1. Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research University of Baltimore

2. 2 This graphical analysis provides a brief overview of the opening fall term enrollments for the public four-year institutions of Maryland. This constitutes the second year of this report, the prior report reflecting enrollments only in the University of Maryland system. This year’s report includes data for Morgan State University and St. Mary’s College of Maryland in order to provided a more comprehensive summary of enrollments. Comparisons are made herein for headcount only, on a one-year and five-year basis. The disparate size of these institutions warrants comparison on a percentage change and percent-of-total basis, rather than on the levels of enrollment. Though, if a particular population is exceptionally small, the enrolment level or the level of change may be shown as a supplementary item. Highlight notes for the graphs are also added this year. Data for this report is taken from (a) University System of Maryland Report, Fall 2009 Preliminary Opening Enrollment and FY 2010 Estimated FTE Report and (b) the Maryland Higher Education Commission, 2009 Opening Fall Enrollment for Morgan State University and St. Mary’s College of Maryland. Please send your questions and suggestions to the Office of Institutional Research, 249 AC Building. 2

3. 3 3 UB was 1 st in percent increase among USM institutions in: full-time undergraduates, 1-year change full-time undergraduates, 5-year change UB also ranked well in percentage increase by placing: 2 nd in total enrollment, 1-year change 2 rd in total enrollment, 5-year change 3 rd in first-time, full-time freshmen, 1-year change 3 rd in part-time undergraduate enrollment, 5-year change

4. 4 4 Highlight: UB ranks 2 nd this year in total enrollment growth and 1 st last year—for both years combined, UB ranks 1 st. UB’s growth rate is more than double the MD Public 4-year median growth rate.

5. 5 5 Highlight: UB growth is not a “one or two year phenomenon,” but shows a strong 2 nd place ranking over 5 years, and 1 st among non-extension missioned institutions.

6. 6 6 Highlight: UB is 1 st in full-time undergraduate growth for the 2 nd consecutive year. Its growth rate is nearly 4 times the 3 rd ranking institution.

7. 7 7 Highlight: the strength of UB undergraduate growth is exemplified its exceptional growth the 5-year comparison period exceeds the addition of the first-second year program in fall 2007.

8. 8 8 Highlight: A number of the institutions with strong traditional enrollments are showing declines in fall 2009 for part-time undergraduate enrollment. UB continues steady growth in these enrollments; the only institution to record two consecutive years of growth.

9. 9 9 Highlight: There is significant movement away from part-time undergraduate enrollment at most UM Public 4-year institutions, while UB retains double-digit growth. The current 5-year leader, UM, Baltimore, recorded a decrease of 7.8% in its current 1-year growth rate.

10. 10 Note: Significant shifts in UB’s graduate percentage change are moderated by the large and stable Law School enrollments. The UB decline in these enrollment is partially due to a reduction in the China MPA program to a single cohort.

11. 11 121 Change Highlight: Note should be made of Towson and Salisbury which have led in 5-year growth for two consecutive years. UB, while showing more growth over last year report (vs. 5.8%), had ranked above 3 institutions, while this year ranking only above 2 institutions. :

12. 12 Highlight: UB continues to excel in the growth of part-time graduate students. UB’s 5 th ranking this year, combined with its 4 th ranking last year, gives it the 3 rd highest overall ranking over the past two years. The Law School enrollments, being largely full-time, do not serve to moderate the effect as in the full-time graph. Some institutions, like Coppin State, with small graduate programs, may vary widely in percentage change, going from 1 st rank last year to last ranked this year.

13. 13 Highlight: UB remains in the “middle of the pack,” largely unchanged from the prior year’s report. The bottom two institutions were also showing negative change in the prior year.

14. 14 Highlight: UB’s market share of first-time, full-time freshmen increased from 1.2% to 1.4% of the Maryland 4-year public market. Program growth by a factor of 2.5 is required for UB’s first-time, full- time freshmen enrollment to reach the next highest rank—indicating considerable potential for future growth.

15. 15 Highlight: While UB ranks a close 3 rd in growth of first-time, full-time freshmen, it showed 2 years of strong growth; the current leaders, UMUC and UMCP, both recorded significant losses in these enrollments in the prior year; so the current year shows more of recovery than growth.

16. 16 Note: 1) University of Baltimore is omitted from this chart, freshmen enrollments were not offered until fall 2007. (2) Table 3 in the USM source document mistakenly shows 4-year growth rates, although labeled as 5-year growth rates. The data is shown corrected above.

17. 17