Analysis of Retention Ratesfor TUG 2011-2016

1

Analysis of Retention Ratesfor TUG 2011-2016

The purpose of the following report is 1)to review and map trends in retention rates over the past six years (2011- 2016), and 2) to identify“at-risk” student groups and significant factors affecting retention.

This retention report is for the traditional undergraduate (TUG) students only.Retention rate was calculated for each school year from the Fall 15th day to the15th day of the following Fall semester. It should be noted that the following students were excluded from the retention pool: 1) Students who graduated or were accepted for commencement in theFall semester of the previous year and the Spring semester or Summer of the following year, and 2) Non-degree students. National reporting standards for retention can be found in the following link:

1)Overall Retention

-Retention rate decreased slightly this year (1.5%) from 83.3%(2014-15) to 81.8%.

-The overall retention rateremains stable in the low 80’ssince 2013 when fall-to-fall retention increased from 78.4% to 83.5%.

2)Gender

-The gender gap in retention has been steadily decreasing and has almost disappearedsince 2013.

3)Ethnicity

-It should be noted that the retention gap between Whites and Hispanics is significant this year for the first time since 2013.

-The retention gap between Whites and Hispanics will be further explored below.

*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.

-The retention rate for African Americans is significantly lower than the retention rate for Asians and Whites this year; however, since the retention pools of African American and Asian students are very small (<100), the retention rate within these groups tends to fluctuate.

4)Ethnicity (2) x Gender

-There is no interaction between gender and ethnicity(2) for 2015-2016. In other words, no significant gender difference was found within ethnicity.

*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.

5)Ethnicity (2) x Entering/Returning Students

-Retention rates for entering (new) and returning students were compared within the two ethnic groups by year.Every year, returning students showed higher retention average (86.0%) than the new students (76.4%).

-It should be noted that for the 2015 entering cohort, a significant retention gap was observed between Whites (81.7%) and Hispanics (71.1%).

-Low fall to fall retention rate for the 2015 entering cohort likely explains the low overall retention rate for Hispanics, given that retention for returning Hispanic students remains high (>85%).

*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.

6)Resident Status

-Resident students historically show higher retention rates than commuter students; however, the gap has reduced since 2013 when the commuter retention significantly increased.

-It is possible that interventions to improve the Commuter retention rate (Commuter breakfasts, events, fellowship, and involvement opportunities) were effective.

7)Ethnicity (2) × Resident Status

- Again, a significant retention gap was observed between White Commuters (85.4%) and Hispanic Commuters (74.7%) for the first time since 2013.

- White commuter’s retention increased by 6% while Hispanic commuter’s retention decreased by 4.7% from 2015 to 2016.

*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference between them at 5% error rate

8)Application Admit Status

-First-Time (FT) student retention is significantly higher than transfer (TR) retention. The gap between FT and TR students slightly decreased this year, however the change was not significant.

-No significant difference was found between Hispanics and Whites within FT or TR status.

-The IPEDS definition of First-Time and Transfer students is as follows:

• First-Time (FT) student: a student who has no prior postsecondary experience attending any other institution for the first time at the undergraduate level
• Transfer (TR) student: a student entering Vanguard for the first time (= not Readmit) but known to have previously attended a postsecondary institution at the undergraduate level.

*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.

9)PELL Grant

-PELL grant recipientshistorically tend to have a lower rate of retention than non-recipients, however the gap is not statistically significant.

-No significant difference was found between Hispanics and Whites within PELL recipients.

10)First Generation

-First-generation status does not seem to be a strong predictor of retention.

-In the last two years, retention rate for first-generation students has been lower than that of non-firstgeneration students, but the gap is not significant.

-No significant difference in retention was found between Hispanics and Whites within the first-generation or non-first generation cohorts.

-Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn from the first-generation retention rates for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 due to a lack of available data.

11)Conclusion

-Overall, the traditional undergraduate retention rate has remained stable in the low 80’s for the past four years. The retention gap between commuters and residents and the gap by gender have decreased, and cannot be considered statistically significant any more.

-These findings suggest that targeted efforts to retain males and commuter students, such as commuter breakfasts, events, fellowship and involvement opportunities, have been effective.

-It should be noted that this year the retention gap between Whites and Hispanicsbecame significant again for the first time since 2013.

-Further analysis by ethnicity revealed that the Hispanic 2015-entering cohort (71.1%) showed a significantly lower retention rate than the White 2015-entering cohort (81.7%). Also, Hispanic commuters (74.7%) showeda significantly lower retention rate than the White commuters (84.5%) this year. No significant retention difference by ethnicity (2)was found for transfer students, first generation, and PELL grant recipients.

-Low retention among the 2015 entering cohort and commuter students likely explains the low retention rate for Hispanic students; however, further factors on the overall Hispanic retention 2015-16 should be explored.

VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)