Western Carolina University
Peer Selection Study
Charge:
To develop a set of official institutional peers for WCU for both internal and external use.
Purpose of Peer Group
Generally, the establishment of peer groups allows campuses to set performance benchmarks,
target best practices and develop uniform and consistent comparisons among institutions.
More specifically for the UNC System, peer groups will be used to set minimum targets for key
performance metrics (retention/graduation rates, etc.) that will determine, in part, restrictions
and/or rewards in the system budget allocation process.
Membership of WCU Peer Selection Task Force:
Linda Seestedt-Stanford, Interim Provost
and Senior Vice Chancellor
Melissa Canady Wargo, Asst. VC,
Planning and Effectiveness
Brian Howell, Asst. Professor,
Engineering and Technology
Beth Lofquist, Associate Provost
David Hudson, Asst. Professor, Physical
Therapy
Carol Burton, Asst.VC, Undergraduate
Studies
Dianne Lynch, Chief of Staff,
Chancellor’s Office
Fred Hinson, Sr. Assoc. VC, Academic
Affairs
Regis Gilman, Interim Dean,
Educational Outreach
Sam Miller, Vice Chancellor, Student
Affairs
Bobby Justice, Assoc. VC, Financial
Services
Dana Sally, Dean, Library Services
Mike Stewart, Assoc. Director,
Auxiliary Services
Perry Schoon, Dean, Education and
Allied Professions
Alan Socha, Research Analyst, Planning
and Effectiveness
Erin McNelis, Chair, Faculty Senate
1
Will Peebles, Director, School of Music
Clifton Metcalf, Vice Chancellor,
Advancement and External Affairs
Craig Fowler, CIO
Jennifer Brown, Associate Athletic
Director
Prepared by Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness
Western Carolina University
Background:
In 2005-06, UNC General Administration initiated a process to select new peers for each of its
constituent institutions. See Attachment A for the summary document from the 2006 process
and a listing of current institutional peers. UNC GA contracted with Dennis Jones, then
president of National Center for Higher Education Management (NCHEMS), to develop a
process and initial set of peers for each campus. Those peer groups were approved by the UNC
Board of Governors in January 2006.
One unique aspect of the current peer groups initially established in 2006 was the inclusion of
‘competitive peers’. ‘Competitive Peers’ (sometimes called ‘aspirational peers’) were defined as
campuses whose profile did not fit that of a standard peer, but that were either direct or
indirect competitors. The inclusion of competitive peers broadened the traditional notion of
peer groups and effectively incentivized the campuses to use their peer groups to develop
stretch goal targets around certain performance metrics such as retention and graduation.
In Fall of 2010, however, UNC GA repurposed the institutional peers as part of the proposed
Performance Funding Model. See Attachment B for a copy of the current draft of the proposed
Performance Funding Model. In the draft of the new funding model, which was approved by
the UNC Board of Governors in January 2011 for use in the 2011-13 Biennium, the campuses
must now meet not only previously established targets for selected performance metrics, but
also must exceed the average of its approved peer group in order to avoid enrollment
restrictions and/or be eligible for certain budget ‘rewards’. Thus, inclusion of ‘competitive
peers’ now has the potential to significantly disadvantage those institutions (like WCU) that
chose to include the maximum number of ‘competitive peers’ in their official peer groups.
Thus, many UNC campuses, including WCU, have lobbied UNC GA to allow a revision of the
current peers.
In mid-April 2011, WCU was notified by UNC GA that the System was initiating a new Peer
Selection Study for all its constituent institutions. Although the System has not yet formally
communicated its expectations for the Peer Selection Study, here is what we know so far 1:
•
•
1
The timeline will be compressed. An initial set of peers is due to GA by June 15th;
negotiations with GA will be completed by Labor Day; proposed peer groups will be
submitted to Board of Governors in Oct/Nov
Peer sets will include between 22 and 25 institutions.
This information was communicated to the campus CAOs on April 14, 2011 in Chapel Hill.
2
Prepared by Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness
Western Carolina University
•
•
•
•
Each campus will determine its own process and criteria 2, but must provide description
and rationale.
No other UNC campus can be a peer; ½ of current peers may be on revised list.
We must use 2009 data.
We will not be able to have different sets of peers for different purposes; one set must
do it all.
Process
The WCU Peer Selection Task Force will meet initially to discuss the charge, the tasks, the
timeline, and the criteria for selecting an official peer set. Items for consideration will include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A review of the charge and the timeline.
An examination of the current peer set.
A demo and review of the Peer Selection Tool provided by UNC GA.
Identify criteria for peer selection.
The Peer Selection Task Force will meet again on an as needed basis to refine and narrow the
proposed peer set. The Provost will share the resulting list with and solicit feedback from a
broad range of campus stakeholders, including all campus leaders, faculty, staff and students.
A final list will be submitted to UNC GA by September 5th. See timeline below.
2
Suggested criteria: tuition/fees, retention/graduation rates, average teaching salaries, faculty workload, mission,
Carnegie classification, program mix/quality, student characteristics, research/service activities.
3
Prepared by Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness
Western Carolina University
Timeline
2011
April
S
3
10
17
24
M
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
W
6
13
20
27
May
Th
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
July
S
3
10
17
24
31
M
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
W
6
13
20
27
2
9
16
23
30
M
3
10
17
24
31
T
4
11
18
25
W
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
31
W
June
Th
4
11
18
25
F
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
S
5
12
19
26
M
6
13
20
27
August
Th
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
October
S
T
Th
6
13
20
27
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
31
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
S
6
13
20
27
M
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
Th
2
9
16
23
30
F
3
10
17
24
F
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
S
4
11
18
25
M
5
12
19
26
Th
4
11
18
25
6
13
20
27
W
7
14
21
28
Th
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
December
F
3
10
17
24
T
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
S
4
11
18
25
M
5
12
19
26
T
6
13
20
27
W
7
14
21
28
Th
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
First meeting of WCU Peer Selection Task Force
Work time to establish initial peer set
Refinement of peer set; feedback from campus administrators
Initial peer set due to UNC GA
Final peer set due to UNC GA
Review and approval of campus peer sets by UNC Board of Governors.
Rationale for Criteria
There are many potential criteria we can use to select an institutional peer group, but some
will, by necessity, have more weight than others. For example, WCU is certainly different from
the vast majority of regional comprehensive institutions terms of its highly rural location, but
from a larger perspective, we may find that our rural location is less important than matching
those institutions who share a commitment to regional outreach and engagement or who share
a similar tradition of serving a larger number of first generation students and students with a
low socioeconomic background. Alternatively, the new emphasis on performance metrics in
the system budgeting process might require us to disproportionately weight those criteria that
will be the most impactful on our state budget allocations. But, if we choose that route, it
4
S
September
Th
November
F
T
Prepared by Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness
S
3
10
17
24
31
Western Carolina University
makes the establishment of stretch goals more difficult to justify and monitor because we
would have to manage that outside the official peer comparisons.
The Office of Institutional Planning and Effectiveness has prepared three ‘output views’ using
the Peer Selection Tool provided by UNC GA. See below for a brief description of the Peer
Selection Tool. Included in each view is a list of the peer group generated along with a
snapshot of selected criteria and a summary of the peer averages for each criteria. Details that
show for each institution the value, rank, and impact of each variable are available for those
who might be interested. The three views we have included to jump start the conversation
include:
1. A list of our current peers (Attachment C)
2. A set of peers generated when we set equal weightings for: retention rates, graduation
rates, and average faculty salary (Attachment D)
3. A set of peers generated when we set equal weightings for: retention rates, graduation
rates, average faculty salary, control, HBCU, locale, 2005 Carnegie Classification, %
minority, student/faculty ratio, freshman selectivity, % receiving Pell Grants, % receiving
federal aid, percentages based on degrees awarded for different subject areas
(Attachment E)
4. A set of peers generated when we set equal weightings for size, control, Carnegie
classification, and student FTE (Attachment F)
Peer Selection Tool
UNC GA created a Peer Selection Tool (PST) to assist the campuses in deriving their new list of
peers. This tool, along with instructions, is located at
http://fred.northcarolina.edu/pub/html/peers.html. All data used in the PST come from the
U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The
bulk of the data comes from the 2009-2010 collection cycle.
To use the tool, all one has to do is weight the variables that make us distinctive. Weights range
from 0, meaning the variable has no overall impact, to 10 (institutional characteristics can also
be given a weight of 99 as an absolute filter). What the tool actually does is calculate the
absolute distance between our institution and each other institution in the database for each
variable, multiplying those distances by the weights we give. Zeros are substituted for missing
values for other institutions prior to this calculation (institutions with missing values for a
variable will ultimately be judged to be more distant from us as a result). Then these values are
summed and the institutions that are the most similar to us (i.e., have the smallest total) are
picked (the technical details of this process can be found in the instructions on the tool’s
website).
5
Prepared by Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness
ATTACHMENT A
2006 Peer Selection Process
ATTACHMENT B
Performance Funding Model for
2011-13 Biennium
The University of North Carolina
POST
OFFICE
ERSKINE
BOX 2688, CHAPEL
B. BOWLES,
HILL,
NC 27515-2688
President
Telephone: (919) 962-1000 FAX: (919) 845-9695
E-mail: ebowles@northcarolina.edu
Constituent
Universities
Appalachian State
University
East Carolina
University
Elizabeth City
State University
Fayetteville State
University
North Carolina
Agricultural and
Technical State
University
North Carolina
Central University
North Carolina
State University
at Raleigh
Chancellors
Chief Academic Officers
Erskine Bowles ~
_
Review of Model for Performance
We shared an earl ier version of a performance
Funding and Enrollment Restraint
document that proposed adjustments
to the funding formula and we received comments on that document from several of
you. This performance document has been further revised to include information
about how the restrictions on enrollment will be approached. We now have the
impact of performance
on enrollment and funding integrated into the same
document. This revised document, the data sheet for retention, graduation, and
University of
North Carolina
at Asheville
University of
North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
University of
North Carolina
at Charlotte
University of
North Carolina
at Greensboro
University of
North Carolina
at Pembroke
University of
North Carolina
at Wilmington
University of
North Carolina
School of the Arts
Western Carolina
University
Winston-Salem
State University
Constituent Hif5h School
North Carolina
School of Science
and Mathematics
An Equal Opportunityl
Affirrnativp Action EmpJoyer
efficiency, and the data backup material were shared with the Chief Academic
Officers during their meeting on September 29 and 30. What is added here is a data
sheet that makes a first attempt to translate the performance
data into judgments
about where enrollment would need to be restrained and where performance is at a
level to result in performance-based funding. Each campus is being provided a
separate data sheet that includes these assessments.
Our process is to receive feedback from you over the next few days and make this a
focus for discussion at the next Chancellors Administrative Council. Our plan is
also to make this topic the subject of a Board policy workshop in November,
the Chair of the Board would like to act on this at the November
and
meeting.
I previously said that we could not start developing the enrollment expansion budget
until we had guidance for performance funding and enrollment growth restraints in
place. While the model is open for discussion and potential modification it can
provide the starting point for enrollment planning.
In developing
requests, you should follow the limitations on enrollments
campus's attached data sheet assessments.
leffDavies
Alan Mabe
your enrollment
that are currently in your
DRAFT
Implementation of the Performance Model
Retention Assessments
There are three assessments possible as they relate to freshmen enrollment growth and retention:
normal, restricted, and none.
Normal would follow past patterns of enrollment growth in the freshmen class.
Restricted enrollment would be based on the following:
Unless goals for the appropriate performance quartile are met, enrollment restrictions are to be applied:
Quartile
Criterion
Q 3 & 4:
If above 80% not more than 1 point below target or above public or all peers
Q 3 & 4:
If below 80% meets targets or above public or all peers
Q2:
Meets targets and above public or all peers
Q1:
One percent above target and above public or all peers
If restricted is indicated other factor could be relevant to the extent of restriction on enrollment.
Restrictions on AA transfers and on other transfers are meant to call attention to the graduation
performance for AA students and that it needs to be attended to.
None. In this category there would be no expansion of enrollment in the size of the freshman class.
Among those falling under restricted enrollment those campuses not meeting their targets and
performing below their peers would not be allowed any freshman growth.
Cost Factor for Retention
Quartile
Criterion
Q4
Meets Target and above peers
Q3
Meets Target and above peers
Q2
Meets Target and above peers
Q1
Meets Target and above peers
Cost Factor for Graduation Rates: TBD
Cost Factor for Production and Efficiency:
To receive the cost factor a campus would need to be in Q2, Q3, or Q4 and be at or above public peers
in efficiency.
Rewards Related to High Performance: TBD
Template for Factors Relating to the Model for Performance Funding and Enrollment Restraint
Institution: WCU
Measure
RETENTION
Retention (Freshman-to-Sophomore)
Historical Level of Retention Data
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
Improvement in Historical Retention Level
Meet or Not Meet Retention Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
Goal
Actual
Difference
Above/Below All Peer Retention Average
Above/Below Public Peer Retention Average
Above/Below Predicted Range for Retention
Enrolled at Another UNC Campus, year 2
GRADUATION
Six-Year Graduation Rate
Historical Level of 6-Year Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
Improvement in Historical 6-Year Graduation Rates
Meet or Not Meet 6-Year Graduation Goals
Meet (Yes/No)
Goal
Actual
Difference
Above/Below Predicted Range for 6-Year Graduation Rate
Above/Below Average All Peers 6-Year Graduation Rate
Above/Below Average Public Peers 6-Year Graduation Rate
First-time Full-time Freshmen from Initial Cohort
Who Graduate in 6 Years from Other Institutions in UNC
Graduation Rates for CC Transfers with an Associate Degree
Historical Level of CC Associate Degree Transfer Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
Improvement in Historical CC Transfer Graduation Rates
Meet or Not Meet CC Transfer Graduation Rate Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
Goal
Actual
Difference
Total Undergraduate Students Graduation Rate
Graduation Rate of Total Undergraduates in Fall 2002
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
DEGREE PRODUCTION AND EFFICIENCY
Increased Production of Baccalaureate Degrees
Baccalaureate Degrees Produced per 100 FTE
Enrolled Students
Above/Below Public Peers Average Production per 100 FTE
Enrolled Students
Subject to Acceptable Methodology, Cost per Degree Produced
Compared to Peers
Assessment
Restraints:
Freshmen Enrollment Growth
Retention Improvement Enrollment Growth
Transfer AA Growth
Transfer Growth
Graduate Growth in Relation to Undergraduate Performance
Rewards:
Specific Reward Related to Retention
Specific Reward Related to Graduation
Degree Production and Efficiency
Rewards Related to High Performance
Comments:
Performance
Q1
70.8%
5.4
Yes
69.0%
76.2%
7.2
-2.7
4.9%
Q2
47.4%
1.4
Yes
48.5%
48.8%
0.3
-10.6
5.8%
Q4
74.4%
-1.4
No
76.5%
73.0%
-3.5
Q3
74.6%
Q4
24.0
Above
3.5
Restricted
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
No
Yes
Template for Factors Relating to the Model for Performance Funding and Enrollment Restraint
Measure
ASU
ECU
ECSU
RETENTION
Retention (Freshman-to-Sophomore)
Historical Level of Retention Data
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q3
Q2
Rate
85.6%
77.2%
75.9%
Improvement in Historical Retention Level
0.8
1.6
0.4
Meet or Not Meet Retention Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
Yes
No
Yes
Goal
86.0%
79.0%
76.0%
Actual
86.4%
78.8%
76.3%
Difference
0.4
-0.2
0.3
Above/Below All Peer Retention Average
5.9
0.6
11.3
Above/Below Public Peer Retention Average
Above/Below Predicted Range for Retention
Enrolled at Another UNC Campus, year 2
2.9%
2.6%
2.9%
GRADUATION
Six-Year Graduation Rate
Historical Level of 6-Yr Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q3
Q2
Rate
62.4%
54.6%
47.3%
Improvement in Historical 6-Year
Graduation Rates
2.0
2.2
-1.5
Meet or Not Meet 6-Yr Graduation Goals
Meet (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Goal
64.0%
56.5%
43.0%
Actual
64.4%
56.8%
45.8%
Difference
0.4
0.3
2.8
Above/Below Predicted Range for 6-Yr Grad Rate
Data Not Available
Above/Below Ave. All Peers 6-Yr Grad. Rate
2.8
4.3
8.4
Above/Below Ave. Pub. Peers 6-Yr Grad. Rate
First-time Full-time Freshmen from initial
Cohort Who Graduate in 6 Years from Other
Institutions in UNC
6.3%
4.7%
2.1%
Graduation Rates for CC Transfers with an Associate Degree
Historical Level of CC Associate Degree
Transfer Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q2
Q3
Rate
75.5%
65.9%
67.6%
Improvement in Historical CC Transfer
Graduation Rates
-1.5
3.1
-5.6
Meet or Not Meet CC Transfer Grad. Rate Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
No
No
No
Goal
78.0%
71.0%
66.0%
Actual
74.0%
68.0%
61.0%
Difference
-4.0
-3.0
-5.0
Total Undergraduate Students Graduation Rate
Graduation Rate of Total Undergraduates in Fall 2002
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q3
Q2
Rate
81.9%
75.0%
65.7%
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
Q1
72.1%
1.5
Q1
71.9%
5.2
Q2
74.6%
2.4
Q4
89.6%
1.3
Q3
78.2%
3.7
Q4
96.3%
-0.6
Q3
77.7%
0.2
Q2
76.5%
0.1
Q1
69.0%
-1.5
Q4
84.4%
0.3
Q3
77.5%
-0.1
Q1
70.8%
5.4
Q2
73.4%
4.4
No
74.0%
73.6%
-0.4
4.2
Yes
72.0%
77.1%
5.1
4.5
Yes
76.0%
77.0%
1.0
6.3
Yes
90.5%
90.9%
0.4
-0.9
-0.6
Yes
80.0%
81.9%
1.9
-3.3
-0.7
No
96.5%
95.7%
-0.8
0.4
1.0
No
78.0%
77.9%
-0.1
1.4
Yes
76.6%
76.6%
0.0
-3.7
No
70.8%
67.5%
-3.3
-5.7
No
86.0%
84.7%
-1.3
1.7
Yes
76.0%
77.4%
1.4
1.7
-7.6
Yes
69.0%
76.2%
7.2
-2.7
Yes
71.0%
77.8%
6.8
6.6
5.7%
1.2%
3.5%
2.2%
4.1%
0.6%
3.9%
3.9%
4.6%
3.7%
1.3%
4.9%
3.4%
Q1
37.8%
Q1
39.7%
Q2
48.3%
Q4
69.8%
Q3
54.1%
Q4
83.6%
Q2
49.3%
Q3
51.2%
Q1
35.9%
Q4
64.3%
Q3
53.6%
Q2
47.4%
Q1
43.8%
-6.3
-2.5
-3.9
3.4
4.6
1.3
4.6
0.4
-1.8
4.2
7.6
1.4
-7.3
No
40.0%
31.5%
-8.5
No
43.0%
37.2%
-5.8
No
50.0%
44.4%
-5.6
Yes
72.0%
73.2%
1.2
Yes
56.0%
58.7%
2.7
Yes
83.5%
84.9%
1.4
Yes
50.0%
53.9%
3.9
No
51.8%
51.6%
-0.2
No
36.0%
34.1%
-1.9
Yes
67.0%
68.5%
1.5
Yes
53.0%
61.2%
8.2
Yes
48.5%
48.8%
0.3
No
46.0%
36.5%
-9.5
-9.2
-8.0
2.0
-5.6
-4.7
-12.6
-6.0
-2.1
0.2
2.7
-7.9
-14.3
2.7
0.5
4.6
-10.6
-6.3
3.3%
2.1%
2.1%
4.8%
9.8%
1.4%
5.3%
6.8%
6.3%
8.1%
2.4%
5.8%
2.5%
Q1
56.8%
Q1
50.3%
Q1
62.0%
Q3
67.8%
Q2
62.1%
Q4
71.9%
Q1
62.0%
Q2
66.5%
Q3
70.0%
Q4
75.8%
n/a
n/a
Q4
74.4%
Q2
65.8%
7.2
3.7
-8.0
8.2
-2.1
-3.9
6.0
-2.5
-10.0
5.2
n/a
-1.4
-7.8
Yes
58.0%
63.0%
5.0
Yes
51.0%
53.0%
2.0
No
63.0%
55.0%
-8.0
Yes
72.0%
75.0%
3.0
No
67.0%
60.0%
-7.0
No
69.0%
68.0%
-1.0
Yes
62.5%
68.0%
5.5
No
67.0%
63.0%
-4.0
No
71.0%
59.0%
-12.0
Yes
78.0%
81.0%
3.0
n/a
n/a
60.0%
n/a
No
76.5%
73.0%
-3.5
No
65.0%
57.0%
-8.0
Q1
62.3%
Q1
55.3%
Q1
61.9%
Q4
82.2%
Q3
77.3%
Q4
90.6%
Q2
69.5%
Q3
73.2%
Q2
63.3%
Q4
83.2%
Q2
67.3%
Q3
74.6%
Q1
60.2%
Template for Factors Relating to the Model for Performance Funding and Enrollment Restraint
Measure
DEGREE PRODUCTION AND EFFICIENCY
Increased Production of Baccalaureate Degrees
Baccalaureate Degrees Produced per 100
FTE Enrolled Students
Above/Below Public Peers Average Production
per 100 FTE Enrolled Students
Subject to Acceptable Methodology, Cost
per Degrees Produced Compared to Peers
Assessment
Restraints:
Freshmen Enrollment Growth
Retention Improvement Enrollment Growth
Transfer AA Growth
Transfer Growth
Graduate Growth in Relation to
Undergraduate Performance
Rewards:
Specific Reward Related to Retention
Specific Reward Related to Graduation
Degree Production and Efficiency
Rewards Related to High Performance
ASU
ECU
Q2
19.9
Below
-1.2
Q2
19.9
Above
0.2
ECSU
Q1
15.5
Below
-0.9
FSU
Q2
16.5
Below
-1.8
NCA&T
Q1
12.6
Below
-5.5
NCCU
Q1
15.5
Below
-6.0
NCSU
Q3
20.6
Below
-3.0
UNCA UNC-CH
Q3
22.6
Above
0.7
Q4
24.7
Above
1.5
UNCC
Q4
22.7
Above
2.1
UNCG
Q3
21.0
Same
0.0
UNCP
Q1
16.3
Below
-3.4
UNCW
Q4
24.1
Above
2.2
UNCSA
WCU
Q4
24.0
Above
3.5
WSSU
Q2
19.1
Above
0.7
DRAFT
A Model for Access and Student Success
Performance Funding and Enrollment Restraints
Assessment of Performance
The purpose of the model is to identify where enrollment may be increased and where it should be
restrained and where performance on key indicators should lead to funding. The current economic
conditions and the condition of the State budget have significantly shifted the expectations for
enrollment growth in UNC institutions. It is clear that the University will have to defend its growth
requests more vigorously than ever before. Developing this model at this time will be complicated since
it may be necessary to restrain overall growth. That means that there may be growth restraints tied to
performance and growth restraints that are simply a function of the lack of State funding.
The concept of funding universities on a performance basis is being examined at many higher education
institutions across the country. Discussions focus on providing a portion of State support to institutions
based on outcomes (e.g., the number of courses successfully completed, increases in the graduation
rate and number of degrees awarded) rather than the number of credit hours of instruction to be
delivered.
The past decade has been a period of rapid growth at UNC, with funding of the University’s enrollment
expansion requests by the General Assembly. That funding supported the growth of UNC in the past
decade by over 60,000 students, bringing the 2009 total to over 222,000 students. A key component of
this growth was differential growth on the campuses, some growing rapidly while others grew modestly
or very little. This growth has exceeded the projections on which the 2000 bond program was based.
Access was significantly expanded by the growth of all campuses, with special opportunities afforded to
the Focused Growth Campuses (ECSU, FSU, NCA&T, NCCU, UNCP, WCU, and WSSU).
As the University addresses the current funding environment and the environment that is likely to
persist for the near term it must adopt an approach to account for its new circumstances. The national
mood for higher education has, as has UNC’s, shifted to student success and degree production along
with expanding access. The production of undergraduate degrees will play a larger and larger role as
this model is developed and implemented. It is becoming clearer and clearer that access that does not
result in student success is providing a disservice to our students. While some college, even without a
degree, provides a positive, measurable economic impact, our goal is to marry access and student
success so that access means access to a post-secondary credential. In the case of UNC, that is a
baccalaureate degree.
There are two factors that will be important to consider as drivers of this model. One is the historical
levels of campuses’ performance on a variety of measures and the other is the degree of improvement
1
regardless of the campuses’ past historical level of performance. It is clear that there are national data
relating levels of performance to the selectivity of institutions. On the other hand, the Educational Trust
has shown that there are high-performing campuses with substantially the same characteristics as other
campuses which have a much lower historical level of performance. Both of these considerations are
relevant to our ongoing analysis of enrollment and performance. One provides some explanation of
where we are and the other challenges us to improve significantly.
Among the great results of the Bond Program and the Focused Growth Initiative was significant
expansion in the number of enrollment slots across the campuses and especially on the Focused Growth
Campuses. The Focused Growth Campuses also developed a significantly expanded set of choices among
available academic degree programs. Given this historical expansion, there is a continuing capacity for
these campuses to address access as well as for other campuses with expanded capacity to do so.
The idea is to use the historical levels of performance and current and ongoing performance to address
both whether and where there should be restraints on expansion of enrollment and what funding for
performance should accrue to campuses.
The model is developed in the first instance to identify where there should be restraint and where there
should be reward based on the relation of historical, current, and ongoing levels of performance. This
model can operate best when State funding for both enrollment growth and for rewarding performance
is available.
If the University finds it necessary to significantly restrain enrollment growth, historical levels of
performance may have to play a larger role. In order to achieve student success and increase the
number of baccalaureate degrees awarded, calculations of efficiency will also be relevant in such a
restrained environment.
The template that has been developed includes a number of measures, some of which can be used now
and some which will be developed over the next few months. Where possible, the measures will involve
historical performance over time of the institution, whether the agreed-upon goals are met, how the
campus performs in relation to peers, and how the campus performs in relation to predictive models.
The categories to be included follow.
Freshmen-to-Sophomore Retention. This is the standard IPEDS measure of the percentage of first-time,
full-time freshmen who return fall term of the next year.
Six-Year Graduation Rates. This is the standard IPEDS measure of what percent of first-time, full-time
freshmen graduate from that institution within six years.
Graduation Rates of Community College Transfers with an Associate’s Degree within Four Years.
Because of the relatively low numbers of associate degree transfers these are grouped into three-year
rolling cohorts.
2
Graduation Rates of Community College Transfers without an Associate’s Degree. Since a larger
number transfer without an associate degree it will be important to track this group.
All Undergraduates Six-Year Graduation Rates. This is a different measure that looks at the entire
undergraduate enrollment on a campus in a given year then calculates how many have graduated within
six years, regardless of how they entered the university.
Increased Numbers of Baccalaureate Degrees and the Efficiency with Which They Are Produced. This
will be based on the number of degrees produced in relation to targets as well as on the efficiency with
which they are produced. Efficiency will involve both number of degrees produced per 100 FTE
undergraduates and the cost of those degrees if effective measures can be established. Time to degree,
enrolled time to degree, and total credits hours attempted for a degree are potential measures to be
developed.
Degree Production in High-Need Areas Such as Teacher Education, Nursing, and the STEM Areas.
Degree production in teacher education and nursing has increased significantly in recent years and a
new set of targets will be negotiated for teacher education this fall, and then in the other areas.
Supplemental Data.
While detailed targets will not be established, data for retention and degree completion of “at-risk”
students will be broken down by gender, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic profile to provide a context
for understanding how sub-groups are doing.
While it is important to consider all appropriate measures, it is also important to have a relatively small
number of focused measures that capture the key components of student and institutional success. It is
also important to use several data points and not depend on a single target
A next step is to set degree targets. While campuses now have targets for the percent of students who
graduate, targets will be considered that focus directly on the number of baccalaureate degrees
produced. Focusing on degree targets will shift attention from the freshmen entry point to a wider
range of entry points such as AA/AS transfers from the community colleges, other transfers from the
community colleges, transfers from other institutions, and adults returning to complete undergraduate
degrees.
Restraints on enrollment need to be carefully defined. So far we have identified five categories where
enrollment expansion and restraints might be relevant: freshmen enrollment growth, retention
improvement-based growth, AA/AS transfer growth, other transfer growth, graduate growth in relation
to undergraduate performance. They will be further developed below.
Even under conditions of restrained enrollment growth, options such as rigorous summer bridge
programs that demonstrate they can significantly improve student success will be available as potential
avenues to increase enrollment.
3
As these measures are developed for undergraduate degrees, it will also be necessary to recognize the
importance of graduate education and that graduate degree production is a key component of North
Carolina’s success in the research-based knowledge economy.
Performance Funding and the UNC Enrollment Expansion Funding Model
Both limits on enrollment growth and funding based on performance are directly relevant to the
Enrollment Expansion Funding Model. Restraints on enrollment may mean lower requests in terms of
numbers of students and funding based on performance will mean that adjustments will have to be
made to the funding formula.
Of immediate concern is the need to implement the directive advanced by the President and the Board
of Governors to tie student success, as measured through retention and graduation rates and other
measures, to enrollment funding. The legislature is also expecting UNC to make changes in this
direction. This should be done within the request for enrollment funding that is submitted to the
General Assembly for the 2011-13 biennium. Following are a set of recommendations for a change to
the enrollment funding model that would tie student success to new enrollment funding. Each
campus’s success would be relative to its own set of Board of Governors-approved peers, improvements
over time, meeting its targets, and performance in relation to predicted outcomes.
Background for recommendation:




The Board of Governors has made it clear that student success at UNC campuses is as important
as providing access to the University, that access is access to a post-secondary credential or
degree.
The primary measures of student success that have been discussed are retention rates,
graduation rates, and the efficiency with which degrees are produced. Campus-specific goals
have been established for some of these measures and others are in process. When reviewing
progress against goals, the immediate focus is on retention rates because the impact of
improvements can be seen in a shorter time. Improvements in graduation rates are directly tied
to improvements in retention rates; however, the graduation rate improvements do not
materialize until a longer period of time passes.
The funding model for enrollment growth contains “undergraduate cost factors” that provide
incremental funding to growing institutions. Current cost factors provide funding for campuses
that have a larger-than-normal population of disadvantaged students, a non-doctoral mission,
diseconomies of scale, and a liberal arts mission.
The current funding model provides significant and important funding for the University. It is
almost constantly under scrutiny and, of course, must be thoroughly defensible.
4
Recommendation: For an institution to be allowed to increase freshman enrollment at all, the
institution would be required to demonstrate substantial progress (to be defined) in meeting its
retention goals. A prohibition on increasing enrollment would separately apply to freshman enrollment
and would not preclude an institution from increasing its enrollment growth through transfer students,
particularly community college transfer students. Beginning in 2013-15, an institution would not be
allowed to increase enrollment if it was not meeting or making progress in meeting its graduation goals.
It is proposed that retention and graduation rates be more closely linked to enrollment growth by
replacing two of the current undergraduate cost factors with three new factors that recognize the
Board’s focus on student success as well as the efficiency of degree production. Two undergraduate
cost factors would remain while the cost factors for liberal arts and non-doctoral mission would not. The
first remaining factor recognizes that campuses serving students from disadvantaged backgrounds
require funding to accommodate the needs of those students. The factor is applied to any campus with
more than one-third of undergraduate resident students receiving Pell Grants. The model increases the
number of faculty positions serving undergraduate students by 5% in recognition of this need. The
schools that currently qualify for this 5% are ECSU, FSU, NCA&T, NCCU, UNCP, and WSSU.
The second remaining factor is one that recognizes diseconomies of scale (5%). The two institutions to
which this factor is currently applied are ECSU and UNCA.
To encourage campuses to improve retention rates, a new undergraduate cost factor would be
introduced. If a campus is making progress in meeting retention goals or has a retention rate above a
specific percentage agreed to with General Administration based on that campus’s peer results (say
85%), an undergraduate cost factor (say 5%) would be applied. It is important to note that the funding
model already recognizes retention by providing funding for students who continue to matriculate
within the campus.
To encourage campuses to improve graduation rates, a second new undergraduate cost factor would be
introduced. If a campus was making progress in meeting graduation goals or had 6-year graduation
rates in excess of a set percentage agreed to with General Administration based on that campus’s peer
results (say 60%), an undergraduate cost factor (say 5%) would be applied.
The third new cost factor (say 10%) would recognize the efficiency of undergraduate degree production
on a campus. The proposed metric would be degrees/100FTEs and cost/degree and the comparator
group would be an institution’s peer group as approved by the Board of Governors.
To recognize strong performance at a campus, the Board of Governors should also consider requesting
additional appropriations (say $1 or $2 million) on top of the regular enrollment request to create a pool
of funds to award high-performing campuses. The Board would need to determine a set of campusspecific metrics (including retention, graduation, the number of new degrees awarded, and efficiency
[degrees/100FTE, cost/degree] relative to a campus’s peer institutions or any of the other metrics
5
discussed in the beginning of this document) that would be measured and, based on success in
achieving the metrics, the pool of funds would be allocated to the campuses. Should the legislature not
be supportive of the request for funding, the President will use $1,000,000 of strategic initiatives
funding or trust funds to launch this initiative.
These steps are proposed to be made effective with the 2011-13 biennium. UNC would continue to
examine the success of this approach and consider other approaches as additional measures are
considered.
Implementation
There are two parts to the implementation of the model. One is to identify the implication of
performance for campus enrollment growth and the other is to relate performance to funding.
Implementing the Relation of Performance to Enrollment Growth
As indicated above, there are at least five possible categories in which a campus can plan to grow or
restrain growth. Based on performance, the campus can continue with normal growth, or there may be
some restraints on growth, or for some situations it may be that the campus should not grow in that
category. The table below relates the five areas for growth to the three judgments that can
independently be made about each area based on the campus’s performance. This makes it clear that a
campus which might be restrained in freshman growth could have several other avenues of growth and
that the restraint on growth is being targeted where problems are detected.
6
Relation of Performance to Growth
Enrollment Growth/Change
Options for Growth/Change*
Freshmen Enrollment
None, Restricted, Normal
Retention Improvement Enrollment
None, Restricted, Normal
AA Transfer Enrollment
None, Restricted, Normal
Other Transfer Enrollment
None, Restricted, Normal
Graduate Enrollment Change in Relation to
Undergraduate Performance
None, Restricted, Normal
*Growth rates at different campuses vary, so this depends on past growth/change levels. The overall
budgetary situation in the State may require redefinition of normal.
Implementing the Revised Undergraduate Cost Factors
There are three performance-based undergraduate cost factors related to specific performance on
retention, graduation, and degree production and efficiency. Cost factors can be included or not
included in the enrollment budget request depending on the performance on each one. For example, a
campus could get a cost factor included in the funding request for retention but not for graduation. The
fourth category, while not a cost factor as such, is meant to be a way for recognizing and rewarding
exemplary performance. The table below relates the four categories of reward to the options available
for each.
Application of Undergraduate Cost Factors Based on Performance
Performance-Related Funding
Options
Related to Retention
Yes, No
Related to Graduation
Yes, No
Related to Degree Production and Efficiency
Yes, No
Related to Overall High Performance
Yes, No
7
Display of the Data
The following spread sheet includes the data by campus for the various data points being developed for
your review and discussion.
8
Template for Factors Relating to the Model for Performance Funding and Enrollment Restraint
Measure
ASU
ECU
ECSU
RETENTION
Retention (Freshman-to-Sophomore)
Historical Level of Retention Data
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q3
Q2
Rate
85.6%
77.2%
75.9%
Improvement in Historical Retention Level
0.8
1.6
0.4
Meet or Not Meet Retention Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
Yes
No
Yes
Goal
86.0%
79.0%
76.0%
Actual
86.4%
78.8%
76.3%
Difference
0.4
-0.2
0.3
Above/Below All Peer Retention Average
5.9
0.6
11.3
Above/Below Public Peer Retention Average
Above/Below Predicted Range for Retention
Enrolled at Another UNC Campus, year 2
2.9%
2.6%
2.9%
GRADUATION
Six-Year Graduation Rate
Historical Level of 6-Yr Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q3
Q2
Rate
62.4%
54.6%
47.3%
Improvement in Historical 6-Year
Graduation Rates
2.0
2.2
-1.5
Meet or Not Meet 6-Yr Graduation Goals
Meet (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Goal
64.0%
56.5%
43.0%
Actual
64.4%
56.8%
45.8%
Difference
0.4
0.3
2.8
Above/Below Predicted Range for 6-Yr Grad Rate
Data Not Available
Above/Below Ave. All Peers 6-Yr Grad. Rate
2.8
4.3
8.4
Above/Below Ave. Pub. Peers 6-Yr Grad. Rate
First-time Full-time Freshmen from initial
Cohort Who Graduate in 6 Years from Other
Institutions in UNC
6.3%
4.7%
2.1%
Graduation Rates for CC Transfers with an Associate Degree
Historical Level of CC Associate Degree
Transfer Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q2
Q3
Rate
75.5%
65.9%
67.6%
Improvement in Historical CC Transfer
Graduation Rates
-1.5
3.1
-5.6
Meet or Not Meet CC Transfer Grad. Rate Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
No
No
No
Goal
78.0%
71.0%
66.0%
Actual
74.0%
68.0%
61.0%
Difference
-4.0
-3.0
-5.0
Total Undergraduate Students Graduation Rate
Graduation Rate of Total Undergraduates in Fall 2002
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Q4
Q3
Q2
Rate
81.9%
75.0%
65.7%
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
Q1
72.1%
1.5
Q1
71.9%
5.2
Q2
74.6%
2.4
Q4
89.6%
1.3
Q3
78.2%
3.7
Q4
96.3%
-0.6
Q3
77.7%
0.2
Q2
76.5%
0.1
Q1
69.0%
-1.5
Q4
84.4%
0.3
Q3
77.5%
-0.1
Q1
70.8%
5.4
Q2
73.4%
4.4
No
74.0%
73.6%
-0.4
4.2
Yes
72.0%
77.1%
5.1
4.5
Yes
76.0%
77.0%
1.0
6.3
Yes
90.5%
90.9%
0.4
-0.9
-0.6
Yes
80.0%
81.9%
1.9
-3.3
-0.7
No
96.5%
95.7%
-0.8
0.4
1.0
No
78.0%
77.9%
-0.1
1.4
Yes
76.6%
76.6%
0.0
-3.7
No
70.8%
67.5%
-3.3
-5.7
No
86.0%
84.7%
-1.3
1.7
Yes
76.0%
77.4%
1.4
1.7
-7.6
Yes
69.0%
76.2%
7.2
-2.7
Yes
71.0%
77.8%
6.8
6.6
5.7%
1.2%
3.5%
2.2%
4.1%
0.6%
3.9%
3.9%
4.6%
3.7%
1.3%
4.9%
3.4%
Q1
37.8%
Q1
39.7%
Q2
48.3%
Q4
69.8%
Q3
54.1%
Q4
83.6%
Q2
49.3%
Q3
51.2%
Q1
35.9%
Q4
64.3%
Q3
53.6%
Q2
47.4%
Q1
43.8%
-6.3
-2.5
-3.9
3.4
4.6
1.3
4.6
0.4
-1.8
4.2
7.6
1.4
-7.3
No
40.0%
31.5%
-8.5
No
43.0%
37.2%
-5.8
No
50.0%
44.4%
-5.6
Yes
72.0%
73.2%
1.2
Yes
56.0%
58.7%
2.7
Yes
83.5%
84.9%
1.4
Yes
50.0%
53.9%
3.9
No
51.8%
51.6%
-0.2
No
36.0%
34.1%
-1.9
Yes
67.0%
68.5%
1.5
Yes
53.0%
61.2%
8.2
Yes
48.5%
48.8%
0.3
No
46.0%
36.5%
-9.5
-9.2
-8.0
2.0
-5.6
-4.7
-12.6
-6.0
-2.1
0.2
2.7
-7.9
-14.3
2.7
0.5
4.6
-10.6
-6.3
3.3%
2.1%
2.1%
4.8%
9.8%
1.4%
5.3%
6.8%
6.3%
8.1%
2.4%
5.8%
2.5%
Q1
56.8%
Q1
50.3%
Q1
62.0%
Q3
67.8%
Q2
62.1%
Q4
71.9%
Q1
62.0%
Q2
66.5%
Q3
70.0%
Q4
75.8%
n/a
n/a
Q4
74.4%
Q2
65.8%
7.2
3.7
-8.0
8.2
-2.1
-3.9
6.0
-2.5
-10.0
5.2
n/a
-1.4
-7.8
Yes
58.0%
63.0%
5.0
Yes
51.0%
53.0%
2.0
No
63.0%
55.0%
-8.0
Yes
72.0%
75.0%
3.0
No
67.0%
60.0%
-7.0
No
69.0%
68.0%
-1.0
Yes
62.5%
68.0%
5.5
No
67.0%
63.0%
-4.0
No
71.0%
59.0%
-12.0
Yes
78.0%
81.0%
3.0
n/a
n/a
60.0%
n/a
No
76.5%
73.0%
-3.5
No
65.0%
57.0%
-8.0
Q1
62.3%
Q1
55.3%
Q1
61.9%
Q4
82.2%
Q3
77.3%
Q4
90.6%
Q2
69.5%
Q3
73.2%
Q2
63.3%
Q4
83.2%
Q2
67.3%
Q3
74.6%
Q1
60.2%
Template for Factors Relating to the Model for Performance Funding and Enrollment Restraint
Measure
DEGREE PRODUCTION AND EFFICIENCY
Increased Production of Baccalaureate Degrees
Baccalaureate Degrees Produced per 100
FTE Enrolled Students
Above/Below Public Peers Average Production
per 100 FTE Enrolled Students
Subject to Acceptable Methodology, Cost
per Degrees Produced Compared to Peers
Assessment
Restraints:
Freshmen Enrollment Growth
Retention Improvement Enrollment Growth
Transfer AA Growth
Transfer Growth
Graduate Growth in Relation to
Undergraduate Performance
Rewards:
Specific Reward Related to Retention
Specific Reward Related to Graduation
Degree Production and Efficiency
Rewards Related to High Performance
ASU
ECU
Q2
19.9
Below
-1.2
Q2
19.9
Above
0.2
ECSU
Q1
15.5
Below
-0.9
FSU
Q2
16.5
Below
-1.8
NCA&T
Q1
12.6
Below
-5.5
NCCU
Q1
15.5
Below
-6.0
NCSU
Q3
20.6
Below
-3.0
UNCA UNC-CH
Q3
22.6
Above
0.7
Q4
24.7
Above
1.5
UNCC
Q4
22.7
Above
2.1
UNCG
Q3
21.0
Same
0.0
UNCP
Q1
16.3
Below
-3.4
UNCW
Q4
24.1
Above
2.2
UNCSA
WCU
Q4
24.0
Above
3.5
WSSU
Q2
19.1
Above
0.7
Template for Factors Relating to the Model for Performance Funding and Enrollment Restraint
(Data Sources and Calculations)
Measure
Data Sources and Calculations
RETENTION
Retention (Freshman-to-Sophomore)
Historical Level of Retention Data
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
Improvement in Historical Retention Level
Meet or Not Meet Retention Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
Goal
Actual
Difference
Above/Below All Peer Retention Average
Above/Below Public Peer Retention Average
Above/Below Predicted Range for Retention
Enrolled at Another UNC Campus, year 2
GRADUATION
Six-Year Graduation Rate
Historical Level of 6-Year Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
Improvement in Historical 6-Year Graduation Rates
Meet or Not Meet 6-Year Graduation Goals
Meet (Yes/No)
Goal
Actual
Difference
Above/Below Predicted Range for 6-Year Graduation Rate
Above/Below Average All Peers 6-Year Graduation Rate
Above/Below Average Public Peers 6-Year Graduation Rate
First-time Full-time Freshmen from initial Cohort Who
Graduate in 6 Years from Other Institutions in UNC
From Student Data File (SDF.ER001), each year and institution's # of students who
returned from freshman to sophomore was calculated based on the cohort # and
retention rate. Five-year rate was then calculated and sorted from high to low.
Quartiles were calculated in Excel for the 16 campuses. Current year rate is
compared to the 5-year rate to determine the improvement.
Goals were agreed to by the campuses and GA. The most recent year retention
rates were compared to the goals and the differences were calculated (if positive,
goal was met; negative - no.)
IPEDS data was used. Majority UNC institutions selected public institutions as peers.
Four (NCSU, UNCA, UNC-CH, and UNCSA) included private ones.
Data was from SDF.
From Student Data File (SDF.ER001), each year and institution's # of students who
graduated in 6 years was calculated based on the cohort # and graduation rate. Fiveyear rate was then calculated and sorted from high to low. Quartiles were calculated
in Excel for the 16 campuses. Current year rate is compared to the 5-year rate to
determine the improvement.
Goals were agreed to by the campuses and GA. The most recent year 6-year
graduation rates were compared to the goals and the differences were calculated (if
positive, goal was met; negative - no.) .
IPEDS data was used. Majority UNC institutions selected public institutions as peers.
Four (NCSU, UNCA, UNC-CH, & UNCSA) included private ones.
From Student Data File (SDF.ER001), the 6-year graduation rate in UNC system
minus the 6-year graduation rate from home institution gave us the 6-year
graduation rate from other institutions in UNC.
Graduation Rates for CC Transfers with an Associate Degree
Historical Level of CC Associate Degree Transfer Graduation Rates
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
Improvement in Historical CC Transfer Graduation Rates
Meet or Not Meet CC Transfer Graduation Rate Goal
Meet (Yes/No)
Goal
Actual
Difference
Total Undergraduate Students Graduation Rate
Graduation Rate of Total Undergraduates in Fall 2002
Level (Quartile 1-4: Q1-Q4)
Rate
DEGREE PRODUCTION AND EFFICIENCY
Increased Production of Baccalaureate Degrees
Baccalaureate Degrees Produced per 100 FTE
Enrolled Students
Above/Below Public Peers Average Production per 100 FTE
Enrolled Students
Subject to Acceptable Methodology, Cost per Degree Produced
Compared to Peers
Assessment
Restraints:
Freshmen Enrollment Growth
Retention Improvement Enroll. Growth
Transfer AA Growth
Transfer Growth
Graduate Growth in Relation to Undergraduate Performance
Rewards:
Specific Reward Related to Retention
Specific Reward Related to Graduation
Degree Production and Efficiency
Rewards Related to High Performance
From NCCCS provided data and SDF (in TSP Report on IRA web site Persist.GR005.P), each of the two 3-year cohorts (1996-98 & 1999-2001) and
institution's # of CC transfers who graduated in 4 years were calculated based on the
cohort # and graduation rates. Four-year CC transfers' (two 3-year cohorts)
graduation rates were then calculated for the campuses and sorted from high to
low. Quartiles were calculated in Excel for the 16 campuses. The most recent cohort
(2002-04) rate is compared to the two 3-year cohorts (total 6 years of historical
data) rate to determine the improvement.
Goals were agreed to by the campuses and GA. The most recent cohort (2002-04)
graduation rates were compared to the goals and the differences were calculated (if
positive, goal was met; negative - no.) .
The undergraduates in 2002 were tracked. The graduation rate is 6-year for
freshmen; 5-year for sophomores; 4-year for juniors; 3-year for seniors; 2-year for
those in fifth year or more. Quartiles were calculated in Excel based on the total
rate.
Information was based on IPEDS data. The average of 6 years (2003-08) enrollment
data and 2008 graduation data were used.
Differences were calculated between UNC and peer average.
Back Up Data
for
Model for Performance Funding
and Enrollment Restraint
5-Year Historical Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates
Institution
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
UNC Total
Fall 2003-2007 Cohorts
Total
N Retn
%
12,965
11,095 85.6%
18,129
14,004 77.2%
2,751
2,087 75.9%
4,143
2,989 72.1%
10,315
7,412 71.9%
5,572
4,156 74.6%
21,238
19,030 89.6%
2,903
2,269 78.2%
18,529
17,838 96.3%
13,638
10,592 77.7%
11,435
8,748 76.5%
4,526
3,122 69.0%
9,496
8,011 84.4%
728
564 77.5%
7,441
5,265 70.8%
4,762
3,493 73.4%
148,571 120,487 81.1%
2008 (2009)
Cohort N
%
2,773 86.4%
4,522 78.8%
636 76.3%
579 73.6%
1,592 77.1%
1,026 77.0%
4,660 90.9%
586 81.9%
3,852 95.7%
3,060 77.9%
2,472 76.6%
1,057 67.5%
2,069 84.7%
164 77.4%
1,219 76.2%
1,353 77.8%
31,620 82.7%
0.8%
1.6%
0.4%
1.5%
5.2%
2.4%
1.3%
3.7%
-0.6%
0.2%
0.1%
-1.5%
0.3%
-0.1%
5.4%
4.4%
1.6%
Diff
0.8
1.6
0.4
1.5
5.2
2.4
1.3
3.7
-0.6
0.2
0.1
-1.5
0.3
-0.1
5.4
4.4
1.6
5-Year Historical Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates
Historical
Retention
Level
95% - 100%
UNC-CH
90% - 94.9%
85% - 89.9%
NCSU
ASU
80% - 84.9%
UNCW
75% - 79.9%
UNCA
UNCC
UNCSA
ECU
UNCG
70% - 74.9%
NCCU
WSSU
FSU
NCA&T
WCU
65% - 69.9%
UNCP
ECSU
Institution
UNC-CH
NCSU
ASU
UNCW
UNCA
UNCC
UNCSA
ECU
UNCG
ECSU
NCCU
WSSU
FSU
NCA&T
WCU
UNCP
Fall 2003-2007 Cohorts
Total
N Retn
%
18,529
17,838 96.3%
21,238
19,030 89.6%
12,965
11,095 85.6%
9,496
8,011 84.4%
2,903
2,269 78.2%
13,638
10,592 77.7%
728
564 77.5%
18,129
14,004 77.2%
11,435
8,748 76.5%
2,751
2,087 75.9%
5,572
4,156 74.6%
4,762
3,493 73.4%
4,143
2,989 72.1%
10,315
7,412 71.9%
7,441
5,265 70.8%
4,526
3,122 69.0%
Quartile
Divider
Quartile
Q4
79.72%
Q3
76.87%
Q2
73.05%
Q1
Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates, Targets, and Performance
2008 (2009)
Institution
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
UNC Total
Goal
86.0%
79.0%
76.0%
74.0%
72.0%
76.0%
90.5%
80.0%
96.5%
78.0%
76.6%
70.8%
86.0%
76.0%
69.0%
71.0%
Actual
86.4%
78.8%
76.3%
73.6%
77.1%
77.0%
90.9%
81.9%
95.7%
77.9%
76.6%
67.5%
84.7%
77.4%
76.2%
77.8%
82.7%
Difference
0.4%
-0.2%
0.3%
-0.4%
5.1%
1.0%
0.4%
1.9%
-0.8%
-0.1%
0.0%
-3.3%
-1.3%
1.4%
7.2%
6.8%
Diff.
0.4
-0.2
0.3
-0.4
5.1
1
0.4
1.9
-0.8
-0.1
0
-3.3
-1.3
1.4
7.2
6.8
Public Peers
UNC Rate
Rate
Diff
86.4
80.5
5.9
78.8
78.2
0.6
76.3
65.0
11.3
73.6
69.4
4.2
77.1
72.6
4.5
77.0
70.7
6.3
90.9
91.5
-0.6
81.9
82.6
-0.7
95.7
94.7
1.0
77.9
76.5
1.4
76.6
80.3
-3.7
67.5
73.2
-5.7
84.7
83.0
1.7
77.4
85.0
-7.6
76.2
78.9
-2.7
77.8
71.3
6.6
77.5
Source: Peers.GR016C
All Peers
Rate
80.5
78.2
65.0
69.4
72.6
70.7
91.8
85.2
95.3
76.5
80.3
73.2
83.0
75.7
78.9
71.3
78.1
Diff
5.9
0.6
11.3
4.2
4.5
6.3
-0.9
-3.3
0.4
1.4
-3.7
-5.7
1.7
1.7
-2.7
6.6
Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates, Targets, and Performance
2008 (2009)
Institution
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
Actual
86.4%
78.8%
76.3%
73.6%
77.1%
77.0%
90.9%
81.9%
95.7%
77.9%
76.6%
67.5%
84.7%
77.4%
76.2%
77.8%
Predicted
87.4%
76.4%
76.1%
73.7%
73.5%
77.0%
90.2%
80.4%
96.7%
78.6%
77.0%
72.6%
81.9%
77.6%
74.5%
72.8%
Diff.
-1.0%
2.4%
0.2%
-0.1%
3.6%
0.0%
0.7%
1.5%
-1.0%
-0.7%
-0.4%
-5.1%
2.8%
-0.2%
1.7%
5.0%
Range
85.9%
74.8%
71.6%
69.6%
70.5%
73.7%
89.3%
76.1%
96.0%
76.7%
75.0%
69.0%
78.6%
68.7%
71.5%
69.5%
-
88.9%
78.0%
80.2%
77.8%
76.3%
80.0%
91.2%
84.2%
97.4%
80.5%
78.9%
75.5%
84.6%
85.1%
77.5%
76.1%
Status
Within
Above
Within
Within
Above
Within
Within
Within
Below
Within
Within
Below
Above
Within
Within
Above
First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Six-Year Graduation Rates
Institution
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
UNC Total
2003 (2009)
1998-2002 Cohorts
Total N N Grads 6-yr Rate Cohort N 6-yr rate
11,782
7,357
62.4%
64.4%
2,465
15,913
8,684
54.6%
56.8%
3,462
2,039
965
47.3%
45.8%
459
3,350
1,267
37.8%
31.5%
794
8,341
3,308
39.7%
37.2%
2,221
3,602
1,739
48.3%
44.4%
1,025
18,300
12,766
69.8%
73.2%
3,839
2,294
1,241
54.1%
58.7%
593
17,364
14,514
83.6%
84.9%
3,511
11,044
5,444
49.3%
53.9%
2,473
9,548
4,884
51.2%
51.6%
2,039
2,904
1,043
35.9%
34.1%
794
8,614
5,542
64.3%
68.5%
1,768
722
387
53.6%
61.2%
121
5,858
2,777
47.4%
48.8%
1,494
2,783
1,219
43.8%
36.5%
883
124,458
73,132
58.8%
58.8%
27,941
2.0%
2.2%
-1.5%
-6.3%
-2.5%
-3.9%
3.4%
4.6%
1.3%
4.6%
0.4%
-1.8%
4.2%
7.6%
1.4%
-7.3%
0.0%
Diff
2.0
2.2
-1.5
-6.3
-2.5
-3.9
3.4
4.6
1.3
4.6
0.4
-1.8
4.2
7.6
1.4
-7.3
0.0
Six-Year
Historical
Graduation
Category Level
1
90% - 100%
First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Six-Year Graduation Rates
2
80% - 89.9%
UNC-CH
3
70% - 79.9%
4
60% - 69.9%
NCSU
UNCW
ASU
5
50% - 59.9%
ECU
UNCA
UNCSA
UNCG
6
40% - 49.9%
UNCC
NCCU
WCU
ECSU
7
30% - 39.9%
NCA&T
FSU
UNCP
WSSU
Quartile
1998-2002 Cohorts
Institution Total N
Divider Quartile
N Grads 6-yr Rate
UNC-CH
17,364
14,514
83.6%
Q4
NCSU
18,300
12,766
69.8%
UNCW
8,614
5,542
64.3%
ASU
11,782
7,357
62.4%
ECU
15,913
8,684
54.6%
56.54%
Q3
UNCA
2,294
1,241
54.1%
UNCSA
722
387
53.6%
UNCG
9,548
4,884
51.2%
UNCC
11,044
5,444
49.3%
50.22%
Q2
NCCU
3,602
1,739
48.3%
WCU
5,858
2,777
47.4%
ECSU
2,039
965
47.3%
WSSU
2,783
1,219
43.8%
46.45%
Q1
NCA&T
8,341
3,308
39.7%
FSU
3,350
1,267
37.8%
UNCP
2,904
1,043
35.9%
First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Six-Year Graduation Rates
2003 (2009)
2003 (2009)
Institution
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
UNC Total
Goal
64.0%
56.5%
43.0%
40.0%
43.0%
50.0%
72.0%
56.0%
83.5%
50.0%
51.8%
36.0%
67.0%
53.0%
48.5%
46.0%
Actual
64.4%
56.8%
45.8%
31.5%
37.2%
44.4%
73.2%
58.7%
84.9%
53.9%
51.6%
34.1%
68.5%
61.2%
48.8%
36.5%
58.8%
Difference
0.4%
0.3%
2.8%
-8.5%
-5.8%
-5.6%
1.2%
2.7%
1.4%
3.9%
-0.2%
-1.9%
1.5%
8.2%
0.3%
-9.5%
Diff
0.4
0.3
2.8
-8.5
-5.8
-5.6
1.2
2.7
1.4
3.9
-0.2
-1.9
1.5
8.2
0.3
-9.5
UNC
Rate
64.4
56.8
45.8
31.5
37.2
44.4
73.2
58.7
84.9
53.9
51.6
34.1
68.5
61.2
48.8
36.5
Public Peers
All Peers
Rate
Diff Rate
Diff
2.8
61.6
2.8
61.6
4.3
52.6
4.3
52.6
8.4
37.4
8.4
37.4
-9.2
40.7
-9.2
40.7
-8.0
45.2
-8.0
45.2
2.0
42.4
2.0
42.4
-5.6
77.9
-4.7
78.8
64.7
-6.0
71.3 -12.6
-2.1
84.7
0.2
87.0
2.7
51.2
2.7
51.2
-7.9
59.5
-7.9
59.5
48.4 -14.3
48.4 -14.3
2.7
65.8
2.7
65.8
0.5
56.6
4.6
60.7
59.4 -10.6
59.4 -10.6
-6.3
42.8
-6.3
42.8
54.8
56.6
Source: Peers.GR016A
Grad from Grad from Grad from Other
Inst. in UNC
Institution Home Inst UNC Sys
ASU
64.4%
70.7%
6.3%
ECU
56.8%
61.5%
4.7%
ECSU
45.8%
47.9%
2.1%
FSU
31.5%
34.8%
3.3%
NCA&T
37.2%
39.3%
2.1%
NCCU
44.4%
46.5%
2.1%
NCSU
73.2%
78.0%
4.8%
UNCA
58.7%
68.5%
9.8%
UNC-CH
84.9%
86.3%
1.4%
UNCC
53.9%
59.2%
5.3%
UNCG
51.6%
58.4%
6.8%
UNCP
34.1%
40.4%
6.3%
UNCW
68.5%
76.6%
8.1%
UNCSA
61.2%
63.6%
2.4%
WCU
48.8%
54.6%
5.8%
WSSU
36.5%
39.0%
2.5%
UNC Total 58.8%
63.4%
4.6%
Source: SDF. ER001
Table 2.2D. UNC Undergraduate Six-Year Success and Progress Rate
First-Time Full-Time Students Who First Enrolled in Fall 2003
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
Graduated from
Home Inst.
64.6%
55.2%
45.6%
31.3%
37.5%
44.1%
70.7%
58.5%
88.4%
54.1%
51.6%
34.9%
69.0%
58.7%
49.1%
37.8%
Graduated from
Other Inst.
10.7%
11.4%
4.1%
6.2%
5.5%
4.0%
7.8%
16.9%
3.6%
11.8%
13.2%
13.1%
13.2%
0.8%
11.8%
4.2%
Still Enrolled in
Home Inst.
3.7%
5.9%
6.3%
9.5%
8.3%
7.5%
4.8%
2.9%
1.5%
6.0%
6.9%
3.2%
1.8%
1.7%
2.9%
11.7%
Still Enrolled in
Other Inst.
6.8%
8.3%
8.3%
12.9%
11.1%
9.3%
5.2%
8.3%
1.7%
8.4%
10.6%
11.8%
5.8%
4.1%
11.0%
11.8%
Total Rate
85.8%
80.8%
64.3%
59.9%
62.4%
64.9%
88.5%
86.6%
95.2%
80.3%
82.3%
63.0%
89.8%
65.3%
74.8%
65.5%
Figure 2.2D. UNC Undergraduate 6-Year Success and Progress Rate
First-time Full-time Freshmen Enrolled in Fall 2003
85.8%
80.8%
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
0.0%
64.3%
59.9%
62.4%
64.9%
88.5%
86.6%
95.2%
80.3%
82.3%
63.0%
89.8%
65.3%
74.8%
65.5%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Graduated from Home Inst.
Graduated from Other Inst.
Still Enrolled in Home Inst.
Still Enrolled in Other Inst.
100.0%
Four-Year Graduation Rates of NCCCS Associate Degree Recipients Who Transferred to UNC Institutions
1996-1998 Cohort
1999-2001 Cohort
Institution Cohort N 4-yr rate
N Cohort N 4-yr rate
N
ASU
349
74.0%
258
355
77.0%
273
ECU
505
63.0%
318
470
69.0%
324
ECSU
107
69.0%
74
97
66.0%
64
FSU
149
58.0%
86
105
55.0%
58
NCA&T
49
49.0%
24
89
51.0%
45
NCCU
60
63.0%
38
57
61.0%
35
NCSU
262
63.0%
165
295
72.0%
212
UNCA
90
58.0%
52
94
66.0%
62
UNC-CH
159
75.0%
119
170
69.0%
117
UNCC
451
62.0%
280
478
62.0%
296
UNCG
316
66.0%
209
378
67.0%
253
UNCP
195
70.0%
137
160
70.0%
112
UNCW
449
73.0%
328
586
78.0%
457
UNCSA
WCU
230
73.0%
168
206
76.0%
157
WSSU
37
68.0%
25
45
64.0%
29
UNC Total
3,408
66.9%
2,280 3,585
69.6%
2,495
2002-2004
1996-2001 Cohorts
4-yr
Total N N Grads 4-yr Rate Cohort N
Rate
704
532
75.5%
74.0%
420
975
642
65.9%
69.0%
563
204
138
67.6%
62.0%
103
254
144
56.8%
64.0%
178
138
69
50.3%
54.0%
95
117
73
62.0%
54.0%
101
557
377
67.8%
76.0%
450
184
114
62.1%
60.0%
178
329
237
71.9%
68.0%
189
929
576
62.0%
68.0%
663
694
462
66.5%
64.0%
432
355
249
70.0%
60.0%
256
1,035
785
75.8%
81.0%
899
436
82
6,993
324
54
4,776
74.4%
65.8%
68.3%
296
71
4,894
73.0%
58.0%
70.0%
N
311
388
64
114
51
55
342
107
129
451
276
154
728
0
216
41
3,427
-1.5%
3.1%
-5.6%
7.2%
3.7%
-8.0%
8.2%
-2.1%
-3.9%
6.0%
-2.5%
-10.0%
5.2%
Diff
-1.5
3.1
-5.6
7.2
3.7
-8.0
8.2
-2.1
-3.9
6.0
-2.5
-10.0
5.2
-1.4%
-7.8%
1.7%
-1.4
-7.8
1.7
Four-Year Graduation Rates of NCCCS Associate Degree Recipients Who Transferred to UNC Institutions
Historical
AA CC
Transfers
Category Grad Rate
1
80% - 84%
2
75% - 79.9%
UNCW
ASU
3
70% - 74.9%
WCU
UNC-CH UNCP
4
65% - 69.9%
NCSU
ECSU
UNCG
5
60% - 64.9%
UNCA
NCCU
UNCC
6
55% - 59.9%
FSU
7
50% - 54.9%
NCA&T
ECU
WSSU
Quartile
1996-2001 Cohorts
Institution Total N
Divider
N Grads 4-yr Rate
UNCW
1035
785
75.83%
ASU
704
532
75.51%
WCU
436
324
74.42%
UNC-CH
329
237
71.90%
UNCP
355
249
70.00%
70.95%
NCSU
557
377
67.77%
ECSU
204
138
67.57%
UNCG
694
462
66.54%
66.54%
ECU
975
642
65.89%
WSSU
82
54
65.80%
UNCA
184
114
62.09%
NCCU
117
73
62.03%
62.06%
UNCC
929
576
62.00%
FSU
254
144
56.76%
NCA&T
138
69
50.29%
UNC Total
6993
4,776
68.3%
Quartile
Q4
Q3
Q2
Q1
Four-Year Graduation Rates, Targets, and
Performance of NCCCS Associate Degree Recipients
Who Transferred to UNC Institutions
2002-04 (2006-08)
Institution
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NCA&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNC-CH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
UNC
System
Goal
78.0%
71.0%
66.0%
58.0%
51.0%
63.0%
72.0%
67.0%
69.0%
62.5%
67.0%
71.0%
78.0%
n/a
76.5%
65.0%
Actual
74.0%
68.0%
61.0%
63.0%
53.0%
55.0%
75.0%
60.0%
68.0%
68.0%
63.0%
59.0%
81.0%
60.0%
73.0%
57.0%
70.0%
Difference
-4.0%
-3.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
2.0%
-8.0%
3.0%
-7.0%
-1.0%
5.5%
-4.0%
-12.0%
3.0%
-3.5%
-8.0%
Diff.
-4.0
-3.0
-5.0
5.0
2.0
-8.0
3.0
-7.0
-1.0
5.5
-4.0
-12.0
3.0
0.0
-3.5
-8.0
Undergraduate Graduation Rate
Based on Enrollment in Fall 2002
Institution
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NC A&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNCCH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
UNCSA
WCU
WSSU
Graduation
Rate
81.9%
75.0%
65.7%
62.3%
55.3%
61.9%
82.2%
77.3%
90.6%
69.5%
73.2%
63.3%
83.2%
67.3%
74.6%
60.2%
Institution
UNCCH
UNCW
NCSU
ASU
UNCA
ECU
WCU
UNCG
UNCC
UNCSA
ECSU
UNCP
FSU
NCCU
WSSU
NC A&T
Sorted
Grad.Rate
90.6%
83.2%
82.2%
81.9%
77.3%
75.0%
74.6%
73.2%
69.5%
67.3%
65.7%
63.3%
62.3%
61.9%
60.2%
55.3%
Quartile
Divider
Quartile
Q4
0.7845
Q3
0.7135
Q2
0.6305
Q1
2008 Bachelor's Degrees per 100 FTEs (Avg of 6yrs - 2003 to 2008)
Campus
ASU
ECU
ECSU
FSU
NC A&T
NCCU
NCSU
UNCA
UNCCH
UNCC
UNCG
UNCP
UNCW
WCU
WSSU
UNC
Campus
19.9
19.9
15.5
16.5
12.6
15.5
20.6
22.6
24.7
22.7
21.0
16.3
24.1
Public
Peer
Average
21.1
19.6
16.4
18.3
18.0
21.5
23.6
21.9
23.2
20.6
21.0
19.7
21.9
Public
Peer
Median
21.7
19.8
17.2
17.3
18.1
19.2
23.3
21.3
24.1
19.9
20.4
19.7
21.4
24.0
19.1
20.5
18.4
20.2
18.0
UNC Percentage
Difference Difference
from Peer
from Peer
Average
Average
-1.2
-5.6%
0.2
1.3%
-0.9
-5.7%
-1.8
-9.7%
-5.5
-30.4%
-6.0
-27.9%
-3.0
-12.5%
0.7
3.1%
1.5
6.4%
2.1
10.3%
0.0
0.2%
-3.4
-17.2%
2.2
10.1%
3.5
0.7
17.1%
3.8%
UNC
Difference
from Peer
Median
-1.7
0.1
-1.7
-0.8
-5.6
-3.7
-2.7
1.3
0.6
2.8
0.7
-3.4
2.7
Percentage
Difference
from Peer
Median
-8.1%
0.5%
-10.0%
-4.8%
-30.8%
-19.5%
-11.5%
6.0%
2.6%
14.0%
3.2%
-17.3%
12.7%
3.8
1.1
18.9%
6.2%
Quartile
Divider
UNCCH
UNCW
WCU
UNCC
UNCA
UNCG
NCSU
ASU
ECU
WSSU
FSU
UNCP
ECSU
NCCU
NC A&T
24.7
24.1
24.0
22.7
22.6
21.0
20.6
19.9
19.9
19.1
16.5
16.3
15.5
15.5
12.6
23.2
21.9
20.5
20.6
21.9
21.0
23.6
21.1
19.6
18.4
18.3
19.7
16.4
21.5
18.0
24.1
21.4
20.2
19.9
21.3
20.4
23.3
21.7
19.8
18.0
17.3
19.7
17.2
19.2
18.1
1.5
2.2
3.5
2.1
0.7
0.0
-3.0
-1.2
0.2
0.7
-1.8
-3.4
-0.9
-6.0
-5.5
6.4%
10.1%
17.1%
10.3%
3.1%
0.2%
-12.5%
-5.6%
1.3%
3.8%
-9.7%
-17.2%
-5.7%
-27.9%
-30.4%
0.6
2.7
3.8
2.8
1.3
0.7
-2.7
-1.7
0.1
1.1
-0.8
-3.4
-1.7
-3.7
-5.6
2.6%
12.7%
18.9%
14.0%
6.0%
3.2%
-11.5%
-8.1%
0.5%
6.2%
-4.8%
-17.3%
-10.0%
-19.5%
-30.8%
Quartile
Q4
22.65
Q3
19.9
Q2
16.4
Q1
Retention Rates From IPEDS Data: Percent of the 2008 Freshman Class Returning in Fall 2009
UNC Selected Peers
Fall 2008
N of
UNC
Returning
Peers Freshmen Fall 2009
UNC Total
Appalachian State University
East Carolina University
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
North Carolina A & T State University
North Carolina Central University
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
University of North Carolina School of the Arts
University of North Carolina at Asheville
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
University of North Carolina-Wilmington
Western Carolina University
Winston-Salem State University
244
18
15
14
14
14
15
16
13
15
15
16
16
18
14
15
16
_______________________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/Peers.GR016.G/09AUG10
31,774
2,781
4,538
638
582
1,607
1,035
4,669
164
586
3,865
3,090
2,492
1,073
2,073
1,224
1,357
26,219
2,401
3,572
486
426
1,232
795
4,240
127
480
3,696
2,397
1,908
718
1,754
932
1,055
Retention Rate
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
82.52
78.08 4.43
86.34
80.51 5.83
78.71
78.22 0.49
76.18
64.96 11.22
73.20
69.41 3.79
76.66
72.60 4.06
76.81
70.70 6.12
90.81
91.80 -0.98
77.44
75.66 1.78
81.91
85.22 -3.31
95.63
95.31 0.31
77.57
76.46 1.11
76.57
80.29 -3.73
66.92
73.23 -6.31
84.61
83.02 1.59
76.14
78.89 -2.75
77.75
71.25 6.50
% Diff.
5.7%
7.2%
0.6%
17.3%
5.5%
5.6%
8.7%
( 1.1%)
2.4%
( 3.9%)
0.3%
1.5%
( 4.6%)
( 8.6%)
1.9%
( 3.5%)
9.1%
12:59 Monday, August 9, 2010
1
Retention Rates From IPEDS Data: Percent of the 2008 Freshman Class Returning in Fall 2009
UNC Selected Public Peers
Fall 2008
N of
UNC
Returning
Peers Freshmen Fall 2009
UNC Total
Appalachian State University
East Carolina University
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
North Carolina A & T State University
North Carolina Central University
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
University of North Carolina School of the Arts
University of North Carolina at Asheville
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
University of North Carolina-Wilmington
Western Carolina University
Winston-Salem State University
223
18
15
14
14
14
15
15
2
11
10
16
16
18
14
15
16
_______________________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/Peers.GR016C.G/19AUG10
31,774
2,781
4,538
638
582
1,607
1,035
4,669
164
586
3,865
3,090
2,492
1,073
2,073
1,224
1,357
26,219
2,401
3,572
486
426
1,232
795
4,240
127
480
3,696
2,397
1,908
718
1,754
932
1,055
Retention Rate
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
82.52
77.54 4.98
86.34
80.51 5.83
78.71
78.22 0.49
76.18
64.96 11.22
73.20
69.41 3.79
76.66
72.60 4.06
76.81
70.70 6.12
90.81
91.53 -0.72
77.44
84.99 -7.56
81.91
82.57 -0.66
95.63
94.70 0.92
77.57
76.46 1.11
76.57
80.29 -3.73
66.92
73.23 -6.31
84.61
83.02 1.59
76.14
78.89 -2.75
77.75
71.25 6.50
% Diff.
6.4%
7.2%
0.6%
17.3%
5.5%
5.6%
8.7%
( 0.8%)
( 8.9%)
( 0.8%)
1.0%
1.5%
( 4.6%)
( 8.6%)
1.9%
( 3.5%)
9.1%
08:21 Thursday, August 19, 2010
1
Graduation Rates From IPEDS Data: 4-, 5-,and 6-Year Rates of 2003 Freshman Class as of 2008-2009
UNC Selected Peers
Fall 2003
N of
UNC
Peers Freshmen
UNC Total
Appalachian State University
East Carolina University
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
North Carolina A & T State University
North Carolina Central University
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
University of North Carolina School of the
Arts
University of North Carolina at Asheville
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
University of North Carolina-Wilmington
Western Carolina University
Winston-Salem State University
244
18
15
14
14
14
15
16
13
27,908
2,462
3,458
459
789
2,221
1,025
3,837
121
15
15
16
16
18
14
15
16
590
3,511
2,472
2,039
792
1,764
1,485
883
4-Year Rate
(Through 2006-2007)
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
34.93
34.23 0.70
37.37
34.54 2.82
29.93
24.68 5.25
22.66
19.89 2.76
12.80
19.50 -6.70
17.51
18.47 -0.95
18.54
18.33 0.21
41.57
51.59 -10.02
58.68
48.20 10.48
28.81
72.20
25.49
28.30
16.41
44.39
26.53
14.04
58.87
69.23
25.55
37.01
28.24
39.74
34.33
21.55
-30.06
2.97
-0.06
-8.71
-11.82
4.65
-7.80
-7.51
_______________________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/Peers.GR016.G/09AUG10
% Diff.
2.1%
8.2%
21.3%
13.9%
( 34.4%)
( 5.2%)
1.1%
( 19.4%)
21.7%
5-Year Rate
(Through 2007-2008)
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
54.24
51.77 2.46
60.11
56.43 3.69
51.19
46.18 5.00
39.87
32.95 6.92
25.48
35.82 -10.34
32.64
36.88 -4.24
37.66
35.51 2.15
67.84
75.03 -7.19
59.50
58.53 0.98
( 51.1%)
4.3%
( 0.2%)
( 23.5%)
( 41.9%)
11.7%
( 22.7%)
( 34.8%)
55.08
83.42
47.98
46.84
30.05
65.31
44.98
29.78
69.32
84.74
44.75
54.48
44.21
60.96
55.09
37.16
-14.23
-1.32
3.23
-7.64
-14.16
4.35
-10.11
-7.38
10:16 Monday, August 9, 2010
% Diff.
4.8%
6.5%
10.8%
21.0%
( 28.9%)
( 11.5%)
6.0%
( 9.6%)
1.7%
6-Year Rate
(Through 2008-2009)
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
58.86
56.58 2.28
64.46
61.56 2.90
56.82
52.55 4.28
45.75
37.43 8.32
31.69
40.65 -8.96
37.19
45.16 -7.97
44.39
42.44 1.95
73.34
78.81 -5.47
61.16
60.69 0.47
% Diff.
4.0%
4.7%
8.1%
22.2%
( 22.0%)
( 17.6%)
4.6%
( 6.9%)
0.8%
( 20.5%)
( 1.6%)
7.2%
( 14.0%)
( 32.0%)
7.1%
( 18.4%)
( 19.9%)
58.98
84.88
53.96
51.59
34.22
68.65
49.09
36.47
( 17.3%)
( 2.5%)
5.5%
( 13.2%)
( 29.3%)
4.4%
( 17.4%)
( 14.8%)
71.31
87.01
51.17
59.46
48.38
65.76
59.42
42.80
-12.33
-2.14
2.80
-7.87
-14.16
2.89
-10.33
-6.33
1
Graduation Rates From IPEDS Data: 4-, 5-,and 6-Year Rates of 2003 Freshman Class as of 2008-2009
UNC Selected Public Peers
Fall 2003
N of
UNC
Peers Freshmen
UNC Total
Appalachian State University
East Carolina University
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
North Carolina A & T State University
North Carolina Central University
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
University of North Carolina School of the
Arts
University of North Carolina at Asheville
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
University of North Carolina-Wilmington
Western Carolina University
Winston-Salem State University
223
18
15
14
14
14
15
15
2
27,908
2,462
3,458
459
789
2,221
1,025
3,837
121
11
10
16
16
18
14
15
16
590
3,511
2,472
2,039
792
1,764
1,485
883
4-Year Rate
(Through 2006-2007)
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
34.93
31.23 3.70
37.37
34.54 2.82
29.93
24.68 5.25
22.66
19.89 2.76
12.80
19.50 -6.70
17.51
18.47 -0.95
18.54
18.33 0.21
41.57
49.34 -7.77
58.68
38.26 20.42
28.81
72.20
25.49
28.30
16.41
44.39
26.53
14.04
48.97
62.41
25.55
37.01
28.24
39.74
34.33
21.55
-20.16
9.79
-0.06
-8.71
-11.82
4.65
-7.80
-7.51
_______________________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/Peers.GR016A.G/19AUG10
% Diff.
11.8%
8.2%
21.3%
13.9%
( 34.4%)
( 5.2%)
1.1%
( 15.8%)
53.4%
5-Year Rate
(Through 2007-2008)
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
54.24
49.70 4.53
60.11
56.43 3.69
51.19
46.18 5.00
39.87
32.95 6.92
25.48
35.82 -10.34
32.64
36.88 -4.24
37.66
35.51 2.15
67.84
73.97 -6.13
59.50
53.31 6.19
( 41.2%)
15.7%
( 0.2%)
( 23.5%)
( 41.9%)
11.7%
( 22.7%)
( 34.8%)
55.08
83.42
47.98
46.84
30.05
65.31
44.98
29.78
62.09
81.90
44.75
54.48
44.21
60.96
55.09
37.16
-7.01
1.53
3.23
-7.64
-14.16
4.35
-10.11
-7.38
08:19 Thursday, August 19, 2010
% Diff.
9.1%
6.5%
10.8%
21.0%
( 28.9%)
( 11.5%)
6.0%
( 8.3%)
11.6%
6-Year Rate
(Through 2008-2009)
UNC Peer Avg. Diff.
58.86
54.83 4.04
64.46
61.56 2.90
56.82
52.55 4.28
45.75
37.43 8.32
31.69
40.65 -8.96
37.19
45.16 -7.97
44.39
42.44 1.95
73.34
77.94 -4.60
61.16
56.64 4.52
% Diff.
7.4%
4.7%
8.1%
22.2%
( 22.0%)
( 17.6%)
4.6%
( 5.9%)
8.0%
( 11.3%)
1.9%
7.2%
( 14.0%)
( 32.0%)
7.1%
( 18.4%)
( 19.9%)
58.98
84.88
53.96
51.59
34.22
68.65
49.09
36.47
( 8.8%)
0.2%
5.5%
( 13.2%)
( 29.3%)
4.4%
( 17.4%)
( 14.8%)
64.65
84.68
51.17
59.46
48.38
65.76
59.42
42.80
-5.67
0.19
2.80
-7.87
-14.16
2.89
-10.33
-6.33
1
ATTACHMENT C
Current peers
Western Carolina University and Peers
Index IPEDS
Value Unitid Institution
State
0.00 200004 Western Carolina University North
Carolina
0.00 123572 Sonoma State University
California
Type of
Control
Level
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
0.00 139931 Georgia Southern University Georgia
Public Four or
more years
0.00 157401 Murray State University
Kentucky
Public Four or
more years
0.00 157951 Western Kentucky University Kentucky
Public Four or
more years
0.00 163851 Salisbury University
Maryland
Public Four or
more years
0.00 164076 Towson University
Maryland
Public Four or
more years
0.00 171456 Northern Michigan
Michigan
Public Four or
University
more years
0.00 175272 Winona State University
Minnesota
Public Four or
more years
0.00 196121 SUNY College at Brockport New York
Public Four or
more years
0.00 211158 Bloomsburg University of
Pennsylvania Public Four or
Pennsylvania
more years
0.00 216010 Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania Public Four or
Pennsylvania
more years
0.00 232423 James Madison University
Virginia
Public Four or
more years
0.00 233277 Radford University
Virginia
Public Four or
more years
0.00 240329 University of Wisconsin-La Wisconsin
Public Four or
Crosse
more years
0.00 240480 University of
Wisconsin
Public Four or
Wisconsin-Stevens Point
more years
Average
Full-time
salary of full
Six-Year retention
Degrees per
time
Carnegie
Headcount Graduation rate,
In-State
Ave. 100 instructional
Classification 2005 Enrollment
Rate
2009 UG Tuition & Fees Headcount faculty total
Masters (larger pgms)
9,429
49
76
$4,330
19.41
$67,956
Masters (larger pgms)
8,546
53
76
$5,290
21.29
$76,932
Doctoral / Research
19,086
47
81
$4,622
14.67
$62,565
Masters (larger pgms)
10,071
49
72
$5,976
20.94
$59,951
Masters (larger pgms)
20,712
44
74
$7,200
16.58
$59,766
Masters (larger pgms)
8,204
66
80
$6,618
19.98
$65,295
Masters (larger pgms)
21,177
72
84
$7,418
19.54
$65,365
Masters (larger pgms)
9,428
46
73
$7,454
16.90
$63,101
Masters (medium
pgms)
Masters (larger pgms)
8,657
52
75
$7,800
18.13
$68,794
8,490
61
86
$6,108
25.75
$70,644
Masters (larger pgms)
9,512
64
81
$7,110
19.28
$76,321
Masters (larger pgms)
8,253
63
72
$7,444
20.73
$79,168
Masters (larger pgms)
18,971
81
92
$7,244
21.09
$68,073
Masters (larger pgms)
8,878
56
78
$6,904
24.28
$63,709
Masters (larger pgms)
10,009
69
84
$7,509
20.95
$59,877
9,209
60
78
$6,528
18.76
$57,424
Masters (medium
pgms)
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/25APR11
2,883 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 0.00
Western Carolina University and Peers
0 - 200004
Western
Carolina
University
Average of
North Carolina Generated Peers
Measure
Student Characteristics
Total Headcount
Total FTE
FTE:Headcount
Six-Year FTE Growth Rate
Pct of Undergraduate FTE
Pct of Graduate FTE
Pct Minority
Pct of Undergrads Over 25
Pct of All Students Over 25
Six- or Three-Year Graduation Rate
Five-Year Graduation Rate
Four-Year Graduation Rate
FT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
PT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
Student:Faculty Ratio
Pct Taking SAT
25th Pctile SAT
75th Pctile SAT
Pct Taking ACT
25th Pctile ACT
75th Pctile ACT
Freshman Selectivity (% of Rejected
Applicants)
Student Finances
Pct UG Receiving Grant Aid
Average Amount of Grant Aid
Pct UG Receiving Pell Grants
Average Amount of Pell Grants
Pct UG Receiving Federal Loans
Average Amount of Federal Loans
In-state UG Tuition & Fees
Out-of-state UG Tuition & Fees
In-state Graduate Tuition & Fees
Out-of-state Graduate Tuition & Fees
Faculty and Expenses
Total Instructional Faculty
Pct of Full-time Instructional Faculty
Average Faculty Salary
Pct of Expenditures on Instruction
Pct of Expenditures on Research
Pct of Expenditures on Public
Service
Degrees Awarded
Number of Degrees Awarded
Degrees per Average 100 Headcount
Enrollment
Pct Less Than 4-Years
Pct Bachelors
Pct Masters
Pct Doctors
Pct in Humanities & Social Sciences
Pct in Education
Pct in Agriculture & STEM
Pct in Business & Pub. Admin.
Pct in Communication & Art
Pct in Health Professions
Pct in Law
Pct in Services and Trades
Average of
Top 16 Peers
Weight
for
Index
Value
Value
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9,429
7,702
0.817
10
86
14
10
21
34
49
45
26
76
60
15
97
940
1,120
19
19
23
49
11,947
10,616
0.895
10
92
8
12
11
19
59
54
34
79
47
19
69
958
1,160
56
20
25
31
11,947
10,616
0.895
10
92
8
12
11
19
59
54
34
79
47
19
69
958
1,160
56
20
25
31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
54
$5,257
25
$3,336
44
$5,705
$4,330
$13,927
$4,638
$14,223
49
$5,197
22
$3,236
54
$6,205
$6,748
$15,526
$7,233
$14,612
49
$5,197
22
$3,236
54
$6,205
$6,748
$15,526
$7,233
$14,612
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
693
76
$67,956
57
2
10
759
72
$66,466
53
2
7
759
72
$66,466
53
2
7
0.00
0.00
2,184
19
2,408
20
2,408
20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71
29
1
11
28
10
30
8
13
-
7
81
17
2
24
22
13
22
10
9
1
-
7
81
17
2
24
22
13
22
10
9
1
5
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/25APR11
2,883 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 0.00
ATTACHMENT D
Peers generated with equal weightings for:
retention rates, graduation rates, and average
faculty salary
Western Carolina University and Peers
Index IPEDS
Value Unitid Institution
0.00 200004 Western Carolina
University
120.00 105330 Northern Arizona
University
130.00 227881 Sam Houston State
University
140.00 203517 Kent State University
Kent Campus
150.00 200332 North Dakota State
University-Main Campus
160.00 232982 Old Dominion University
170.00 129215 Eastern Connecticut
State University
170.00 168430 Worcester State College
170.00 230728 Utah State University
170.00 240471 University of
Wisconsin-River Falls
170.00 433660 Florida Gulf Coast
University
180.00 173124 Bemidji State University
190.00 144892 Eastern Illinois
University
190.00 198464 East Carolina University
200.00 168227 Wentworth Institute of
Technology
200.00 173920 Minnesota State
University-Mankato
200.00 234155 Virginia State University
210.00 149772 Western Illinois
University
210.00 198507 Elizabeth City State
University
210.00 199148 University of North
Carolina at Greensboro
230.00 171137 University of
Michigan-Dearborn
240.00 110495 California State
University-Stanislaus
240.00 212160 Edinboro University of
Pennsylvania
Average
Full-time
salary of full
Six-Year retention
Degrees per
time
Type of
Carnegie
Headcount Graduation rate,
In-State
Ave. 100 instructional
State
Control
Level Classification 2005
Enrollment
Rate
2009 UG Tuition & Fees Headcount faculty total
North
Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
9,429
49
76
$4,330
19.41
$67,956
Carolina
more
years
Arizona
Public
Four or Research (HRA))
23,597
50
72
$6,632
22.04
$66,703
more
years
Texas
Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
16,772
45
75
$6,515
18.90
$68,001
more
years
Ohio
Public
Four or Research (HRA))
25,127
49
78
$8,726
20.93
$71,266
more
years
North Dakota Public
Four or Research (HRA))
14,189
52
78
$6,410
14.97
$66,512
more
years
Virginia
Public
Four or Research (HRA))
24,013
50
80
$5,902
16.74
$73,475
more
years
Connecticut Public
Four or Masters (medium
5,610
50
78
$7,813
17.76
$73,817
more pgms)
years
Massachusetts Public
Four or Masters (medium
5,473
44
77
$6,602
19.29
$67,306
more pgms)
years
Utah
Public
Four or Research (HRA))
15,612
55
74
$4,828
23.94
$70,837
more
years
Wisconsin
Public
Four or Masters (medium
6,728
55
75
$6,533
17.74
$61,475
more pgms)
years
Florida
Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
11,092
45
78
$4,437
12.52
$63,331
more
years
Minnesota
Public
Four or Masters (smaller
5,175
48
72
$7,201
18.15
$69,761
more pgms)
years
Illinois
Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
11,966
58
79
$9,429
23.65
$66,340
more
years
North
Public
Four or Doctoral / Research
27,654
57
79
$4,477
17.20
$70,364
Carolina
more
years
Massachusetts Private
Four or SFI -- Other
3,808
57
80
$22,725
18.62
$69,238
not-for-profit more technology-related
years schools
Minnesota
Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
14,955
51
77
$6,429
17.54
$71,922
more
years
Virginia
Public
Four or Masters (medium
5,366
43
67
$6,174
14.51
$65,552
more pgms)
years
Illinois
Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
12,679
59
74
$9,617
24.26
$68,208
more
years
North
Public
Four or Baccalaureate -3,264
45
76
$3,032
11.24
$67,383
Carolina
more Diverse Fields
years
North
Public
Four or Research (HRA))
21,306
51
77
$4,234
15.26
$73,996
Carolina
more
years
Michigan
Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
8,379
48
78
$8,469
22.99
$78,841
more
years
California
Public
Four or Masters (medium
8,586
49
83
$4,840
19.43
$75,717
more pgms)
years
Pennsylvania Public
Four or Masters (larger pgms)
8,286
46
75
$7,316
18.72
$77,007
more
years
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/25APR11
2,883 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 2170.09
Western Carolina University and Peers
0 - 200004
Western
Carolina
University
Average of
North Carolina Generated Peers
Measure
Student Characteristics
Total Headcount
Total FTE
FTE:Headcount
Six-Year FTE Growth Rate
Pct of Undergraduate FTE
Pct of Graduate FTE
Pct Minority
Pct of Undergrads Over 25
Pct of All Students Over 25
Six- or Three-Year Graduation Rate
Five-Year Graduation Rate
Four-Year Graduation Rate
FT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
PT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
Student:Faculty Ratio
Pct Taking SAT
25th Pctile SAT
75th Pctile SAT
Pct Taking ACT
25th Pctile ACT
75th Pctile ACT
Freshman Selectivity (% of Rejected
Applicants)
Student Finances
Pct UG Receiving Grant Aid
Average Amount of Grant Aid
Pct UG Receiving Pell Grants
Average Amount of Pell Grants
Pct UG Receiving Federal Loans
Average Amount of Federal Loans
In-state UG Tuition & Fees
Out-of-state UG Tuition & Fees
In-state Graduate Tuition & Fees
Out-of-state Graduate Tuition & Fees
Faculty and Expenses
Total Instructional Faculty
Pct of Full-time Instructional Faculty
Average Faculty Salary
Pct of Expenditures on Instruction
Pct of Expenditures on Research
Pct of Expenditures on Public
Service
Degrees Awarded
Number of Degrees Awarded
Degrees per Average 100 Headcount
Enrollment
Pct Less Than 4-Years
Pct Bachelors
Pct Masters
Pct Doctors
Pct in Humanities & Social Sciences
Pct in Education
Pct in Agriculture & STEM
Pct in Business & Pub. Admin.
Pct in Communication & Art
Pct in Health Professions
Pct in Law
Pct in Services and Trades
Average of
Top 16 Peers
Weight
for
Index
Value
Value
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9,429
7,702
0.817
10
86
14
10
21
34
49
45
26
76
60
15
97
940
1,120
19
19
23
49
12,711
10,641
0.845
17
91
10
23
17
25
50
45
25
76
60
19
67
909
1,119
55
19
24
28
13,571
11,483
0.855
18
91
10
20
15
24
51
45
26
76
60
19
65
924
1,130
58
19
24
27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
54
$5,257
25
$3,336
44
$5,705
$4,330
$13,927
$4,638
$14,223
53
$5,816
28
$3,302
53
$6,525
$7,197
$15,522
$6,649
$15,044
51
$5,867
25
$3,281
52
$6,523
$7,552
$15,962
$6,653
$15,085
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
693
76
$67,956
57
2
10
734
76
$69,866
50
8
6
756
76
$68,494
49
9
6
0.00
0.00
2,184
19
2,554
18
2,730
18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71
29
1
11
28
10
30
8
13
-
4
78
20
3
24
23
18
23
8
8
2
-
4
79
19
3
24
24
19
21
8
8
2
1
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/25APR11
2,883 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 2170.09
ATTACHMENT E
Peers generated with equal weightings for:
retention rates, graduation rates, average faculty salary,
control, HBCU, locale, 2005 Carnegie Classification, size, %
minority, student/faculty ratio, freshman selectivity, %
receiving Pell Grants, % receiving federal aid, percentages
based on degrees awarded for different subject areas
Western Carolina University and Peers
Index IPEDS
Value Unitid Institution
State
0.00 200004 Western Carolina University North
Carolina
1510.0 176965 University of Central
Missouri
Missouri
1620.0 139861 Georgia College & State
Georgia
University
1650.0 149772 Western Illinois University Illinois
1660.0 196246 SUNY College at Plattsburgh New York
1770.0 197869 Appalachian State University North
Carolina
1810.0 139931 Georgia Southern University Georgia
1820.0 155025 Emporia State University
Kansas
1830.0 157386 Morehead State University
Kentucky
1840.0 106397 University of Arkansas
Arkansas
1900.0 179557 Southeast Missouri State
University
1940.0 171456 Northern Michigan
University
1960.0 140669 North Georgia
College & State University
1960.0 211361 California University of
Pennsylvania
1980.0 211158 Bloomsburg University of
Pennsylvania
2000.0 221768 The University of
Tennessee-Martin
2010.0 181215 University of Nebraska at
Kearney
2030.0 227881 Sam Houston State
University
2040.0 128771 Central Connecticut State
University
2050.0 176017 University of Mississippi
Main Campus
2100.0 213783 Mansfield University of
Pennsylvania
2110.0 165866 Framingham State College
Missouri
2110.0 178624 Northwest Missouri State
University
Missouri
Michigan
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Nebraska
Texas
Connecticut
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Type of
Control
Level
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Public Four or
more years
Average
Full-time
salary of full
Six-Year retention
Degrees per
time
Carnegie
Headcount Graduation rate,
In-State
Ave. 100 instructional
Classification 2005 Enrollment
Rate
2009 UG Tuition & Fees Headcount faculty total
Masters (larger
9,429
49
76
$4,330
19.41
$67,956
pgms)
Masters (larger
11,191
48
73
$6,585
17.29
$61,293
pgms)
Masters (larger
6,633
48
84
$5,738
19.05
$57,665
pgms)
Masters (larger
12,679
59
74
$9,617
24.26
$68,208
pgms)
Masters (larger
6,453
57
82
$6,070
22.57
$67,812
pgms)
Masters (larger
16,968
64
86
$4,491
19.08
$69,825
pgms)
Doctoral / Research
19,086
47
81
$4,622
14.67
$62,565
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters (larger
pgms)
Research (HRA))
6,314
41
69
$4,374
20.31
$57,191
8,822
35
74
$6,036
17.41
$55,941
19,849
59
83
$6,459
17.68
$76,751
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters (medium
pgms)
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters (medium
pgms)
Masters (medium
pgms)
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters (larger
pgms)
Research (HRA))
10,801
46
74
$6,255
15.94
$57,897
9,428
46
73
$7,454
16.90
$63,101
5,652
43
77
$4,268
18.84
$58,120
9,017
49
77
$7,676
19.44
$79,109
9,512
64
81
$7,110
19.28
$76,321
8,163
48
72
$5,769
13.12
$57,168
6,650
59
83
$5,635
17.13
$61,276
16,772
45
75
$6,515
18.90
$68,001
12,461
49
79
$7,414
18.25
$76,446
15,932
60
81
$5,106
19.05
$71,269
Masters (smaller
pgms)
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters (medium
pgms)
3,569
41
74
$7,756
19.70
$77,741
5,989
52
73
$6,540
20.17
$65,129
7,076
52
72
$5,626
17.25
$56,246
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/25APR11
2,883 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 9168.62
Western Carolina University and Peers
0 - 200004
Western
Carolina
University
Average of
North Carolina Generated Peers
Measure
Student Characteristics
Total Headcount
Total FTE
FTE:Headcount
Six-Year FTE Growth Rate
Pct of Undergraduate FTE
Pct of Graduate FTE
Pct Minority
Pct of Undergrads Over 25
Pct of All Students Over 25
Six- or Three-Year Graduation Rate
Five-Year Graduation Rate
Four-Year Graduation Rate
FT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
PT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
Student:Faculty Ratio
Pct Taking SAT
25th Pctile SAT
75th Pctile SAT
Pct Taking ACT
25th Pctile ACT
75th Pctile ACT
Freshman Selectivity (% of Rejected
Applicants)
Student Finances
Pct UG Receiving Grant Aid
Average Amount of Grant Aid
Pct UG Receiving Pell Grants
Average Amount of Pell Grants
Pct UG Receiving Federal Loans
Average Amount of Federal Loans
In-state UG Tuition & Fees
Out-of-state UG Tuition & Fees
In-state Graduate Tuition & Fees
Out-of-state Graduate Tuition & Fees
Faculty and Expenses
Total Instructional Faculty
Pct of Full-time Instructional Faculty
Average Faculty Salary
Pct of Expenditures on Instruction
Pct of Expenditures on Research
Pct of Expenditures on Public
Service
Degrees Awarded
Number of Degrees Awarded
Degrees per Average 100 Headcount
Enrollment
Pct Less Than 4-Years
Pct Bachelors
Pct Masters
Pct Doctors
Pct in Humanities & Social Sciences
Pct in Education
Pct in Agriculture & STEM
Pct in Business & Pub. Admin.
Pct in Communication & Art
Pct in Health Professions
Pct in Law
Pct in Services and Trades
Average of
Top 16 Peers
Weight
for
Index
Value
Value
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
9,429
7,702
0.817
10
86
14
10
21
34
49
45
26
76
60
15
97
940
1,120
19
19
23
49
10,410
8,888
0.847
12
90
10
12
14
25
51
45
26
77
55
18
56
908
1,128
66
20
25
35
10,451
8,975
0.853
13
90
10
11
14
24
51
45
26
78
57
18
52
947
1,186
72
20
25
35
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
54
$5,257
25
$3,336
44
$5,705
$4,330
$13,927
$4,638
$14,223
60
$5,619
25
$3,299
52
$5,799
$6,233
$13,927
$6,575
$13,804
61
$5,448
26
$3,299
52
$5,784
$6,135
$13,950
$6,605
$14,313
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
693
76
$67,956
57
2
10
608
79
$65,685
52
4
6
615
82
$64,390
53
3
6
0.00
10.00
2,184
19
2,042
18
2,038
18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
71
29
1
11
28
10
30
8
13
-
6
74
24
4
20
29
12
24
8
6
3
-
7
73
24
5
19
30
12
24
8
7
2
2
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/25APR11
2,883 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 9168.62
ATTACHMENT F
Peers generated with equal weightings for:
Size, control, Carnegie classification, student FTE
Western Carolina University and Peers
Index IPEDS
Value Unitid Institution
0.00 200004 Western Carolina University
Type of
State
Control Level
North
Public Four or
Carolina
more years
0.00 167729 Salem State College
Massachusetts Public Four or
more years
0.00 167987 University of
Massachusetts Public Four or
Massachusetts-Dartmouth
more years
0.00 224147 Texas A & M University-Corpus Texas
Public Four or
Christi
more years
0.00 228529 Tarleton State University
Texas
Public Four or
more years
10.00 101480 Jacksonville State University
Alabama
Public Four or
more years
10.00 123572 Sonoma State University
California
Public Four or
more years
10.00 126580 University of Colorado at
Colorado
Public Four or
Colorado Springs
more years
10.00 147776 Northeastern Illinois University Illinois
Public Four or
more years
10.00 157401 Murray State University
Kentucky
Public Four or
more years
10.00 159993 University of Louisiana Monroe Louisiana
Public Four or
more years
10.00 160038 Northwestern State University of Louisiana
Public Four or
Louisiana
more years
10.00 161554 University of Southern Maine
Maine
Public Four or
more years
10.00 171456 Northern Michigan University
Michigan
Public Four or
more years
10.00 196121 SUNY College at Brockport
New York
Public Four or
more years
10.00 211158 Bloomsburg University of
Pennsylvania Public Four or
Pennsylvania
more years
10.00 211361 California University of
Pennsylvania Public Four or
Pennsylvania
more years
10.00 214041 Millersville University of
Pennsylvania Public Four or
Pennsylvania
more years
10.00 216038 Slippery Rock University of
Pennsylvania Public Four or
Pennsylvania
more years
10.00 217420 Rhode Island College
Rhode Island Public Four or
more years
10.00 233277 Radford University
Virginia
Public Four or
more years
10.00 240329 University of Wisconsin-La
Wisconsin
Public Four or
Crosse
more years
10.00 240417 University of Wisconsin-Stout
Wisconsin
Public Four or
more years
Average
Full-time
salary of full
Carnegie
Six-Year retention
Degrees per
time
Classification Headcount Graduation rate,
In-State
Ave. 100 instructional
2005
Enrollment
Rate
2009 UG Tuition & Fees Headcount faculty total
Masters (larger
9,429
49
76
$4,330
19.41
$67,956
pgms)
Masters (larger
10,125
43
75
$6,850
15.49
$68,528
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,302
47
73
$10,358
15.03
$84,004
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,468
39
62
$5,582
17.73
$71,776
pgms)
Masters (larger
10,424
39
66
$4,909
18.62
$57,634
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,351
35
68
$5,970
18.64
$59,945
pgms)
Masters (larger
8,546
53
76
$5,290
21.29
$76,932
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,733
43
67
$5,693
17.20
$64,794
pgms)
Masters (larger
11,631
20
67
$7,082
16.65
$58,151
pgms)
Masters (larger
10,071
49
72
$5,976
20.94
$59,951
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,004
30
72
$3,813
14.80
$58,490
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,247
29
69
$3,932
17.46
$55,763
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,655
37
65
$8,174
17.03
$74,913
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,428
46
73
$7,454
16.90
$63,101
pgms)
Masters (larger
8,490
61
86
$6,108
25.75
$70,644
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,512
64
81
$7,110
19.28
$76,321
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,017
49
77
$7,676
19.44
$79,109
pgms)
Masters (larger
8,427
61
82
$7,147
18.87
$79,916
pgms)
Masters (larger
8,648
57
81
$7,235
19.37
$78,196
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,260
44
77
$6,408
16.13
$65,260
pgms)
Masters (larger
8,878
56
78
$6,904
24.28
$63,709
pgms)
Masters (larger
10,009
69
84
$7,509
20.95
$59,877
pgms)
Masters (larger
9,017
55
71
$7,821
17.03
$58,171
pgms)
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/06MAY11
651 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 317.59
Western Carolina University and Peers
0 - 200004
Western
Carolina
University
Average of
North Carolina Generated Peers
Measure
Weight
for Index
Average of
Top 16 Peers
Value
Value
Value
Peer Index Value
0.00
Institutional Characteristics (99 for Absolute Filter)
Region
0.00
Southeast
Level
99.00
Four or more
years
Control
99.00
Public
Highest Degree Level
0.00
Doctors degree
HBCU
99.00
No
Medical School
0.00
No
Veterinary School
0.00
No
Locale
0.00
Rural Distant
Carnegie 2005
10.00
Masters (larger
pgms)
Carnegie 2000
0.00
Masters I
Land Grant Institution
0.00
No
Size Category
0.00
5,000 - 9,999
Student Characteristics
Total Headcount
10.00
9,429
Total FTE
10.00
7,702
FTE:Headcount
0.00
0.817
Six-Year FTE Growth Rate
0.00
10
Pct of Undergraduate FTE
0.00
86
Pct of Graduate FTE
0.00
14
Pct Minority
0.00
10
Pct of Undergrads Over 25
0.00
21
Pct of All Students Over 25
0.00
34
Six- or Three-Year Graduation Rate 0.00
49
Five-Year Graduation Rate
0.00
45
Four-Year Graduation Rate
0.00
26
FT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
0.00
76
PT Frosh-Soph Retention Rate
0.00
60
Student:Faculty Ratio
0.00
15
Pct Taking SAT
0.00
97
25th Pctile SAT
0.00
940
75th Pctile SAT
0.00
1,120
Pct Taking ACT
0.00
19
25th Pctile ACT
0.00
19
75th Pctile ACT
0.00
23
Freshman Selectivity (% of Rejected 0.00
49
Applicants)
Student Finances
Pct UG Receiving Grant Aid
0.00
54
Average Amount of Grant Aid
0.00
$5,257
Pct UG Receiving Pell Grants
0.00
25
Average Amount of Pell Grants
0.00
$3,336
Pct UG Receiving Federal Loans
0.00
44
Average Amount of Federal Loans 0.00
$5,705
In-state UG Tuition & Fees
0.00
$4,330
Out-of-state UG Tuition & Fees
0.00
$13,927
In-state Graduate Tuition & Fees
0.00
$4,638
Out-of-state Graduate Tuition & Fees 0.00
$14,223
Faculty and Expenses
Total Instructional Faculty
0.00
693
Pct of Full-time Instructional Faculty 0.00
76
Average Faculty Salary
0.00
$67,956
Pct of Expenditures on Instruction
0.00
57
Pct of Expenditures on Research
0.00
2
Pct of Expenditures on Public
0.00
10
Service
Degrees Awarded
Number of Degrees Awarded
0.00
2,184
Degrees per Average 100 Headcount 0.00
19
Enrollment
Pct Less Than 4-Years
0.00
Pct Bachelors
0.00
71
Pct Masters
0.00
29
Pct Doctors
0.00
1
Pct in Humanities & Social Sciences 0.00
11
Pct in Education
0.00
28
Pct in Agriculture & STEM
0.00
10
Pct in Business & Pub. Admin.
0.00
30
Pct in Communication & Art
0.00
8
Pct in Health Professions
0.00
13
Pct in Law
0.00
Pct in Services and Trades
0.00
-
8.18
7.50
NA
Four or more
years
Public
NA
No
No
No
NA
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters I
No
NA
NA
Four or more
years
Public
NA
No
No
No
NA
Masters (larger
pgms)
Masters I
No
NA
9,420
7,757
0.827
7
90
10
17
19
28
47
40
23
74
44
19
68
904
1,105
60
19
23
31
9,563
7,687
0.808
7
89
11
20
22
32
43
36
20
72
39
19
61
900
1,103
66
19
23
30
51
$4,762
26
$3,259
56
$6,218
$6,591
$14,228
$6,816
$13,111
56
$4,644
28
$3,311
55
$6,374
$6,374
$14,040
$6,565
$13,005
524
72
$67,508
51
6
6
546
68
$67,504
51
7
7
1,841
19
1,835
18
7
76
21
5
23
24
12
23
8
10
3
2
8
74
23
5
24
23
12
23
7
11
3
2
______________________________________________________________
UNC-GA IRA/PeerSelect.GW001.G/06MAY11
651 Institutions Met Filtering Criteria - Mean Index Value: 317.59