1
Academic Outcomes for Students in Residential Academic Programs (RAPs)
During Their Freshman Year
Perry Sailor
University of Colorado Boulder, PBA, October 2013
This is an update/follow-up of a study we did in 2011. See the results of that study by
clicking on this link.
Summary
For fall frosh entering in 2010 through 2012, we compared RAP vs. non-RAP students
on:

Mean cumulative GPA at the end of the first year

Percent of students meeting or exceeding a 2.0 cumulative GPA

Retention rates to the 1st spring

Retention rates to the 2nd fall
For frosh entering in fall 2007, we compared RAP and non-RAP students on:

6-year graduation rate
In all the above comparisons, RAP students exceeded their non-RAP counterparts
even when predicted GPA (PGPA, a measure of academic preparation at UCB
entry) and residency were statistically controlled. However, we cannot say that
RAP participation caused this success, because students self-select into RAPs,
and students who choose RAPs may differ from those who do not on many
attributes related to academic success that are not entirely captured by PGPA.
For a more complete discussion of this, see a more detailed study we did in 2003
relating academic success to many academic, demographic, and program participation
factors, including RAPs.
Details of present findings
Fall 2010-13 frosh:

First-year GPAs averaged 2.96 for RAP students, 2.76 for non-RAP, a difference of
.20 GPA points. The gap was .18 points among non-residents, .22 points among
residents.

The difference in college-specific predicted GPA at entry (a measure derived from
high school grades and SAT/ACT scores) was only .07 points, and was about the
same for residents and non-residents.

A lower percentage of RAP students than non-RAP had a cumulative GPA below 2.0
(a proxy for academic probation).
CU-Boulder PBA –sailorB– Document1 – 7/12/2016 Page 1
2

More RAP students than non-RAP continued at UCB in the first spring after entry,
and the 2nd fall after entry.
L:\ir\tracking\anal\GradPred\RAPOutcomes2013.sas
1st-year cum GPA, % below 2.0, and retention rates
For 2010-12 frosh in RAPs vs. not
N



Cum
GPA
Coll- end
spec- of
ific
1st
PGPA year
GPA
<2.0
Retai- Retained
ned
1st
2nd
spring fall
Residency
NRES
Not RAP
RAP
Sum
Mean
Mean
%
%
%
3,746
3,481
2.89
2.95
2.66
2.84
17%
12%
92%
94%
78%
84%
RES
Not RAP
RAP
4,833
4,268
3.01
3.09
2.83
3.05
13%
8%
93%
97%
83%
90%
All
Not RAP
RAP
8,579
7,749
2.96
3.03
2.76
2.96
15%
10%
93%
96%
81%
87%
When PGPA and residency were statistically controlled in a general linear models
procedure, RAP participation was associated with a GPA advantage of 0.12. No
other variables (e.g. gender, ethnicity, financial resources) were controlled in the
present study; however, the more detailed earlier study referenced above did control
for these and other variables, and still found that RAP students graduated at a higher
rate than non-RAPs.
About 90% of RAP participants met or exceeded a 2.0 cumulative GPA (the cutoff in
most colleges for academic probation), compared to 85% of non-RAP students.
The retention rate to the second fall was 87% for RAP students, 81% for non-RAP.
This 6-percentage point difference in retention rate in favor of RAP students was
maintained when residency and PGPA were statistically controlled in a logistic
regression analysis.
Fall 2007 freshmen, 6-year graduation rate

The 6-year graduation rate for freshmen entering in the fall of 2007 (the most recent
entering class to have had 6 years to graduate, the federal standard) was 73% for
RAP students, vs. 67% for non-RAPs. A logistic regression analysis controlling for
PGPA and residency showed that the 6 percentage point advantage for RAP
students remained.
Data for individual RAPs in the fall 2010-13 analysis
CU-Boulder PBA –sailorB– Document1 – 7/12/2016 Page 2
3
L:\ir\tracking\anal\GradPred\RAPOutcomes2013.sas
1st-year cum GPA, % below 2.0, and retention rates
For 2010-12 frosh in RAPs vs. not
N
Cum
GPA
Coll- end
spec- of
ific
1st
PGPA year
GPA
<2.0
Retai- Retained
ned
1st
2nd
spring fall
Residency
Sum
Mean
Mean
%
NRES
Not in any RAP
Andrews Hall RAP Fee
B3 - Leeds RAP Fee
Baker RAP Fee
Chancellor's Leadership RAP
Communication RAP Fee
Engineering Quad Program Fee
Farrand Academic Program Fee
Global Studies RAP Fee
Health RAP Fee
Honors RAP Fee
Libby RAP Fee
SEEDS - A&S RAP Fee
Sewall Academic Program Fee
Sustainable by Design-ENGR RAP
3,746
86
103
534
133
235
352
541
280
34
209
389
44
470
71
2.89
3.17
3.03
2.95
2.94
2.91
3.04
2.86
2.94
3.10
3.40
2.86
2.93
2.87
2.91
2.66
3.13
2.73
2.84
2.79
2.83
2.76
2.79
2.83
2.98
3.37
2.82
3.01
2.73
2.72
17%
10%
9%
13%
13%
11%
16%
13%
13%
6%
3%
10%
7%
13%
10%
92%
95%
95%
93%
94%
91%
95%
95%
93%
91%
93%
95%
100%
94%
97%
78%
90%
83%
83%
80%
78%
88%
84%
80%
65%
86%
84%
82%
85%
83%
RES
Not in any RAP
Andrews Hall RAP Fee
B3 - Leeds RAP Fee
Baker RAP Fee
Chancellor's Leadership RAP
Communication RAP Fee
Engineering Quad Program Fee
Farrand Academic Program Fee
Global Studies RAP Fee
Health RAP Fee
Honors RAP Fee
Libby RAP Fee
SEEDS - A&S RAP Fee
Sewall Academic Program Fee
Sustainable by Design-ENGR RAP
4,833
267
89
637
141
186
734
540
270
66
407
429
31
409
62
3.01
3.09
3.13
3.07
2.98
3.02
3.09
3.02
3.10
3.09
3.46
3.03
3.12
3.02
2.96
2.83
3.17
2.87
3.02
2.84
2.94
2.95
3.00
3.08
3.11
3.49
3.01
2.99
3.01
2.73
13%
5%
13%
8%
14%
10%
10%
7%
10%
0%
2%
7%
10%
8%
12%
93%
99%
99%
96%
96%
95%
98%
97%
96%
91%
99%
97%
97%
95%
95%
83%
94%
91%
90%
85%
87%
92%
90%
86%
82%
93%
90%
94%
88%
87%
All
Not in any RAP
Andrews Hall RAP Fee
B3 - Leeds RAP Fee
Baker RAP Fee
Chancellor's Leadership RAP
Communication RAP Fee
Engineering Quad Program Fee
Farrand Academic Program Fee
Global Studies RAP Fee
Health RAP Fee
Honors RAP Fee
Libby RAP Fee
SEEDS - A&S RAP Fee
Sewall Academic Program Fee
Sustainable by Design-ENGR RAP
8,579
353
192
1,171
274
421
1,086
1,081
550
100
616
818
75
879
133
2.96
3.11
3.08
3.01
2.96
2.96
3.08
2.94
3.02
3.10
3.44
2.95
3.01
2.94
2.93
2.76
3.16
2.80
2.94
2.82
2.88
2.89
2.90
2.95
3.06
3.45
2.92
3.00
2.86
2.73
15%
6%
11%
10%
14%
10%
12%
10%
11%
2%
2%
9%
8%
11%
11%
93%
98%
97%
94%
95%
93%
97%
96%
94%
91%
97%
96%
99%
95%
96%
81%
93%
86%
87%
83%
82%
91%
87%
83%
76%
91%
87%
87%
86%
85%
Data for individual RAPs in the 6-year graduation rate analysis
6-year grad rate
CU-Boulder PBA –sailorB– Document1 – 7/12/2016 Page 3
%
%
4
For 2007 frosh in RAPs vs. not
N
Sum
Collspec- Grad
ific by 6th
PGPA summer
Mean
%
N
Not in RAP
CU 101
ChanLead
ERAP
Farrand
Kittredge Honors
Libby
SHIP
Sewall
1,304
185
62
162
190
41
103
38
157
2.87
3.01
2.89
2.95
2.88
3.42
2.87
3.08
2.85
62%
64%
55%
70%
77%
83%
67%
63%
66%
Not in RAP
CU 101
ChanLead
ERAP
Farrand
Kittredge Honors
Libby
SHIP
Sewall
All
Not in RAP
CU 101
ChanLead
ERAP
Farrand
Kittredge Honors
Libby
SHIP
Sewall
2,238
202
60
221
181
83
130
66
156
3.02
3.07
2.92
3.13
3.10
3.45
3.04
3.17
2.99
70%
76%
72%
85%
77%
93%
74%
76%
72%
3,542
387
122
383
371
124
233
104
313
2.97
3.04
2.91
3.05
2.99
3.44
2.96
3.14
2.92
67%
70%
63%
79%
77%
90%
71%
71%
69%
R
CU-Boulder PBA –sailorB– Document1 – 7/12/2016 Page 4