College Results Online

About the Data

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 (NCES), through a centralized higher education data collection process called the Integrated Postsecondary 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).   

The GRS graduation rates displayed on College Results Online are based on the percentage of first-time, full-time, bachelor’s or equivalent degree-seeking freshmen who earn a bachelor’s or equivalent degree from the institution where they originally enrolled.  Undergraduates who begin as part-time or non bachelor’s 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.

Eight full cohorts of GRS data are contained in College Results Online: the entering freshman classes of 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.  Students who began in Fall 2003 are considered to have successfully completed their degree within six years if they earned the degree on or before August 31, 2009.

The above seven 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 cohort years 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.  

If an institution has a transfer mission, then the GRS also collects the percentage of students from the cohort who have transferred to another institution. For institutions offering long programs of study, the GRS also collects the percentage of students who have not graduated but are still enrolled in degree programs that take longer than four years to complete. 

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.  For reasons of confidentiality and statistical validity, College Results Online does not report graduation rates for cohorts of students smaller than 10, which may be applied to the total cohort and/or to subgroup cohorts (e.g. African-American males).  In addition, some graduation rates based on small cohorts have been adjusted 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 at that institution. It is also important to note that small GRS cohorts often have unstable graduation rates. Therefore, it is imperative to examine these institutions’ graduation rates over time. An example of this occurrence is Arlington Baptist College, located in Arlington, TX. Examining Arlington Baptist’s data from 2002-2009, one can see that this institution’s graduation rates has greatly fluctuated over time. Therefore, Arlington Baptist College’s 2009 graduation rate of 100% should be interpreted with caution.

A sample survey form submitted by institutions for GRS data can be found here: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds_py/VisForms.aspx?survey=4&form=55&index=8&ri=0&show=part

College Results Online does not include every four-year Title-IV eligible higher education institution in the United States and associated territories (N=2,853). College Results’ final sample only includes institutions that meet the following criteria:

1) Schools that are in the public or private not-for-profit sector as well as institutions in the private for-profit sector;
2) Schools that were not closed in/by the 2008-09 school year;
3) Schools that award bachelors’ degrees, which may include two-year or four-year institutions;
4) Schools that have had a graduation rate cohort within the last three years.

After applying these rules, 2,137 schools remain in the sample. This method maximizes the number of schools that are included in CRO. However, some schools will be missing graduation rate data in the current year.

Prior to the 2001 cohort, College Results Online only contained institutions that met the following criteria:

1) They fell in the public or private not-for-profit sector. This excluded for-profit four-year institutions like the University of Phoenix.
2) They reported GRS data for that current graduation year's cohort.
3) They were assigned a selectivity rating in the latest version of Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges.

In 2006-the year before the expanded sample was implemented-these restrictions limited the universe of four-year institutions included in CRO to approximately 1,450 institutions.

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 comparing the chosen school to a selected sample of other institutions. The public and private not-for-profit institutions are compared with one another and not with the private for-profit institutions; the private for-profit institutions are only compared with one another. Each comparison 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 10 selected institutional and student characteristics that are statistically correlated with overall six-year graduation rates for the public and private not-for-profit institutions (see Table 1) and on three institutional and student characteristics for the private for-profit institutions (see Table 2).

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.

In order to mitigate the effects of year to year variations on key indicators, The Education Trust averages the three most recent years of data, when available, for the indicators used to identify similar institutions. The Education Trust chose the factors listed in Table 1 and Table 2 based on a review of the literature in which 14 variables were identified as possible predictors of graduation rates. Each year, the results of a regression model (in which each of the 14 predictors are regressed upon the dependent variable) establish the final set of weighting variables used to calculate similar institutions. The overall averaged six-year graduation rate for the most recent three years of data (this year: the 2001, 2002 and 2003 GRS cohorts) determine which variables are included. For example, this year, the Historically Black College and University (HBCU) indicator variable was not a significant predictor for the public and private not-for-profit institutions, but it had been in previous years. Ultimately, ten indicators possessed a statistically significant relationship with the overall six-year graduation rate for the public and private non-profit institutions, and three indicators were significant in the regression model for the private for-profit institutions. The reduced number of significant variables in the regression model for the private for-profit institutions occurs because (1) certain data are not available for many for-profit institutions (e.g., SAT and Barrons); (2) there is no variability in the data on some variables (e.g., no for-profit institutions are classified as HBCUs); and (3) the indicator was not significant for this group of institutions (e.g., size and commuter status). Some factors are weighted more heavily than others when calculating the overall similarity score, based on their relative influence on graduation rates in the regression model.  For example, the Estimated Median SAT/ACT equivalent of the freshman class counts for more than the overall number of undergraduates in the similarity score calculation because the regression analysis indicates that the Estimated Median SAT/ACT 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 by the algorithm, and the sum of all the weights is 1,000. (Note: This year-2009-the sum of all weights was 1,001, due to rounding.) Institutions 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.  

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.

Table 1: Public and Private not-for-profit Sector Weights

Estimated Median SAT or ACT equivalent of freshman class	402 points
Sector (Public vs. Private)	101 points
Percent of FTE undergraduate students age 25 and over	92 points
Admissions Selectivity, per Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges	97 points
Percent of Full-time, First-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who received federal grants	61 points
Status as a commuter campus	74 points
Number of full-time equivalent undergraduates	44 points
The percent of degrees awarded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics	44 points
Carnegie Classification	45 points
Percent of undergraduates who are enrolled part-time	41 points

Table 2: Private for-profit Sector Weights

Percent of FTE undergraduate students age 25 and over	435 points
The percent of degrees awarded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics	439 points
Carnegie Classification	126 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.

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 public and private not-for-profit institutions are compared with one another and not with the private for-profit institutions; the private for-profit institutions are only compared with one another.
• 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. (Due to the lack of availability of Student-Related Expenditures per FTE data in instances of private for-profit institutions, EdTrust substituted Instructional Expenditures per FTE for them instead).
• The percent of degrees awarded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics is greater than 30 percentage points above or below the target institution.  This filter is designed 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, per Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges, is different by two levels or more. Specialized institutions (e.g., art schools) are only compared with others in the same category. These data are not available for most private for-profit institutions. To capture some institutions that are missing Barron’s data, a Barron’s value of 1 (noncompetitive) was substituted for institutions that are classified as open admissions and special Barron’s categories were created for institutions classified as Special Focus (eg. arts schools) using the Carnegie Classification (Carnegie codes 24-32).
• Institutions whose Carnegie Classification is different by more than one degree level (PhD, Masters or Baccalaureate) are not compared. Special focus institutions (such as Jewish Theological Seminary of America ) are only compared to other similar special focus institutions.
• 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 one standard deviation, which is equivalent to 127 points. (For an explanation of ACT equivalent, see SAT and ACT Detail below) These data are not available for most private for-profit institutions.
• The percentage of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who received federal 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's 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 three years of 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 2001 to 2009.  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.  These changes also can affect how institutions compare in terms of graduation rates.

Finally, although the peer groups are generated using the most recent three years of data, unless otherwise noted, all data displayed on College Results Online is from the 2008-2009 academic year.

Data Definitions and Sources

The sections below list the definitions and sources for both the data indicators used in the peer grouping algorithm discussed above and the additional data made available in College Results Online.  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 and Progression Rates

1^st Year Retention Rate 2008 (Full-time students): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduates from Fall 2008 who are again enrolled in Fall 2009. (IPEDS)

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

Transfer Out Rate: This represents the percentage 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 at the initial institution. 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 Programs:  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)

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.

Total Degrees Awarded: This variable is derived directly from the Completions survey Grand total (CRACE24) for first majors (MAJORNUM=1) and Bachelor's degree (AWLEVEL=5) and the sum of all 6-digit CIP programs (CIPCODE=99) from IPEDS. If an institution submits data for more than one institution (parent/child) the total awards/degrees are allocated based on factors submitted by the institution.

Percent Degrees Awarded in Arts & Humanities: The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Codes 16, 23, 24, 38, 39, and 50. (IPEDS)

Percent Degrees Awarded in Social Sciences: The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Codes 5, 42, 45, and 54. (IPEDS)

Percent Degrees Awarded in Business: The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Code 52. (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)

Percent Degrees Awarded in Other Fields:  The percent of baccalaureate degrees awarded in CIP Codes 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 95. (IPEDS)

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

College Characteristics

Locale: There are 12 possible locale designations, using a classification system from the U.S. Census Bureau: (IPEDS)

• City: Large: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population of 250,000 or more.
• City: Midsize: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.
• City: Small: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 100,000.
• Suburb: Large: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population of 250,000 or more.
• Suburb: Midsize: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.
• Suburb: Small: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 100,000.
• Town: Fringe: Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area.
• Town: Distant: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area.
• Town: Remote: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles from an urbanized area.
• Rural: Fringe: Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster.
• Rural: Distant: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural
• Rural: Remote: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster.

Sector:  There are a number of different sectors of higher education, based on both length of academic programs (four-year, two-year, less than two-year), and financial status (public, private non-profit, private for-profit).  College Results Online only contains data for four-year institutions that are public, private non-profit, or private for-profit.  In addition, beginning with the 2002 cohort, some two-year institutions that offer Bachelor’s Degrees have been included also. (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 2005.  In calculating similarity scores for institutions, College Results Online uses the 2005 basic classification system, because it provides the greatest degree of differentiation among institutions, and has the strongest predictive power relative to institutional graduation rates.  Explanations for the meanings of the classifications are below.  The names in parenthesis below are the category names as they are displayed on College Results Online. More information about the Carnegie Classification system can be found here: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=791   

The current basic system utilizes the following categories:

HBCU: This category designates whether an institution has been designated as an 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 an Hispanic Serving Institution. For our purposes, a school is considered an Hispanic Serving Institution if 25% or more of their full-time equivalent undergraduates are Latino.

NCAA Division/Athletic Association: 

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. (IPEDS)

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 not accessible on College Results Online. 

Additionally, schools missing the Commuter variable were imputed using a ratio of dorm capacity to total undergraduates (IPEDS). If this ratio equaled 0.4 or lower, the institution was designated a commuter campus. Otherwise, the institution was designated a residential campus.

Student Characteristics

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

Percentage of Freshman Receiving Pell Grants: Percentage of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who received Pell Grants. This variable is available starting with the 2007-08 Financial Aid cohort (IPEDS). For all previous years, Average Percent Federal Aid (see definition below) was substituted for this variable.

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). Also includes need-based and merit-based educational assistance funds and training vouchers provided from other federal agencies and/or federally-sponsored educational benefits programs, including the Veteran's Administration, Department of Labor, and other federal agencies. (Used for reporting on the Student Financial Aid component) (IPEDS)

Percent of Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grants: Number of undergraduate students who received Pell Grants divided by the financial aid cohort. This variable is available starting with the 2007-08 Financial Aid cohort (IPEDS).

Financial Aid Cohort: The number of undergraduate students enrolled at an institution as of October 15 (or the institution’s official fall reporting date) for institutions with standard academic terms. Standard academic terms consist of the following calendar systems: semester, quarter, trimester, or 4-1-4. For institutions that do not operate on standard academic terms (program reporters) the number of undergraduate students is based on a full year cohort (unduplicated counts) of students enrolled during the 12-month period September 1 through August 31 (IPEDS).

Percent Underrepresented Minority: The percent of FTE undergraduates who are Black, Latino, or Native American.  (IPEDS)

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

Percent Nonresident Alien: The percent of FTE undergraduates who are Nonresident Aliens. (IPEDS)

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 less than 12 semester or quarter credits 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) Because collection of the age variable is only mandatory in fall of every odd year, odd year’s data was substituted for every even year’s data for this variable.

Admissions 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

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 student who applies. (IPEDS)

Estimated Median SAT / ACT:  Higher education institutions do not report median aggregate SAT or ACT data to IPEDS.  For the SAT, they report the 25^th and 75^th percentile score of students submitting scores, for the critical reading, mathematics, and writing sections. For the ACT, they report the 25^th and 75^th percentile scores for the English, math, and composite scores. 

The median composite ACT score is estimated by averaging the 25^th percentile and 75^th percentile composite ACT scores.  The median combined SAT score is estimated by adding the average of the 25^th and 75^th percentile critical reading score to the average of the 25^th and 75^th percentile math score.

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 25^th and 75^th 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)

Outside sources were used to confirm the validity of the SAT data reported to IPEDS.  In certain cases where there were tremendous inconsistencies in the IPEDS SAT data, SAT values from outside sources were substituted. 

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)

Cost and Financial Aid

In-State Published Tuition and Required Fees: In-state tuition and required fees are the tuition and fees charged by institutions to those students who meet the state's or institution's residency requirements.

Out-of-State Tuition and Fees:  Out-of-state tuition and fees are the tuition and fees charged by institutions to those students who do not meet the state's or institution's residency requirements.

Average Net Price After Grants: Average net price paid by first-time, full-time undergraduates who received grant or scholarship aid from federal, state, or local governments, or the institution.  Net price is calculated as the total cost of attendance minus the average amount of grant aid (from federal, state/local, and institutional sources).  (IPEDS)

Average Net Price for Low-Income Students ($0-30K): Average net price paid by first-time, full-time undergraduates who received Title IV aid.  Net price is calculated as the total cost of attendance minus the average amount of grant aid (from federal, state/local, and institutional sources) for students in the $0-30,000 income range.  (IPEDS)

Percentage of Freshman Receiving Pell Grants: Percentage of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who received Pell Grants. This variable is available starting with the 2008-09 Financial Aid cohort (IPEDS). For all previous years, Average Percent Federal Aid (see definition below) was substituted for this variable.

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). Also includes need-based and merit-based educational assistance funds and training vouchers provided from other federal agencies and/or federally-sponsored educational benefits programs , including the Veteran's Administration, Department of Labor, and other federal agencies. (Used for reporting on the Student Financial Aid component) (IPEDS)

Percent of Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grants: Number of undergraduate students who received Pell Grants divided by the financial aid cohort. This variable is available starting with the 2007-08 Financial Aid cohort (IPEDS).

Financial Aid Cohort: The number of undergraduate students enrolled at an institution as of October 15 (or the institution’s official fall reporting date) for institutions with standard academic terms. Standard academic terms consist of the following calendar systems: semester, quarter, trimester, or 4-1-4. For institutions that do not operate on standard academic terms (program reporters) the number of undergraduate students is based on a full year cohort (unduplicated counts) of students enrolled during the 12-month period September 1 through August 31 (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 2008-09 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 2008-09 academic year, Table 12.

Average Institutional Grant Aid / Full-Time First-Time Student: Average amount of institutional grants (scholarships/fellowships) received by full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students.

Average Student Loan (all sources): Average amount of student loan aid received from all sources by first-time, full-time undergraduates. (IPEDS)

Federal Loan Default Rate: These data represent the official two-year cohort default rates reported by the Department of Education.  A cohort default rate is the percentage of borrowers who entered into repayment during the cohort fiscal year and default on their federal loans within two years.  (Department of Education)

Finance and Faculty

The financial data shown on College Results Online is for the 2008-2009 academic year. The IPEDS reporting system requires universities to report expenditures broken down into a number of categories and sub-categories.  The sample survey forms used to report this information, which contain these categories, can be found here: (https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds_py/VisForms.aspx?survey=5&form=68&index=0&ri=0&show=part) for public institutions and here (https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds_py/VisForms.aspx?survey=5&form=68&index=0&ri=0&show=part) for private non-profit institutions and public institutions that use the FASB reporting method.

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 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)

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)

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)

In the 2008-2009 dataset, substitutions were made for Parent/Child schools for the Instructional Expenditures/FTE, Educational and General Expenditures/FTE, and Student and Related Expenditures/FTE variables using the Parent/Child allocation factor (PCF_F) found in the Response Status Section in the Finance Survey (IPEDS). For example, Rutgers University reports its finance data to IPEDS for the main campus only, but indicates how to allocate the funds between campuses using the allocation factors. For more information, please also see the Parent/child indicator (PRCH_F) and the Parent/child allocation method (PCF_M) variables in the IPEDS Finance Survey Response Status Section. For those Parent/Child schools without Allocation Factors in IPEDS (e.g. The Pennsylvania State University System and the University of Connecticut System), the figures for the Main Parent campus was substituted for all the children campus.

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

Because collection of the faculty variable is only mandatory in fall of every odd year, odd year’s data were substituted for every even year’s data for this variable.

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

Technical Advisory Committee

In creating the College Results Online Web tool, the Education Trust has been very fortunate to receive 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
  The Oprah Winfrey Foundation
• Colleen O’Brien, Former 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
• Kevin Carey, Research and Policy Manager Education Sector