1 / 27

A Study on Completion Rates and Time to Completion of Graduate Students

A Study on Completion Rates and Time to Completion of Graduate Students. Methodology Adopted by the G10 Data Exchange. Background. Started in 2001 at the request of the G10 Presidents G10DE consortium Provide statistics for benchmarking & long term planning

yin
Download Presentation

A Study on Completion Rates and Time to Completion of Graduate Students

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. A Study on Completion Rates and Time to Completion of Graduate Students Methodology Adopted by the G10 Data Exchange

  2. Background • Started in 2001 at the request of the G10 Presidents • G10DE consortium • Provide statistics for benchmarking & long term planning • G10 institutions include: University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, Université Laval, McGill University, McMaster University, Université de Montreal, Queen’s University, University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario.

  3. Objectives • Track individual graduate students: • Completion rates • In-progress rates • Attrition rates • Length of studies • Produce comparative data across 10 universities

  4. Methodology • Variables: • 1) students: ID,age, gender, citizenship; full-time or part-time status • 2) programs: type of program, names of program and host department, interdisciplinary aspect of the program; six-digit CIP codes assigned • 3) academic progression: start year and session, end year and session, standing in winter 2001, number of registered sessions to the program Note: dataset comprised of two files from each institution: (1) a research Master’s degree file, (2) a Doctoral degree file.

  5. Methodology (cont.) • each student’s academic situation in 2001 was characterized as one of five possibilities: • Graduation • Promotion to the PhD (Master’s degree file) • In-progress • Withdrawal, or • Absence from the program of study for less than two sessions

  6. Discipline grouping • Six-digit CIP code was assigned to each record (department level); • CIP codes grouped into four major disciplinary divisions to: • Simplify presentation of results • Ensure adequate sample sizes

  7. 1st-Year Statistical Results • 1992 cohort: • Includes over 9,000 Master’s students & 3,807 Doctoral students • AAUDE presentation limited to Doctoral students Note: Data reported by number of terms (3 terms = 1 year).

  8. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities All Disciplines

  9. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities All Disciplines

  10. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities All Disciplines

  11. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Humanities

  12. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Humanities

  13. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Humanities

  14. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Social Sciences

  15. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Social Sciences

  16. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Social Sciences

  17. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Physical & Applied Sciences

  18. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Physical & Applied Sciences

  19. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Physical & Applied Sciences

  20. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Life Sciences

  21. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Life Sciences

  22. 1992 Doctoral Cohort G10 Data Exchange Universities Life Sciences

  23. Evaluation - 1st Year’s Experience • the data validation - painstaking exercise, manual modifications; months of coordination with institutions’ reps • most significant difficulties related to institutions’ student information systems (lack/format of certain key data elements) • Modifications to student systems between 1992 & 2001 - difficult to reconstruct a student’s academic history • Difficult to harmonize the distinction between research & professional Master’s programs across participating institutions • Needed to develop a working definition of “attrition”

  24. Next Steps • Collection of data on the 1993 cohort: Analysis & Final Report complete. • Collection of data on the 1994 and 1998 cohorts: almost complete • Data set now sufficiently large to permit analysis at the CIP level by gender & citizenship status • Follow-up analyses to improve best practices, eg. study of attrition

  25. Next Steps (cont.) • UofT conducted a survey of students who had withdrawn from the 1992 Doctoral cohort • 143 students surveyed; 71 responses

  26. Next Steps (cont.) Major Reasons for Withdrawal:

  27. Next Steps (cont.) • Follow-up studies will examine the role played by: • Regulatory Environment – existing policies, regulations and rules re: student progression in doctoral study • Academic Environment – quality of supervision, faculty-student relationships, and support (financial & other)

More Related