1 / 21

Association for Institutional Research May 2013 Long Beach, California

Making It!... Or Not: Institutional Contexts & Biomedical Degree Attainment. Tanya Figueroa, Sylvia Hurtado, and Kevin Eagan UCLA. Association for Institutional Research May 2013 Long Beach, California . Problem . A need for one million additional STEM degrees in the next decade.

amara
Download Presentation

Association for Institutional Research May 2013 Long Beach, California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Making It!... Or Not: Institutional Contexts & Biomedical Degree Attainment Tanya Figueroa, Sylvia Hurtado, and Kevin Eagan UCLA Association for Institutional Research May 2013 Long Beach, California

  2. Problem • A need for one million additional STEM degrees in the next decade. • URM students more likely to leave the sciences • Despite equal initial interest in science & higher degree aspirations • Individual factors alone do not account for completion differences. • Some institutions do a better job!

  3. Purpose • To identify the institutional and aggregate faculty characteristics that contribute to higher rates of degree completion in the biomedical sciences controlling for students’ entering characteristics

  4. To understand experiences we must examine the environment

  5. Methodology – Data Sources • 2004 CIRP Freshman Survey • aggregated student-level variables • Student degree and enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse • Institutional data from Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System • 2011 Best Practices in STEM survey • Aggregate data from the 2007 & 2010 HERI Faculty Surveys

  6. Analysis • Final Sample: 30,614 biomedical science aspirants across 296 four-year colleges and universities. • Weighted Data • Missing Data • Analysis: Multinomial HGLM (HLM software)

  7. Dependent Variable • Three-part categorical variable measured at the 4th and 6th year: • 1) Completed a bachelor’s degree in the biomedical sciences • 2) Completed a bachelor’s degree in a field that is not in the biomedical sciences • 3) Did not complete a bachelor’s degree at all

  8. Independent Variables – Student Level • Background characteristics • Prior preparation • Precollege experiences • Entering aspirations and expectations • Intended major

  9. Independent Variables – Institution Level • Aggregate peer effects • Institutional characteristics: • Size, type, selectivity, HBCU/PWI/HSI • Faculty contextual measures • Best practices in STEM

  10. Limitations • Self-reported major • No control for college experiences • Secondary data

  11. Descriptive Statistics

  12. Biomedical Science Completion versus Non-Biomedical Science Completion in the 6th year

  13. Biomedical Science Completion versus Non-Biomedical Science Completion in the 6th year

  14. Biomedical Science Completion versus Non-Biomedical Science Completion in the 6th year

  15. Biomedical Science Completion versus No Completion

  16. Biomedical Science Completion versus No Completion

  17. Biomedical Science Completion versus No Completion

  18. Discussion Institutional contexts matter! • Emerging HSIs and HBCUs strong producers of biomed degrees • Large institutions weaker producers • Role of peer normative context (i.e. selectivity)

  19. Discussion & Implications • The important role of student • Socioeconomic background • Race/ethnicity • Sex • Native language

  20. What else matters in producing biomedical science graduates? • Faculty grading procedures • Pedagogical approach

  21. Contact Us! Faculty/Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Mitchell Chang Kevin Eagan Administrative Staff: Dominique Harrison Postdoctoral Scholars: Josephine Gasiewski Graduate Research Assistants: Tanya Figueroa Gina Garcia Juan Garibay Bryce Hughes Papers and reports are available for download from project website: http://heri.ucla.edu/nih Project e-mail: herinih@ucla.edu This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05, the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM090776-01. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors.

More Related