Transcript UTEP ACCESS - Texas Association for Institutional Research

Ensuring Affordability and Access
at The University of Texas at El
Paso
Roy Mathew, PhD
Director, Center for Institutional Evaluation,
Research and Planning
University of Texas at El Paso
1
Presentation Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission and Regional Characteristics
Challenges to Providing Access
Challenges to Ensuring Affordability
Comparing UTEP to Other Institutions
Evidence of Achieving Success
Ongoing Institutional Research to Advance Mission
Commitment to Ensuring Access
2
UTEP’s Mission
. . . As a public university, UTEP is
committed to providing access and
educational opportunity to the
people of the El Paso region and
the State of Texas . . .
3
Characteristics of the Region
El Paso, Texas
• El Paso County-3rd
poorest large county in
the US1
• Population: 724,000
• 81% Hispanic
• Border community, very
dynamic flow of residents
and students across the
border
• Limited educational
opportunities
1
2005 American Community Survey of the US Census
4
Texas Educational Attainment, by Region
Source: THEBC
Region
Population
Over Age 25
Percentage
High School
Diploma
(or GED)
or Higher
Percentage
Associate’s
Degree
or Higher
Percentage
Baccalaureate
Degree
or Higher
Central Texas
1,274,317
82.1
35.2
29.6
Gulf Coast
2,972,716
76.2
31.1
26.1
High Plains
607,037
75.0
24.1
18.8
Metroplex
3,416,273
79.8
33.4
27.8
Northwest
350,250
76.1
21.4
16.7
2,304,306
68.0
22.7
17.8
Southeast Texas
476,816
75.2
18.4
13.9
Upper East Texas
665,553
75.1
20.8
15.3
406,613
65.6
21.7
16.7
317,012
71.2
21.3
16.4
12,790,893
75.7
28.5
23.2
South Texas
Upper Rio Grande
West Texas
Statewide
5
Challenges of Providing Access
6
Major Challenges
The federal government shifted the means of fulfilling the
commitment to equal opportunity in postsecondary education
from primarily using grants to mainly using loans (St. John,
1994).
State support for public colleges and universities decreased
…(Callan & Finney, 1997).
. . .concerns about student enrollment have triggered the bidding
war in recruiting and retaining academically well-prepared
students (Hu and St. John 2001).
. . .minority students are competitively disadvantaged in access
to higher education.. (Baker & Velez, 1996).
7
UTEP’s Efforts
to Ensure Access
 K-12 Pipeline
 Admission Pathways
 Cost and Affordability
8
Building the Pipeline
El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence
Founded in 1991; partners include the National Science Foundation, the
U.S. Department of Education and The Pew Charitable Trusts, in addition to
businesses and organizations in the community and throughout Texas
Goals of the Collaborative
 Ensure academic success for all
students, K-16
 Ensure that all students
graduate from high school
prepared to succeed in a fouryear college or university
 Close achievement gaps among
different groups of students
9
New Admission Pathways
Key Initiatives that Shaped the New Admissions Policy
•Research on Student Success Funded by Lumina Research
•College Readiness Initiative
10
Cost and Affordability
UTEP Fall 2007 Tuition and Fees for 12 SCH:
$2291.00
UTEP Full-time Students with Need-Based
Grant Aid Average Percent Discount:
100%
Percent Tuition and Fees Compared to Regional
Median Income:
16.1%
Institutional Assistance Programs for Low Income Students
UTEP Promise: - Financial Aid Program for first time freshmen at UTEP with family income of $25,000
or less.
Guaranteed Tuition Plan: - Guarantees that tuition and mandatory fees will not increase for four
consecutive year from the date of initial enrollment.
UTEP Success: - Efforts to educate the El Paso community about various financial aid programs; the
main message is that everyone qualifies for some form of financial aid
On Campus Employment Opportunity Program: - Subsidizes on-campus employment through nontuition set asides: 75% supported by Campus and
25% hiring departments
UTEP/EPCC Collaborations: - Common Admissions Application / Financial Aid Consortium
11
Challenges to
Keeping
Cost Low at
UTEP
12
UTEP Fall Enrollment Trend
Source UTEP Factbook
20,500
20,000
20,154
19,842
19,500
19,268
19,000
18,918
18,500
18,542
18,000
17,500
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
13
Expenditures vs. Legislative Appropriations
Comparison of State Appropriations to Total UTEP Expeditures
Source Annual Financial Reports
54.1
1994
125.6
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
79.9
2007
273.8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
millions of dollars
Total Expenditures
Legislative Appropriations
14
UTEP Tuition And Fees 10yr trend
$2,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
12-hr
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
15
How Does UTEP
Compare?
• System and WAG4
Comparisons
16
UT System Total Academic Charges FALL 2006
Source THECB
$2,157
UT- Pan American
UT- Brownsville
$2,299
UT- Permian Basin
$2,335
$2,555
UT- Tyler
UT- El Paso
Research Expenditures FY 2006 $41,933,182
UT- Arlington
Research Expenditures FY 2006 $34,865,068
UT- San Antonio
Research Expenditures FY 2006 $32,316,849
UT- Dallas
Research Expenditures FY 2006 $43,085,236
UT- Austin
$2,708
$3,200
$3,333
$3,665
$3,933
$0
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500
17
Net Cost Comparison at UT System
Full-time Undergraduate Students
with Need-Based Grant Aid, AY 2006-07
% Receiving
Grant Aid
Average % Discount of
Total Academic Cost
Arlington
39.0%
94.8%
Austin
46.7
78.5
Brownsville
69.7
62.3
Dallas
33.6
57.2
El Paso
46.7
100.0
Pan American
71.6
100.0
Permian Basin
46.9
79.4
San Antonio
43.7
62.8
Tyler
42.6
88.0
Source: U.T. System Institutions
18
Undergraduate Financial Aid Awards FY 2006 and Recipients
Source UT System Accountability Reports
Source of Funding
Arlington
Dallas
El Paso
San Antonio
Amount Awarded
% of Total Expenditures
Federal/State/Work Study
$21,691,636
22.16%
Institutional
$14,344,014
14.65%
Private
$3,326,296
3.40%
Loans
$58,546,440
59.80%
Federal/State/Work Study
$9,068,845
21.34%
Institutional
$1,802,126
4.24%
Private
$1,083,392
2.55%
Loans
$30,546,554
71.87%
Federal/State/Work Study
$37,602,934
42.65%
Institutional
$9,141,667
10.37%
Private
$3,005,501
3.41%
Loans
$38,409,415
43.57%
Federal/State/Work Study
$35,745,359
23.28%
Institutional
$7,936,893
5.17%
Private
$7,707,727
5.02%
Loans
$102,145,469
66.53%
19
Evidence of Achieving Success
20
Reflecting the Regions Demographics
UTEP Total Enrollment
Residence Fall 2007
Number
Percent
16,705
82.90%
New Mexico
243
1.21%
Other International
432
2.10%
1,801
8.90%
El Paso County
Mexico
21
UTEP Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
Fall 2007
White Non-Hispanic
2,124
10.50%
Black Non-Hispanic
547
2.70%
14,826
73.60%
Asian American
226
1.10%
Native American
44
0.20%
Unknown
96
0.50%
1,635
8.10%
Hispanic
Mexican International
Other International
656
3.30%
22
Socio-Economically Disadvantaged and
First Generation Students
Low Income
• Number of UTEP students who applied for financial aid:
15,269
• Average family income of financial aid applicants:
$30,856
• Percent of financial aid applicants with family
income of $20,000 or less:
44%
• Percent of UTEP students with reported family
income of 20,000 or less:
34%
Percent of students with family income of less than $20,000 at large public research (doctoral) universities: 10%. Percent of students with family
income of less than $20,000 at small and mid-sized private colleges and universities: 12%. (Council of Independent Colleges:
http://www.cic.edu/makingthecase/data/access/income/index.asp )
Percent of students with family income less than $20,000 at community colleges: 29%. (Lumina Foundation Focus, Fall 2005, P.5)
First Generation
Fall 2006
Percent of freshmen who are first-generation
college students
52%
Fall 2007
52%
23
Ongoing Institutional Research
that Advance UTEP’s Mission of
Providing Access
24
Economic Impact on Enrollment
Student Demand Analysis
UTEP
Tuition
Competitor
Tuition
(EPCC & NMSU)
UTEP Enrollment
•New Students
•First-time Freshmen
•New Graduate students
•Total Enrollment
•Continuing Students
•Transfer Students
Wages
Exchange Rate
(Dollar & Peso)
Income
Unemployment Rate
Economic factors associated with UTEP enrollment.
25
Factors Influencing Student
Demand
Dependent Variable
Statistically Significant Predictors (P<0.05)
Coefficient
New Students
UTEP Tuition
Exchange Rate
Income
-0.22
-0.43
1.16
First-time Freshmen
UTEP Tuition
EPCC Tuition
Exchange Rate
-0.21
0.42
-0.59
New Graduates Students
Income
Exchange Rate
3.78
-0.94
Total Enrollment
UTEP Tuition
Wages
-0.21
-0.42
Continuing Students
UTEP Tuition
Exchange Rate
-0.16
-0.10
Transfer Students
UTEP tuition
NMSU Tuition
-0.47
0.84
26
Lumina Study
Research on understanding why students leave, return (re-enroll), and
graduate on-time by tracking enrollment history, academic progress, and
financial aid data.
The main questions the research tries to answer are:
How can the institution identify, at the time of admission, students at-risk of
departure?
What factors affect student departure, return and on-time graduation?
Explored the effect of demographic, academic preparation, academic
performance and financial aid variables on student departure and
graduation for student cohorts from fall 1999 and fall 2000.
27
Lumina Study Findings
Factors that predict
graduation within six
years
Factors that affect student
departure (identify at
risk groups)
Factors that do not predict
graduation or at risk
groups
Female(+)
Female (-)
ACT/SAT score
Age 20 or older at first enrollment (-)
Age 20 or older at first enrollment (+)
Household Income
High School Percentile Rank: 2nd
Quartile (-), bottom half (-)
High School Percentile Rank: 2nd
Quartile (+), bottom half (+)
Enrollment in Developmental (after
controlling for failing and time of
enrollment)
Below college level Math Placement (-)
Direct Matriculation (-)
Educational level of parents
Intend to work more than 20 hpw (-)
Below college level Math Placement
(+)
Reading Placement Level (BANR)
Number of failed Developmental
courses (-)
Intend to work more than 20 hpw (+)
Writing Placement Level (BANW)
Cumulative GPA (+)
Grant Received (-)
English Placement Level (BANE)
Number of semesters received Grant
(+)
Work-Study Received (-)
Number of semesters received Loan (+)
Student Loan Received (-)
Failing Developmental (+)
Part-time enrollment (+)
Withdrawing class (+)
Semester GPA (-)
28
Importance of Ensuring Access
29
If the policy changes have
disproportionally negative effects on
educational attainment of minority
students, then the economic and social
well-being of minority students and
society as a whole will inevitably be
imperiled (Hu and St. John 2001).
. . .it also seems incumbent on those
who can influence public policy to
work toward the construction of less
costly forms of higher education and
also toward the kinds of financial
assistance and loan programs that can
combine significant cost recovery with
protection to those whose participation
in higher education is most at risk
from the inevitable need to share in the
costs (Johnstone 2003).
30
Sources
Astin, Alexander W. and Leticia Oseguera. The Declining “Equity” of American Higher Education. The Review of Higher Education
Spring 2004, Volume 27, No. 3, pp. 321–341.
Baker, T. L., & Velez, W. (1996). Access to and opportunity in postsecondary education
in the United States: A review. Sociology of Education, Extra Issue, 69, 82-101.
Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (Eds.) (1997). Public and private financing of higher education: Shaping public policy for the future.
American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Hurtado-Ortiz, Maria T. and Mary Gauvain. Postsecondary Education Among Mexican American Youth: Contributions of Parents,
Siblings, Acculturation, and Generational Status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2007; 29; 181.
Hu, Shouping and Edward P. St. John. Student Persistence in a Public Higher Education System: Understanding Racial
and Ethnic Differences. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 72, No. 3. (May - Jun., 2001), pp. 265-286.
Johnstone, D. Bruce. Cost Sharing in Higher Education: Tuition, Financial Assistance, and Accessibility in a Comparative Perspective.
Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 2003, Vol. 39, No. 3: 351–374
Kane, John and Lawrence M. Spizman. Race, Financial Aid Awards and College Attendance: Parents and Geography Matter. American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 53, No. 1. (Jan., 1994), pp. 85-97.
St. John, E. P. (1994). Prices, productiviv, and investment: Assessing,finuncial strategies in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 3. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
Winston, Gordon C. Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 1. (Winter, 1999), pp. 13-36.
Yun, John T. and Jose F. Moreno. College Access, K-12 Concentrated Disadvantage, and the Next 25 Years of Education. Educational
Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 12-19.
UTEP, Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning.
http://cierp.utep.edu
31