Strategic Planning CommitteeStrategic Planning Committee

Board of Governors Gainesville, Florida

January 22, 2004

Follow-Up TopicsFollow-Up Topics

Persistence (retention and graduation) of students in the system– Trends over time– Effects on degree production/costs

Effect of high school graduation rates on baccalaureate degree production

Data on critical needs/targeted degree areas (to be discussed later)

Import/Export of College Students

Student Persistence: Second-Year Retention & Six-Year Graduation Rates

Student Persistence: Second-Year Retention & Six-Year Graduation Rates

86% 87% 85% 84% 85% 86% 86% 86% 87% 86% 87%

62% 61% 60% 61% 62% 63%61%

Year of Entry

Ret Rate

Grad Rate

Same-Institution Graduation Rates for Public Colleges, 12 Largest States

Same-Institution Graduation Rates for Public Colleges, 12 Largest States

64%62%

58% 57% 57% 57% 56% 56%52% 52%

46%41%

33%

24%28%

33% 32%28%

31% 33%28%

19% 18%

44%

VA NJ CA MI NC FL PA IL NY OH TX GA

Six-Year Rate

Four-Year Rate

Source: IPEDS 2002 GRS Survey

Persistence and Degrees Granted: “Eventual” Grad Rate is Critical

Persistence and Degrees Granted: “Eventual” Grad Rate is Critical

57%63% 64%

70%

SUS SAMEINSTITUTION

6-YR RATE

SUS SYSTEM6-YR RATE

CEPRI 7-YRRATE FOR

1993-94COHORT OF

FL HS GRADS

EVENTUALSYSTEM

GRAD RATEFOR ALL SUS

FRESHMEN

69%88%

13%

8%

CC Transfers with AA Degree New SUS Juniors

Graduated in Four Years Retained in Good Standing

Persistence & Degree Completion Rates: Students Who Complete Lower Division

Persistence & Degree Completion Rates: Students Who Complete Lower Division

Source: DCU Analysis of 1998 fall full-time entering AA transfer students and comparable native SUS students

Estimated Graduation Rate: 96%

Estimated Graduation Rate: 82%

Hypothetical Degree & FTE Estimates from Improved Grad Rates

Hypothetical Degree & FTE Estimates from Improved Grad Rates

7 percentage point improvement would make Florida top-performing large state

Would increase bachelor degrees by 4,330

Increase would be 29% of the difference from the national average

7 percentage point improvement would result in 8,500 additional FTE

High School Graduation and Other Key Progression Ratios in Pipeline

High School Graduation and Other Key Progression Ratios in Pipeline

69% Four-Year HS Graduation Rate 22% of Graduates go on to SUS 32% go on to Community College 21.3% who go to Community College

attain bachelor degree in 7 years (CEPRI study rate)

63.9% who go to SUS attain bachelor degree in 7 years (CEPRI study rate)

Effects of Improving HS Grad Rates and Other RatiosEffects of Improving HS Grad Rates and Other Ratios

Add’l Degrees (% of Difference from Nat’l Avg)

Increase # of Ninth Graders by 7% 2,017 (14%)

Increase HS Graduation Rate to 76% 2,922 (20%)

Increase HS Grads Attending Community College to 39%

2,058 (14%)

Increase HS Grads Attending SUS to 29%

6,173 (41%)

(Figures are for 200,000 Ninth-Graders)

Persistence and Cost Savings Associated With Retention

Persistence and Cost Savings Associated With Retention

Students who leave have about 30% as many credits as students who graduate

Most of these credits are lower-division

Degrees produced through increased retention cost about 70-75% as much as those produced by admitting a new freshman

Import/Export Ratio: 2 Freshmen come in for every 1 who leaves

Import/Export Ratio: 2 Freshmen come in for every 1 who leaves

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Source: IPEDS Residency and Migration, compiled at www.higheredinfo.org

Fewer In-State Students are LeavingFewer In-State Students are Leaving

18.4%

15.5%

19.3%

9.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent Out-of-StateFreshmen at Florida Colleges

Percent of In-State StudentsAttending Out-of-State

1994

2002

Source: IPEDS Residency and Migration, compiled at www.higheredinfo.org

Net Imports of 22-29 Year-Olds, By Education LevelNet Imports of 22-29 Year-Olds, By Education Level

Less Than High School

37,820High School

40,940

Some College38,860

Associates12,820

Bachelor's28,980

Grad/Prof10,620

Total170,040

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Source: www.higheredinfo.org

Y-Axis RevisionsY-Axis Revisions

I.A. – Access to and Production of Degrees

I.A.5 – Access/Diversity I.B. - Meeting statewide professional

and workforce needs I.B.1-5: (Provided detail for Critical

Needs, Economic Development, and Educated citizenry/workforce)

I.B. – Methodology Used to Identify Professional and

Workforce Needs

I.B. – Methodology Used to Identify Professional and

Workforce Needs

Data used for report targeting baccalaureate degrees in 2001 were updated and expanded to include graduate and professional programs.

Programs either:– Met critical state needs– Were identified as being important to

continued high-tech industry development

– Had a record of placing graduates in high-wage positions

I.B.3. Emerging TechnologiesI.B.3. Emerging Technologies

Advisory Group on Emerging Technologies analyzed targeted industry sectors with areas of research important to economic development

Advisory Group grouped programs under the broad descriptive areas listed under I.B.3 (details provided in agenda packet)

I.B.4. High-Wage JobsI.B.4. High-Wage Jobs

Criteria similar to those used in 2001 report adopted by Workforce Estimating Conference

– Minimum number of graduates and placements in Florida

– Minimum salary level ($32,000 for bachelors and $50,000 for graduate and professional)

State Critical Needs

Emerging Technologies

High-Wage Fields

UNIVERSE OF DEGREE PROGRAMS

I.B. Targeted Degree ProgramsI.B. Targeted Degree Programs

II.B.5 – Educated Citizenry/Workforce

II.B.5 – Educated Citizenry/Workforce

Added in response to member comments

Universities will indicate other programs on which they wish to focus

I.B. Targeted Degree Planning Considerations I.B. Targeted Degree Planning Considerations

Where do students in particular fields come from?

What are the opportunity costs of targeted degrees: i.e., what else might students have done?

What undergraduate programs feed into targeted graduate degrees?

What are the relative costs of targeted programs vs. non-targeted programs?

I.B. Undergraduate Degree Pipeline I.B. Undergraduate Degree Pipeline

% Native

Students

% CC Transfe

rs

EDUCATION 33.6% 52.0%

ENGINEERING 52.7% 29.7%

ALL STUDENTS 44.0% 38.4%

2002-2003 Education and Engineering Grads by Origin

I.B. Opportunity Costs: What Else Might Students Have Done?

I.B. Opportunity Costs: What Else Might Students Have Done?

Computer Engineering 18Engineering 17Liberal Arts & Sciences 17Electrical Engineering 10Microbiology/Bacteriology 9Business Administration 7Biology 6Mathematics 6Biological Sciences/Life Sciences 4Chemistry 4

Majors Dropped by 2002-2003 Computer Science Grads (Native SUS Students)

I.B. Graduate Program PipelineI.B. Graduate Program Pipeline

Elementary Teacher Ed 36Special Ed, General 36Psychology, General 23Ed. Of the Specific Learning Disabled 13Ed of the Mentally Handicapped 10Speech Pathology and Audiology 9Ed. Of the Emotionally Handicapped 7Business Administration 5Social Work, General 5Criminal Justice Studies 4Social Sciences, General 4Liberal Arts & Sciences 4

SUS Undergraduate Majors of Fall 2003 Graduate Students in Special Education

I.B. Relative Cost of Instruction in Selected Program Areas

I.B. Relative Cost of Instruction in Selected Program Areas

Cost Per Upper

Division Credit

Percent of SUS

Average

All Disciplines Average $244.87

Computer and Information Sciences $269.46 110%

Education $264.07 108%

Engineering $409.15 167%

Life Sciences $297.10 121%

Physical Sciences $423.22 173%

Health Professions $297.79 122%

I.B. Role of Board of Governors in Degree Targeting

I.B. Role of Board of Governors in Degree Targeting

What is the role of the Board regarding:

– Forecasted need/substantial demand

– Forecasted need/inadequate demand

– No forecasted need/considerable student demand

Next Steps for Strategic PlanNext Steps for Strategic Plan

Universities, SBE, Governor’s Office, key legislators, CEPRI, and other interested parties to review y-axis from a system perspective

Board staff to compile comments for Board meeting in March

Board staff to begin crafting final system goals for March meeting