IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT F2006

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