Graduation and Success Rates
First-Time Full-Time Freshman Cohorts Fall 06 to Fall 11
Also:
Pell Grant Cohorts 2006 and 2007
D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Recipients 2000-2013
Trinity Washington University
Introduction and Context
Arising from an historic mission commitment to ensure access to higher
education for women who once were excluded, rooted in the social justice
commitments of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur who founded Trinity
College in 1897, Trinity Washington University today is deeply committed to
ensuring broad access to educational opportunities for historically
marginalized populations, particularly women and low income students from
the District of Columbia and the Washington region. Trinity’s student body
profile includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
75% African American students
15% Hispanic students
95% women
50% District of Columbia residents
30% Prince Georges County and Montgomery County residents
75% of undergraduates are Pell Grantees
99% of full-time undergraduates receive Trinity grants
100% of all students receive some form of financial aid
2
Different Pathways to Graduation and Success
Trinity works each day to ensure student success and graduation. The university’s experience with students who
have many “non-traditional” characteristics --- older students, part-time students, single parents, self-supporting,
working full-time while in school, heads of households and caretakers for siblings and elder family members,
students who sometimes are homeless or financially marginalized --- reveals that such students make their way
through college along pathways and with timetables that are remarkably different from the stereotypical 18-22
year old “traditional” college student (a distinct minority of all college students today).
Federal policy continues to use very traditional measurements to assess student success, e.g., the IPEDS
“graduation rate” that only measures “seat time” in one school, an outmoded traditional notion of retention and
completion for cohorts of full-time first-time freshmen. The government-mandated data treats transfer students as
drop-outs even if they complete degrees at another university, and also treats as drop-outs students who actually
complete degrees at their first university beyond the traditional 4-6 year timeframe.
Trinity believes that a more complete measurement of continuing enrollment and degree attainment across
multiple institutions, and all along the student’s lifespan, is a more realistic measure of academic success.
Stopped-out students are not drop-outs, and particularly for women who often must stop out for family concerns,
recognizing and accounting for the importance of later return and completion patterns is a significant issue for
those students, their colleges and also the workforce.
Accordingly, in this report, Trinity provides both the federally required data along with the more complete picture
of student progress toward degrees across multiple institutions as provided by using the data available in the
National Student Clearinghouse.
Finally, Trinity will augment this data periodically to include students who transfer into Trinity, adult and
professional students, and graduate students.
3
Data Sources
• IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System, the federal database that
establishes the baseline data reported by all
institutions
• National Student Clearinghouse: private
voluntary system through which student
progress across multiple institutions is tracked
through graduation
4
METHODOLOGY
•
Using the National Student Clearinghouse, Trinity has identified the progress of every student
in each first-time full-time freshman cohort starting in 2006 and every fall semester through
2011. The clearinghouse data, displayed on the next table, shows the percentage of students
in each cohort who are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Still enrolled at Trinity
Still enrolled at another higher ed institution
Have earned a bachelor’s at Trinity (which is the equivalent of the IPEDS graduation rate)
Have earned a certificate at another institution
Have earned a bachelor’s degree at another institution
Have earned an associate’s degree at another institution
•
The “success rate” is the total proportion of all of the above --- students who are still enrolled
at Trinity or at another institution, or those who have graduated from Trinity or elsewhere.
•
Below the gray line on the next page, Trinity has also assessed the relative weight of the
attrition factors that had the greatest impact on students who are not enrolled and did not
complete degrees. The identifiable attrition factors include:
•
•
•
•
•
Financial Holds
Poor Academic Performance (beyond academic probation)
Academic Probation
Good Academic Performance (which may mean a student transferred for a programmatic reason)
Note that, most often, attrition is due to multiple factors with finance and academic
performance interacting, but also factors such as health and family issues or other personal
issues that are difficult to assess in a standardized way like finance or grade point averages.
5
Trinity Full-Time First-Time Cohort Completion and Continuing Enrollment/Attrition at Trinity or Elsewhere with Clearinghouse Data
Time since starting:
7 yrs
Starting Cohort Fall Semester:
2006
Count
6 yrs
2006
Percent
2007
Count
5 yrs
2007
Percent
2008
Count
4 yrs
2008
Percent
2009
Count
3 yrs
2009
Percent
2010
Count
2 yrs
2010
Percent
2011
Count
2011
Percent
Earned AA at another inst
3
2%
1
1%
3
2%
2
1%
2
1%
0
0%
Earned BA at another inst
23
13%
13
6%
6
3%
2
1%
0
0%
0
0%
Earned Cert at another insti
Earned BA at Trinity
(~ IPEDS GRAD RATE)
0
0%
0
0%
1
0%
1
0%
2
0%
0
0%
55
32%
75
34%
78
40%
45
19%
1
0%
0
0%
Still Enrolled at another Inst
14
8%
35
16%
24
12%
43
18%
46
17%
52
20%
4
2%
10
5%
21
11%
65
27%
132
49%
150
57%
Financial Hold
27
15%
48
22%
30
15%
25
10%
23
9%
24
9%
Left not in good academic standing
16
9%
12
5%
16
8%
9
4%
16
6%
15
6%
Left on academic probation
17
10%
12
5%
12
6%
33
14%
32
12%
5
2%
Left in good standing
15
9%
16
7%
6
3%
15
6%
14
5%
17
6%
174
100%
221
100%
197
100%
240
100%
268
99%
263
100%
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
99
57%
134
60%
133
68%
158
66%
183
68%
202
77%
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
2009
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
Still Enrolled at Trinity
TOTAL
Still Enrolled or Graduated ALL
Top Transfer Schools:
UMUC
UDC
UDC
MCC
UDC
UDC
UMCP
UMCP
PG
UDC
MCC
MCC
UDC
PGCC
Bowie
Bowie
UMCP
UMCP
Howard
MCC
Howard
PGCC
CSoMd
Strayer
6
Trinity Cohort Completion and Continuing Enrollment/Attrition
With Clearinghouse Data for Cohorts from Fall 2006 to Fall 2011
And Pell Grant Completion Rates for 2006 and 2007 Cohorts
100%
3%
7%
9%
5%
90%
10%
8%
5%
9%
15%
12%
60%
8%
57%
60%
16%
3%
68%
66%
68%
18%
Good ACST
17%
20%
BA Other
AA Other
5%
30%
2%
33%
Enroll Trinity
27%
57%
30%
49%
20%
BA Trinity
Success Rate
40%
32%
Fin Hold
Enroll Other
1%
6%
13%
ACAPRO
Bad ACST
0
0
11%
40%
77%
9%
10%
15%
9%
6%
4%
22%
70%
6%
2%
6%
12%
14%
80%
50%
5%
6%
6%
34%
Pell Completion
10%
19%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
0
0
2010
2011
First Time Full Time Cohort Initial Enrollment Fall
On the columns above, the dark purple is the completion rate at Trinity, the light purple is still enrolled at Trinity, the
blues are completed or still enrolled at other institutions, and the red line and number is the “success rate.” The
cohorts that began in 2006-2007-2008 have largely finished degrees by now. The cohorts for 2009-2010-2011 are
mostly still in school. Above the line, the columns show attrition because of money (green) or academic reasons.
7
Interpretation of the Data
•
As indicated on the graph on the previous page, Trinity’s total “success rate” (the red line across
the columns) indicating students who have graduated or are still enrolled at Trinity is 57%-60%68% for the cohorts that started in 2006-2007-2008 respectively, the cohorts that would be
most likely to be at or near completion by 2013. Those rates are significantly higher than the
IPEDS completion rate alone (the lowest purple part of the columns for those years) which
indicates only those students who finished degrees at Trinity.
•
The yellow line and markers across 2006 and 2007 at 30% and 33% respectively are the Pell
Grantee 6-year completion rates for those cohorts, almost the same as all students in the
cohorts since Trinity’s Pell Grant proportion is very high at 75% of the cohorts.
•
As the names listed on the bottom of the chart on the previous page reveals, most of the
students who transfer out of Trinity go to public universities, most often for financial reasons,
sometimes because the major public universities have a broader menu of major programs.
Trinity plays a large role in helping to prepare students for long-term success in whatever
institution eventually awards the degree.
•
Students who are not currently enrolled at Trinity or elsewhere consistently demonstrate the
top attrition factors of financial and academic stress. These factors are consistent across many
universities that enroll large numbers of low income students, who are also most likely to have
academic preparatory deficiencies as a result of under-performing public schools. Some of
these students will eventually complete degrees after stopping out for a period of time.
8
D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Recipients
2000-2013
Since the start of
the D.C. Tuition
Assistance Grant
Program in the Year
2000, Trinity has
enrolled 1,485 D.C.
TAG recipients. 56%
have graduated or
are still enrolled at
Trinity.
Not Currently
Enrolled, 655,
44%
Graduated, 414,
28%
Still Enrolled,
413, 28%
9
TRINITY IPEDS GRADUATION RATE AND TRANSFER COUNTS AND RATES 2000-2013
“Student Right to Know” Rates
REPORTING YEARS
Cohort Start Year
FTFT Enrolled
6 Yr Graduated
Rate
2000
102
53
52%
2001
116
42
36%
2002
174
69
40%
2003
156
59
38%
2004
144
50
35%
2005
124
56
45%
2006
174
53
30%
Four Year Grad
Four Year Transfer
Total
2000 to
2007 2007
221
1211
75
457
34%
38%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
35%
22%
x
36%
31%
x
39%
33%
x
37%
37%
41%
35%
2013
x
x
10
CIRP DATA: FINANCIAL PROFILE
Trinity’s entering first year students face
considerable financial challenges. Data
collected from the freshmen through the annual
CIRP (Cooperative Institutional Research
Program) reveals consistently that more than
half the class have family incomes under
$30,000. The following chart using the 2012
CIRP data is illustrative. The comparison group
reflects women students at all four-year Catholic
colleges.
11
2012 CIRP: PARENT INCOME ESTIMATE
30.0%
More than half of Trinity freshmen have family incomes of less than $25,000,
while in the cohort group half have family incomes of less than $90,000.
75% of Trinity frosh have family incomes of less than $50,000, while
75% of the cohort group have family incomes of les than $150,000.
73%
51%
25.5%
25.0%
76%
TRINITY
58%
WCC
20.0%
17.3%
15.0%
13.0%
9.9%
10.0%
9.9%
7.5%
8.1%
8.7%
6.9%
5.2%
4.4%
2.9%
2.6%
3.3%
9.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.5%
6.2%
5.5%
5.0%
9.9%
9.3%
2.9%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
$250,000 or more
$200,000 to 249,999
$150,000 to 199,999
$100,000 to 149,999
$75,000 to 99,999
$60,000 to 74,999
$50,000 to 59,999
$40,000 to 49,999
$30,000 to 39,999
$25,000 to 29,999
$20,000 to 24,999
$15,000 to 19,999
$10,000 to 14,999
Less than $10,000
0.0%
0.0%
12
Select Cohort Study of
Proportionate Enrollment of
White, Black Hispanic Students in Fall 2012,
Rate of Pell Grant Participation of Freshmen,
Cohort Graduation Rate for Fall 2006 Cohort
as reported in the 2013 IPEDS Data
Benchmarking Reports
Trinity Washington University
Prepared by President Pat McGuire
January 25, 2014
13
Institutions Selected for This Cohort
This is a blended cohort of Trinity’s standard cohort
of historic women’s colleges in urban centers, some
Catholic, augmented with the addition of other
private colleges with high Pell Grant and
Black/Hispanic proportions, and also including a
select group of HBCU institutions both public and
private to see the interplay of Pell, Race and
Completion Data. The data is all extracted from
each institution’s 2013 IPEDS Data benchmarking
reports available on the NCES website.
14
INSTITUTION HCT
WOMEN WHITE BLACK
HISPANIC B+H
CHEYNEY
1433
52%
1%
93%
3%
BENNETT
793
100%
0%
94%
2%
DILLARD
1447
72%
0%
93%
1%
SOJOURNERD
1916
88%
2%
92%
1%
BOWIE
6430
64%
4%
87%
2%
NORFSTATE
8318
66%
5%
83%
2%
VASTU
6757
61%
4%
83%
1%
MORGAN
9027
61%
4%
83%
1%
LINCOLNPA
2393
61%
2%
80%
1%
JNSNCSMTH
1886
61%
1%
74%
5%
TRINITY
3103
91%
5%
69%
10%
DELSTATE
4406
63%
14%
70%
5%
XAVIERLA
3875
71%
6%
73%
2%
UMES
5064
58%
15%
69%
2%
OLADYLAKE
2870
73%
22%
10%
55%
UDC
11000
62%
6%
57%
7%
MTSTMRYCA
3205
90%
14%
8%
51%
MERCY
15786
72%
32%
24%
27%
CNR
5886
90%
8%
38%
12%
HERITAGEWA
1447
75%
33%
1%
47%
MARYGROVE
3345
76%
44%
45%
1%
COLUMBIASC
1495
96%
51%
39%
4%
WESLEYANGA
839
96%
40%
34%
3%
BARRY
10673
66%
17%
18%
17%
CHESTNUT
2621
73%
47%
29%
6%
CSE
2047
89%
47%
19%
13%
ALVERNO
2919
98%
59%
17%
14%
NDDENCA
2368
69%
36%
6%
24%
NDMD
3887
87%
64%
24%
5%
URSULINE
1866
88%
64%
26%
2%
MRYMTMAN
2212
78%
60%
10%
17%
MBALDWIN
2226
93%
61%
21%
4%
GEORGIAN
3000
87%
60%
9%
9%
IMMACULATA
5418
77%
77%
13%
4%
CEDARCRST
2043
94%
71%
8%
9%
UNSTJOE
3228
91%
55%
7%
7%
CARLOW
3453
84%
47%
13%
1%
CHATHAM
2676
87%
67%
9%
2%
PELL
06 GRAD
FROSH RATE
TUITION Women's C.
96%
85%
23%
8,802
96%
91%
37% 16,974X
94%
83%
31%
1,477
93%
53%
22%
7,920
89%
59%
35%
6,600
85%
72%
34%
6,860
84%
67%
42%
7,420
84%
67%
42%
7,420
81%
64%
37%
9,590
79%
66%
42% 18,326
79%
75%
30% 21,125X
75%
61%
33%
7,336
75%
70%
51% 18,700
71%
65%
32%
6,713
65%
74%
27% 23,420
64%
64%
15%
7,244
59%
65%
57% 32,894X
51%
74%
29% 17,556XX
50%
89%
28% 30,380X
48%
95%
21% 16,500
46%
84%
15% 18,900XX
43%
66%
46% 22,030X
37%
48%
48% 19,000X
35%
59%
41% 28,160XX
35%
31%
47% 30,165XX
32%
75%
54% 29,900X
31%
75%
39% 22,126X
30%
52%
47% 30,500
29%
47%
48% 34,850X
28%
54%
53% 25,790X
27%
29%
40% 25,648XX
25%
53%
49% 28,020X
18%
59%
49% 28,040XX
17%
37%
53% 29,000XX
17%
58%
61% 31,596X
14%
43%
58% 31,826X
14%
56%
56% 24,438X
11%
55%
59% 31,352X
Catholi
c C.
HBCU
XP
X
X
X
XP
XP
XP
XP
X
X
X
XP
X
XP
X
XP
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
XX=historic women's or Catholic college
XP=Public HBCU
15
Trinity’s Place in the Data
Note that as the spreadsheet gets sorted in different ways
(not always shown on the following slides) it turns out
that Trinity is:
• 7th among all 38 institutions in the Pell Grant
proportion of the freshman class (75%)
• 9th from the bottom on the completion rate for Fall
2006 cohort (30%)
• 14th largest Black student population (in fact, a larger
proportion of Black students than UDC)
• 12th largest Hispanic student population
• 10th largest combined Black & Hispanic population
16
What the Data Demonstrates
The data on the following slides depict graphically the relationship between
the proportion of Pell Grantees in a freshman class and the graduation rates.
Note that because the data all comes from the 2013 IPEDS report, the Pell
Grant cohort (Fall 2011) is different from the actual graduation cohort (Fall
2006) but a review of the data for all institutions on the list over time shows
fairly consistent numbers with only slight variations over time.
This data is consistent with the report of the Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Aid (the report “Measure Twice”) that documents the fact that
graduation rates are most clearly affected by the proportion of Pell Grant
recipients in a student population as well as the size of the institutional
endowment and test scores. The latter two points are not revealed in this
particular study but anecdotally it’s fair to say that the institutions on this
report with the largest Pell Grantee population also have very small
endowments. Many do not use test scores so that correlation is unclear.
17
Chart One: Sorted by Graduation Rates
On the next slide, the yellow line shows the
graduation rates for the Fall 2006 cohort from
highest to lowest. As the rate declines, the
percentage of Pell recipients in the first year
class (red line) increases. Also note the change
in the racial composition of the student body as
the Pell grant proportion increases and
graduation rate declines.
18
Chart One: Select Cohort Sorted first by IPEDS Grad Rate for Fall 2006 Cohort
then showing Pell Frosh and and Enrollment of White/Black/Hispanic Students
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
06 GRAD RATE
30%
WHITE
40%
40%
HISPANIC
100%
BLACK
PELL FROSH
UDC
MARYGROVE
HERITAGEWA
SOJOURNERD
CHEYNEY
OLADYLAKE
CNR
MERCY
TRINITY
DILLARD
UMES
DELSTATE
NORFSTATE
BOWIE
LINCOLNPA
BENNETT
ALVERNO
MRYMTMAN
BARRY
JNSNCSMTH
MORGAN
VASTU
COLUMBIASC
CHESTNUT
NDDENCA
NDMD
WESLEYANGA
MBALDWIN
GEORGIAN
XAVIERLA
IMMACULATA
URSULINE
CSE
CARLOW
MTSTMRYCA
UNSTJOE
CHATHAM
CEDARCRST
19
Chart Two: Sorted by Pell Recipients
Chart Two on the next page shows the
descending slope of Pell Grantees compared to
grad rates and student body racial composition.
Interesting to note that some institutions with
relatively modest Pell Grant proportions still
have low grad rates.
20
Chart Two: Select Cohort Sorted First by Pell Frosh Participation then showing IPEDS Grad Rates
and Proportionate Enrollment of White/Black/Hispanic Students
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
06 GRAD RATE
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
21
MRYMTMAN
CHESTNUT
IMMACULATA
UNSTJOE
NDMD
WESLEYANGA
NDDENCA
MBALDWIN
SOJOURNERD
URSULINE
CHATHAM
CARLOW
CEDARCRST
GEORGIAN
BARRY
BOWIE
DELSTATE
LINCOLNPA
UDC
MTSTMRYCA
UMES
COLUMBIASC
JNSNCSMTH
MORGAN
VASTU
XAVIERLA
NORFSTATE
MERCY
OLADYLAKE
CSE
ALVERNO
TRINITY
DILLARD
MARYGROVE
CHEYNEY
CNR
BENNETT
HERITAGEWA
30%
PELL FROSH
40%
WHITE
40%
HISPANIC
100%
BLACK
The Impact of Race and Social Class
“Low income students” is the new euphemism to talk
about race and social class in higher education today. In
fact, race matters very much because of the
disproportionate impact of poverty on Black and Hispanic
students. Failing to understand the data by race leaves
out a major component of the story of college
persistence and completion today. The next three slides
(Charts Three, Four and Five) show the performance of
the cohort when sorted first by race – Chart three by
Black Student proportion, Chart four by White Student
proportion, Chart five by Hispanic Student proportion.
22
Chart Three Special Cohort Sorted by Proportion of Black Students
Showing Proportions of White and Hispanic Students
Pell Frosh and Grad Rates IPEDS Data
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
06 GRAD RATE
30%
WHITE
40%
40%
HISPANIC
100%
BLACK
PELL FROSH
HERITAGEWA
NDDENCA
UNSTJOE
MTSTMRYCA
CEDARCRST
GEORGIAN
CHATHAM
OLADYLAKE
MRYMTMAN
IMMACULATA
CARLOW
ALVERNO
BARRY
CSE
MBALDWIN
MERCY
NDMD
URSULINE
CHESTNUT
WESLEYANGA
CNR
COLUMBIASC
MARYGROVE
UDC
TRINITY
UMES
DELSTATE
XAVIERLA
JNSNCSMTH
LINCOLNPA
NORFSTATE
MORGAN
VASTU
BOWIE
SOJOURNERD
CHEYNEY
DILLARD
BENNETT
23
Chart Four: Select Cohort Sorted First by Proportion of White Students,
Showing Also Black and Hispanic Students, IPEDS Grad Rate and Pell Frosh
100%
100%
DILLARD
BENNETT
JNSNCSMTH
CHEYNEY
LINCOLNPA
SOJOURNERD
MORGAN
VASTU
BOWIE
TRINITY
NORFSTATE
UDC
XAVIERLA
CNR
MTSTMRYCA
DELSTATE
UMES
BARRY
OLADYLAKE
MERCY
HERITAGEWA
NDDENCA
WESLEYANGA
MARYGROVE
CARLOW
CSE
CHESTNUT
COLUMBIASC
UNSTJOE
ALVERNO
GEORGIAN
MRYMTMAN
MBALDWIN
NDMD
URSULINE
CHATHAM
CEDARCRST
IMMACULATA
0%
0%
HISPANIC
BLACK
PELL FROSH
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
WHITE
30%
30%
06 GRAD RATE
20%
20%
10%
10%
24
Chart 5: Select Cohort Sorted by Hispanic Students
Then showing Black and White Enrollment Proportions
IPEDS Pell Frosh Proportion and Fall06 Cohort Grad Rate
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
06 GRAD RATE
30%
WHITE
40%
40%
HISPANIC
100%
BLACK
PELL FROSH
CARLOW
MARYGROVE
LINCOLNPA
MORGAN
VASTU
SOJOURNERD
DILLARD
CHATHAM
URSULINE
UMES
XAVIERLA
NORFSTATE
BOWIE
BENNETT
WESLEYANGA
CHEYNEY
IMMACULATA
MBALDWIN
COLUMBIASC
NDMD
DELSTATE
JNSNCSMTH
CHESTNUT
UNSTJOE
UDC
CEDARCRST
GEORGIAN
TRINITY
CNR
CSE
ALVERNO
MRYMTMAN
BARRY
NDDENCA
MERCY
HERITAGEWA
MTSTMRYCA
OLADYLAKE
25