UIC Freshman – One Year Later
A report on the one-year retention of the UIC freshman class

Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Research and Assessment Committee
Nick Ardinger, Campus Housing.
Pat Inman, OVCSA
Bob Lees, Counseling Center
Tony Martin, Campus Housing
Agnes Roche, Student Financial Aid
Kim Savage, Campus Auxiliary Services
Julian Szucko, Testing Services
Flecia Thomas, African American Academic Network
Lee Willis, African American Academic Network


January 2004



For information regarding this article, contact Patricia Inman at pinman@uic.edu or Julian Szucko atjjs@uic.edu.

UIC Freshman – One Year Later

The one-year retention rate is a first measure of academic success for students. Those who persist have found a place at UIC or, at least, figured out how to stay afloat. Enrollment for a second year is one of many milestones for students in pursuit of a degree. For UIC, ensuring that students reenroll for a second year is another step toward improving the graduation rate of each cohort of freshmen.

From an institutional effectiveness perspective, the one-year retention rate can be viewed in the context of:
• the adequacy of the admissions criteria in admitting students who can be successful at UIC;
• the appropriateness of the recruitment efforts in attracting students who are a good fit for the institution; and
• the effectiveness of institutional advising and support efforts to ensure that students who should be able to succeed have adequate ‘scaffolding’ within the institutional structure.

This document examines three cohorts of beginning freshmen – fall 1998, 2000 and 2002 and provides some context of the one-year retention and attrition cohorts.

What the One-Year Retention Rate Means to UIC
The one-year retention rate varies by racial/ethnic groups. This differential rate impacts the demographic profile of each group. For example, Asian Americans continue to enroll at UIC (are retained) at a higher rate than any other ethnic group. Asian Americans constituted approximately 29% of the beginning freshmen in fall 2000. The one-year retention for the entire cohort is almost 78%, but for Asian Americans the rate is 84%. Thus, Asian Americans represent about 29% of the cohort as they entered UIC, but about 31% of the entry cohort still enrolled at UIC in fall 2001. Table 1 provides a summary of these figures for several subgroups. This table is the one-year retention profile for the three cohorts. After several years of gradual increases in the overall retention rate, the Fall 2002 one-year retention rate fell slightly. The decrease was most dramatic for African American students.

Who Stays, Who Goes?
It is also interesting to examine the admissions qualifications of the students who stay in contrast to the students who leave for either academic reasons or of their own choice. Do pre-college criteria forecast academic success or failure? Examination of the three cohorts suggests that the composite ACT and HSPR, the primary components of UIC admissions criteria, are not necessarily good predictors of ability to succeed. This finding is supported by prior UIC studies (The ‘pipeline’ study of the 1996 cohort) and national surveys that find that the rigor of the secondary school curriculum is the best predictor of academic success in college (Adelman, 1999).

The overall one-year retention is around 75% across the three cohorts examined. Table 2 provides a snapshot of the pre-enrollment qualifications and first year academic performance (when applicable) of four groups: students who continue enrollment at UIC, those who left by choice (eligible to reenroll, but did not), those who were dropped for academic reasons, and those who left before completing their first semester. The pre-college qualifications, particularly the composite ACT score, are remarkably similar. As expected, the GPA of students who stay is higher than both the academic drops and the attrition by choice group. (NOTE: The latter group includes students who may have been on academic probation).

What Happens to Those Who Leave?
The pre-enrollment qualifications and to a lesser extent the performance of students while enrolled at UIC begs the question from a broader policy perspective. Do students who leave UIC continue postsecondary enrollment elsewhere. That is, if these students were not able to find a fit at UIC, did they subsequently enroll at another college or university? Figures 1, 2 and 3 provide a graphic detail to answer this question for the three cohorts examined here. This table provides a higher education view of each cohort. How did these student fare in the
postsecondary arena overall? -- not just at UIC. Data on subsequent enrollment are provided by the National Student Clearinghouse which collects enrollment information for colleges and universities across the country. While the NSC participation does not include all U.S. postsecondary institutions, NSC estimates that 87% of the students enrolled at postsecondary institutions nationwide appear in the database. Coverage in Illinois is higher.
Implications

The evidence from this analysis does not point to any specific aspect of student recruitment or admissions that explains first year attrition. More detailed analysis to include variables such as course enrollment may provide insight to the dilemma of first year attrition. In addition, tracking student use of support services may aid in understanding the effectiveness in these services in preventing attrition of qualified students.

The issue of academic major is also not addressed here. However, students who entered as undecided/undeclared appear as likely to show up in the attrition group as the retention group. Examination of the academic major of students in each group show that students who enter as undecided are as likely to continue at UIC as they are to leave.

table 1       table 2

 
Figure 1: Fall 1998 Freshman Cohort
 
 
 
 
 
Freshmen 1998

One-Year later

Transfer Records

Degrees
 
 
N=2947
right arrow
Enrolled at UIC



(by Fall 2003)
 
 


in Fall 1999




 
 


N=2204 (74.8%)




 
 


Not Enrolled at UIC




 
 


Fall 1999,
right arrow
76% transferred (N=335)
right arrow
49 bachelor
 
 


but eligible
 
33% to a 4-year institution
20 associate
 
 


N=441 (15%)

43% to a 2-year institution


 
 


Not Enrolled at UIC




 
 


Fall 1999,
right arrow
68% transferred (N=183)
right arrow
7 bachelor
 
 


Academic Drop
13% to a 4-year institution
10 associate
 
 


N=268

55% to a 2-year institution


 
 


9.10%




 
 


Did not complete
right arrow
53% transferred (N=18)
right arrow
4 bachelor
 
 


first term at UIC
29% to a 4-year institution
2 associate
 
 


N=34 (1.2%)

24% to a 2-year institution


 

back








 
Figure 2: Fall 2000 Freshman Cohort
 
 
 
 
 
Freshmen 2000
right arrow
One-Year later

Transfer Records

Degrees
 
 
N=2843

Enrolled at UIC



(by Fall 2003)
 
 


in Fall 2001




 
 


N=2204 (74.8%)




 
 


Not Enrolled at UIC




 
 


Fall 2001,
right arrow
72% transferred (N=261)
right arrow
6 bachelor
 
 


but eligible
30% to a 4-year institution
8 associate
 
 


N=364 (12.8%)

43% to a 2-year institution


 
 


Not Enrolled at UIC




 
 


Fall 2001,
right arrow
68% transferred (N=183)
right arrow