This document discusses retention programs and their impact and costs at Seattle University. It provides data on the average debt of bachelor's degree graduates in Washington private non-profit institutions ($86,000), benefits of higher education for students, institutions, and the nation, and consequences of attrition. Retention programs from 2006-2009 are analyzed, showing the number of students in the program, retention rates, additional students retained associated with the program, revenue per student, total program expenses, and net earnings. On average, the programs retained 2.4 additional students per year and recouped 49% of expenses through retaining students.
4. Average Debt of Bachelor Degree Graduates
in Washington, Private Non-Profit Institutions
http://college-insight.org/
5.
6. Benefits of Higher Education
(not a comprehensive list)
Student – Reap benefits
an advanced degree
brings
Institution - Fulfillment
of educational mission
Nation - Informed and
competitive citizenry
7. Attrition Consequences
(not a comprehensive list)
Student – Loss of resources
invested and potential future
earning gains
Institution - Loss of resources
invested in scholarships and
grants
Nation - In 2007, loss of $1.37
billion in student aid money
(Schneider, 2010)
10. Important Questions!
• How does the program
impact retention rates?
• How efficiently does the
program use institutional
dollars in retaining students?
11. Investing in Student Success Cost
Return Calculator
Jobs for the Future and the Delta Project on PostSecondary Cost, Productivity and
Affordability (2009)
12.
13. Definitions
• Retention: Did student come back for Year 2?
– Year 1 = Year participated in retention program
– Year 2 = The following academic year
• Control Group: Students who were not
enrolled in a retention program and had
similar high school GPAs
14.
15. Category 2006 2007 2008 2009 4 Year Avg
Number of FTE students 84 31 36 39 48
One Year Retention Rate for program 95% 90% 89% 97% 93%
participants
Number of participating students retained 80 28 32 38 45
One-year retention rate for comparison 89% 88% 89% 88% 89%
group of students not participating in
program
Number of participating students retained 75 27 32.0 34.3 42
when using the retention rate of comparison
group
Additional number of students retained that 5.2 0.7 0.0 3.7 2.4
may be associated with participation in the
program
Net tuition and state/local appropriations $ 14,673.00 $ 15,851.00 $ 16,480.00 $ 17,574.00 $ 16,144.50
revenue per FTE student
Total net tuition and state/local $ 76,886.52 $ $ (659.20) $ 64,672.32 $ 38,078.09
appropriations revenue from additional
students retained
11,412.72
Total program expenses per FTE student $ 1,481.03 $ 1,536.38 $ 1,761.62 $ 1,465.54 $ 1,561.14
(including estimated indirect costs)
Total Program expenses $ 124,406.52 $ 47,627.78 $ 63,418.32 $ 57,156.06 $ 73,152.17
Net earnings from additional students $ (47,520.00) $(36,215.06) $ (64,077.52) $ 7,516.26 $ (35,074.08)
retained
Percentage of program expenses recouped 62% 24% -1% 113% 49%
by retaining participating students
Editor's Notes
Tatiana Saroca 2011 grad of SDA program Thank you for allowing me to share with you my passion and research this morning. Here today to tell you about my Passion: College affordability, specifically the problem of increasing costs of higher education and student debt. This is a big problem, something one can’t solve in a single research project or single person. But you can start small. Tell you how I started small by sharing research completed over 2010 - 2011 How one can build upon the research First, some background
Mentioned before that costs at HEIs keep increasing, why? William Bowen (1967) postulates that low student to faculty ratios essential to high quality education. To avoid a decline in the relative earnings of faculty, which might make it difficult to retain existing faculty and attract new ones, tuition has to increase more than inflation to provide revenue for salary increases. Program/Operational inefficiencies Facility costs Competitive environment Not saying that these are definitively the reasons, nor whether these reasons are justified. Whatever factors are causing the rise in cost of higher education, it’s having a real effect on students and their families.
Few students can afford to pay for college without some form of education financing. Often financing includes loans. In 2007-08, two-thirds (65.6%) of 4-year undergraduate students graduated with a Bachelor's degree and some debt Excluding PLUS loans, average student loan debt among graduating seniors was $23,186. 2007-2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)
At private, non-profit institutions in Washington state, you can see the average debt is more at $25,191. At Seattle U, it’s slightly more than that at $26,665. These are 2008-2009 figures. http://college-insight.org/
There is a gap that does not appear to be going away anytime soon. Costs are increasing Causing tuition to keep rising Which means the need for financial aid keeps growing But we’re in an environment where federal dollars and donors are drying up. Increasingly asking students to cover the gap with loans. Sparks a lot of interesting questions for me: What will be the long term impacts of saddling next generation with debt just as they begin their adult life? Will education be available only to wealthiest? Is it rational to keep pursuing this strategy? Is it moral? Putting aside these juicy questions, the reason many students choose to pursue higher education despite costs is because they believe it will improve their economic lot in life. This is a good for more than just the student.
Retention is of particular concern because of the significant benefits it has for students, higher education institutions, and government. A retained student is a student who is more likely to graduate and reap the private benefits an advanced degree brings, such as higher earnings and advanced career opportunities (Ishitani, 2006). For the higher education institution, retained students represent the fulfillment of its educational mission and higher rankings. On the state and federal level, retained students leads to a more informed citizenry and an increase in innovation, both important traits of a globally competitive country.
And this brings me to my research. At all levels, attrition represents loss. For the student, it is a loss of resources invested and potential future earning gains. Although the student may not graduate with $23K in debt, the student will have debt without the increase in future earnings that a degree brings. for the institution it is a loss of money invested towards scholarships and grants; and, in 2007, for state and federal governments it was a loss of a $1.37 billion investment in student aid money (Schneider, 2010).
Retention Programs Alexander Astin (1977,1993) determined that the retention rate of students is greatly affected by the level and quality of their interactions with campus community. Tinto (1987) indicates reasons students drop or "stop" out include: academic difficulty, adjustment problems, lack of clear academic and career goals, uncertainty, lack of commitment, poor integration with the college community. Rendon (1995) points to two critical factors in students' decisions to remain enrolled (1) successfully making the transition to college and (2) making positive connections with college personnel during their first term of enrollment. These are great reasons for retention programs, but how do we know that our version of retention programs are working? Astin, A.W. (1977). What matters most in college: Four critical years . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters most in college: Four critical years revisited . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rendon, L. (1995, May). Facilitating retention and transfer for the first generation students in community colleges. Paper presented at the New Mexico Institute, Rural Community College Initiative, Espanolo, NM. Tinto, V (1987). Increasing student retention . San Francisco:Jossey Bass.
At the time of this study, it was not known whether participation in a retention program led to increased retention rates, it was similarly difficult to assess how effectively retention programs were spending institutional dollars. Since it is not known to what degree programs impact retention and how efficiently they do so, it is unclear how resources should be distributed.
“ How does the program impact retention rates?” and “ How efficiently does the program use institutional dollars in retaining students? ”
To investigate this, used the Investing in Student Success Cost Return Calculator, developed and piloted by Jobs for the Future and the Delta Project on PostSecondary Cost, Productivity and Affordability (2009), as the model for its examination of program impact on retention and cost effectiveness.
Asked for volunteers Was fortunate to have three programs volunteer their time and data. Asked volunteers to provide me with: List of names of students who participated in their programs for 3 or more years. Program cost and revenue information from same time frame – operational costs, salary data of those involved with program, fees collected from students to participate in program Programs focused on first year or transfer students
Retained students: Only looked at students who came back from Year 1 to Year 2. Year 1 = year they participated in a retention program. Year 2 = the following academic year. Very loose – just had to be enrolled. In this study, an effective retention program is one where the rates at which students return is greater than the rate at which students in the control group return. Control group was created with high school GPA. Not only was this data available for all, but more importantly high school GPA scores have also been repeatedly shown to be a significant predictor of retention (Ishitani, 2006; Murtaugh, Burns, & Schuster, 1999; Reason, 2009).
A program with a rate of return greater than the control group is designated High Impact, a program with a lower or equal rate of return is designated Low Impact. The second consideration is program cost. The determination of whether a program’s cost is high or low was made depending on how much program costs were recouped through earnings that could directly be attributed to a student’s participation in the retention program. A low cost, high impact program is of interest because, for a relatively small infusion of cash, the university can have a high, positive student return rate.
This study did not examine why a student attrited, nor whether the student dropped out of higher education, temporarily stopped-out, or transferred to another institution. If the student transferred, where to? Did students leave due to life circumstances such as family responsibilities, financial circumstances, or new employment opportunities? Having this information means that university administrators can determine to which institutions students most frequently transfer, or indicate whether students are leaving because they are academically unprepared or the cultural fit was not good. Considering more program variables, such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, would be of use to the program directors and to the university in pinpointing which programs work particularly well in retaining populations of interest. Furthermore, measuring whether the retention programs met their other objectives, such as increasing leadership skills, should be assessed. This type of assessment is best left to the program’s staff to administer, as the usefulness of the results is limited to the program.
Unfortunately, the intuitional structures to easily access, or come up with this data, is not available. The Office of the Registrar volunteered time to collect data for this project. According to the Office of the Registrar, the process was time and resource intensive (personal communication, May 2011). It is likely that similar requests for information gathering will be met with resistance until better data reporting structures are put into place. Should the university decide to move forward with assessing outcomes in relation to expenditures, careful thought will need to be made in how to collect and disseminate this information in a sustainable way. Thank you.
