Graduation Attainment Efficiency Ralph V. Rogers, Ph.D. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Purdue University Calumet Hammond, IN

Accountability “Increasing productivity in higher education will depend in part on building strong accountability systems that move away from the ones primarily in use today, which tend to emphasize inputs over outcomes and the collection and reporting of data as opposed to using the information in decision-making. Revamping states’ higher education accountability systems should focus on increasing the use of performance and outcome metrics and then using those metrics to make and evaluate policy decisions, particularly in areas such as budgeting, funding, and regulation.” Complete to Compete From Information to Action: Revamping Higher Education Accountability Systems. 2010-2011 Nation Governors Association Chair’s Initiative

Four key policy questions To what extent are public higher education institutions meeting the state’s need for an educated workforce and supporting progress toward longer term economic goals? How many students at public institutions are graduating relative to total enrollment? What is the return on states’ and students’ investment in public institutions in terms of completed certificates and degrees? How can public institutions demonstrate that efficiency gains are being achieved without sacrificing student learning?

Four key outcome Metrics Degrees awarded (annual) Graduation rates Transfer rates Time and credits toward degrees

Graduation Rates Integrated Postsecondary Education Data (IPEDS) First-time, Full-time students who start in the Fall semester and graduate in six-years Does not account for Part-time students 37% of all students Does not account for transfer students 37% of students earning a bachelor’s degree attended more that one institution Students transferring to another institution have a negative effect on the institution left

Graduation Rates (cont) Does not account for students who start in the Spring or Summer Semesters IPEDS rate only accounts for 48% percent of all undergraduate enrolled in four year institutions Only 25% of students enrolled in residential, four-year colleges and financially dependent on their parents The “traditional” university student

History of National Graduation Rates Before 1985, no national institutional data on college graduation rates 1985, NCAA required its member institutions to report graduation rate to compare student athletics to the overall student body 1988, Federal law required all institutions receiving Title IV to submit annual reports to SOE containing information on graduation rates Student Athlete Right-to-Know Act 1990, Congress passed the Student Right-to-Know and Security Act Intent was to protect educational interest of student athletes but athlete was removed from bill title 2007, IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey no longer required institutions to report graduation rates for scholarship athletes NCAA collects and report data on scholarship athletes

Degree Attainment Efficiency Includes all graduates Part-time, full-time, attended a single institution, transferred, began in any semester, or took more than six years to complete Efficiency in relation to the size of the university’s enrollment (FTE) as an index against a standard of perfect efficiency Perfect would be 25% of students admitted every year and 25% of the students graduate every year 25% FTE graduation per year = 100% efficiency

Degree Attainment Efficiency (cont) Number Graduates in a year__ X 4 = DAE Full time equivalent (FTE) Example: 5000 FTE, 1000 graduates in a year (1000/5000) X 4 = 80% DAE Multiply by 2 for associate degrees

Comparison for Indiana Schools

Institution 2006 2007 2008 IU Bloomington grad rate 72% 73% DAE 87.9% 84.7% 75.8% Difference 15.9% 12.7% 2.8% Purdue WL 70% 69% 82.0% 80.3% 12.0% 11.3% 8.3% Ball State 57% 58% 59% 93.3% 95.4% 88.2% 36.3% 37.4% 29.2% Indiana State 41% 43% 78.4% 76.8% 78.8% 35.8%

Institution 2006 2007 2008 IUPU-FW grad rate 22% 23% 21% DAE 62.0% 56.4% 54.7% Difference 40% 33.4% 33.7% IUPU-I 27% 31% 32% 76.2% 73.2% 72.8% 49.2% 42.2% 40.8% PU-Calumet 20% 54.6% 56.9% 60.6% 31.6% 36.9% 40.6% IU- Kokomo 25% 28% 78.2% 77.1% 89.0% 53.2% 50.1% 61%%

Questions?