Leaks in the
Educational Pipeline
Trish Norman, The University of Texas System
Roy Mathew, The University of Texas at El Paso
TAIR Conference
South Padre Island
March 2007
The University of Texas System
 9 Universities (Academic)
• 1 Community College / University
Partnership
• Texas Southmost College
• U.T. Brownsville
 6 Health-Related Institutions
Enrollment Growth at U.T. System
Fall 2001 to 2006:
 Enrollment increased from
152,197 to 190,903
 An increase of 25.4% or
38,706 students
 In Fall 2005, U.T. System had
met 98% of its Closing the
Gaps goal
The University of Texas System
Enrollment and Annual Growth Rate
Fall 2001 to Fall 2006
250,000
8.0%
6.7%
7.0%
200,000
6.0%
4.8%
5.0%
150,000
4.4%
4.0%
2.9%
100,000
3.0%
2.7%
50,000
2.0%
1.0%
1.7%
0
0.0%
2001
2002
2003
System
2004
2005
Annual Growth
2006
The University of Texas System
First-time in College (FTIC), Academic Institutions
Enrollment and Annual Growth Rate
25,000
14.0%
12.9%
12.0%
20,000
10.0%
8.0%
15,000
5.9%
6.0%
4.5%
10,000
5,000
4.0%
2.0%
2.9%
0.0%
-0.5%
0
2001
2002
2003
FTIC
2004
Annual Growth
-1.1%
2005
-2.0%
2006
Why the slow down in Fall 2005?
Here’s what we do know –
 Total High School graduates declined
slightly between 2003-04 and 2004-05
 2-year and 4-year college growth rates in
Texas are slowing down
 Enrollment at 2-year public colleges is
increasing faster than 4-year colleges
 Economy is improving
 College costs are increasing
 Institutional Factors
Texas High School Graduates
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
College Prep
Source: Texas Education Agency
Graduates
Statewide Enrollment Increases
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2001
2002
2003
Public Two-Year Colleges
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
2004
2005
Public Universities
2006
The Economy is Improving
Consumer Price Index and
Texas Unemployment Rate
7.8%
6.5%
5.2%
3.9%
2.6%
1.3%
0.0%
6.1%
6.7%
6.2%
5.4%
4.4%
5.1%
3.2%
1.5%
2001
2002
2.4%
2.3%
2003
2004
Annual CPI % Increase
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
3.3%
2005
3.7%
2006
TX Unemployment Rate
Non-Farm Employment Rate
thousands
10,000
9,800
9,600
9,931
2.3
1.8
3%
2.7
2
9,665
9,531
9,427
9,400
1
0.8
9,450
9,375
0
-0.5
9,200
-1
-1.1
9,000
-2
2001
2002
2003
2004
Nonfarm Employment (Thousands)
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
2005
2006
Annual % Change
College Costs in Texas below
National and 10 State Average
Total Price of Attendance at
Four-Year Public Institutions
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2002-03
Texas
Source: UT System report
2003-04
National
2004-05
10 Most Populous States
Financial Aid in Texas Compared to
National and 10 State Average
Percent of First-time, Full-time, DegreeSeeking Undergraduates Receiving Grants
2003-04
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Federal
Texas
Source: UT System report
State
National
Institutional
10 Most Populous States
Institutional Factors
 UT Austin – enrollment caps
 UT Arlington and UT Dallas –
decrease in International
enrollment
 UT Pan American and UT San
Antonio – implemented new
admissions standards
Time to Revisit
the Educational Pipeline
What is the educational pipeline?
Four key transition points

High School Graduation

Entry into Higher Education

Persistence in Higher Education

Completing Higher Education
Source: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Texas Compared to the Nation
In 2002, for every 100 9th graders…
Texas
Nation
Graduate 4 years later
64
68
Enter college immediately
35
40
Are still enrolled in
sophomore year
22
27
Graduate or complete
program within 150% time
13
18
Source: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Texas Educational Pipeline - Totals
Academic Year 2004-05
HS 9th graders (01-02)
364,441
HS Graduates
239,716
HS College Prep
48%
173,336
SAT/ACT Test Takers
38%
140,003
Enrolled 4-year
66%
58,984
33%
Enrolled 2-year
60,408
SAT 1100+ or ACT 24+
38,327
App/Adm 4-yr/Tx Top 10
18,750
Enrolled 4-yr/Tx Top 10
13,382
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
Source: Texas Education Agency, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, TG
400,000
Texas Educational Pipeline - Whites
Academic Year 2004-05
HS 9th graders (01-02)
148,538
HS Graduates
113,212
HS College Prep
83,306
SAT/ACT Test Takers
56%
72,340
Enrolled 4-year
76%
49%
33,933
44%
Enrolled 2-year
30,694
SAT 1100+ or ACT 24+
27,977
App/Adm 4-yr/Tx Top 10
10,716
Enrolled 4-yr/Tx Top 10
7,867
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
Source: Texas Education Agency, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, TG
160,000
Texas Educational Pipeline - African Americans
Academic Year 2004-05
HS 9th graders (01-02)
55,181
HS Graduates
32,811
HS College Prep
60%
39%
21,278
SAT/ACT Test Takers
18,143
Enrolled 4-year
33%
7,793
26%
Enrolled 2-year
6,762
SAT 1100+ or ACT 24+
1,472
App/Adm 4-yr/Tx Top 10
1,410
Enrolled 4-yr/Tx Top 10
996
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Source: Texas Education Agency, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, TG
60,000
Texas Educational Pipeline - Hispanics
Academic Year 2004-05
HS 9th graders (01-02)
150,509
HS Graduates
84,566
HS College Prep
41%
60,939
SAT/ACT Test Takers
25%
38,093
Enrolled 4-year
13,618
Enrolled 2-year
56%
23%
20,927
SAT 1100+ or ACT 24+
4,196
App/Adm 4-yr/Tx Top 10
4,515
Enrolled 4-yr/Tx Top 10
3,075
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
Source: Texas Education Agency, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, TG
200,000
“Leaks” in the Pipeline
1 out of 3 ninth graders did not
graduate from high school
Less than half of high school graduates
enrolled in a Texas College immediately
following high school
Less than one-third of SAT/ACT test
takers scored at or above TEA criterion
scores, 1100+ (SAT) or 24+ (ACT)
“Leaks” in the Pipeline
Hispanics had the largest 9th
grade population, but they had
the lowest % of students
 graduating from High School
 taking the SAT/ACT
 attending college immediately after
high school
 attending 4-year colleges
Is it important when students
enroll in college?
It depends on the goal –
The longer students delay college
entry, the less likely they will earn a
bachelor’s degree within 6 years.
No delay
1 year delay
2-4 years
delay
53%
30%
20%
Source: Waiting to Attend College
Contribute to Student Success
 “Academically Intense” high school
curriculum
 Higher amount of credits in collegelevel mathematics
 Entering post-secondary education
immediately after high school
 Continuous enrollment
 Successful completion of college
gateway courses
Source: The Toolbox Revisited
Hinder Student Success
 Earn less than 20 credits at the end
of the first calendar year
 Part-time status
 Withdraw from 20 percent or more
of attempted courses
 Becoming a parent by age 20
Source: The Toolbox Revisited
Economic Impact
In 2004-05, over half of Hispanic high
school students who took the college prep
classes in Texas were economically
disadvantaged.
Source: THECB
“Today, our highest achieving low-income
students actually go directly on to college
about the same as our lowest-achieving
students from wealthy families”
Source: Promise Abandoned
College Participation, U.S.
By Income and Achievement
Achievement
Level
Low-Income
High-Income
First (low)
36%
77%
Second
50
85
Third
63
90
Fourth (high)
78
97
Source: Promise Abandoned, NELS:88, Second (1992) and Third (1994) Follow-up
College Participation by Income, U.S.
% of High School Graduates
Low1
Middle
High
Total
2000
48%
60%
77%
63%
2001
50
56
80
62
2002
51
61
78
65
2003
53
58
80
64
13-year
average due to small sample size.
Source: The Condition of Education 2006
Texas College Prep Graduates Enrolled
Immediately after High School
All
Economically
Disadvantaged
47% | 45%
All
Not Economically
Disadvantaged
Source: Ready, Willing and Unable
Hispanic
Hispanic
65% | 55%
Degree Attainment:
National Projections
A recent report, Mortgaging Our Future,
projects bachelor degrees for college
qualified high school graduates:
 Low-income – 43%
 Moderate-income – 50%
 Middle-income – 65%
 High-income – 80%
Note: HS Graduates in 2004, degrees obtained by 2012.
Source: Mortgaging Our Future
Financial Barriers
Researchers at the Texas Guaranteed
Student Loan Corporation applied
these percentages to recent Texas
high school graduates and estimated
between 22,200 and 47,000 bachelor’s
degrees may be lost in Texas due to
financial barriers.
Source: Ready, Willing and Unable
Financial Aid at UT System
Full-time Undergraduate Students
with Need-Based Grant Aid, AY 2005-06
% Receiving
Grant Aid
Average % Discount of
Total Academic Cost
Arlington
37.0%
71.6%
Austin
46.8
80.8
Brownsville
57.9
65.1
Dallas
30.3
61.5
El Paso
47.4
100.0
Pan American
65.5
100.0
Permian Basin
36.3
54.3
San Antonio
47.0
64.3
Tyler
42.0
89.1
Source: UT System
As educators – are we doing enough?
More students are taking the College Prep
curriculum, but too many students still do not
graduate from high school in Texas.
What can we do to encourage more students
to enroll in college directly after high school?
How can we motivate students to attend
college full-time, continuously to completion?
More financial aid? Type of aid?
How will our efforts affect students’ choices?
Closing Thought
“Every departure from
the traditional path of
four years in high school
followed immediately by
four years of full-time
attendance in a four-year
college significantly
reduces the likelihood of
degree attainment”
Source: Promise Abandoned
Sources
• Texas Education Agency, Enrollment and Graduation Reports
• Texas Education Agency. College Admissions Testing of
Graduating Seniors in Texas High Schools, Class of 2005,
October 2006.
• Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
• Fall 2006 Economic Forecast, Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts
• The National Center for Public Policy, The Educational Pipeline:
Big Investment, Big Returns, April 2004.
• Horn, L., Cataldi, E.F., and Sikora, A. Waiting to Attend College:
Undergraduates Who Delay Their Postsecondary Enrollment
(NCES 2005-152). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, June 2005.
• Adelman, C. The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion
from High School Through College. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, February 2006.
Sources (continued)
• Haycock, K., Promise Abandoned: How Policy Choices and
Institutional Practices Restrict College Opportunities. The
Education Trust, August 2006.
• U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Condition of
Education Statistics, 2006.
• Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance.
Mortgaging Our Future: How Financial Barriers to College
Undercut America’s Global Competitiveness, September
2006.
• TG Research and Analytical Services. Ready, Willing and
Unable: How financial barriers obstruct bachelor-degree
obtainment in Texas, December 2006.
• UT System, Price of College Attendance and Financial Aid
in Texas Compared to the 10 Most Populous States, 2007.
• UT System, 2006-07 Accountability and Performance
Report.
Institutional and
Student
Responsibilities
in Ensuring the
Pathway to
Success
The Toolbox Revisited
High School Recommendations:
 Secondary schools must provide maximum opportunity-tolearn, not merely course titles, but course substance.
 Postsecondary institutions have got to be active players and
reinforcers at the secondary school level. . . Pep talks, family
visits, recruitment tours, and guidance in filling out application
and financial aid forms are not enough.
 The first year of postsecondary education has to begin in high
school, if not by AP then by the growing dual enrollment
movement or other, more structured current efforts. The
academic intensity of the student’s high school curriculum
still counts more than anything else in precollegiate history
in providing momentum toward completing a bachelor’s
degree.
Source: The Toolbox Revisited, Paths to Degree Completion from High School to College
El Paso Collaborative for Academic
Excellence
Founded in 1991, partners include the National Science
Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education and The
Pew Charitable Trusts, in addition to businesses and
organizations in the community and throughout Texas.
Goals of the Collaborative
• To ensure academic success for all students, K-16.
• To ensure that all students graduate from high
school prepared to succeed in a four-year college
or university.
• To close achievement gaps among different groups
of students
How the Collaborative Works:
• Works with Teachers: Providing professional development
opportunities that encompass all areas of teaching and learning.
• Works with Schools and Administrators: Helping schools set
high standards, and grow toward high-level, standards-based
teaching and learning, and involving principals and administrators in
understanding, supporting and participating in the school
improvement process.
• Works with Parents: Deepening parents’ understanding of how to
support high student achievement, preparation for college, and
acting to involve more parents with their children’s school.
• Works with the University: Supporting innovative, field-based
teacher preparation programs, linking university and K-12 faculty to
ensure alignment of education along the full K-16 continuum.
• Works with Key Business and Civic Leaders: Involving business
and community leaders in improving the quality of education at all
levels, and helping them to identify strategies that will support high
levels of student achievement and increases in college attendance
and graduation
Source: EPCAE website
Impact of the Collaborative
Algebra I: Enrollment and Completion
by Grade 9
95.3%
100%
95.9%
92.9%
87.4%
90%
74.0%
80%
70%
60%
71.0%
62.0%
55.0%
Hispanic Enrolled
Hispanic Passed
50%
White Enrolled
White Passed
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1992-1993
Source: TEA PEIMS data
2003-2004
Algebra II: Enrollment and Completion
by Grade 11
100%
88.0%
90%
93.6% 88.0%
91.5%
87.7%
82.0%
80%
70%
64.0%
60%
Hispanic Enrolled
50%
Hispanic Passed
White Enrolled
40%
40.0%
White Passed
30%
20%
10%
0%
1992-1993
Source: TEA PEIMS data
2003-2004
TAAS/TAKS Math Results (Exit Level)
100%
85%
78%
80%
61%
66%
69%
60%
62%
60%
40%
Hispanic
White
All
38%
33%
20%
0%
1993(TAAS)
1998(TAAS)
2005(TAKS)
T.E.A: AEIS Reports and TAKS Aggregate Data System; Accountability Subset; English Version Test Takers; All Districts.
Results shown for Grade 11 in Spring 2005 is at panel recommendation. State TAKS passing standards in 2005 are at a higher level since the Spring
of 2003.
Chemistry: Enrollment and Completion
by Grade 11
100%
86.0%
90%
81.8%
81.0%
80%
84.6%
91.0%
81.1%
70%
60%
Hispanic Enrolled
45.0%
50%
Hispanic Passed
White Enrolled
40%
30%
White Passed
28.0%
20%
10%
0%
1992-1993
Source: TEA PEIMS data
2003-2004
Physics: Enrollment and Completion
by Grade 12
94.7%
100%
87.0%
90%
98.0%
86.0%
80%
70%
60%
Hispanic Enrolled
Hispanic Passed
50%
38.5%
40%
26.8%
30%
20%
10%
17.0%
9.0%
0%
1992-1993
2002-2003
Source: Texas Education Agency PEIMS Data (El Paso, Ysleta and Socorro ISD’s)
White Enrolled
White Passed
Completion of Recommended High School Program or Higher
El Paso Districts & Statewide
Class of 2004
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
91%
72%
All Students
90%
72%
Hispanic
El Paso Urban Districts
Source: TEA - http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/; Graduate Reports.
93%
91%
73%
65%
White
African
American
Statewide
Graduation Rates for Selected Texas School Districts
100%
90%
73.5%
80%
70%
60%
71.5%
59.5% 60.4%
63.1%
79.8%
64.1%
57.1%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
San Antonio ISD
Austin ISD
1998
Dallas ISD
El Paso Urban
Districts
2004
Source: Texas Education Agency - AEIS Reports; Graduation Rate calculated based on the number of graduates divided by
the total number of 8th graders enrolled 5 years prior.
Access and Affordability
Institutional Responsibilities
• restrain increases in the price of
college and offset necessary
increases with need-based aid
• moderate the trend—at all levels—
toward merit-based aid and
increasing reliance on loans
Source: Mortgaging Our Future A REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Financial Aid at UT System
Full-time Undergraduate Students
with Need-Based Grant Aid, AY 2005-06
% Receiving
Grant Aid
Average % Discount of
Total Academic Cost
Arlington
37.0%
71.6%
Austin
46.8
80.8
Brownsville
57.9
65.1
Dallas
30.3
61.5
47.4
100.0
Pan American
65.5
100.0
Permian Basin
36.3
54.3
San Antonio
47.0
64.3
Tyler
42.0
89.1
El Paso
Source: UT System
Average Student Debt Load
UTEP is ranked
in the ‘Least Debt’ list of National Universities in U.S. News and World
Reports “America’s Best Colleges 2006 Edition,” which calculates the average debt of
students upon graduation
3rd
National Universities
Average Graduate Debt
Princeton University (NJ)
$4,030
University of Hawaii-Manoa
$5,379
University of Texas- El Paso
$6,041
California Institute of Technology
$7,400
N.M. Inst. of Mining and Tech.
$8,788
Harvard University (MA)
$9,640
University of Utah
$11,496
Univ. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
$11,751
Univ. of Southern Mississippi
$12,073
Univ. of California-Davis
$12,231
UTEP Demographics
Total Enrollment
Number
Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
Percent
Residence
El Paso County
16349
84.9%
New Mexico
244
1.3%
Mexico
1798
9.3%
Other International
430
2.2%
• Number of UTEP students awarded financial aid:
15,042
• Average family income of financial aid awardees:
$30,970
White Non-Hispanic
2277 (11.82%)
Black Non-Hispanic
480 (2.49%)
Hispanic
13947 (72.39%)
Asian or Pacific Islander
240
(1.25%)
American Indian or Alaskan
46
(0.24%)
International
2132 (11.07%)
Unreported/Unknown
142
• Percent of financial aid awardees with family
income of $20,000 or less:
43%
• Percent of UTEP students with reported family
income of 20,000 or less:
33%
Percent of students with family income of less than $20,000 at large public research (doctoral) universities: 10%. Percent of
students with family income of less than $20,000 at small and mid-sized private colleges and universities: 12%. (Council of
Independent Colleges: http://www.cic.edu/makingthecase/data/access/income/index.asp )
Percent of students with family income less than $20,000 at community colleges: 29%. (Lumina Foundation Focus, Fall 2005,
P.5)
(7.4%)
Ensuring
Success
Institutional Responsibilities
• It matters whether institutions focus on getting their
students engaged and connected to the campus,
particularly in the critical freshman year
• It matters whether there is a genuine emphasis on the
quality of undergraduate teaching and learning, because
academic success and degree completion go hand in
hand
• It matters whether administrators and faculty monitor
student progress, taking advantage of new data systems
to tease out patterns of student success.
Source: Promise Abandoned, Katie Haycock
UTEP’s Instituional Success
• The National Survey of Student Engagement and the American
Association for Higher Education identified UTEP as one of the 20
colleges and universities that was “unusually effective in promoting
student success”.[1]
• UTEP is identified a Model Institution for Excellence by the
National Science Foundation for our success in creating educational
opportunities for non-traditional students; there are only six MIE
institutions in the country.
• UTEP’s College of Engineering was identified as the top
engineering school for Hispanics by Hispanic Business Magazine.
The magazine says that UTEP “is changing the face of engineering
and producing highly trained graduates heavily recruited by the
industry’s leading companies”.[2]
([1] Project DEEP Interim Report, p. 1 [2] Hispanic Business, September 2006)
Degrees Awarded
• UTEP was ranked in the top ten in the United States
in granting baccalaureate degrees to Hispanics in
2005-2006.[3] UTEP was one of the top ten
institutions in the number of baccalaureate degrees
awarded to Hispanics in Biological and Biomedical
Sciences, Engineering, and Health Professions and
Related Clinical Sciences.[4]
• UTEP was ranked in the top ten in the United States
in granting Master’s degrees to Hispanics in 200520069, 10 and ranked in the top ten in awarding
Master’s degrees to Hispanics in Education and
Engineering10.
([3] The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education Magazine, May 2006 [4] Diverse Issues in Higher Education,
June 2006)
Monitoring Students’
Progress and Success
• Retention and Graduation
• Student Variable Tracker
• Student History Tracker
The Paradox
Graduation Rates
Graduation Rate
Same Institution Graduation Rate
35.00%
29.40%
30.00%
25.10%
25.00%
20.00%
16.70%
14.80%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
2.50%
3.90%
0.00%
4yr Fall 1997 4yr Fall 2001 5yr Fall 1996 5yr Fall 2000 6yr Fall 1995 6yr Fall 1999
Entering Cohort
Choice
“Student responsibility (the intersection of choice with opportunity) is a
major theme. . . some recommendations for students, who are partners
in their own education fate, who shouldn’t wait around for someone else
to do something for them, and who are rarely addressed in studies of
attainment,” Toolbox Revisited, p. xxvi.
Students are explicit, rather than implicit. . . They are respected
adults playing large roles in their own destinies. . . While we trust
that school and college actions will not leave them behind, they have
equal responsibilities.
Source: Toolbox Revisited
Research Funded by
Lumina Foundations
1. Predictors of Success
What factors explain Graduation in 6
Years at the University of Texas at El
Paso?
2. Predictors of Risk
What factors explain why students
leave UTEP?
Research Approach: Development of a Model to
Predict Graduation in 6 Years
Student Cohort Used: Entrance in Fall 1999 and
Fall 2000 (Sample size = 2065)
Data set provided clean, reliable data to examine the 6 yr.
graduation rate
 Undergraduates only
 1st Time (non-transfer) students
 Full time students
Logistic Regression
 Conducted with the binary prediction of Graduation-Yes (1) or
Graduation-No (0)* within six years
 Conducted in five steps
 Variables entered sequentially according to their influence in
graduation in each of the five steps
*Includes “not yet” graduated
Preliminary Finding: Significant
Predictors of Graduating within Six Years
•
•
•
Statistically Significant Predictors
Odds Ratio
P<
GPA
2.746
.001
Math Placement Score*
 Level 2
1.320
.10
 Level 3
1.886
.001
•
Gender (Female)
1.439
.05
•
Do not need more than 4 years to graduate
1.194
.05
•
Credits attempted
1.177
.05
•
Grant paid
1.110
.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•
High school percentile**
 Between 50 and 75
0.678
.05
 Less than 50
0.738
.10
•
Disagree it is important to prepare for class
0.654
.05
•
Hours worked per week***
 Working 30-39 hours per week
.502
.05
•
Number of classes failed****
 Failing one class
.426
.001
 Failing two or more classes
.030
.05
_______________________________________________________________________________
* Reference group is level 1. ** Reference group is top 25. *** Reference group is not working.
**** Reference group is not failing a class.
Note: Nagelkerke R Square is .393.
Percentage correctly classified is 75.5.
Identifying At-Risk Students
1.
1st Semester Leavers: Students who left UTEP in the first
semester and never returned. These individuals are arguably a
very high-risk group.
2.
1st Year Leavers: Students who left UTEP in the first year and
never returned; arguably also a high-risk group.
3.
2nd Year Leavers: Students who left at some point in the
second year and never returned to UTEP.
4.
3rd Year Leavers: Students who left at some point in the third
year and never returned to UTEP.
5.
Sporadic Leavers: Students who left at some point in their
college career and returned, yet did not graduate.
6.
Persisters: Students who were continually enrolled at UTEP
between the Fall of 1999 and the Fall of 2005, yet did not
graduate.
Preliminary Findings: Predictors of 1st Semester
Leaving versus Graduating
Significant Predictors
Failing one or more classes
Higher Average Credits Attempted
Disagree that it is important to prepare for class
Need (financial)
Working more hours
Lower High school percentile
Odds Ratio
3.725
2.411
2.093
1.904
1.863
1.511
P<
.001
.001
.10
.01
.001
.10
Higher Likelihood of 1st Term Leaving
----------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 --------------------Lower Likelihood of 1st Term Leaving
Loan paid
Higher Math placement score
Grant paid
Not having a dependent
Increasing 1st Term GPA
.636
.614
.384
.220
.119
.05
.10
.001
.05
.001
Contact Information
Trish Norman
Research and Policy Analyst
Office of Institutional Studies and Policy Analysis
(http://www.utsystem.edu/isp/)
The University of Texas System
tnorman@utsystem.edu
(512) 499-4435
Roy Mathew
Director, Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning
University of Texas at El Paso
rmathew@utep.edu
(915) 747 5117