Access vs.
Success:
Preliminary Policy
Insights from a
Study Funded by
Lumina Foundation
for Education
The University of Texas at El Paso
Center for Institutional Evaluation,
Research and Planning
Presentation Outline
• The Policy Tension Associated with Balancing Access and Success
– National context
– UTEP’s context
• UTEP’s Efforts to Ensure Access and Success
– Efforts over last 20 years and their impact
– Challenges and current efforts (UTEP Student Success Project
funded by Lumina Foundation)
• Findings from Student Success Project
• Policy Implications and Next Steps
Policy Tension: Balancing
Access and Excellence
Ensuring access to “nontraditional” students (i.e., low
income, 1st generation) is
increasingly difficult for four
year institutions.
• Negative perceptions about “low”
admissions standards
• Use of selectivity metrics in
rankings and other efforts
• Focus on graduation rates as the
benchmark of excellence
• Focus on opportunity costs
associated with educating “at risk”
students
Access: The Foundation of the Original
Mission of State & Land Grant Universities
• accessible to working class citizens,
• provide opportunities to pursue studies in fields
that would improve the quality of their lives
• serve the people of their region
Colleges would be established in each state on land
set aside for this purpose.
The institution should be open to all classes of students above a fixed
age, and for any length of time, whether three months or seven
years, and each taught in those particular branches of art which he
wishes to pursue, and to any extent, more or less. And all should pay
their tuition and board bills in whole or in part, either in money or
necessary work on the premises—regard being had to the ability
of each.
Jonathan Baldwin Turner, 1851
speech delivered to Illinois Farmers
Importance of Ensuring Access
• “Because it is a responsibility of the states to provide education, state
policy-makers must assess the extent to which current higher
education systems provide access for their residents. And because
equal opportunity for all is a national goal, federal policy-makers must
assess the college opportunities available to all citizens.
• “Reducing and potentially ending unequal access to higher education
in the United States is important for the future health and prosperity
of our democracy . . . unequal higher education opportunity limits the
extent to which people are prepared to participate in a civil and open
society.”
Kipp, S.M., Price, D.V., & Wohlford, J.K. (2002). Unequal Opportunity Disparities in College Access
Among the 50 States. Lumina Foundation, 4(3).
Who is Affected by Limited Access?
• Low income, first
generation students,
older students,
students with
dependents
• Students with low ACT/
SAT scores
• Students who attended
low- performing high
schools
UTEP’s Context
El Paso, Texas
• El Paso County-3rd
poorest large county in the
US1
• Population: 724,000
• 81% Hispanic
• Border community, very
dynamic flow of residents
and students across the
border
• Limited educational
opportunities
1
2005 American Community Survey of the US Census
UTEP Demographics
Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
Total Enrollment by Residence
N
%
El Paso County 16349 84.9%
New Mexico
244
1.3%
Mexico
1798
9.3%
Other Int’l
430
2.2%
White Non-Hispanic
Black Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
Am. Indian or Alaskan
International*
2277
480
13947
240
46
2132
*includes Mexican Nat’l. students
Percent of financial aid awardees with family income of $20,000 or less:
Percent of UTEP students with reported family income of $20,000 or less:
11.8%
2.5%
72.4%
1.3%
0.2%
11.1%
43%
33%
Nationally:
% of students with family income of less than $20,000 at large public
1
research (doctoral) universities:
10%
% of students with family income of less than $20,000 at small &mid-sized
1
private colleges and universities:
12%
2
% of students with family income less than $20,000 at community colleges: 29%
1Council of Independent Colleges: http://www.cic.edu/makingthecase/data/access/income/index.asp
2Lumina Foundation Focus, Fall 2005, p.5
UTEP’s Issues Related to Access
Old Issues that were addressed:
• Debates to become more selective: “Harvard on the
Border”
• Pressure to focus exclusively on the best prepared
students
Newest Tensions:
• Negative external perceptions about open access: if
everyone can get in, it must not be very good
• Concerns about opportunity cost – students dropping
out, extended times to degree, taking too many
courses, enrollment in developmental courses
• Graduation rates
UTEP’s Efforts
• President rededicated mission to
ensure the widest possible
access to all students from the
region, and to focus on serving
the El Paso area
• Made efforts to ensure success
at all levels of the pipeline, with
impressive results
o K-12
o Admissibility/ Affordability
o Student engagement
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
• Ensure academic success for all
students, K-16
• Ensure that all students
graduate from high school
prepared to succeed in a fouryear college or university
• Close achievement gaps among
different groups of students
How the El Paso 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, http//epcae.org
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
93%
91%
73%
65%
White
African
American
Statewide
Source: Texas Education Agency, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/GraduateReports
Affordability
UT System Full-time Undergraduate Students
with Need-Based Grant Aid, AY 2005-06
Average In-State Total
Academic Cost,
Fall 2005 - Spring 2006
combined w/ fees
% Students
Receiving NeedBased Grant Aid
Average % Discount
Arlington
$5910
37.0%
71.6%
Austin
$7288
46.8%
80.8%
Brownsville
$3709
57.9%
65.1%
Dallas
$6838
30.3%
61.5%
El Paso
$4984
47.4%
100.00%
Pan American
$3605
65.5%
100.00%
Permian Basin
$4282
36.3%
54.3%
San Antonio
$6016
47.0%
64.3%
Tyler
$4671
42.0%
89.1%
$5093
46.7%
76.9%
UT System
Institution
Average
Source: UT System Fast Facts, 2007
UTEP’s Institutional Successes
•
The National Survey of Student Engagement and
the American Association for Higher Education
identified UTEP as one of 20 colleges and
universities that was “unusually effective in
promoting student success”.1
UTEP is identified as only one of six Model
Institutions for Excellence in the nation by the
National Science Foundation for its success in
creating educational opportunities for non-traditional
students.
UTEP’s College of Engineering was identified as
the top engineering school for Hispanics by
Hispanic Business Magazine. The magazine says
UTEP “is changing the face of engineering and
producing highly trained graduates heavily recruited
by the industry’s leading companies”.2
•
•
1
1989 UTEP Alumnus
Danny Olivas, NASA
astronaut to be flying on
the shuttle Atlantis in
June 2007
NSSE Institute for Effective Educational Practice, Project DEEP Final Report, p. 4
Hispanic Business, September 2006
2
Same Institution Gradation Rate
Despite All the Success,
UTEP has More Work to Do
35%
29.40%
30%
25.10%
25%
20%
14.80%
15%
16.70%
10%
5%
2.50%
3.90%
0%
4yr Fall 4yr Fall 5yr Fall 5yr Fall 6yr Fall 6yr Fall
1997
2001
1996
2000
1995
1999
Entering Cohort
The UTEP Student
Success Project Funded
by Lumina Foundation
• Identify factors that affect
students’ success—timely
progress toward a degree
• Identify & implement
strategies to improve the
success of students at UTEP
• At this preliminary stage,
there were two study
questions and quantitative
approaches.
Research Questions
1. Predictors of Success
What factors explain graduation within
6 Years at the University of Texas at El
Paso?
2. Predictors of Risk
What factors explain why students
leave UTEP?
Data and Sample
Cohort Entering Students from Fall 1999 and
Fall 2000 (Sample size = 2,065)
Data provided clean, reliable
set to examine the 6 yr.
graduation rate
 Undergraduates only
 1st time (non-transfer)
students
 Full-time students only
23 Variables Included as Predictors of
Graduation:
• Age (standardized)
• Educational level of parents
• Hrs. per week spent working
(anticipated for 1st term, self-report) 1
• Number of dependents (children &
other family members) 1
• ACT Scores (standardized)
• Math Placement Level (BANM)
• Reading Placement Level (BANR)
• Writing Placement Level (BANW)
• English Placement Level (BANE)
• High School Percentile Rank
• 1st Term GPA standardized (GPA for
which we have all students’ data;
“past behavior is a predictor of future
behavior”)
• Number of classes failed in 1st term
1
• Personal perception that one will
drop out before graduation1
• Personal perception that one will
need to study harder at UTEP than in
high school to get good grades1
• Personal perception that it is
important to prepare for class1
• Personal perception that one will
change majors at least once1
• Personal perception that it is
important to prepare for class1
• Average number of credit hours
attempted (standardized)
• Need (based on Household Income)
• Grant- Amount Paid
• Scholarship- Amount Paid
• Student Loan- Amount Paid
• Work-Study- Amount Paid
New Student Survey administered to all new students annually by UTEP-CIERP
Descriptive Stats:
College Graduation within 6 Years by H.S.
Rank Percentile
Graduation Indication
High school class rank
top 25%
50% to 75%
less than 50%
Total
Count
Not Graduated
Total
Graduated
415
400
815
% within HS_rank
50.9%
49.1%
100.0%
% within Graduation Indication
34.9%
72.9%
46.9%
% of Total
23.9%
23.0%
46.9%
427
112
539
% within HS_rank
79.2%
20.8%
100.0%
% within Graduation Indication
35.9%
20.4%
31.0%
% of Total
24.6%
6.4%
31.0%
346
37
383
% within HS_rank
90.3%
9.7%
100.0%
% within Graduation Indication
29.1%
6.7%
22.0%
% of Total
19.9%
2.1%
22.0%
1188
549
1737
68.4%
31.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
68.4%
31.6%
100.0%
Count
Count
Count
% within HS_rank
% within Graduation Indication
% of Total
Distribution of GPA
250
200
Frequency
100
50
0
250
Not Graduated
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
2.00
First term GPA
4.00
Graduation Indication
Graduated
150
Descriptive Stats:
College Graduation within 6 Years by Income
Graduation
Household Income Group
20k or less
20k to 35k
35k to 50k
50k to 65k
Count
194
648
% within income
70.1%
29.9%
100.0%
% within Graduation
41.6%
35.6%
39.6%
324
171
495
% within income
65.5%
34.5%
100.0%
% within Graduation
29.7%
31.4%
30.3%
168
92
260
% within income
64.6%
35.4%
100.0%
% within Graduation
15.4%
16.9%
15.9%
82
49
131
62.6%
37.4%
100.0%
7.5%
9.0%
8.0%
63
39
102
61.8%
38.2%
100.0%
% within Graduation
5.8%
7.2%
6.2%
Count
1091
545
1636
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Count
Count
% within Graduation
Count
% within income
Total
1
454
% within income
65k or more
0
Total
% within income
% within Graduation
Descriptive Stats:
College Graduation within 6 Years
by Classes Failed-1st Semester
classes_failed * Graduation Indication Crosstabulation
clas s es _failed
no failed class es
failed 1 clas s
failed 2 or more class es
Total
Count
% within clas s es _failed
% within Graduation
Indication
% of Total
Count
% within clas s es _failed
% within Graduation
Indication
% of Total
Count
% within clas s es _failed
% within Graduation
Indication
% of Total
Count
% within clas s es _failed
% within Graduation
Indication
% of Total
Graduation Indication
Not
Graduated
Graduated
740
615
54.6%
45.4%
Total
1355
100.0%
53.7%
90.7%
65.9%
36.0%
345
85.2%
29.9%
60
14.8%
65.9%
405
100.0%
25.0%
8.8%
19.7%
16.8%
293
99.0%
2.9%
3
1.0%
19.7%
296
100.0%
21.3%
.4%
14.4%
14.3%
1378
67.0%
.1%
678
33.0%
14.4%
2056
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
67.0%
33.0%
100.0%
Distribution of ACT
200
ACT 18
100
Frequency
50
0
200
Not Graduated
150
100
50
0
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
ACT
25.00
30.00
35.00
Graduation Indication
Graduated
150
Distribution of ACT for different
Income groups
ACT 18
Descriptive Statistics of ACT
Scores by Income Group
Income group
N
Mean
Median
Std.
Deviation
Less than 20k
553
18.06
18.00
3.26
20k to 35k
453
18.40
18.00
3.20
35k to 50k
246
19.37
19.00
3.41
50k to 65k
122
19.76
19.00
3.60
65k or more
95
20.51
20.00
3.73
1,469
18.68
18.00
3.41
Total
Research Approach:
Development of a
Model to Predict Graduation in 6 Years
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 the
student encounter them (from demographics to
college academic performance)
*Includes “not yet” graduated
Step 1: Demographics
• In this step only demographic variables
are considered:
 Gender
 Income
 Educational level of parents
 Having a dependent
 Age
Step 2: High School Preparation
• Variables considered in this step are:
 High school class rank
 Math Placement score
 ACT /SAT score
 Writing Placement score
 Reading Placement score
 English Placement score
Step 3: Student Perception
• Variables considered in this step are
personal perception that:
 One will drop out before graduation
 One will need to study harder at UTEP than in high
school to get good grades
 It is important to prepare for class
 One will change majors at least once
 One will need more than four years to graduate
 Confident one will graduate
Step 4: First-term Performance
• Variables considered in this step are:
 GPA
 Credits attempted
 Hours worked per week
 Number of classes failed
Significant Predictors (in Bold)





















Gender
Income
Educational level of parents
Having a dependent
Age
High school class rank
Math Placement score
ACT /SAT score
Writing Placement score
Reading Placement score
English Placement score
Will drop out before graduation
Will need to study harder at UTEP than in high school to get good grades
It is important to prepare for class
Will change majors at least once
Do not need more than four years to graduate
Confident that one will graduate
GPA
Credits attempted
Hours worked per week
Number of classes failed
Step 4: Logistic Regression
•
•
•
Statistically Significant Predictors
Odds Ratio
P<
GPA
2.733
.001
Math Placement Score*
 Level 2
1.237
.05
 Level 3
1.512
.001
 Level 4
2.954
.10
•
Gender (Female)
1.443
.05
•
Do not need more than 4 years to graduate
1.267
.05
•
Credits attempted
1.165
.05
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•
Disagree it is important to prepare for class
0.698(1.43)
.05
•
High school percentile**
 Between 50 and 75
0.643(1.56)
.05
 Less than 50
0.379(2.64)
.001
•
Hours worked per week***
 Working 30-39 hours per week
.448(2.23)
.05
•
Number of classes failed****
 Failing one class
.530(1.89)
.001
 Failing two or more classes
.105(9.52)
.001
______________________________________________________________________________
* 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 .40.
Percentage correctly classified is 76.6.
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.
Modeling Factors that Explain
At-Risk Group Membership
Multinomial Logistic Regression is ideal for
examining factors that help predict membership in
a defined category when the outcome is more than
binary (i.e. graduating or not).
• 7 Categories versus 2 Categories considered in the
model.
The model produced offers information about
institutional interventions for particular groups.
Objective: Resources can be more effectively
targeted toward these at-risk groups.
Summary of the Multinomial Model
Variable
First
Term
First Yr.
Second
Yr.
Third Yr.
Sporadic
Persisters
GPA
7.69
3.37
2.30
----
2.89
---
SCH
----
1.79
---
----
1.31
---
Failing class
3.289
3.897
2.717
2.106
2.623
---
Working
1.78
1.398
1.332
----
1.405
----
Math
---
---
1.50
---
1.29
---
Need
1.625
---
---
----
-----
----
No dependent
----
2.35
----
----
-----
---
Disagree it is important
to prepare for class
2.154
---
1.528
----
---
1.651
High School rank
1.629
1.76
1.411
1.626
1.486
1.629
Not needing more than
four years
----
---
---
----
-----
1.67
Loan Paid
1.39
Grant Paid
2.34
1.49
---
----
-----
---
Implications from the UTEP Student
Success Project
All Students can be successful
• Family/ household Income
is not a predictor of student
success
• Ethnicity is not a predictor
of success
• ACT (SAT) score is not a
Predictor of success
Student’s choices are important in ensuring success
Challenge is to create institutional structures to shape
student choices that will ensure success
Next Phase of Study
• Refine “at risk” model
Predictions are based on first term data
• Explore major issues from closely
(advising, role of faculty, working, financial
aid)
• Disseminate results
• Begin to explore interventions
Major Points / Summary
• There is a social cost when we
limit access
• We can ensure access and
success, but it is not easy.
Need to address:
 Preparedness and
aspirations (K-12)
 Admissibility
 Affordability
 Student centered and
supportive environment
 Institutional structures to
encourage prudent student
choices
Contact Information
Roy Mathew, Ph.D.
Denise Carrejo, Ph.D.
Director
Center for Institutional Evaluation,
Research and Planning
The University of Texas at El Paso
Administration Building, Room 318
(915) 747-5117
rmathew@utep.edu
Assistant Director
Center for Institutional Evaluation,
Research and Planning
The University of Texas at El Paso
Administration Building, Room 318
(915) 747-5117
dcarrejo2@utep.edu