Technical Notes

Graduation Rate Data

The institutional graduation-rate data presented in College Results Online is collected by U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, through a centralized higher education data collection process called the Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System (IPEDS).  IPEDS consists of a series of surveys through which institutions provide data about themselves on a variety of topics.  One of those surveys is the Graduation Rate Survey (GRS).   

 

GRS graduation rates are based on the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen who earn a bachelor’s degree from the institution where they originally enrolled.  Undergraduates who begin as part-time or non degree-seeking students, or who transfer into the institution from elsewhere in higher education, are not included in the GRS cohort.  Their success or failure to earn a degree does not influence the GRS graduation rates in College Results Online in any way.

 

In addition to limiting the GRS cohort to those students described above, institutions are also allowed to exclude from their calculations any students who fail to earn a degree for the following reasons:

 

·          Left school to serve in the armed forces.

·          Left school to serve with a foreign aid service of the federal government.

·          Left school to serve on an official church mission.

·          Died or became permanently disabled.

 

Two full cohorts of GRS data are contained in College Results Online: the entering freshman classes of 1996 and 1997.  Students who began in Fall 1997 are considered to have successfully completed their degree within six years if they earned the degree on or before August 31, 2003. 

 

The 1996 – 2002 and 1997 – 2003 cohorts include graduation-rate data broken down by both race/ethnicity and gender, including four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates.  College Results Online also contains overall six-year graduation rates (but not disaggregated rates) for the entering classes of 1991 – 1995.  Those data sets contain the large majority of all students enrolled in four-year institutions, but are incomplete because reporting was not yet mandatory at that time.  

 

At some institutions, the number of students in a given cohort can be very small, particularly when graduation rates are broken down by both gender and race/ethnicity. College Results Online does not report graduation rates for groups of students smaller than 10. In addition, some graduation rates based on small cohorts have been statistically perturbed by the U.S. Department of Education, for privacy purposes. This process does not alter overall measures of central tendency for the graduation rate cohort. 

 

The latest survey form submitted by institutions for GRS data can be found here: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/pdf/webbase2003/grs_4yr_form.pdf

 

It’s important to note that College Results Online does not include every 4-year Title-IV eligible higher education institution in the United States.  It only contains institutions that meet all of the following criteria:

 

1) They fall in the public or private not-for-profit sector.  This excludes for-profit 4-year institutions like the University of Phoenix.

2) They reported GRS data for the 2003 cohort.

3) They had sufficient additional contextual data to generate a similarity comparison. 

 

These restrictions limit the universe of 4-year institutions being analyzed to approximately 1,400 institutions.  Accordingly, the results of statistical analyses and descriptions of this universe of institutions may vary from the results of corresponding descriptions of all 4-year institutions.  However, because the institutions covered in that universe enrolled 94% of all students in the total 4-year GRS cohort, such variance is likely to be small.     

 

How College Results Online Identifies “Similar” Institutions

College Results Online allows users to select a given college or university and compare its graduation rates outcomes to other, similar institutions.  To identify which institutions are most similar to a chosen institution, College Results Online applies an algorithm in which every other four-year institution in the country is compared to the chosen institution.  Each institution receives a “similarity score,” ranging from 0 (least similar) to 1000 (identical), based on the degree of similarity to the chosen institution in terms of 11 selected institutional and student characteristics that are statistically correlated with overall six-year graduation rates (see below). 

 

Once the baseline similarity score is calculated, College Results Online applies additional “filters” to each institution, excluding an institution from possible comparison if it greatly deviates from the chosen institution on any one of a number of factors.  This prevents, for example, an institution with 2,500 undergraduates from being compared to an institution with 25,000 undergraduates, even if they are otherwise very similar.   

 

Once dissimilar institutions are filtered out, the remaining institutions with the highest similarity scores are used by College Results Online to present the 15, 25, or 50 “most similar” institutions for the chosen institution.

 

The 11 factors used to generate the similarity score are listed below.  The Education Trust chose these factors based on a regression model in which the dependent variable was the overall six-year graduation rates for the 1997 – 2003 GRS cohort. Some factors are weighted more than others when calculating the overall similarity score, based on their relative influence on graduation rates in the regression model.  For example, the percent of students receiving Pell grants counts for more than the overall number of undergraduates in the similarity score calculation, because the regression analysis indicates that Pell grant percentage has a greater influence on graduation rates. 

 

The variables used in the similarity score formula are shown below.  The number in parentheses next to the variable is the weight assigned to the variable, and the sum of all the weights is 1,000.  The overall similarity score is the sum of 11 individual comparisons based on each variable, where the maximum point value is equal to the amount of the weight.  Institution receive the maximum point value for a given factor if they are identical to the chosen institution, and a lesser value if they are not identical but still sufficiently similar.  

 

All data are the latest available. Detailed definitions and source descriptions for each of the variables below can be found in the “Data Definitions and Sources” section later in this document. 

 

·          Estimated Median SAT or ACT equivalent of freshman class (96 points)

·          Admissions Selectivity, per Barron’s Guide To American Colleges  (107 points)    

·          Carnegie Classification (63 points)   

·          Percent of undergraduates receiving Pell Grants (181 points)  

·          Sector (Public vs. Private) (123 points)   

·          Number of full-time equivalent undergraduates (66 points)  

·          Student-Related Expenditures / FTE student (133 points)  

·          Percent of FTE undergraduate students age 25 and over (56 points)  

·           Status as a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) (35 points)  

·          Percent of undergraduates who are enrolled part-time (91 points)  

·           Status as a commuter campus (49 points)  

Note: This methodology does not include the percent of students who enroll and transfer to another institution.  This is clearly a significant piece of information, since an institution with an unusually large outbound transfer population could have a diminished graduation rate as a result.  However, not enough institutions (less than half of all reporting) reported outbound transfer data through the GRS, making it untenable for inclusion in the similarity score algorithm.  Users can use College Results Online to access outbound transfer rate data for those institutions that did report it, and consider graduation-rate outcomes with that information in mind. A number of individual states have already begun tracking student from one institution to another, reporting the percent of students who begin at one institutions and graduate from that institution or any other within the same university system, or at any other institution statewide. Some states have provided these data to the Education Trust, which has made them available via College Results Online.  

 

Once the initial similarity score is calculated, additional filters are applied.  An institution is completely excluded from being compared to a chosen institution if it meets any of the following criteria:

 

·          The number of FTE undergraduates exceeds a threshold difference amount, plus or minus.  This difference varies depending on the size of the institution, on a sliding scale. For example, the peers for an institution with 2,000 students would be limited to those in the range of 0 to 5,000.  The peers for an institution with 15,000 students would be limited to those in a range of 10,000 to 20,000. 

·          Student-Related Expenditures per FTE is more than double or less than half of the chosen institution. 

·          The percent of degrees awarded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics is greater than 30 percentage points above or below the target institution.  This is to account for the relatively small number of institutions that are very STEM-intensive, and tend to have lower graduation rates than otherwise similar institutions.

 

·          Admissions selectivity is different by two levels or more.

 

·          Institutions whose Carnegie Classification is Baccalaureate cannot be compared to institutions whose classification is Doctoral / Research, or vice versa.

 

·          The percent of students who are enrolled part-time is different by more than 30 percentage points.

·          The acceptance rate for applicants is different by more than 36 percentage points.

·          The estimated median SAT or ACT equivalent is different by more than 100 points.

 

·          The percent of undergraduates receiving Pell Grants is more than 30 percentage points lower.

 

There are a few important things to keep in mind when looking at peer comparisons in higher education. First, no automated peer group methodology is perfect or incontrovertible. While College Results Online methodology is based on the recommendations of an advisory panel of national experts and incorporates a host of different data elements, its accuracy may vary from institution to institution, and is subject to differing opinions about what makes institutions “similar.”

 

Second, appropriate peer groupings can vary depending on their purpose. This methodology was specifically designed for the purpose of comparing graduation rates for first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year institutions. A different method might be appropriate for comparing faculty salaries, funding levels, regional competitors, etc.

 

Third, institutions vary in an absolute sense in terms of how many other, similar institutions exist for the purposes of comparison. For some colleges and universities, there are dozens of other institutions that are very similar. For others, there simply aren’t. This can affect the utility of comparison groups for analytic purposes. For example, because Cal Tech has a median incoming freshman SAT score over 1500, less than 1,000 undergraduates, a strong science and engineering focus, and extremely high levels of per-student spending, College Results Online identifies no comparison institutions at all. Cal Tech is, literally, peerless.

 

Fourth, the methodology is designed to generate a list of those institutions that are most similar today. It’s based on the most recent available data regarding mission, enrollment, selectivity, etc. Graduation rates, by contrast, are implicitly a function of the nature of an institution and its students over a number of years, in this case from 1997 to 2003. In any one of those years, the list of “most similar” institutions might be different. Institutions and their students can change over time, sometimes significantly. This also can affect how institutions compare in terms of graduation rates.

 

Data Definitions and Sources

The sections below list the definitions and sources for both the data indicators discussed above and the additional data made available in College Results Online.  Unless otherwise noted, all data is from the 2003-2004 academic year.  Data elements that have the designation (IPEDS) are based on or derived from data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

 

 

Retention – Progression

 

4-Year, 5-Year, and 6-Year Graduation Rates:  These rates are cumulative.  For example, the five-year graduation rate shows the percent of students who graduated in 5 years or less, not the percent who took exactly 5 years to graduate. (IPEDS)

 

Percent Transfer:  This represents the percent of students who began in a given GRS cohort of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen at the institution and transferred to another school without earning a degree.  The GRS survey instructions note that “the school is required to report only one those students that school knows have transferred to another school. A school must document that the student actually transferred.”  Reporting of transfer data is optional for colleges and universities that do not consider preparing students for transfer as part of their mission. (IPEDS)

 

Percent Still Enrolled in Extended Program:  The percent of students who began in a given GRS cohort and have not graduated within six years, but are still enrolled in a program that takes longer than four years to complete.  (IPEDS)

 

1st Year Retention Rate 2002 (Full-time students): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduates from Fall 2002 who are again enrolled in Fall 2003. (IPEDS)

 

 

Institutional Characteristics

 

Locale:  There are 7 possible locale designations, using a classification system from the U.S. Census Bureau: (IPEDS)

 

·          Large city – A central city of a consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) or metropolitan statistical area (MSA) with the city having a population of 250,000 or more.

·          Urban fringe of large city – Any incorporated place within a metropolitan area containing a large city.

·          Mid-size city – A central city of a CMSA or MSA with the city having a population of less than 250,000.

·          Urban fringe of mid-size city – Any incorporated place within a metropolitan area containing a mid-size city.

·          Large town – An incorporated place with a population of 25,000 or over lying outside of a CMSA or MSA.

·          Small town – An incorporated place with a population of less than 25,000 but greater than or equal to 2,500 lying outside of a CMSA or MSA.

·          Rural – Any place designated by the Census as rural.

 

Sector:  There are a number of different sectors of higher education, based on both length of academic programs (4-year, 2-year, less than 2-year), and financial status (public, private non-profit, private for-profit).  College Results Online only contains data for 4-year institutions that are either public or private non-profit.  The latter designation is abbreviated as “private.”  (IPEDS)

 

Carnegie Classification:  Originally published in 1973, the non-profit Carnegie Foundation’s classification system is widely used to distinguish higher education institution in terms of their degree programs and institutional mission. The categories have been substantially revised and updated a number of times over the years. The most recent version was released in 2000, with a new version expected in 2005. In calculating similarity scores for institutions, College Results Online uses the 1994 classification system, because it provides the greatest degree of differentiation among institutions, and has the strongest predictive power relative to institutional graduation rates.  The current system utilizes the following categories:

 

Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines.

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall.

Master's Colleges and Universities I: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 40 or more master's degrees per year across three or more disciplines.

Master's Colleges and Universities II: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 20 or more master's degrees per year.

Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period studied, they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.

Baccalaureate Colleges—General: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period studied, they awarded less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.

Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges: These institutions are undergraduate colleges where the majority of conferrals are below the baccalaureate level (associate's degrees and certificates). During the period studied, bachelor's degrees accounted for at least ten percent of undergraduate awards.

Associate's Colleges: These institutions offer associate's degree and certificate programs but, with few exceptions, award no baccalaureate degrees. This group includes institutions where, during the period studied, bachelor's degrees represented less than 10 percent of all undergraduate awards.

 

Tribal Colleges and Universities: These colleges are, with few exceptions, tribally controlled and located on reservations. They are all members of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.

 

Specialized Institutions: These institutions offer degrees ranging from the bachelor's to the doctorate, and typically award a majority of degrees in a single field. The list includes only institutions that are listed as separate campuses in the 2000 Higher Education Directory. Specialized institutions include:

Theological seminaries and other specialized faith-related institutions: These institutions primarily offer religious instruction or train members of the clergy.

Medical schools and medical centers: These institutions award most of their professional degrees in medicine. In some instances, they include other health professions programs, such as dentistry, pharmacy, or nursing.

Other separate health profession schools: These institutions award most of their degrees in such fields as chiropractic, nursing, pharmacy, or podiatry.

Schools of engineering and technology: These institutions award most of their bachelor's or graduate degrees in technical fields of study.

Schools of business and management: These institutions award most of their bachelor's or graduate degrees in business or business-related programs.

Schools of art, music, and design: These institutions award most of their bachelor's or graduate degrees in art, music, design, architecture, or some combination of such fields.

Schools of law:These institutions award most of their degrees in law.

Teachers colleges: These institutions award most of their bachelor's or graduate degrees in education or education-related fields.

Other specialized institutions: Institutions in this category include graduate centers, maritime academies, military institutes, and institutions that do not fit any other classification category.

The Carnegie Foundation is planning to release an updated classification system in 2005.  Future versions of College Results Online will reflect these changes.  More information about the Carnegie Classification system can be found here: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/index.htm

 

HBCU:  This category designates whether an institution has been designated as a Historically Black College or University.  HBCUs are designated as such by the U.S. Department of Education. (IPEDS)

 

HSI: This category designates whether an institution has been designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution.  For a list of members, see www.hacu.net.

 

 

Percent Admitted:  Percent of first-time first-year degree-seeking applicants who were admitted. (IPEDS).

 

Open Admissions:  Admissions policy whereby the school will accept any students who apply. (IPEDS)

 

NCAA Division:  Institutions in NCAA Division I are designate as “I”, those in either Division II or Division III are designated as “II/III.”  Source: www.ncaa.org

 

Athletic Conference:  Athletic conference designation is based on conference membership for NCAA Division I men’s basketball, and is limited to the conferences that receive an automatic bid to the NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament.  Membership information was derived from various conference web sites.

 

Commuter Campus: This variable is provided by the College Board, and represents the response of institutions to a survey question of whether they identify themselves as a commuter campus. For legal reasons, this variable is accessible on College Results Online. 

 

 

Student Characteristics

 

Full-Time Equivalent Undergraduates:  Estimated as the number of full-time undergraduates plus (the number of part-time undergraduates divided by three).  (IPEDS)

 

Percent Black, Latino, etc.:  The percent of FTE undergraduates who belong to different categories of race/ethnicity. (IPEDS)

 

Percent Under-Represented Minority:  Calculated as the percent of FTE undergraduates who are Black, Latino, or Native American.  (IPEDS)

 

Percent of Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grants: Based on the percentage of undergraduates receiving Pell Grants in 2001 – 2002.  These calculations were made by Post-Secondary Opportunity (www.postsecondary.org).  In some cases, such as multi-campus state university systems where Pell Grant data is reported at a consolidated, multi-institution level, accurate institution-level estimates of the percent of students receiving Pell Grants were unavailable.  In these cases, or where data was missing, the percent of students receiving federal grant aid (per IPEDS) was substituted by the Education Trust.  Such substitutions were made in approximately 50 cases.

 

Percent Part-Time:  The number of part-time undergraduates divided by the total number of undergraduates.  Part-time undergraduates are defined as students enrolled for either 11 semester credits or less, or 11 quarter credits or less, or less than 24 contact hours a week each term. (IPEDS)

 

Percent 25 and Over:  The percent of FTE undergraduates age 25 or older. (IPEDS)

 

 

SAT and ACT Detail

 

ACT Score

SAT Equivalent

35

1580

34

1520

33

1470

32

1420

31

1380

30

1340

29

1300

28

1260

27

1220

26

1180

25

1140

24

1110

23

1070

22

1030

21

990

20

950

19

910

18

870

17

830

16

780

15

740

14

680

13

620

12

560

11

500

Estimated Median SAT / ACT:  Higher education institutions don’t report median aggregate SAT or ACT data to IPEDS.  For the SAT, they report the 25th and 75th percentile score of students submitting scores, for both the verbal and mathematics sections. For the ACT, they report the 25th and 75th percentile scores for the English, math, and composite scores. 

 

The median composite ACT score is estimated by averaging the 25th percentile and 75th percentile composite ACT scores.  The median combined SAT score is estimated by adding the average of the 25th and 75th percentile verbal score to the average of the 25th and 75th percentile math score, and dividing by two.

 

Some institutions accept only the SAT or the ACT, while some accept both.  For institutions that only accept the ACT, the estimated median ACT score was converted to an SAT equivalent using a concordance table (at right) based on a study of students who take both exams.  (Neil Dorans, C. Felicia Lyu, Mary Pommerich and Walter Houston, “Concordance Between ACT Assessment and Recentered SAT I Sum Scores” College and University 73 (2) pg. 24-35.)

 

The 25th and 75th percentile composite ACT scores were converted, then averaged.  For institutions accepting both tests, either the SAT or converted ACT score was used, depending on which test made up the majority of all test scores submitted by first-time first-year degree-seeking freshmen.  (IPEDS)

 

Percent of Students Submitting SAT Scores: The percent of first-time first-year degree seeking student who submitted SAT scores.  (IPEDS)

 

Percent of Students Submitting ACT Scores: The percent of first-time first-year degree seeking student who submitted ACT scores.  (IPEDS)

 

 

Finance, Financial Aid, and Faculty

 

The financial data shown on College Results Online is for the 2002-2003 academic year.  The IPEDS reporting system requires universities to report expenditures broken down into a number of categories and sub-categories.  The survey forms used to report this information, which contain these categories, can be found here: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/survey2002.asp

 

Instructional Expenditures / FTE: “Instruction expenses” is a discrete reporting category. It includes expenditures for the colleges, schools, departments, and other instructional divisions of the institution and expenses for departmental research and public service that are not separately budgeted.  It also includes general academic instruction, occupational and vocational instruction, community education, preparatory and adult basic education, and regular, special, and extension sessions.  It also includes expenses for both credit and non-credit activities.  It excludes expenses for academic administration where the primary function is administration (e.g., academic deans).  Information technology expenses related to instructional activities if the institution separately budgets and expenses information technology resources are included (otherwise these expenses are included in “academic support”). (IPEDS)

 

Educational and General Expenditures / FTE:  This is a broader category, which includes the instructional expenditures listed above, plus expenditures for research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, plant operation & maintenance, and scholarships. (IPEDS)

 

Student and Related Expenditures / FTE: This is an intermediate financial measure, including instructional, student services, and academic support expenditures.  The specific formula was developed by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).  Student-related expenditures are calculated as (Instruction + Student Services + Academic Support*(Instruction/(Instruction + Public Service + Research))).  (IPEDS)

 

Percent Federal Grant Aid:  Percent of first-time, full-time degree-seeking students receiving federal grant aid (Title IV Pell Grants plus Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants). (IPEDS)

 

Average Federal Grant Aid per Receiving Student: Average federal grant aid per receiving student. (IPEDS)

 

Total State Grant Aid $ / FTE (Statewide) : This amount represents the estimated statewide amount of undergraduate student grant aid (both need-based and non need-based) provided per FTE undergraduate, in the state in which the institution is located.  This amount can be found in National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP) Annual Survey Report on State-Sponsored Student Financial Aid for the 2002-2003 academic year, Table 12.

 

Total State Need-Based Grant Aid $ / FTE (Statewide) : This amount represents the estimated statewide amount of need-based undergraduate student grant aid provided per FTE undergraduate, in the state in which the institution is located.  This amount can be found in National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP) Annual Survey Report on State-Sponsored Student Financial Aid for the 2002-2003 academic year, Table 12

 

Percent Full-Time Faculty: The number of full-time faculty members as a percent of all faculty members. (IPEDS)

 

Full-Time Undergraduates / Full-Time Faculty: The number of full-time equivalent undergraduates divided by the number of full-time faculty.  (IPEDS)

 

 

Degrees Granted by Program Area

 

Institutions report the number of degrees awarded in various subjects every year.  Those subjects have been categorized by the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP).  The categories below represent the number of degrees awarded in a number of broad subject areas, each of which is comprised of a number of discrete CIP codes.  The categories are not exclusive. “Sciences,” for example, are included in both “Arts & Sciences” and “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.”

 

Percent Degrees Awarded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math:  The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Codes 26, 27, 40, 2, 11, 14, 15, and 41. (IPEDS)

 

Percent Degrees Awarded in Arts & Sciences: The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Codes 5, 16, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 50, and 54. (IPEDS)

 

Percent Degrees Awarded in Business: The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Codes 5 and 16. (IPEDS)

 

Percent Degrees Awarded in Education:  The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Code 13. (IPEDS)

 

Percent Degrees Awarded in Health Sciences:  The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Code 51. (IPEDS)

 

Additional State Data:  

 

Note:These indicators have been calculated and provided to the Education Trust by individual state higher education administrative organizations. There may be state-to-state differences in data definitions, methodology, and other factors. As such, users should be cautious in using these indicators to compare institutions from different states to one another.

 

2nd Year Retention Rate: The percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates who return to enroll in their second year

 

3rd Year Retention Rate: The percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates who return to enroll in their third year. Note: this is not the percent of all second-year students who return for the third year. Rather, it also the percent of students who began and persisted until at least their third year. This also applies to the 4th year retention rate.

 

4th Year Retention Rate: The percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates who return to enroll in their fourth year.

 

6-Year In-System Graduation Rate: The percent of students who began at the institution and graduated from that institution, or any other institution within the same university system, within six years.

 

6-Year In-State Graduation Rate: The percent of students who began at the institution and graduated from that institution, or any other institution within the same state, within six years.

 

 

Technical Advisory Committee

In creating the College Results Online Web tool, the Education Trust has been very fortunate to enjoy the advice and counsel of an advisory committee comprised of experts in the field.  Each member provided invaluable knowledge and insight in creating the web tool, particularly in determining the methodology by which “similar” institutions are identified, and the particular variables and factors that drive that calculation. The advisory committee members include:

 

·          Peter Ewell, Vice President

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)

 

·          Nicole Norfles, Special Assistant to the President,

Council for Opportunity in Education

 

·          Colleen O’Brien, Director

The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education

 

·          Bridget Terry Long, Associate Professor of Economics

Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University

 

·          Arturo Pacheco, Professor of Education

University of Texas-El Paso

 

·          Michael Nettles, Vice President

Policy Evaluation and Research Center, Educational Testing Service