strategic planning committee
DESCRIPTION
Strategic Planning Committee. Board of Governors Gainesville, Florida January 22, 2004. Follow-Up Topics. Persistence (retention and graduation) of students in the system Trends over time Effects on degree production/costs - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Strategic Planning CommitteeStrategic Planning Committee
Board of Governors Gainesville, Florida
January 22, 2004
Follow-Up TopicsFollow-Up Topics
Persistence (retention and graduation) of students in the system– Trends over time– Effects on degree production/costs
Effect of high school graduation rates on baccalaureate degree production
Data on critical needs/targeted degree areas (to be discussed later)
Import/Export of College Students
Student Persistence: Second-Year Retention & Six-Year Graduation Rates
Student Persistence: Second-Year Retention & Six-Year Graduation Rates
86% 87% 85% 84% 85% 86% 86% 86% 87% 86% 87%
62% 61% 60% 61% 62% 63%61%
Year of Entry
Ret Rate
Grad Rate
Same-Institution Graduation Rates for Public Colleges, 12 Largest States
Same-Institution Graduation Rates for Public Colleges, 12 Largest States
64%62%
58% 57% 57% 57% 56% 56%52% 52%
46%41%
33%
24%28%
33% 32%28%
31% 33%28%
19% 18%
44%
VA NJ CA MI NC FL PA IL NY OH TX GA
Six-Year Rate
Four-Year Rate
Source: IPEDS 2002 GRS Survey
Persistence and Degrees Granted: “Eventual” Grad Rate is Critical
Persistence and Degrees Granted: “Eventual” Grad Rate is Critical
57%63% 64%
70%
SUS SAMEINSTITUTION
6-YR RATE
SUS SYSTEM6-YR RATE
CEPRI 7-YRRATE FOR
1993-94COHORT OF
FL HS GRADS
EVENTUALSYSTEM
GRAD RATEFOR ALL SUS
FRESHMEN
69%88%
13%
8%
CC Transfers with AA Degree New SUS Juniors
Graduated in Four Years Retained in Good Standing
Persistence & Degree Completion Rates: Students Who Complete Lower Division
Persistence & Degree Completion Rates: Students Who Complete Lower Division
Source: DCU Analysis of 1998 fall full-time entering AA transfer students and comparable native SUS students
Estimated Graduation Rate: 96%
Estimated Graduation Rate: 82%
Hypothetical Degree & FTE Estimates from Improved Grad Rates
Hypothetical Degree & FTE Estimates from Improved Grad Rates
7 percentage point improvement would make Florida top-performing large state
Would increase bachelor degrees by 4,330
Increase would be 29% of the difference from the national average
7 percentage point improvement would result in 8,500 additional FTE
High School Graduation and Other Key Progression Ratios in Pipeline
High School Graduation and Other Key Progression Ratios in Pipeline
69% Four-Year HS Graduation Rate 22% of Graduates go on to SUS 32% go on to Community College 21.3% who go to Community College
attain bachelor degree in 7 years (CEPRI study rate)
63.9% who go to SUS attain bachelor degree in 7 years (CEPRI study rate)
Effects of Improving HS Grad Rates and Other RatiosEffects of Improving HS Grad Rates and Other Ratios
Add’l Degrees (% of Difference from Nat’l Avg)
Increase # of Ninth Graders by 7% 2,017 (14%)
Increase HS Graduation Rate to 76% 2,922 (20%)
Increase HS Grads Attending Community College to 39%
2,058 (14%)
Increase HS Grads Attending SUS to 29%
6,173 (41%)
(Figures are for 200,000 Ninth-Graders)
Persistence and Cost Savings Associated With Retention
Persistence and Cost Savings Associated With Retention
Students who leave have about 30% as many credits as students who graduate
Most of these credits are lower-division
Degrees produced through increased retention cost about 70-75% as much as those produced by admitting a new freshman
Import/Export Ratio: 2 Freshmen come in for every 1 who leaves
Import/Export Ratio: 2 Freshmen come in for every 1 who leaves
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Source: IPEDS Residency and Migration, compiled at www.higheredinfo.org
Fewer In-State Students are LeavingFewer In-State Students are Leaving
18.4%
15.5%
19.3%
9.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percent Out-of-StateFreshmen at Florida Colleges
Percent of In-State StudentsAttending Out-of-State
1994
2002
Source: IPEDS Residency and Migration, compiled at www.higheredinfo.org
Net Imports of 22-29 Year-Olds, By Education LevelNet Imports of 22-29 Year-Olds, By Education Level
Less Than High School
37,820High School
40,940
Some College38,860
Associates12,820
Bachelor's28,980
Grad/Prof10,620
Total170,040
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
Source: www.higheredinfo.org
Y-Axis RevisionsY-Axis Revisions
I.A. – Access to and Production of Degrees
I.A.5 – Access/Diversity I.B. - Meeting statewide professional
and workforce needs I.B.1-5: (Provided detail for Critical
Needs, Economic Development, and Educated citizenry/workforce)
I.B. – Methodology Used to Identify Professional and
Workforce Needs
I.B. – Methodology Used to Identify Professional and
Workforce Needs
Data used for report targeting baccalaureate degrees in 2001 were updated and expanded to include graduate and professional programs.
Programs either:– Met critical state needs– Were identified as being important to
continued high-tech industry development
– Had a record of placing graduates in high-wage positions
I.B.3. Emerging TechnologiesI.B.3. Emerging Technologies
Advisory Group on Emerging Technologies analyzed targeted industry sectors with areas of research important to economic development
Advisory Group grouped programs under the broad descriptive areas listed under I.B.3 (details provided in agenda packet)
I.B.4. High-Wage JobsI.B.4. High-Wage Jobs
Criteria similar to those used in 2001 report adopted by Workforce Estimating Conference
– Minimum number of graduates and placements in Florida
– Minimum salary level ($32,000 for bachelors and $50,000 for graduate and professional)
State Critical Needs
Emerging Technologies
High-Wage Fields
UNIVERSE OF DEGREE PROGRAMS
I.B. Targeted Degree ProgramsI.B. Targeted Degree Programs
II.B.5 – Educated Citizenry/Workforce
II.B.5 – Educated Citizenry/Workforce
Added in response to member comments
Universities will indicate other programs on which they wish to focus
I.B. Targeted Degree Planning Considerations I.B. Targeted Degree Planning Considerations
Where do students in particular fields come from?
What are the opportunity costs of targeted degrees: i.e., what else might students have done?
What undergraduate programs feed into targeted graduate degrees?
What are the relative costs of targeted programs vs. non-targeted programs?
I.B. Undergraduate Degree Pipeline I.B. Undergraduate Degree Pipeline
% Native
Students
% CC Transfe
rs
EDUCATION 33.6% 52.0%
ENGINEERING 52.7% 29.7%
ALL STUDENTS 44.0% 38.4%
2002-2003 Education and Engineering Grads by Origin
I.B. Opportunity Costs: What Else Might Students Have Done?
I.B. Opportunity Costs: What Else Might Students Have Done?
Computer Engineering 18Engineering 17Liberal Arts & Sciences 17Electrical Engineering 10Microbiology/Bacteriology 9Business Administration 7Biology 6Mathematics 6Biological Sciences/Life Sciences 4Chemistry 4
Majors Dropped by 2002-2003 Computer Science Grads (Native SUS Students)
I.B. Graduate Program PipelineI.B. Graduate Program Pipeline
Elementary Teacher Ed 36Special Ed, General 36Psychology, General 23Ed. Of the Specific Learning Disabled 13Ed of the Mentally Handicapped 10Speech Pathology and Audiology 9Ed. Of the Emotionally Handicapped 7Business Administration 5Social Work, General 5Criminal Justice Studies 4Social Sciences, General 4Liberal Arts & Sciences 4
SUS Undergraduate Majors of Fall 2003 Graduate Students in Special Education
I.B. Relative Cost of Instruction in Selected Program Areas
I.B. Relative Cost of Instruction in Selected Program Areas
Cost Per Upper
Division Credit
Percent of SUS
Average
All Disciplines Average $244.87
Computer and Information Sciences $269.46 110%
Education $264.07 108%
Engineering $409.15 167%
Life Sciences $297.10 121%
Physical Sciences $423.22 173%
Health Professions $297.79 122%
I.B. Role of Board of Governors in Degree Targeting
I.B. Role of Board of Governors in Degree Targeting
What is the role of the Board regarding:
– Forecasted need/substantial demand
– Forecasted need/inadequate demand
– No forecasted need/considerable student demand
Next Steps for Strategic PlanNext Steps for Strategic Plan
Universities, SBE, Governor’s Office, key legislators, CEPRI, and other interested parties to review y-axis from a system perspective
Board staff to compile comments for Board meeting in March
Board staff to begin crafting final system goals for March meeting