1
Analysis of Retention Rates for 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 the 15th 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 the Fall 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:
http://www.airweb.org/EducationAndEvents/IPEDSTraining/Tutorials/Pages/default.aspx).
1) Overall Retention
-
Retention rate decreased slightly this year (1.5%) from 83.3% (2014-15) to 81.8%.
-
The overall retention rate remains stable in the low 80’s since 2013 when fall-to-fall
retention increased from 78.4% to 83.5%.
Retention Rate (Overall)
83.5%
83.3%
82.9%
81.8%
78.4%
77.1%
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
School Year
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
2010-2011
1006
776
77.1%
2011-2012
1099
862
78.4%
2012-2013
1167
975
83.5%
2013-2014
1220
1011
82.9%
2014-2015
1128
940
83.3%
2015-2016
1097
897
81.8%
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
2
2) Gender
- The gender gap in retention has been steadily decreasing and has almost disappeared since
2013.
Retention Rate by Gender
83.3%
84.2%
83.7%
82.2%
83.1%
82.3%
82.0%
81.0%
81.0%
78.5%
Female
Male
74.8%
2010-2011
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
74.0%
2011-2012
Gender
2012-2013
2013-2014
Retention Pool
2014-2015
Returned
2015-2016
Retention %
Female
633
497
78.5%
Male
373
279
74.8%
Female
691
560
81.0%
Male
408
302
74.0%
Female
771
649
84.2%
Male
396
326
82.3%
Female
803
669
83.3%
Male
417
342
82.0%
Female
723
601
83.1%
Male
405
339
83.7%
Female
696
572
82.2%
Male
401
325
81.0%
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
3
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.
Retention Rate by Big 2 Ethnic Groups (White and Hispanic)
83.7%
82.0%
83.5%
85.5%
84.4%
79.5%
83.0%
82.3%
82.9%
79.4%
White
Hispanic
73.9%
71.9%
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.
School Year
2010-2011
Ethnicity (2)
White
Hispanic
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
Retention %
568
466
82.0%
253
182
71.9%
591
470
79.5%
Hispanic
307
227
73.9%
White
596
499
83.7%
Hispanic
341
283
83.0%
559
467
83.5%
446
367
82.3%
515
427
82.9%
423
357
84.4%
504
431
85.5%
417
331
79.4%
White
White
Hispanic
2015-2016
Returned
White
Hispanic
2014-2015
Retention Pool
White
Hispanic
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
4
-
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.
Retention Rate by 4 Ethnic Groups
92.1%
93.3%
91.3%
88.1%
82.0%
88.0%
83.7%
82.5%
83.0%
79.5%
85.5%
84.0%
84.4%
82.9%
82.1%
Asian
79.4%
White
79.2%
71.9%
73.9%
67.2%
African
American
Hispanic
62.1%
2010-2011
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Ethnicity
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
Asian
White
African American
Hispanic
Asian
White
African American
Hispanic
Asian
White
African American
Hispanic
Asian
White
African American
Hispanic
Asian
White
African American
Hispanic
42
568
58
253
40
591
48
307
38
596
51
341
30
559
56
446
25
515
48
423
37
466
36
182
33
470
38
227
35
499
43
283
28
467
46
367
22
427
40
357
88.1%
82.0%
62.1%
71.9%
82.5%
79.5%
79.2%
73.9%
92.1%
83.7%
84.3%
83.0%
93.3%
83.5%
82.1%
82.3%
88.0%
82.9%
83.3%
84.4%
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
5
2015-2016
Asian
White
African American
Hispanic
23
504
64
417
21
431
43
331
91.3%
85.5%
67.2%
79.4%
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.
Retention Rate by Gender and Ethnicity
83.9%
83.7%
82.6%
83.5%83.4%
79.1%
81.7%
84.6%
85.3%
83.9%
83.2%
81.6%
82.6%
86.3%
85.0%
83.4%
79.9%
80.4%
76.5%
78.4%
White Male
White Female
Hispanic Female
72.3%
74.4%
Hispanic Male
71.3%
69.2%
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
Ethnicity
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
Hispanic Female
159
115
72.3%
Hispanic Male
94
67
71.3%
White Female
362
303
83.7%
White Male
206
163
79.1%
Hispanic Female
200
153
76.5%
Hispanic Male
107
74
69.2%
White Female
368
304
82.6%
White Male
223
166
74.4%
Hispanic Female
237
198
83.5%
Hispanic Male
104
85
81.7%
White Female
391
328
83.9%
White Male
205
171
83.4%
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
6
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Hispanic Female
303
252
83.2%
Hispanic Male
143
115
80.4%
White Female
358
303
84.6%
White Male
201
164
81.6%
Hispanic Female
280
235
83.9%
Hispanic Male
143
122
85.3%
White Female
328
271
82.6%
White Male
187
156
83.4%
Hispanic Female
264
211
79.9%
Hispanic Male
153
120
78.4%
White Female
321
273
85.0%
White Male
183
158
86.3%
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%).
Retention Rate by Ethnicity and Cohort
90.4%
91.2%
88.0%
83.9%
80.9%
79.8%
89.0%
86.2%
77.4%
85.2%
86.5%
81.4%
77.6%
88.4%
79.5%
78.3%
White-Returning
81.7%
Hispanic-Returning
White-New
74.…
77.6%
75.2%
73.9%
71.1%
66.7%
2010-2011
Hispanic-New
73.2%
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
7
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Ethnicity
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
White-Returning
Hispanic-Returning
White-New
Hispanic-New
White-Returning
Hispanic-Returning
White-New
Hispanic-New
White-Returning
Hispanic-Returning
White-New
Hispanic-New
White-Returning
Hispanic-Returning
White-New
Hispanic-New
White-Returning
Hispanic-Returning
White-New
Hispanic-New
White-Returning
Hispanic-Returning
White-New
Hispanic-New
305
94
262
159
295
146
295
161
334
164
262
177
340
226
219
220
310
266
205
157
285
244
219
173
256
76
209
106
240
108
229
119
302
146
197
137
293
206
174
161
268
234
159
123
252
208
179
123
83.9%
80.9%
79.8%
66.7%
81.4%
74.0%
77.6%
73.9%
90.4%
89.0%
75.2%
77.4%
86.2%
91.2%
79.5%
73.2%
86.5%
88.0%
77.6%
78.3%
88.4%
85.2%
81.7%
71.1%
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.
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
8
Retention Rate by Resident Status
84.2%
79.8%
85.6%
85.0%
83.1%
81.8%
Resident
student
81.7%
79.3%
79.1%
77.1%
70.5%
Commuter
69.2%
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Resident Status
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
Commuter
288
203
70.5%
Resident
718
573
79.8%
Commuter
292
202
69.2%
Resident
807
660
81.8%
Commuter
317
259
81.7%
Resident
850
716
84.2%
Commuter
398
307
77.1%
Resident
822
704
85.6%
Commuter
329
261
79.3%
Resident
799
679
85.0%
358
283
79.1%
739
614
83.1%
Commuter
Resident
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
9
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.
Retention Rate by Gender and Ethnicity
86.5%
86.2%
84.5%
84.7%
81.4%
84.0%
82.6%
80.0%
81.3%
76.4%
84.3%
78.6%
84.1%
80.7%
85.6%
85.4%
82.4%
White-Resident
79.4%
Hispanic-Resident
76.9%
75.7%
74.7%
73.6%
61.3%
2010-2011
White-Commuter
Hispanic-Commuter
60.8%
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference between them at 5% error rate
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
Ethnicity
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
White-Resident
399
338
84.7%
Hispanic-Resident
White-Commuter
178
136
76.4%
169
128
75.7%
Hispanic-Commuter
White-Resident
75
46
61.3%
447
364
81.4%
Hispanic-Resident
White-Commuter
210
168
80.0%
144
106
73.6%
Hispanic-Commuter
White-Resident
97
59
60.8%
446
377
84.5%
Hispanic-Resident
White-Commuter
241
199
82.6%
150
122
81.3%
Hispanic-Commuter
100
84
84.0%
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
10
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
White-Resident
386
334
86.5%
Hispanic-Resident
White-Commuter
287
242
84.3%
173
133
76.9%
Hispanic-Commuter
White-Resident
159
125
78.6%
389
327
84.1%
Hispanic-Resident
White-Commuter
283
244
86.2%
126
100
79.4%
Hispanic-Commuter
White-Resident
140
113
80.7%
360
308
85.6%
Hispanic-Resident
White-Commuter
255
210
82.4%
144
123
Hispanic-Commuter
162
121
85.4%
74.7%
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:
o
First-Time (FT) student: a student who has no prior postsecondary experience attending any other
institution for the first time at the undergraduate level
o
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.
Retention Rate by App Admit Status
84.8%
79.3%
83.9%
85.1%
79.6%
82.8%
FT
80.3%
79.3%
77.8%
77.5%
77.1%
2014-2015
2015-2016
75.1%
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
*NOTE: The two red boxes indicate a statistically significant difference at a 5% error rate.
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
TR
11
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
FT Status
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
First-Time
707
561
79.3%
Transfer
First-Time
Transfer
First-Time
Transfer
First-Time
248
824
253
925
222
1000
193
656
190
784
176
839
77.8%
79.6%
75.1%
84.8%
79.3%
83.9%
Transfer
203
163
80.3%
2014-2015
First-Time
934
795
85.1%
Transfer
182
141
77.5%
2015-2016
First-Time
890
737
82.8%
Transfer
201
155
77.1%
9) PELL Grant
- PELL grant recipients historically 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.
Retention Rate by PELL
84.3%
84.4%
84.6%
78.0%
76.1%
2010-2011
81.1%
81.9%
80.8%
81.8%
83.3%
79.7%
PELL
74.6%
2011-2012
Non-PELL
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
2015-2016
12
School Year
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Low Income
Status
Others
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
550
429
78.0%
PELL
Others
PELL
Others
PELL
Others
456
646
453
702
465
347
524
338
594
381
76.1%
81.1%
74.6%
84.6%
81.9%
725
611
84.3%
PELL
495
400
80.8%
Others
672
567
84.4%
PELL
456
373
81.8%
Others
618
515
83.3%
PELL
479
382
79.7%
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-first generation students, but the gap is not significant.
-
No significant difference in retention was found between Hispanics and Whites within the firstgeneration 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.
Retention Rate by First Generation
86.8%
84.2%
77.7%
81.5%
81.2%
83.1%
81.2%
First gen
78.0%
2012-2013
Non-first gen
2013-2014
2014-2015
VUSC IR report (12/9/2016)
2015-2016
13
School Year
Resident Status
Retention Pool
Returned
Retention %
2012-2013
First Generation
Non-First gen.
First Generation
141
291
110
226
78.0%
77.7%
219
190
86.8%
Non-First gen.
492
401
81.5%
First Generation
282
229
81.2%
Non-First gen.
628
529
84.2%
First Generation
292
237
81.2%
Non-First gen.
645
536
83.1%
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
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 Hispanics became
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%) showed a 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)