Skip to main content

All the 2015 Freshman Full-pays

There is no problem so great that it can't be solved by enrolling more full-pay students, it seems.  And in the minds of some, there is no solution so frequently tossed out there.  I've heard several presidents say, "We're doing this to attract more full-pay students."

Before we dive too deeply into this, a definition: A "Full-pay" student is not one who receives no aid; rather it's one who receives no institutional aid. Often these overlap considerably, but a student who receives a full Pell and/or state grant, and then takes out a PLUS loan is a full-pay; all the revenue to the college comes in cash, from another source, rather than its own financial aid funds.  The source of that cash matters not to the people who collect the tuition.  Got it?

This is a fairly deep dive into the IPEDS 2015 Fall Freshman data (there is 2016 admissions data, but financial aid data is only available for 2015-2016, so I used that admissions data to line things up.)  It's safe to say that things may have gotten slightly worse for most colleges since then, but there may be places where it's gotten better.  Discount at public institutions is less meaningful, so I've only included about 900 four-year, private, not-for-profit institutions from Doctoral, Masters, and Baccalaureate institutions with good data.

Eight views here: The first four are overviews, the next three are details within the larger context, and the final view is single institutions.  Colleges are banded into groups by selectivity in Fall, 2015, with more selective on the left, moving to the right.  Those groups are labeled "Under 15%," meaning the admit rate was under 15% in 2015; !5% to 30%, etc.  Open Admission at the right simply means the college generally admits all applicants, and is not required to report admissions data to IPEDS,

Ready? Use the tabs across the top to navigate.

1) Institutions and Full Pays: Looking colleges by selectivity, what percentage of institutions fall into each group, and what percentage of full-pay students attend.  The orange line shows that 2.45% of colleges are in the most selective group, but 14.43% of full-pays (purple line) enroll there.  Sums accumulate to the right.

2) Enrollments and Full Pay: Similar data, except now the red line shows what percentage of freshman overall are enrolled in these institutions.  For instance, 5.27% of all freshmen, but 14.43% of all full-pay students, enroll in the under 15% group.  This also shows running percentages, so by the time you get to all colleges up to and including 45% to 60%, the numbers are 73% and 81%.

 3) Freshman and Full-Pay Percentages: These are discreet.  The teal colored bar, for instance, shows only students in that category (135,381 freshmen) and the percentage of students in that group who are full-pay (4.9%).

4) Full-pay Destinations: Where do full-pay students enroll?  This shows by region and selectivity, and you can filter to a single state if you'd like.  It just shows Fall, 2015 raw numbers.

5) 6) and 7) are similar charts, with the only difference being the value displayed.  In these three, dots represent a single institution, colored by region.  They're grouped by selectivity (left to right position), and then the vertical position shows the value.  Full-pays shows the percentage of full-pays in the 2015 freshman class. Discount shows discount rate (the sum of institutional financial aid divided by the sum of tuition and fees).  Average net revenue shows just that, which is the actual cash a college generates per student.  Use the highlight function to show a single college or highlight a region for comparison.

And finally, 8) Single Institution allows you to see those three variables for one institutions at once. The are colored by region. You can sort by any column just by hovering over the axis and clicking the pop-up icon.  Sort descending by value, ascending by value, or alpha by name as you cycle through the clicks.

If your data are wrong, talk to your IR office.  If all data are wrong, drop me an email as I may have made a calculation error.  Otherwise, drop me a note and let me know what you think.


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

On Rankings, 1911, and Economic Mobility

If you're alive today, you have lived your whole life with college rankings.  Yes, even you.  You may not have knows you were living in the time of college rankings, but indeed, you have been, unless you were born before 1911 (or maybe earlier.)  If you're interested, you can read this Twitter thread from 2020 where I discuss them and include snippets of those 1911 rankings as well as those from 1957, written by Chesley Manly. You can read for yourself, or you can trust me, that in fact the rankings as we know them have been surprisingly consistent over time, and most people would have only minor quibbles with the ratings from 1911.  Perhaps that's because they have always tended to measure the same thing. But what if we did different rankings?  No, not like the Princeton Review where they make an attempt to measure best party school, or best cafeteria food, or worst social life.  Something more quantifiable and concrete, although still, admittedly, a hard thing to get rig

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