Skip to main content

International Enrollment and Engagement

The world is shrinking, if not literally, then metaphorically.  Some colleges and universities embrace this in big ways, and this is the purpose of this visualization.

The Institute of International Education puts out good data on both international enrollment at US colleges and enrollment of US students in study abroad programs.  I've combined that data into two views that show both.

The top chart contains two sort-able and filterable bar charts.  It starts out sorted from large to small on the left column, namely study abroad students in 2014-2015; if you'd rather sort by total international enrollment, hover over that x-axis until the small icon pops up and click that.  Reset by using the button at lower left.

The bottom charts shows every college in the data set, with study abroad on the x-axis and international enrollment on the y-axis.  Each dot is a college, color coded by control.

As always, if you want to look at a smaller set of colleges, use the filters on the right.  They will control both charts at the same time.

Three things: First, the data are for all students, graduate and undergraduate.  The IIE data are not broken out, so it's not possible to determine meaningful percentages, except of course for colleges that only enroll undergrads.  Second, the data is only reported for colleges that enrolled 10 international students and/or sent 10 students abroad.  Assuming the colleges reported the data.

So, on that point:  I've checked this data where I seen anomalies; there are several obvious colleges where it's missing.  A final caveat: High numbers can be caused by lots of things, including location, wealth of the student body, and curricular offerings, among others. There is (or should be) no value judgment attached to the numbers you find here.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs

Yes, your yield rate is still falling, v 2020

I started doing this post on a regular basis several years ago, in response (if I recall) to a colleague talking about their Board of Trustees Chair insisting that "all we need to do" to bring enrollment back to its former level is to get the yield rate up.   That's the equivalent of saying all you need to do is straighten your drives and cut ten putts from each round, and you'll be a great golfer.  Moreover, it's based on the assumption that a falling yield rate is based on something you're doing or not doing.  The challenge is much larger, and a lot harder to address.  It's not a switch you flip. So we've got this: A look at applications, admits, and enrolls over the last twenty years, and three key ratios that are based on those numbers: Admit rate, or the percentage of applicants offered admission; yield rate, or the percentage of those offered admission who enroll; and the lesser-known draw rate, which is calculated by dividing the yield rate by t