1 / 16

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT – F2006

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT – F2006. Summary of Attributes. Comparison Institutions Benchmark Peer Group. Armstrong Atlantic (GA) Auburn-Montgomery (AL) Augusta State (GA) Eastern Kentucky (KY) Jacksonville State (AL) Louisiana State-Shreveport (LA) McNeese State (LA) Purdue-Calumet (IN)

samuel-hanson
Download Presentation

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT – F2006

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. IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT – F2006 Summary of Attributes

  2. Comparison InstitutionsBenchmark Peer Group • Armstrong Atlantic (GA) • Auburn-Montgomery (AL) • Augusta State (GA) • Eastern Kentucky (KY) • Jacksonville State (AL) • Louisiana State-Shreveport (LA) • McNeese State (LA) • Purdue-Calumet (IN) • Univ. Arkansas-Little Rock (AK) • Univ. Central Oklahoma (OK) • Univ. North Alabama (AL) • Univ. North Carolina-Pembroke (NC)

  3. Headcount & FTE • Illustrates similarity to comparison group • We have fewer full-time and more part-time enrollment than the average

  4. Student Diversity • More black students • Fewer white students • About average gender ratio

  5. Cost • Our costs are lower than the comparison group every year • Gap is growing • Is CSU a good buy?

  6. Aid Received by Students • Impact of HOPE • These are percents; are we really providing so little institutional support or is this a “HOPE effect?”

  7. Financial Aid Received • Answers to last slide • HOPE is a big difference • Our institution lags on local grants (Foundation support?) • CSU students borrow less

  8. Graduation Rates • We do better than peers! • Whites do! • Blacks do much better!! • Hispanic do better! • Asians do much better! • Aliens do much better! • We should make more of this

  9. Graduation Rates • We compare well in graduation rate • We have a lower transfer-out rate • We compare well in retention rates • Need to study at college & department level – how can we do even better?

  10. Degrees Awarded • We confer more graduate degrees and fewer undergraduate degrees than do our peers • Should we continue associate degree programs?

  11. Distribution of Revenue • Tuition is lower than among peers • State allocation is higher • We do not have as high a percentage of grant & contract $ - how do we do better? • We have more “other” (Foundation?) revenues

  12. Expenses • We spend less on instruction, research, academic support, & student services • We spend more on institutional support and other core expenses

  13. Staffing • We have fewer instructional, administrative , and non-professional staff • We have a lot more “other professional.”

  14. Average Salaries • Academic salaries are lower • Profs by 10% • Associates by 10% • Assistants by 13% • Instructors by 6.7%

  15. Analytical Summary • Compared to 12 peer institutions CSU: • Enrolls as many or more students • Costs the students less • Enrolls more minority students • Sustains higher retention and graduation rates, especially with regard to minority students • Awards more graduate and fewer undergraduate degrees

  16. Analytical Summary II • Spends less money on: • Instruction • Academic support • Student services • Spends more money on: • Institution support • Other expenses • Instructional salaries are: • 10% lower for professors and associates • 13% lower for assistant professors • 6.7% lower for instructors

More Related