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

Baccalaureate origins of doctoral recipients

Here's a little data for you: 61 years of it, to be precise.  The National Science Foundation publishes its data on US doctoral recipients sliced a variety of ways, including some non-restricted public use files that are aggregated at a high level to protect privacy. The interface is a little quirky, and if you're doing large sets, you need to break it into pieces (this was three extracts of about 20 years each), but it may be worth your time to dive in. I merged the data set with my mega table of IPEDS data, which allows you to look at institutions on a more granular level:  It's not surprising to find that University of Washington graduates have earned more degrees than graduates of Whitman College, for instance.  So, you can filter the data by Carnegie type, region or state, or control, for instance; or you can look at all 61 years, or any range of years between 1958 and 2018 and combine it with broad or specific academic fields using the controls. High school and indep

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

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects. I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you. However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in