Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

University of Cincinnati’s SUCCESS CHALLENGE: Placing Student Success at the Center Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange For Early Intervention.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "University of Cincinnati’s SUCCESS CHALLENGE: Placing Student Success at the Center Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange For Early Intervention."— Presentation transcript:

1 University of Cincinnati’s SUCCESS CHALLENGE: Placing Student Success at the Center Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange For Early Intervention Committee Meeting – October 16, 2008 Caroline Miller, PhD Sr. AVP Enrollment Maria Palmieri, PhD Sr. Research Assoc, IR

2 UC status in 2000 Almost 30% baccalaureate Freshmen gone by the start of the second year Fewer than half graduated within 6 years That’s a tragedy for students & tax payers That’s a tough track record to market for a research extensive campus

3 What Contributes to Retention? Profile – largely a function of institutional & student profile (academic, financial & demographic) Progress – prevailing model is around persistence, but if the goal is graduation we must focus on progress – the distance to the finish line, not the distance from the start line

4 What Contributes to Retention? Process – If the goal is to raise the overall retention and grad rates, it’s important to focus on the “all” not just those most at risk Promise – Experiences are consistent with the “Promise of the Brand” – break the promise, we will lose students

5 Access Without Success National Trends: Retention rates up, then stable – now reported to be dropping Graduation rates now reported to be dropping The disparity is greater for students from low socio-economic backgrounds

6 Pell Eligibility UC’s Uptown campus enrolls the third highest percentage of Pell-eligible students among research extensive institutions nationwide – about 30%. 50% of UC students are 1 st -generation (40% of Uptown students are 1 st - generation)

7 So how does UC compare – particularly for High Risk Students? ENTER SUCCESS CHALLENGE

8 Success Challenge Ohio Board of Regents Initiative (1999) Challenges university main campuses: 1.To increase the baccalaureate graduation rates of in-state at-risk students 2.To shorten the length of time to degree Note: Not U College, Not CAT, Not Branches

9 SEM Structure at UC: Organized for Success SEM Management Team Co-Chairs: Sr. AVP for EM & Sr. Vice Provost for Academic Planning SEM Policy Council Co-Chairs: Provost, VP Student Affairs & Sr. AVP for Enrollment Mgmt. Success Challenge Grant $2M Project Funding $2M to General Fund New Student Enrollment Network Marketing Work Group P&P Work Group Access Work Group & Success Work Group

10 Success Challenge Management & Partnership Oversight shared by Sr. Assoc VP for EM and Sr. Vice Provost for Academic Planning PI’s in Academic Affairs and Student Affairs manage programs and are accountable for budget and reporting Research Office within Institutional Research performs annual assessment and maintains the data mart

11 Efforts that Touch all First-Year Students Bearcat Bound Summer Orientation Mandatory Placement in math, English & languages First-Year Experience (some colleges) Mandatory advising (some colleges)

12 Academic / Social Integration Writing Center Math Learning Lab Learning Assistance Center Killer-Course Supports Supplemental Instruction Faculty-Student Interactions Learning Communities First-Year Experience Courses

13 Focused Efforts Students of Color BASE – Brothers And Sisters Excelling Cincinnati Pride Grant Students in Transition Center for Exploratory Studies Career Navigator Series Transfer and Lifelong Learning Center

14

15 Research Goal: Determine if Success Challenge is achieving its goals 1.Are in-state at-risk baccalaureate students graduating at higher rates? 2.Are they graduating in a more timely manner?

16 Methodology 2000 and 2001 First-Time, Full-Time Baccalaureate Degree-Seeking Cohorts Compared Success Challenge Participants to SC Non-Participants –Graduation Rates –Time to Degree –Grouped by Pell-Eligibility Status

17 Methodology Degree Sought Pell-Eligibility Status Residency Status Credit Load Level Gender Ethnicity ACT/SAT Scores Graduation Status SC Participation 1 st Year GPA –Defined 2000, 2001 Cohorts –Collected Data :

18 Control Group Chosen from pool of Success Challenge participants Match the proportion of Success Challenge non-participants Based on stratification variables

19 Stratification Variables Variables Categories Pell-eligibility Pell-eligible Pell-ineligible Gender Female Male Ethnicity Black White ACT/SAT Rank (Preparedness) Bottom third Middle Third Top Third No ACT/SAT

20 Preparedness Groupings ACT / SAT Preparedness Group Head Count Percentage 21 & under – and up no ACT/SAT reported 057 Grand Total 4890

21

22 Mean ACT/SAT (t-Test) SCNon-SCSig. NACTN p-valSig 2000 Pell-elig Pell-inelig Total Pell-elig Pell-inelig Total

23 RESULTS

24 Success Challenge Participants Do Graduate at Higher Rates than Non-Participants

25 2000 Cohort Graduation Rates SCNon-SC Yrs to Grad N %N % ≤ % % ≤ % % ≤ No Grad % % Total % % 51.9% 38.5%

26 SCNon-SC N %N % Pell Elig ≤ %43.6 % ≤ % % ≤ No Grad % % Total % % Pell Inelig ≤ % % ≤ % % ≤ No Grad % % Total % % 2000 Cohort Graduation Rates by Pell Eligibility Status 41.4 % 20.7 % 54.3 %42.6 %

27 2001 Cohort Graduation Rates SCNon-SC Yrs to grad No % % ≤ %469.3 % ≤ % % ≤ No Grad % % Total % % 51.7 %37.5 %

28 SCNon-SC N %N % Pell Elig ≤ %34.7 % ≤ % % ≤ No Grad % % Total % % Pell Inelig ≤ % % ≤ % % ≤ No Grad % % Total % % 2001 Cohort Graduation Rates by Pell Eligibility Status 43.8 %22.4 % 51.7 %41.7 %

29 Success Challenge Participants Do Graduate in a More Timely Manner than Non-Participants

30 2000 Cohort Time-to-Degree SCNon-SCSignificance NoTTDNoTTDp-valSig. Pell Elig * Pell Inelig Total

31 2001 Cohort Time-to-Degree SCNon-SCSignificance NoTTDNoTTDp-valSig. Pell Elig Pell Inelig * Total *

32 Success Challenge Participants Have Better First-Year Academic Performance than Non-Participants

33 2000 Cohort First Year GPA SCNon-SCSignificance N 1 yr GPA N p-valSig Pell Elig * Pell Inelig * Total <0.0001*

34 2001 Cohort First Year GPA SCNon-SCSignificance N 1 yr GPA N p-valSig Pell Elig * Pell Inelig <0.0001* Total <0.0001*

35 Validation Rising scores in Student Satisfaction as measured by Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory Rising levels of Student Engagement as measured by NSSE.

36 Continued Success University of Cincinnati Uptown Campus Retention Rates (Autumn Quarter, 2008) st Yr nd Yr rd Yr UC Graduation Rate climbs to 55% – Up from 48% just 5 years ago!

37 UC|Recognition Awarded National Best Practice Recipient for the institutionalization of enhanced retention and graduation rates By Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange at the National Symposium on Student Retention

38


Download ppt "University of Cincinnati’s SUCCESS CHALLENGE: Placing Student Success at the Center Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange For Early Intervention."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google