. Staff Classified

Percent of Minority Faculty and Staff by Gender and Employee Type

Women Men


Institutional Receptivity: Promotion

• For these rates, those that did not receive tenure include the following:– Those who were denied

tenure– Those who left the university

for another position elsewhere

– A few faculty members still hold probationary appointments after 9 years.

• Tenure and promotion rates are calculated at 6 and 9 years after hire, in order to allow for those who have extensions on the tenure clock.

• Data for tenure charts in this slideshow combine hires from 1989-90 to 2003-04 or 1991-92 to 2003-04. This is necessary due to the small number of faculty, especially women and minority faculty, who are hired within a division in a given year.

• Small Ns make tenure/promotion rates subject to large variation.


Notes about faculty promotion data:


• At 9 years, 64% of women faculty have been promoted to tenure.

54%

71%

41%

64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6 Years 9 Years

Percent of Faculty Promoted to Tenure by Gender,within Six (6) and Nine (9) Years

Men Women

Percent tenured based on data for hires from 1991-92 to 2003-04



• A lower percentage of women and men are promoted to tenure within the Social Studies.

• The largest gap in tenure rates by gender is within the Physical Sciences division.

Data on faculty hires from 1989-90 to 2003-04

71%74%

80%78%

56%

64%

75% 68%80%

48%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Total Biological Sciences Physical Sciences Arts and Humanities

Social Studies

Percent of Faculty Promoted within Nine (9) Years, by Gender and Division

Men Women

N=470 N=256

N=130

N=174N=70

N=25N=84

N=79

N=113

N=82


50%

69%

48%

64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6 Years 9 Years

Percent of Faculty Promoted to Tenure by Minority Status, within Six (6) and Nine (9) Years

Non-Minority Minority


• At 9 Years, 64% of minority faculty members have been promoted to tenure. Percent tenured based on data for hires from 1991-92 to 2003-04



• A lower percentage of faculty members are promoted to tenure within the Social Studies division.

• The largest gap in tenure rates by minority status is within the Physical Sciences and Arts and Humanities.



61%67% 70% 67%

46%

65%71%

82%79%

54%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Social Studies

Percent of Faculty Promoted within Nine (9) Years, by Minority Status and Division

Minority Non-Minority

N=144N=582

N=31N=213 N=39

N=116

N=37

N=126

N=37N=158


• Selecting a divisional affiliation is a step in the tenure process. Faculty are not required to identify their divisional affiliation at the time of hire, but many do.

• Women, especially minority women, are heavily concentrated within the Social Studies Division

• See next slide for numbers of faculty by division, gender, and minority status

Note: Chart excludes 41 faculty members who have not yet selected a disciplinary division, as they are not required to do so until they go up for tenure. Data as of October 2009 payroll.

3135

2227

15 14 2928

3427

911

19 24 40 34

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Minority Male Non-Minority Male Minority Female Non-Minority Female

Faculty Disciplinary Division Affiliation, by Minority Status and Gender

Social Studies

Physical Sciences

Arts and Humanities

BiologicalSciences



• Women, especially minority women, are heavily concentrated within the Social Studies Division

• See previous slide for percent by division

Note: Chart excludes 41 faculty members who have not yet selected a disciplinary division, as they are not required to do so until they go up for tenure. Data as of October 2009 payroll.

75

37

82

4526 34

11 48

437

178

339

299

142 149

55

177

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Biological Sciences Arts and Humanities Physical Science Social Studies

Number of Faculty by Disciplinary Division, Gender, and Minority Status

Minority Male Minority Female Non-Minority Male Non-Minority Female




60 60

7166

45

62

81

63

69

47

71 71

84

76

57

64

7174

81

49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Social Studies

Percent of Faculty Promoted within Nine (9) Years, by Gender and Division

Minority Men Minority Women Non-Minority Men Non-Minority Women

65Arts and Humanities

Social Studies

Total

17

18

5

13

Number of Faculty Promoted to Tenure

20

19

34

18

Non-MinorityMinority

61

6593

156

96Physical Sciences

203

57

20

WomenMenWomenMen

Biological Sciences

91 53 410





• All groups have lower promotion rates within the Social Studies division.

• Women, and especially minority women, are more likely to be within the social studies division.

• For groups with small hiring pools, the effect of one person’s tenure/non-tenure can affect the percent tenured dramatically.

• Those not receiving tenure includes those who took a position elsewhere or still have a probationary appointment after 9 years.

Key findings from tenure/promotion data:

Institutional Receptivity:

Peer Comparisons

for Faculty Diversity

(N = 492)(N = 307)(N = 370)

(N = 211)(N = 600)(N = 714)(N = 522)(N = 471)(N = 674)

(N = 403)(N = 361)

(N = 778)(N = 270)(N = 648)(N = 577)(N = 1,097)(N = 755)(N = 666)(N = 403)(N = 597)(N = 597)(N = 586)(N = 744)(N = 622)

(N = 1,187)(N = 747)(N = 1,239)

(N = 1,096)(N = 920)

(N = 773)(N = 662)(N = 777)

(N = 1,952)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

WisconsinIndianaVirginiaOregon

North CarolinaWashington

KansasArizona

Penn StateSUNY - Stony Brook

NebraskaOhio State

UC - Santa BarbaraTexas A & M

IowaFlorida

MissouriMichigan StateSUNY - Buffalo

IllinoisUC - Berkeley

Iowa StateUC- Davis

UC - San DiegoMinnesota

TexasPittsburgh

UCLAMaryland

PurdueUC- Irvine

RutgersMichigan

Percent Non-White Faculty 50%Non-White Full-Time

Faculty as a Percent of Total Full-Time Faculty at AAU Public Institutions, 2008

Average Percent Non-White Faculty for AAU Public Institutions: 25.5%

Source: IPEDS Fall HR, 2008-09http://apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

Institutional Receptivity: Climate

Some Recent Climate Studies

• UW-Madison participation in UW System Climate Study Pilot Project (limited to CALS and Office of Student Life), 2010-11

• Letters & Science Climate Study, 2009-10; with linkages to STEM, teaching and learning communities

• CALS Climate Study, 2008-09• NSSE Survey includes many climate-related

questions, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011 (planned)• WISELI Studies and Programs, on-going since 2002



Participation in the UW System Climate Study, 2010-11• UW-Madison is participating in Tier III of the UW System Climate Study• Initiated by UWSA at the request of the Board of Regents• Tier I was implemented in 2008-09. Tier II was implemented in 2009-

10. • Questionnaire will go to all employees and students in Spring 2011;

responses are anonymous and confidential• For logistical reasons, the study will be fielded only in CALS and Division

of Student Life • Reports are expected in summer 2011• Campus oversight by a “Diversity Leadership Committee”• Institutional implementation by the “Climate Study Working Group”• More detail: http://www.apa.wisc.edu/diversity/ClimateStudy.html



Selected NSSE Results

** significantly different

Percent of Seniors who often or very much:

See: http://www.apa.wisc.edu/performance_students_surveys.html


Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how it looks from their perspective

Included diverse perspectives in class discussion or assignments

Had serious conversations with student of a different race or ethnicity than your own

63

54

65

61

56

46

62

56

48

AllNon-MinorityMinority

**


Selected NSSE Results

** significantly different

Percent of Seniors for whom the university emphasizes quite a bit or very much:

See: http://www.apa.wisc.edu/performance_students_surveys.html


Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds

Helping you cope with non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc)

Providing the support you need to thrive socially

Providing the support you need to succeed academically

38

25

40

65

41

17

37

64

41

18

37

66

AllNon-minorityMinority

**

Equity Scorecard Framework

Access

Excellence


RetentionEquity in

Educational Outcomes

The Equity Scorecard was developed by Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon at the Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California (http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/).

In 2010-11 UW-Madison will formally participate in the Equity Scorecard framework.


Diversity Update 2010

• Slideshow available at http://www.apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

• Questions about these slides:– Sara Lazenby ([email protected])– Jocelyn Milner ([email protected])

http://www.apa.wisc.edu/diversity.html

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Diversity Update 2010 September 2010. Equity Scorecard Framework AccessExcellence Institutional Receptivity Retention Equity in Educational Outcomes The