LAMAR UNIVERSITY Non-Returning Students: Spring 2006 to Spring 2007 Notes: Though graduate data are available, these data are for undergraduates. Excluded are spring 2006 students who graduated (unless they re- enrolled), masters, doctoral, post-bacs, TALH & dual credit HS students. These numbers reflect student retention, not admission as few FTICs enroll for spring semesters. Goal is to identify segments of the spring 2006 population that appear “at- risk” so retention programs & resources can be focused efficiently. First the bad news, 2,154 spring 2006 students did not return & 1,675 of them were in (reasonably) “good academic standing”; i.e., were not suspended. These students chose to leave. If LU had retained even a quarter of those non-suspended, the university would have seen an increase in headcount enrollment.

LU UNDERGRADUATE RETURNEES/NON-RETURNEES * Spring 2006 to Spring TH DAY By Classification: Class Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total Freshman % % Sophomore %814.5% Junior %362.5% Senior %272.8% Total %4797.4% *Undergraduates only: excludes graduate students, post-bacs, those who graduated & did not re-enroll, TALH, dual-credit Red=>total %, Green <total %

Why are freshmen so vulnerable? SAT QUARTILE GRADES SCH ATTEMPTED FAMILY INCOME

FRESHMAN (FTIC) GRADES, SAT & RETENTION Previous LU research has revealed a sharp and predictable relationship between SAT, GPA & retention. The retention % for SAT was 75.7%; for , 65.6%; for , 54.2% & for <700, 53.9% The retention rate for top H.S. 25% was 71.7%, 2 nd quarter was 58.1%, 3 rd quarter was 47.9% & 4 th quarter was 42.4% The mean GPA at the end of the first semester for retained students was 2.74 The mean GPA for non-retained students was 1.97 The correlation between SAT & GPA for retained students was.82, while that for non-retained was.27 Retained FTIC’s averaged 12.1 hours vs for non-retained (F01-03 combined file)

FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006 CohortRetainedRateCohortRetainedRateCohortRetainedRateCohortRetainedRate Coho rtRetainedRate Fall 2001Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Low-$ 3-Cnty % % % % % Low-$ Other- TX % % % % % Low-$ Out- State600.00% % % % % Total % % % % % Non Low-$ 3- Cnty % % % % % Non Low-$ Other-TX % % % % % Non Low-$ Out-TX % % % % % Non Low-$ Other Ctry % % % % % Total % % % % % Total % % % % % TUITION/FEES 12 SCH $1,234 $1,354 (SP)$1,354 $1,626 (SP) $1,62 6 $1,917 (SP) $1,9 17 $1,992 (SP) PERCENTAGE INCREASE > 9.7%> 20.1%> 17.9%> 3.9%

FTICS

FT/PT Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total Full-Time %3637.4% Part- Time %1167.1% Total %4797.4% By Enrollment Status:

Ethnicity Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total White %1644.4% Black % % Hispanic %256.2% Asian %52.7% Am. Ind %48.7% Foreign %00.0% Unknown %208.4% Total %4797.4% By Ethnicity:

Sex Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total Male %1947.2% Female %2857.5% Total %4797.4% By Gender:

Residence Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total Jefferson %2086.8% Harris %9912.7% Hardin %355.0% Orange %344.8% Jasper %147.4% Liberty %85.8% Chambers %77.6% Galveston %1214.1% Tyler %23.2% Newton %48.2% Other Texas %519.4% Other U. S %57.4% Foreign %00.0% Total %4797.4% By Residence:

Age Group Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total 17 & Under %26.3% % % %2106.9% %595.5% %446.2% %114.3% %204.7% %36.1% Total %4797.4% By Age:

College Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total A&S %1938.0% BUS %545.2% EDU %516.2% EGR %254.3% FAC %366.2% GU % % Total %4797.4% By College/General Studies:

A&S Dept Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total ADS %00.0% BIO %209.5% CHPH %00.0% CS %99.9% ENG %86.3% ESS %00.0% HIS %66.8% LA %99.0% MTH %12.6% NUR %698.2% POLS %76.9% PPRF %207.4% PSY %188.7% SSCJ %269.9% Total %1938.0% By Arts & Sciences Departments:

BUS Dept Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total ABL %73.3% E&F %11.0% ISA %367.9% M&M %103.6% Total %545.2% By Business Departments:

EDU Dept Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total FCS %127.6% HKN %157.7% PED %245.1% Total %516.2% By Education & Human Development Departments:

EGR Dept Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total CE %33.4% CHE %33.0% EE %32.2% EGR %111.1% IE %108.8% ME %53.5% Total %254.3% By Engineering Departments:

FAC Dept Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total ART %53.8% CDDE %46.1% COM %188.0% MTD %95.6% Total %366.2% By Fine Arts & Communication Departments:

GU Dept Non- ReturnersReturnersTotal % of TotalSusp. % of Total CGSA % % GUNV %312.0% Total % % By General Studies:

Using the modal categories of these demographic and academic characteristics, those undergraduates with the greatest risk for non-retention are 18 year old, African-American females from Harris County who are part-time students in General Studies, while the least risk is for 20 year old, international males who are full time engineering students.

Retention Recommendations: Invest retention efforts & $ where they are most needed Targets: Admission criteria, grades & cost remain critical Lower-division students, especially traditional (18 yr old) freshmen (as many of our programs do) Part-time students (perhaps encouraging them with incentives/counseling to become full-time, distance ed opportunities) African-Americans (appear especially at risk and also appear to face academic problems) Males vs. females is a “wash” (don’t target one or the other) Students from outside 3-counties (CV programs) General Studies students

I have names/addresses/telephone numbers so we can survey the non-returnees. Upside: Additional and more specific information (financial, transfer ?, Rita problems, future plans, even a p.r. + for LU) Downside: Costly, time consuming, low response rate, results of questionable validity, will we really use the results & if we do will retention be improved?

NEW INITIATIVES FOR FALL 2007 Degree completion efforts with 2-year campuses “LU GEEKER SEEKER”--Electronic “cyber-recruiter” Admissions Representative to target prospects Sell, sell, sell Cardinal Village IV Revising transfer admissions to include an “individual approval” category Report on low enrollment courses & encourage new scheduling to better serve demand (off-campus, lower division, undergraduate, on-line offerings) “Free” Tuition/Fee for Low Income Students