Extracting Useful and Targeted State-Level Data from IPEDS Experiences from the Land of 10,000 Lakes

Minnesota Measures First of a planned annual series of reports related to accountability Timeline –May 2005 (initial charge to work on project) –August 2005 (appropriations, NCHEMS contract, initial meetings) –November 2005 (discussion of goals and indicators) –January 2006 (statewide meetings) –March 2006 (review of goals and indicators) –June 2006 (NCHEMS final report) –September 2006 (meetings with systems)

Indicators – Goal 1 Improve success of all students, particularly students from groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education. College participation rates IPEDS data –First to second year retention –3-, 4-, and 6-year graduation rates –Degrees awarded as a proportion of total headcount enrollment –Degrees awarded in critical fields (STEM and healthcare), disaggregated by race/ethnicity Proportion of young adults (25-34) in the state holding a postsecondary degree

Indicators – Goal 2 Create a responsive system that produces graduates at all levels who meet the demands of the economy. Credentials awarded at each level (IPEDS), per 1000 people 20 and older in the state’s population (ACS). Proportion of credentials awarded at each level in STEM fields and number awarded (IPEDS) per 1000 people 20 and older (ACS). Proportion of credentials awarded at each level in healthcare fields and number awarded (IPEDS) per 1000 people 20 and older (ACS).

Indicators – Goal 3 Increase student learning and improve skill levels of students so they can compete effectively in the global marketplace. Did not gather data in this area for the initial report. Currently looking into a variety of assessment instruments. Aware that IPEDS COOL will incorporate assessment results in the future.

Indicators – Goal 4 Contribute to the development of a state economy that is competitive in the global market through research, workforce training and other appropriate means. The share of national academic research being done in Minnesota The ranking of the University of Minnesota on various studies of research activity (University of Florida report, London Times, Shanghai study, and Newsweek) Total research expenditures in the state as a proportion of gross state profit

Indicators – Goal 5 Provide access, affordability and choice for all students. Proportion of residents aged and participating in postsecondary education (ACS) Assigned family expectation (OHE data) Using NPSAS data –Net tuition (after grants and scholarships) –Average borrowing and rate at which students borrowed

Some Findings  In general, Minnesota does not consistently rank among the top states. More often, we’re near the national average.  The degree attainment of our citizens is high, but that is due in part to in-migration of college- educated citizens from other states.  Native American, Black, and Hispanic students in Minnesota do not do well in college compared to their white and Asian counterparts.

Using the Dataset Cutting Tool (DCT) to get State-Level Data Create a custom dataset –Advantages Web-based interface Very customizable, can get data from multiple files over multiple years Can create a file that you can download –Disadvantages Interface can be cumbersome Time-out issues Limited to 1,000 institutions in creating the file

Using the Dataset Cutting Tool (DCT) to get State-Level Data Download entire data file –Advantages Very straightforward You get all of the data for all institutions Can be imported into a program like SPSS, SAS or Access for report generation –Disadvantages You get all of the data for all institutions, which includes a lot of imputation fields Data dictionaries are cumbersome

What We Did Download entire data files –Import into an Access table, to provide control over Which fields were brought in The data type of those fields The names of the fields –Consider a samplesample –Building queries helps a great deal, as results can be copied/pasted into Excel for easy manipulation –Why not just take data directly to Excel? Limits on Excel table size

Successes Getting state-level data is reasonably easy –Crosstab queries –Reports State and national averages –Beware of averages of averages –Actual averages reasonably easy

What We Will Do Differently (regarding our use of IPEDS data) Degrees awarded as a proportion of total headcount enrollment will be rethought –Goal: incorporate part-time students into a degree completion measure –Needs more context May talk more about and give more detail about transfers out No more mixing of IPEDS and ACS data May look more deeply into the use of DAS

Observations Data dictionaries (e.g., imputation variables) Variable names in general Lack of retention data by race –Which is being addressed in part by new IPEDS data collection procedures –But only for SMART grant fields Loss of transfer students and part-time students in computation of graduation rates

For More Information On Minnesota Measures –The on-line version is available at: –You can also download a.pdf version of the entire report from this page. On the Office of Higher Education –