An Analysis of Retention of Fall 2014 First-Time Freshmen

Barbara Gaddis, October 8, 2015

This report examines factors relating to student retention for the Fall 2014 cohort.

Retention Factor Page

Historical Retention rates (1993-2014) 1 Local, Regional, and Out-of-State 2 Housing and Commuter Status 2 Retention by Building 3 Full-time or Part-Time Status 3-4 College and Major 4-5 Fall GPA 5 Index Score Range 5-6 High School GPA and Retention 6 High School GPA and ACT Score 6 Enrollment in GPS 1010 7 Enrollment in GPS 1010 of high risk freshmen 7 Retention and Financial Aid 7 Retention and Student Employment 7-8 Excel Center usage 8 Excel Center usage of at-risk students 8 Number of Excel Centers used 8 Participation in clubs and events 9 Success Coach outreach 9-10 Success Coaching and at-risk freshmen 10 Fall GPA of coached and non-coached students 10 Success Coaching of Pre-Health Students 11 Retention and Gateway Guides 11 Retention and Academic Advising 11 Retention of special cohorts 12

Future retention programming 12

1

An Analysis of Retention of Fall 2014 First-Time Freshmen: The Fall 2014 cohort was composed of 1723* first-time freshmen (the largest freshman class in the history of UCCS) and 1161 of the freshmen returned in Fall 2015, for a retention rate of 67.4%%. This is an increase of 0.9% from the previous year. The historical trend in freshman retention is shown below. (*Note that IR retention data is typically based on a slightly different cohort of only full-time freshmen.)

Freshman Retention Rates 1993-2014

Fall Cohort N Number Retained Retention Rate

1993 373 231 62% 1994 388 231 60% 1995 432 257 59% 1996 445 295 66% 1997 601 366 61% 1998 722 465 64% 1999 774 474 61% 2000 790 484 61% 2001 807 497 62% 2002 919 613 67% 2003 920 612 67% 2004 964 640 66% 2005 1025 644 63% 2006 996 674 68% 2007 1013 713 70% 2008 1157 775 67% 2009 1097 738 67% 2010 1156 820 71% 2011 1352 886 66% 2012 1447 1010 70% 2013 1580 1050 66% 2014 1723 1161 67%

Snapshot of the Fall 2014 Cohort and Changes from the Previous Year The data below comes from Institutional Research and Admissions and Records demographic reports.

48.5% male

36% students of color

88.7% from Colorado and 47.5% from Colorado

50.1% on-campus housing

7.8% conditionally admitted freshmen

552 (32.0%) of freshman cohort were at-risk majors

2

o 117 PRBU o 117 PREN o 98 PRNU o 209 LSUD

Average ACT scores and high school GPAs are identical to 2013 o Average High School GPA: 3.3 o Average Test Scores: ACT-Composite: 23.4

Table 1. Demographic Factors and Retention

Home State* N TOTAL Retention Rate**

Foreign 14 78.6% Colorado 1440 67.7% Colorado Springs area 742 68.1% Outside CS Area 698 67.2% Outside Colorado** 194 66.5% California 65 78.7% Hawaii 14 42.9% Illinois 11 46.2% Minnesota 12 50.0%

New Mexico 14 85.7%

Texas 139 66.7%

* States with 10 or more students listing state as home address **Retention based upon home mailing address; results differ slightly from Institutional Research numbers Housing Status:

Housing Status N TOTAL Retention Rate

On-Campus 863 67.8% Commuter 859 67.2%

Students from Colorado Springs living in housing were retained at 2.7% higher than commuter students from Colorado Springs (69.7% housing Colorado Springs students vs 67.5% for Colorado Springs commuter students). Housing students from Colorado outside the Colorado Springs area were retained to a lower extent than were commuter students from this area (66.9% vs 67.6% for commuters). Out-of-state students living in housing were retained at 67.7% as compared to only 28.6% for the seven out-of-state students living off-campus.

3

Housing Retention by Building*:

Building Number of Freshmen Retention Rate

Aspen 72 75.0% Copper 77 72.7% Eldora 84 75.0% Monarch 2 56 60.7% Monarch 3 69 69.6% Monarch 4 66 69.7% Shavano 83 60.2% Steamboat 86 83.7% Taos (Timberline) 13 39.4% Telluride 84 65.5% Vail 102 60.8% Whistler (Timberline) 45 60.0%

*Data from Institutional Research Housing Status and Fall GPA: Housing students earned a higher fall GPA than commuter students (2.792 versus 2.717) and a higher spring GPA (2.716 versus 2.666). A slightly higher percentage of housing students earned above a 2.0 fall GPA (81.7% versus 80.6% for commuter students. For both housing students and commuter students, earning a good fall GPA is important for retention, with students who earn below 2.00 having extremely low retention rates. Helping freshmen to do well academically is a key retention goal for both housing and commuter students.

Fall GPA for Housing Students

% Housing Students

% Commuter Students

< 2.000 18.3% 19.4% 2.000-2.499 10.2% 13.0% 2.500-2.999 19.3% 13.6% 3.000-3.499 28.6% 24.4% 3.500-4.000 23.6% 29.2%

Part-Time versus Full Time Status: The data below is classified into 12 or more hours (full-time) or fewer than 12 credit hours (part-time) as of fall census. Full-time freshmen have higher retention than part-time students.

Enrollment Status N TOTAL Retention Rate

Full-time 1635 68.1% Part Time 87 55.2%

4

Students who start off as being full-time students and who drop courses during the semester are at much higher risk for attrition than students who do not drop courses. Dropping courses may also be a function of poor academic performance. Academic Factors Affecting Retention Academic performance, academic background, and academic major have an impact on retention rates. The data below is based upon declared major at census date.

Factor N TOTAL Retention Rate

College

Business 161 76.4% Engineering 217 75.1% Letters, Arts & Sciences 1102 64.2% Nursing 147 73.5% Public Affairs 82 64.6%

At-Risk Majors N TOTAL Retention Rate

Pre-Business 117 59.8% Pre-Engineering 117 63.2% Pre-Nursing 98 56.1% Pre-Health Science 11 54.5% Undecided 209 60.8%

Declared Majors (selected majors enrolling 10 or more freshmen)

Accounting 10 90.0% BI Game Design 18 77.8% Biochemistry 12 91.2% Biology (BIOL & BLBS) 63 71.4% Business Undecided 60 68.3% Chemistry (CHEM & CMBS) 19 68.4% Communication 36 52.8% Computer Engineering 24 79.2% Criminal Justice 87 65.5% Computer Science (BS) 48 75.0% Electrical Engineering 18 72.2% Education BI 10 50.0% English 36 69.4% Finance. 13 76.9% Health Science 68 69.1% History 24 58.3% Mechanical Engineering 90 73.3% Nursing Prep 65 80.0% Physics (BS) 13 69.2%

5

Political Science 10 90.0% Psychology 83 74.5% Sociology 10 60.0% Sports Management 31 87.1% Visual and Performing Arts 38 65.8%

Approximately one-third of the fall 2014 freshmen cohort (32%) was a high risk major, with pre-majors accounting for 19.9% and undecided for 12.1% of the freshman cohort. This is a slightly lower percentage than the previous year. Fall GPA and Retention: The table below categorizes fall GPAs into broader categories. Retention rates are correlated with fall GPA, with students earning higher fall GPAs being retained to a significantly greater extent. Approximately 81% of the freshman cohort earned a 2.00 or higher GPA and 52.9% earned a 3.00 or higher. Approximately 4.6% of the freshman cohort earned a 0.0 GPA. This may include students who registered for classes at orientation but never attended class.

Fall GPA N TOTAL Retention Rate

0.000 GPA 80 7.5% 0.100-1.499 GPA 140 19.3% 1.500-1.999 GPA 104 50.0% 2.000-2.499 GPA 200 64.5% 2.509-2.749 GPA 122 66.4% 2.750-2.999 GPA 163 70.6% 3.000-3.249 GPA 228 77.6% 3.250-3.749 GPA 434 82.5% 3.750-3.999 GPA 178 84.9% 4.000 GPA 72 87.5%

Academic Preparation and Enrollment: Students with higher academic preparation are retained to a greater extent than students with lower index scores. In fall 2014, 134 freshmen (7.9% of the freshman cohort) had index scores below 92; they were retained to a far lower extent than students with higher index scores. There are missing index scores for 14 students

Index Score N TOTAL % of Class % Earning 2.0 or Higher

Retention Rate

Below 92 index 134 7.8% 67% 53.0% 92 or higher 1573 91.4% 82% 68.5% No index score 14 0.8% -- 78.6%

Students who earned at least a 2.0 Fall GPA had higher retention, regardless of index scores:

6

Index Score and Fall GPA N TOTAL Retention Rate

< 92 index with 2.00 fall or higher GPA 90 65.5% < 92 index less than 2.00 fall GPA 44 27.3% 92 or higher index with 2.00 fall GPA or higher 1295 77.6% 92 or higher index with less than 2.00 fall GPA 278 26.3%

Approximately a quarter of the freshman cohort earned below a 3.00 high school GPA (27.9%). Students who have a 3.0 and above high school GPA are retained almost 20% higher than students with lower high school GPAs.

High School GPA and Retention N TOTAL Retention Rate

Below 3.00 High School GPA 481 53.2% 3.00 and Above High School GPA 1231 72.9%

High School GPA is one of the most important factors in predicting academic success and retention, and has a bigger impact than index score and ACT score.

High School GPA and ACT Score N TOTAL Retention Rate

18+ ACT Score and above 3.00 HS GPA 1085 73.7%

18+ ACT Score and below 3.00 HS GPA 407 52.6% High school GPA has an impact on retention of high-risk majors:

Major N under 3.0 HS Retention N 3.0 and above Retention

Pre-Business 73 58.9% 42 59.5% Pre-Engineering 68 60.3% 48 68.6% Pre-Nursing 22 36.4% 75 61.3% Undecided 74 41.9% 134 70.9%

Students with multiple risk factors (pre-major, low high school GPA) have lower retention:

Number of Risk Factors N TOTAL Retention Rate

0 1068 74.5% 1 412 57.8% 2 243 52.3%

Enrollment in Gateway Program Seminar and Retention: Most of the Fall 2014 cohort (92.8%) took the Gateway Program Seminar (GPS 1010) class. Students who took GPS were more likely to be retained. (Note: Because this is the first year that GPS 1010 was required, students who didn’t take it were more likely to be less traditional than the typical freshman cohort)

7

GPS 1010 Enrollment N TOTAL Retention Rate

Enrolled in GPS 1010 1599 68.5% Not Enrolled in GPS 1010 124 52.2%

Freshmen who are at-risk because of high school GPA and freshmen with multiple risk factors do better if they take GPS 1010.

GPS 1010 and High-Risk Freshmen N TOTAL Retention Rate

Low high school GPA and GPS 442 54.2% Low high school GPA and no GPS 39 38.5% Above 3.0 high school GPA and GPS 1157 73.9% Above 3.0 high school GPA and no GPS 85 58.8%

Multiple risk factors and GPS 243 53.8% Multiple risk factors and no GPS 20 35.0%

Retention as a Function of Financial Aid The Institutional Research report explores retention as a function of income, scholarships, loans, and a variety of other factors. In general, students with higher family contribution amount, students who get more aid, students with higher Pell awards, work study students, students who get more scholarships and grants have higher retention. Financial Aid plays a key role in helping retain students. Retention and Student Employment: In Fall 2014, 201 freshmen were student employees. These freshmen were more successful than freshmen who didn’t work on campus. Student employees earned a higher fall GPA (3.0043 versus 2.717), enrolled in spring to a far greater extent (95.5% versus 86.2%), and had higher retention rates (80.1% versus 65.7%) than non-student employees. Retention and Excel Centers: A little over half of the freshmen (55%) used one or more of the Excel Centers during the fall semester and about two-thirds (68%) used at least one of the centers during the full academic year. Freshman who used the centers had significantly higher retention rates:

Excel Usage N (% of cohort) Retention Rate

Excel Center User 1177 (68%) 74.8%

Non-Center User 546 (32%) 51.5%

All student groups who used one or more of the Excel Centers were retained to a higher extent, but this was particularly important for at-risk groups:

8

Group Center User N

Retention Rate

Non-User N

Retention Rate

No Risk Factors 748 80.7% 320 60.0% 1 Risk Factor 274 67.2% 138 39.1% 2 Risk Factors 155 59.4% 88 39.8%

All Excel Centers were successful in retaining freshmen who used their centers:

Center User Non-Center User

Center N TOTAL % Retained N TOTAL % Retained

Communication 400 76.8% 1323 64.6%

Language 343 74.0% 1380 65.7%

Math 345 83.2% 1377 63.4%

Science 372 84.4% 1351 62.7%

Writing 563 79.2% 1160 61.6%

Freshmen who used multiple centers were retained at a higher rate:

Centers Used N TOTAL % Retained

0 546 51.5%

1 527 69.1%

2 359 81.1%

3 173 83.8%

4 56 85.7%

5 7 100%

*Data is based on fall usage

Retention and Student Engagement:

With the implementation of Mountain Lion Connect, we are able to track student participation in campus activities. Over 90% of the freshman cohort participated in clubs and events during the academic year. It is apparent from the data below that freshmen who get involved in campus activities and events are much more likely to be retained than freshmen who don’t:

Level of Engagement N TOTAL Retention Rate Average Fall GPA

Both clubs and events 293 75.4% 3.060

Event but no club 695 70.0% 2.764 Club but no event 117 74.4% 2.947 Neither club nor event 618 59.5% 2.564

9

The data was broken down further to examine engagement of student employees and non-student employees:

Level of Engagement N Student Employee

Retention of Student Employees

Retention of Non-Student Employees

Both clubs and events 49 83.70% 73.80%

Event but no club 97 79.40% 68.20%

Club but no event 15 80.00% 73.50%

Neither club nor event 40 77.50% 58.30%

Student Success Outreach: Success Coaching: The success coaches are available to all freshmen. The success coaches call all freshmen after orientation and keep in touch with them through monthly newsletters. However, the success coach’s primary outreach is to at-risk students, including pre-major students (now called ‘intent’ students), undecided students, and conditionally admitted students. They attempt regular contact with their assigned students for the purpose of regular face-to-face meetings. They also reach out to students who go on early alert to help get the student back on track. They conduct workshops on academic skills and time management and work closely with GPS classes and faculty. Students are assigned to a success coach based upon their major and each success coach had at least one high-risk group of students. Conditionally admitted students were distributed between the three success coaches by declared major. One success coach was linked with pre-nursing majors, one with pre-business students, one with pre-engineering, and one was linked with undecided students. Other majors were designated for specific success coaches and the success coach worked with this group through the Early Alert Program. Although the success coaches contact their students through phone calls and emails, face-to-face meetings have been found to be the most effective. For all but one at-risk groups, students who met with their success coach in person had higher retention than those who did not meet.

10

Success Coach No Success Coach

Group N TOTAL Retention N TOTAL Retention

No Risk Factor (major, high school GPA) 441 76.6% 627 73.0% 1 Risk Factor 256 59.8% 156 54.5% 2 Risk Factors 170 56.5% 73 42.5% < 92 index score 97 55.7% 37 45.9% < 3.0 HS GPA 297 56.9% 184 47.3% Pre-Business 55 59.8% 25 60.0% Pre-Engineering 79 64.6% 38 60.5% Pre-Nursing 74 58.1% 24 50.0% Undecided < 3.0 HS GPA 47 46.8% 27 33.3% Undecided > 3.0 HS GPA 66 72.7% 68 69.1% Early Alerted Students 278 52.2% 117 33.3% Part-Time Students 32 71.9% 55 45.5% Pell Eligible Students 126 61.9% 121 51.2% Ethnic Students 338 68.6% 279 64.2% Freshmen who go on probation 86 37.2% 19 21.1%

Because the success coaches work primarily with freshmen coming in at higher risk of attrition and with freshmen who struggle academically during the year, it does not make sense to compare grades earned by coached and non-coached students. However, for freshmen entering college with at least one risk factor, students who met with their success coach were slightly more successful academically, with 72.6% of the coached students earning above a 2.00 fall GPA as compared to 71.2% for the uncoached students. Another interesting phenomenon is that students who meet with their success coach have higher retention regardless of fall GPA, across all GPA categories. This may be a function of knowing available that resources are available to help students improve their academic performance or that there is a specific, caring, supportive person on campus to whom they can turn for assistance, guidance, and success strategies as they learn to navigate the university environment and culture.

Success Coach No Success Coach

Fall GPA N TOTAL Retention N TOTAL Retention

Under 2.000 193 34.2% 133 15.0% 2.000-2.499 137 66.4% 63 60.3% 2.500-2.999 144 70.8% 140 67.1% 3.000-3.499 204 81.9% 253 79.1% 3.500-4.000 188 85.1% 267 83.1%

Success Coaching of Pre-Health Students: Many freshmen come to college hoping to become a physician or other medical professional. These students often have unrealistic expectations about the dedication and motivation and effort needed to achieve this goal. As a result, many are not successful and the group has higher attrition than many majors. This past year, we paired these students with a team of success coaches. Freshmen who met with their success coach had higher retention in all cases.

11

Success Coach No Success Coach

Group N TOTAL Retention N TOTAL Retention Pre-Medicine 19 78.9% 74 71.6% Pre-Physical Therapy 9 88.9% 29 62.1% Pre-Veterinary Medicine 29 63.6% 18 33.3%

Gateway Guides: The Gateway Guides is a relatively new program through Counseling, designed to help freshmen with transitional issues like homesickness, stress, relationships, coping skills, balance and other personal issues. Last year, 38 freshmen met with a Gateway Guide. Many times students don’t go to a Gateway Guide until they are in crisis mode and almost ready to quit, so the fact that over half of these students (57.9%) were retained is important. Academic Advising: Academic advisors also play a key role in retaining students. Freshmen who connect with their academic advisors through in-person meetings or other contacts are much more likely to be retained, with freshmen with minimal contacts (0-2 emails or phone calls) being retained at 48.1% and freshmen with multiple contacts being retained at 89.3%. Face-to-face meetings are particularly important. Freshmen who met with their academic advisor at least once through either a scheduled appointment or walk-in advising were retained to a far greater extent than freshmen who don’t.

Meeting with Advisor N TOTAL Retention Rate

No meeting 490 52.4% Meeting at least one time 1233 73.3%

Having multiple meetings with their advisors, whether through scheduled appointments or walk-in appointments is advantageous.

Number of in-person meetings with advisor

N TOTAL Retention Rate

0 490 52.45% 1 455 62.20% 2 329 75.38% 3 220 81.18% 4 122 83.61% 5 54 85.19% 6+ 53 84.91%

At-risk students who met with their advisors were retained to a far greater extent than students who didn’t, with Undecided students being retained at 70.3%, pre-nursing students at 67.1%, pre-engineering students at 73.9%, and pre-business students at 61.5%.

12

Retention of Special Cohorts: Athletes: In Fall 2014, there were 55 freshmen athletes and 87.3% of the freshman athletes were retained. The freshman athletes also did well academically, with 96% earning at least a 2.0 and 74.5% earning above a 3.0. Chancellor’s Leadership Class: There were four new freshmen in Fall 2014 and 100% of the freshmen were retained. Live Leadership Program: There were 19 first-time freshmen in this program and all (100%) were retained. Chancellor’s Student Success Support Program (SSSP): The Chancellor’s Student Success Support Program was a special initiative to reach out to underperforming freshmen to encourage and incentivize them to earn higher grades. Only 10 students successfully completed the requirements of the program. These students were retained at 90%. These ten students received the scholarship. In addition, there were 14 students who were close to completing the program but did not meet all of the criteria. These students were retained at 92.9%. Students who were eligible but did not participate were retained to only 55.6%. Conclusion: The data contained in this report will help the University continue to focus efforts on proven retention strategies while also making retention decisions through the most promising means that make the best use of limited resources. We are eager to see the impact that University Studies has on freshman retention and consider it a promising program, not only for the hoped for improvement in retention but also for the potential it brings to students who have typically not experienced academic success.