U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2005–152

Waiting to Attend 

College

Undergraduates Who 

Delay Their Postsecondary 

Enrollment

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2005–152 

Waiting to Attend 

College 

Undergraduates Who Delay 

Their Postsecondary 

Enrollment 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report 

June 2005 

Laura Horn 

Emily Forrest Cataldi 

Anna Sikora 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Acting Commissioner 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and 

reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate 

to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United 

States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such 

statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and 

report on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality 

data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, 

practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information 

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would 

like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to: 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Institute of Education Sciences 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006–5651 

June 2005 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov. 

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 

Suggested Citation 

Horn, L., Cataldi, E.F., and Sikora, A. (2005). Waiting to Attend College: Undergraduates Who Delay Their Postsecondary 

Enrollment (NCES 2005–152). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

For ordering information on this report, write 

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794–1398 

or call toll free 1–877–4ED–PUBS; or order online at http://www.edpubs.org 

Content Contact 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502–7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov 
 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Among students who enrolled in postsecondary 

education for the first time in 1995–96, about onethird had waited a year or more after graduating 

from high school to attend.1

 Students who delay 

their postsecondary enrollment may do so for 

numerous reasons. Some may not be academically 

prepared to attend or have the financial resources 

necessary to enroll. Others may serve in the 

military first, find employment, or start a family 

before enrolling. Students who delay enrollment 

for a long period of time are likely to enroll to 

advance in or change their careers. For whatever 

reasons students wait to enroll in college, those 

who do delay are at considerable risk of not 

completing a postsecondary credential when 

compared with their peers who enroll immediately 

after high school graduation (Carroll 1989; Tuma 

and Geis 1995; Berkner, Cuccaro-Alamin, and 

McCormick 1996; Horn 1996; Berkner, He, and 

Forrest Cataldi 2002). However, it may not be 

entirely appropriate to compare the outcomes of 

delayed entrants with those who attend college 

right after high school. This study shows that the 

two groups differ in many respects, especially in 

their academic preparation for college and their 

educational objectives. Furthermore, delayed 

entrants are not a homogeneous group. Students 

who delay postsecondary enrollment may range in 

age from 18 to 80,2 and those who delay a short 

amount of time may have very different reasons 

for enrolling than those who delay a decade or 

more. 

1

 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

(BPS:96/01) 

2

 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000) 

The purpose of this report is to provide a 

profile of students who delay their postsecondary 

enrollment and then to distinguish among students 

who delay their postsecondary enrollment with 

respect to how long they wait to enroll. In 

particular, it addresses the ways in which those 

who delay a shorter amount of time differ from 

those who delay longer in terms of their 

demographic characteristics, why they enroll, 

where they enroll, the types of programs or 

degrees they pursue, and their likelihood of 

earning a credential. 

The data used for this study come from three 

sources. The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) is used to 

provide a snapshot of the demographic and 

postsecondary enrollment characteristics of all 

undergraduates who delay enrollment. The 

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 

(NELS:88/2000) is used to examine the high 

school academic preparation of 1992 high school 

graduates who delayed postsecondary enrollment, 

and the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) is used 

to analyze the experiences of delayed entrants in 

their first postsecondary enrollment with respect to 

how long they waited to enroll and how likely they 

were to complete their postsecondary education. 

The key variable in this study is an indicator of 

whether students delayed their postsecondary 

enrollment. The variable was computed by 

subtracting the calendar year of high school 

graduation from the calendar year of 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

postsecondary enrollment.3

 Students who do not 

delay their enrollment are typically those who 

graduate from high school in June and enroll in 

postsecondary education the following September. 

However, because the delayed enrollment variable 

is derived only from the calendar years of the two 

points in time, a small percentage of cases (about 2 

percent) are coded as having delayed 1 year when 

the length of delay is actually less than a year, 

typically a semester. 

The analysis uses standard t tests to determine 

statistical significance of differences between 

estimates, one-way Analysis of Variance 

(ANOVA) to detect trends and to control for 

multiple paired comparisons, and a multivariate 

analysis to control for the common variation of 

related independent variables. All differences 

noted in the text are statistically significant at the p 

< .05 level. (See appendix B for more information 

about data and methods.) The analysis presented in 

this report is entirely descriptive in nature. While 

associations are noted and discussed, no causal 

inferences should be made. 

An Overview of Delayed Entrants 

Delayed entrants are by definition older than 

students who enroll in postsecondary education 

immediately after graduating from high school. 

Therefore, delayed entrants would be expected to 

have gained life experiences related to age such as 

family formation. Yet in addition to these 

experiences, the findings from the NPSAS data 

illustrate sharp contrasts between delayed and 

immediate entrants in terms of other demographic 

characteristics. Compared with students who 

3

 The actual dates of high school graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment, which include months and years, 

were missing in too many cases to provide reliable estimates; 

however, it was possible to impute the year if it was missing 

based on the students’ age and other timing information. 

enrolled in postsecondary education immediately 

after high school graduation, delayed entrants 

were more likely to come from low-income 

families,4

 to be single parents, to be Black and 

were less likely to be White (figure A). Delayed 

entrants also were more likely than immediate 

entrants to be Hispanic, American Indian, to have 

parents who never attended postsecondary 

education, and to speak a language other than 

English as their primary language (table 1). 

Students who delay their postsecondary 

enrollment are more likely than those who do not 

delay to follow a postsecondary enrollment path 

focused on vocational training and short-term 

programs. For example, in 1999–2000, compared 

with undergraduates who enrolled immediately 

after high school, delayed entrants were more 

likely to attend public 2-year colleges and private 

for-profit institutions (figure B). Similarly, 

delayed entrants were more likely than immediate 

entrants to be enrolled in programs leading to 

vocational certificates and associate’s degrees and 

less likely to be in bachelor’s degree programs 

(figure C). Postsecondary attendance and work 

patterns also differed between the two groups. 

Delayed entrants were less likely (or able) to 

attend classes on a full-time basis (figure D) and 

were more likely than immediate entrants to work 

more than 30 hours a week while enrolled in 

school (figure E). 

Taken together, these findings from the NPSAS 

data, which provide a snapshot of all 

undergraduates in 1999–2000, indicate that 

delayed entrants begin their postsecondary 

education at a relative disadvantage compared 

with their peers who enroll in postsecondary 

education immediately after high school 

4

 The income finding is based on family income for students 

who are considered dependents (typically those under age 24). 

iv 
Figure A. Percentage of 1999–2000 undergraduates with various student characteristics, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment 

Percent No delay Delayed 1 or more years 

Low family 1 income 

Neither parent 

with 

postsecondary 

education 

White, non- Black, non- Married with 

Hispanic Hispanic children or 

other 

dependents 

Various student characteristics 

Single parents Non-English 

primary 

language 

22 29 

70 

10 9 7 11 

30 

52 

62 

14 

26 20 16 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

—

Figure A.—

—

Figure B.—

Executive Summary 

1 Based only on dependent students’ (typically age 24 or younger) family income. 

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). 

Figure B. Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ type of first institution, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment 

34 

55 

5 8 

56 

29 

11 7 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent No delay Delayed 1 or more years 

Public 2-year 4-year For-profit Other 1 

Type of first institution 

1 All other types of institutions including public less-than-2-year and private not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). 

v 
Figure C. Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ degree program, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment 

4 9 

32 

55 

5 

22 

46 

26 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent No delay Delayed 1 or more years 

None Vocational Associate’s Bachelor’s 

certificate degree degree 

Degree program 

—

Figure D.—

—

Figure D.—

Executive Summary 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). 

Figure D. Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ attendance status, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment 

Percent No delay Delayed 1 or more years 

Exclusively Mixed full/ Half-time Less than 

full-time part-time half-time 

Attendance status 

60 

14 14 13 

39 

12 

23 26 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). 

vi 
Figure E. Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ employment intensity while enrolled, 

by timing of postsecondary enrollment 

Percent 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

No delay Delayed 1 or more years 

19 

47 

33 

19 

28 

54 

Did not work 30 hours or less More than 30 hours 

Employment intensity while enrolled 

 

 

 

—

Figure F.—

Executive Summary 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). 

graduation. They are more likely to come from 

low-income families, their parents are less likely 

to have attended postsecondary education, and 

they are more likely to have family responsibilities 

of their own. Once they enroll in postsecondary 

education, delayed entrants spend less time 

attending classes and more time working while 

enrolled and are more likely to pursue vocational 

training and short-term credentials. 

High School Dropout Risk Factors and 

Academic Preparation 

The NELS data provide evidence of notable 

differences between delayed and immediate 

entrants with respect to their high school academic 

experiences. The analysis examined 1992 high 

school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary 

education by 2000, the time of the last NELS 

follow-up, and focused on three measures of 

academic preparation—highest mathematics 

course completed,5

 the overall academic intensity 

of students’ high school curriculum,6

 and their 

college readiness.7

 In all three measures delayed 

entrants trailed their counterparts who did not 

delay. 

In mathematics coursetaking, one-quarter of 

delayed entrants completed courses no higher than 

those identified as nonacademic (such as remedial 

or business mathematics), compared with 7 

percent of immediate entrants (figure F). 

Conversely, nearly half of immediate entrants (49 

percent) completed an advanced mathematics 

course (i.e., beyond algebra 2), compared with 15 

percent of delayed entrants. 

Substantial differences between the two groups 

were also evident when examining the overall 

intensity or rigor of students’ high school 

5

 Developed by Burkam and Lee (2003). 

6

 Developed by Adelman (1999). 

7

 Developed by Berkner and Chavez (1998). 

vii 
Figure F. Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 2000, the 

percentage distribution of highest level of mathematics courses completed, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment 

Highest level of mathematics courses 

Delayed 1 or more years No delay 

7% 15% 

25% 

49% 

44% 

60% 

None or nonacademic courses 

Courses through algebra 2 

Any advanced course (beyond algebra 2) 

—

Figure F.—

Figure F.—

Executive Summary 

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 

1988 (NELS:88/2000). 

curriculum. One-quarter of delayed entrants scored 

in the bottom 20 percent of the academic intensity 

measure, compared with 8 percent of immediate 

entrants (figure G). Conversely, 29 percent of 

immediate entrants scored in the top 20 percent, 

compared with 7 percent of delayed entrants. 

Consistent with their lower levels of academic 

preparation, nearly 6 in 10 delayed entrants (59 

percent) were not academically prepared to 

undertake 4-year college-level work (figure H). 

The same was found for one-quarter of immediate 

entrants. Moreover, for those students who were 

qualified, 1 in 10 delayed entrants were in the top 

25 percent, compared with just over 4 in 10 (44 

percent) of immediate entrants. 

Duration of Delay 

Figure I displays the timing of enrollment and 

median ages for students who first enrolled in 

postsecondary education in 1995–96. Delayed 

entrants were relatively evenly distributed across 

the four time periods: 9 percent delayed no more 

than 1 year, 8 percent delayed 2–4 years, 7 percent 

delayed 5–9 years, and 12 percent waited 10 or 

viii 
Figure G. Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 2000, the 

percentage distribution of academic curriculum intensity level, by timing of postsecondary 

enrollment 

1 

High school academic curriculum intensity level 

No delay Delayed 1 or more years 

8% 7% 

25% 

29% 

63% 69% 

Bottom 20 percent Middle 60 percent Top 20 percent 

 

 

—

Figure G.—

Figure G.—

Executive Summary 

1 High school academic curriculum intensity level is a composite measure of students’ highest level of mathematics, total 

mathematics credits, total Advanced Placement courses, total English credits, total foreign language credits, total science 

credits, total core laboratory science credits, total social science credits, and total computer science credits. For more 

information, see Adelman, Daniel, and Berkovits (2003). 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 

1988 (NELS:88/2000). 

more years after high school graduation to enroll 

in postsecondary education.8

 How long delayed 

8

 For the remainder of the analysis, the results presented are 

based entirely on data from the BPS longitudinal study of 

students who first began their postsecondary studies in the 

1995–96 academic year. Unlike the NPSAS sample, BPS does 

not include students who had enrolled in postsecondary 

education before their current enrollment (i.e., excludes 

returning students). And unlike NELS, the BPS cohort 

represents all beginning postsecondary students regardless of 

how long they waited to enroll. The postsecondary 

experiences captured by the BPS survey, therefore, represent 

the very first postsecondary enrollment after graduating from 

high school, regardless of how many years elapsed between 

high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment. 

entrants waited to enroll in postsecondary 

education varied with demographic characteristics, 

enrollment status, reasons for enrolling, and the 

likelihood of finishing a credential. 

Student Characteristics 

Because of their age differences, one expects 

delayed entrants as a whole to differ from 

immediate entrants in terms of family formation 

and the likelihood of having children. Yet even 

ix 
Figure H. Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 2000, the 

percentage distribution of a measure of 4-year college qualification, by timing of postsecondary 

enrollment 

Percent No delay 100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Not qualified Bottom 25 percent Middle 50 percent Top 25 percent 

College qualification1 

24 

16 17 

44 

59 

19 13 10 

Delayed 1 or more years 

—

Figure H.—

Figure H.—

—

Figure I.—

Executive Summary 

1 College qualification is a composite index of 4-year college readiness or qualification based on five possible measures of 

academic performance: cumulative academic coursework GPAs, senior class rank, the NELS 1992 test scores, and the SAT and 

ACT college entrance examination scores. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 

1988 (NELS:88/2000). 

Figure I. Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, by number of years 

between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment, and median age 

No delay (66%)

Median age 17

1 year (9%)

Median age 19

2–4 years (8%)

Median age 21

5–9 years (7%)

Median age 25

10 or more years (12%)

Median age 37 10 or more years (12%)

5–9 years (7%)

2–4 years (8%)

1 year (9%) No delay (66%)

10 or more years (12%) 

Median age 37 

5–9 years (7%) 

Median age 25 

2–4 years (8%) 

Median age 21 

1 year (9%) No delay (66%) 

Median age 19 Median age 17 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

x 
 

 

 

Executive Summary 

when comparing delayed entrants who are 

relatively young (i.e., those who delayed less than 

5 years) to immediate entrants, marked differences 

were apparent. For example, about one-fifth of the 

youngest delayed entrants—those who delayed no 

more than 1 year (median age 19)—and nearly 

one-third of those who delayed 2–4 years (median 

age 21) had children or were responsible for other 

dependents, compared with 2 percent of 

immediate entrants.9

 These findings indicate that 

even relatively young delayed entrants have 

considerable family responsibilities. 

The length of time students delayed 

postsecondary enrollment also varied by income 

level (table 5).10 Based on their age and length of 

time in the labor market, one would expect those 

who delayed 5 or more years to have higher 

incomes than those who delayed a shorter period 

of time. This was clearly observed: 42 percent and 

38 percent, respectively, of those who delayed 1 

year or 2–4 years were in the lowest income 

group, compared with 26 percent and 17 percent, 

respectively, of those who delayed 5–9 years or 10 

or more years. Thus, even though delayed entrants 

as a whole were generally more likely than those 

who did not delay to be in the lowest income level, 

as the duration of delay increased, the likelihood 

of being in the lowest income level declined. 

In addition to income group differences, the 

proportion of White students increased with the 

duration of delay, from 62 percent of those who 

delayed no more than 1 year to 78 percent of those 

9

 See bottom of table 4 (“Independent with dependents”) for 

proportion of students with children or dependents. 

10 In this analysis, the income distribution is based on family 

income for dependent students (i.e., those students who are 

considered financially dependent on their parents for financial 

aid purposes) and student income for those who are 

independent. As discussed above, about three-quarters of 

those who delayed enrollment by 1 year were dependent, as 

were about one-half of those who delayed 2–4 years, while 

students who delayed 5 or more years were nearly all 

independent. 

who delayed 10 or more years. So as the time 

between high school graduation and postsecondary 

enrollment went up, the likelihood of being in the 

lowest income level declined while the likelihood 

of being White increased. These patterns suggest 

that younger delayed entrants (i.e., those who 

delayed less than 5 years) tend to be at a greater 

socioeconomic disadvanage than those who 

delayed longer. 

Enrollment Characteristics 

When examining programs of postsecondary 

study among delayed entrants in relation to the 

length of time they waited to enroll, clear patterns 

emerged. For example, the likelihood of being 

enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program declined 

with each successive delay group from 30 percent 

among those who delayed a year to 8 percent of 

those who delayed 10 or more years (table 6). 

Conversely, the longer students delayed 

enrollment, the more likely they were to be 

pursuing a program leading to a vocational 

certificate, from about one-quarter (23 percent) of 

those who delayed a year to nearly one-half (45 

percent) of those who delayed 10 or more years. 

Delayed entrants reported relatively high 

educational expectations, but they also varied by 

length of delay. When asked to report the highest 

level of education they ever expected to complete, 

nearly 6 in 10 delayed entrants reported 

aspirations for a bachelor’s degree (28 percent) or 

an advanced degree (29 percent). Aspirations for 

advanced degrees, however, declined with the 

length of time between high school graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment—from 42 percent of 

those who delayed 1 year to 13 percent of those 

who delayed a decade or more—while aspirations 

for credentials below a bachelor’s degree 

increased proportionately from 13 percent to 48 

percent as delay increased. The results indicate 

that as delayed entrants age, they tend to look to 

xi 
 

Executive Summary 

postsecondary education for vocational training, 

while those who delay shorter periods of time 

continue to report aspirations for bachelor’s or 

even advanced degrees. 

Why They Enrolled 

When asked why they decided to enroll in 

postsecondary education, students who delayed 

enrollment reported various reasons as important, 

most of which were related to job training and 

career advancement. Reasons varied with how 

long delayed entrants waited to enroll. For 

example, reporting the need for training to enter 

the workforce declined as the duration of time 

between high school graduation and postsecondary 

enrollment increased (table 8). Conversely, 

students who reported enrolling in postsecondary 

education to change careers or improve job skills 

were more likely to do so as the duration of time 

between high school graduation and postsecondary 

enrollment increased. 

Overall Persistence and Attainment 

As was found in earlier research, the results 

from this study confirmed that students who delay 

their postsecondary enrollment earn postsecondary 

credentials at lower rates than their peers who 

enroll immediately after high school. Among 

1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, 40 

percent of delayed entrants had earned some kind 

of postsecondary credential within 6 years, 

compared with 58 percent of immediate entrants 

(table 9). In contrast, 47 percent of delayed 

entrants were not enrolled in 2001 and had not 

earned a credential, compared with 27 percent of 

immediate entrants. However, this study was more 

concerned with the association between length of 

delay and educational outcomes among delayed 

entrants. For example, as the length of delay 

between high school graduation and college 

enrollment increased, the likelihood of attaining a 

bachelor’s degree within 6 years declined. 

However, degree goals differed among groups 

who delayed shorter and longer periods of time. 

Therefore, it was necessary to conduct a 

multivariate analysis in order to control for 

differing degree goals and other factors related to 

the duration of delay. 

When taking into account length of delay as 

well as the common variation of variables related 

to both delayed enrollment and degree completion 

(including gender, race/ethnicity, institution 

attended, attendance status, degree program, 

educational expectations, and remedial 

coursetaking), the likelihood of delayed entrants 

completing a postsecondary credential or still 

being enrolled was significantly lower than 

immediate entrants only for those who delayed no 

more than 1 year, while the results for students 

who delayed longer periods of time were not 

statistically significant (table 11). 

Conclusions 

The results of this study demonstrate that 

students who delay their postsecondary enrollment 

a year or more after high school graduation differ 

fundamentally from those who enroll immediately. 

Early on, delayed entrants are more likely to have 

family and educational experiences that place 

them at greater risk of not completing their 

postsecondary education. When delayed entrants 

enroll in postsecondary education, they do so 

primarily to gain or enhance their work skills and 

tend to enroll in shorter term vocational programs 

rather than in bachelor’s degree programs. 

xii 
 

 

Executive Summary 

Yet delayed entrants are not a homogenous 

group. Who they are and what kinds of 

postsecondary programs they pursue varied with 

how long they waited to enroll. In general, the 

findings from this study indicated that as the 

length of delay increased, students were more 

likely to be White, less likely to be in the lowest 

income group, and more likely to enroll in 

programs leading to vocational certificates. 

While delayed entrants as a whole were much 

less likely than immediate entrants to complete a 

postsecondary degree or to remain enrolled for 6 

years, results of the multivariate analysis indicate 

that students who delayed the shortest amount of 

time—no more than 1 year after high school 

graduation—remained significantly less likely 

than immediate entrants to complete a degree, 

while the results for those who delayed longer 

were not significant. Students who delay no more 

than a year are typically 19 years old when they 

enroll in college and about 1 in 5 already have 

children. Nevertheless, despite their relative 

disadvantages, 43 percent of students who delayed 

their enrollment no more than 1 year had 

successfully completed a postsecondary credential, 

including one-fifth who earned a bachelor’s degree 

in 6 years. 

xiii 
Foreword 

This report describes the characteristics and outcomes of students who delay enrollment in 

postsecondary education. It covers the ways in which the demographic, enrollment, and 

attendance patterns of students who delay postsecondary enrollment differ from their peers who 

enroll immediately after high school graduation. In addition, the report discusses how students 

who delay a shorter amount of time differ from those who delay longer. 

This report is based on data from the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:2000), the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/2000), and 

the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). NPSAS:2000 is 

the fifth in a series of surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. Each NPSAS is a 

comprehensive nationwide study to determine how students and their families pay for 

postsecondary education. 

NELS:88/2000 is a longitudinal study of a cohort of students who were in the 8th grade in 

1988. These students were followed up in 1990, 1992 (when most had finished high school), 

1994, and 2000 (about 8 years after most had graduated from high school). The NELS data are 

used to compare the academic preparation of students who enroll in college immediately after 

high school graduation with those who delay their enrollment. 

The BPS survey is a longitudinal component of the 1996 NPSAS, a nationally 

representative sample that includes students enrolled in all types of postsecondary institutions. 

The BPS:96/01 cohort consists of students in the NPSAS:96 sample who were identified as 

having enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time during the 1995–96 academic year. 

The estimates presented in the report were produced using the NCES Data Analysis System 

(DAS), a web-based software application that allows users to specify and generate tables for the 

NPSAS:2000, NELS:88/2000, and BPS:96/01 surveys. The DAS produces the design-adjusted 

standard errors necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences in the estimates. 

The DAS for NPSAS:2000, BPS:96/01, and other NCES surveys, as well as many descriptive 

methodology reports, can be accessed from the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov/DAS). For 

more information on the DAS, consult appendix B of this report. 

xiv 
Acknowledgments 

The authors appreciate the contributions of staff members at MPR Associates, NCES and 

other U.S. Department of Education offices, and nongovernmental agencies to the production of 

this report. At MPR Associates, Francesca Tussing supplied expert assistance in the production 

of the report. Andrea Livingston and Ellen Bradburn provided helpful editorial and substantive 

reviews. Annabelle Yang formatted the final report, and Barbara Kridl proofed the report and 

oversaw final production. 

Outside of MPR Associates, C. Dennis Carroll at NCES oversaw the production and 

development of the report through all stages, providing feedback on all drafts. Paula Knepper 

was the senior technical advisor for the report. Shelley Burns and Marilyn Seastrom provided the 

technical and methodological review. Clifford Adelman (Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education) reviewed the preliminary results. 

We would also like to thank Daniel Goldenberg (Office of the Deputy Secretary), Larry 

Suter (National Science Foundation), and Dongbin Kim (National Association of Independent 

Colleges and Universities) for reviewing the draft report and providing helpful comments. 

Duc-Le To of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) coordinated the final review by two 

outside reviewers. The authors thank all of these reviewers for their contributions. 

xv 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

 

Table of Contents 

Page 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. iii 

Foreword 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xx 

.................................................................................................................................... xiv 

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... xv 

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. xviii 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 

Data and Methods.................................................................................................................. 2 

Organization of the Report.................................................................................................... 5 

Delayed Entrants: An Overview .............................................................................................. 7 

Demographic Characteristics ................................................................................................ 7 

High School Dropout Risk Factors and Academic Preparation............................................ 7 

Postsecondary Enrollment Patterns....................................................................................... 11 

Duration of Delay ...................................................................................................................... 13 

Student Characteristics.......................................................................................................... 13 

Enrollment Characteristics .................................................................................................... 17 

The Interim Years and Reasons for Enrolling ....................................................................... 21 

Why They Enrolled ............................................................................................................... 22 

Persistence and Degree Completion ........................................................................................ 23 

Controlling for Related Variables ......................................................................................... 25 

Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................... 33 

References .................................................................................................................................. 35 

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 37 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. 49 

Appendix C—Supplemental Table.......................................................................................... 63 

xvii 
List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 Percentage distributions of selected student characteristics among all undergraduates, 

by timing of their postsecondary enrollment: 1999–2000 .............................................. 8 

2 Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 

2000, percentage distributions of high school dropout risk status and academic 

preparation measures, by timing of their postsecondary enrollment: 1999–2000 .......... 9 

3 Percentage distributions of enrollment and employment characteristics of all 

undergraduates, by timing of their postsecondary enrollment: 1999–2000.................... 12 

4 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students’ dependency 

and marital status, by number of years between high school graduation and first 

postsecondary enrollment................................................................................................ 15 

5 Percentage distributions of selected student characteristics among 1995–96 beginning 

postsecondary students, by number of years between high school graduation and first 

postsecondary enrollment................................................................................................ 16 

6 Percentage distributions of enrollment characteristics of 1995–96 beginning 

postsecondary students, by number of years between high school graduation and first 

postsecondary enrollment................................................................................................ 18 

7 Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who reported engaging in 

various types of activities between high school graduation and first postsecondary 

enrollment, by number of years between high school graduation and postsecondary 

enrollment........................................................................................................................ 21 

8 Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who reported various 

reasons as important for enrolling in postsecondary education, by number of years 

between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment ............................. 22 

9 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed 

postsecondary credentials or were still enrolled in postsecondary education as of 

2001, by number of years between high school graduation and first postsecondary 

enrollment........................................................................................................................ 23 

xviii 
List of Tables 

Table Page 

10 Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed a 

postsecondary credential or were still enrolled in 2001, and least squares coefficients 

and standard errors, by timing of their postsecondary enrollment and other selected 

student and enrollment characteristics ............................................................................ 26 

11 Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed a 

postsecondary credential or were still enrolled in 2001, and least squares coefficients 

and standard errors, by number of years between high school graduation and first 

postsecondary enrollment and other selected student and enrollment characteristics .... 29 

Appendix 

B-1 Standard errors for table 6: Percentage distributions of enrollment characteristics of 

1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, by number of years between high school 

graduation and first postsecondary enrollment ............................................................... 54 

C-1 Percentage distributions among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who 

delayed enrollment 1 or more years, by selected student and enrollment 

characteristics.................................................................................................................. 65 

xix 
 

 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary 

A Percentage of 1999–2000 undergraduates with various student characteristics, by 

timing of postsecondary enrollment................................................................................ v 

B Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ type of first institution, by 

timing of postsecondary enrollment................................................................................ v 

C Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ degree program, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment................................................................................................ vi 

D Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ attendance status, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment................................................................................................ vi 

E Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates’ employment intensity while 

enrolled, by timing of postsecondary enrollment............................................................ vii 

F Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 

2000, the percentage distribution of highest level of mathematics courses completed, 

by timing of postsecondary enrollment........................................................................... viii 

G Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 

2000, the percentage distribution of academic curriculum intensity level, by timing of 

postsecondary enrollment................................................................................................ ix 

H Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 

2000, the percentage distribution of a measure of 4-year college qualification, by 

timing of postsecondary enrollment................................................................................ x 

I Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, by number of 

years between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment and median 

age ................................................................................................................................... x 

Text 

1 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, by number of 

years between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment and median 

age ................................................................................................................................... 14 

xx 
 

 

Introduction 

Many people do not enter postsecondary education immediately after high school 

graduation. Among all undergraduates enrolled in 1999–2000, for example, just over one-third 

(37 percent) waited at least 1 year to enroll.1

 Previous research based on earlier data has shown 

that students who delay their postsecondary enrollment are very different from those who enroll 

immediately after high school (Horn and Premo 1996; Horn 1996). In addition to being older, 

delayed entrants enroll in college with fewer resources than other students (e.g., they are more 

likely to be from low-income families), and they are more likely to be Black and less likely to be 

White. Delayed entrants also are more likely to have family responsibilities and to be single 

parents. These earlier studies have also shown that when delayed entrants enroll in postsecondary 

education, they are more likely than their peers who do not delay to attend public 2-year colleges 

and less likely to attend 4-year institutions. All of these characteristics are related to lower rates 

of postsecondary degree completion (Berkner, Cuccaro-Alamin, and McCormick 1996; Horn 

1996; Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002). As a result, students who delay enrollment are at greater 

risk of not completing their postsecondary education than their counterparts who enroll 

immediately after high school graduation (Carroll 1989; Tuma and Geis 1995; Berkner, CuccaroAlamin, and McCormick 1996; Horn 1996; Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002). 

While these studies have demonstrated the relative disadvantage of students who delay 

enrollment in general, they were based on earlier data and delayed enrollment was not the focus 

of the analysis. Students may delay enrollment for many different reasons. Some may not be 

academically or financially prepared to attend, others may serve in the military or try working 

first, and still others may not be interested in attending. Those who enroll in postsecondary 

education many years after high school graduation may be changing careers or seeking 

additional training to advance in their occupations. 

By definition, delayed entrants are older than students who enroll right after high school. 

However, students who delay postsecondary enrollment may range in age from 18 to 80,2

 and 

those who delay a short amount of time may have very different reasons for enrolling than those 

who delay a decade or more. The purpose of this report is to distinguish among students who 

delay their postsecondary enrollment with respect to how long they wait to enroll. In particular, 

1

 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) 

2

 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). 

1 
 

 

 

 

Introduction 

this report seeks to examine the ways in which those who delay a shorter amount of time differ 

from those who delay longer in terms of why they enroll, where they enroll, the types of 

programs or degrees they pursue, and their likelihood of earning a credential. 

Specifically, the study addresses the following questions: 

• Who delays postsecondary enrollment, and how do they differ from those who do not 

delay with respect to their demographic characteristics, high school academic 

preparation, and postsecondary enrollment characteristics? 

• How do students who delay a shorter amount of time (e.g., 4 years or less) differ from 

those who delay longer with respect to why they enrolled, where they enrolled, and 

their educational experiences? 

• How is the length of delay between high school graduation and postsecondary 

enrollment related to the likelihood of completing a postsecondary credential? 

Data and Methods 

The data used for the study come from three sources. The 1999–2000 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) is used to profile all delayed entrants who were 

enrolled in the 1999–2000 academic year. The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 

(NELS:88/2000) is used to analyze the high school academic preparation of students who delay 

postsecondary enrollment, and the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal 

Study (BPS:96/01) is used to examine the characteristics of delayed entrants and their likelihood 

of completing their postsecondary education in relation to how long they waited to enroll. 

NPSAS:2000 surveyed a nationally representative sample of all students enrolled in 

postsecondary education in the 1999–2000 academic year. The NPSAS survey, which is 

conducted every 3 to 4 years, targets the population of all students enrolled in Title IV 

institutions3 in the United States or Puerto Rico between July 1 and June 30 in the given 

academic year of the survey; in the case of NPSAS:2000, it is the 1999–2000 academic year. The 

institutional sampling frame is based on the previous year’s Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System, Institutional Characteristics Survey (IPEDS-IC). A student list is provided by each 

sampled institution. In NPSAS:2000, about 62,000 study respondents were sampled, of whom 

about 50,000 were undergraduates. Of these students, a subsample of 44,500 students completed 

a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI). In addition to the CATI, NPSAS collects data 

from many supplementary sources including the institution, the Pell grant file, the National 

Student Loan Data System, and financial aid application files. The institutional response rate was 

3

 Title IV postsecondary institutions have an agreement with the Office of Postsecondary Education to participate in federal 

student assistance programs. 

2 
 

 

 

Introduction 

91 percent, and the overall weighted response rate for all students was 66 percent (see appendix 

B for more detail about bias analysis and adjustment for bias). The analysis sample in this report 

includes only undergraduates. 

NELS:88/2000 began with a nationally representative sample of 1988 8th-graders and 

surveyed them every 2 years until 1994 and then again in 2000.4 In spring 1992, when most of 

the students in the NELS:88 sample were 12th-graders, the second follow-up took place. This 

survey focused on students’ transition from high school to both the labor force and 

postsecondary education. By the final 2000 follow-up, when most of the participants were 26 

years old, it included over 12,000 completed cases, with a weighted response rate of 82.7 

percent. The sample in this report includes 1992 high school seniors for whom high school 

transcripts were collected and who had enrolled in postsecondary education as of the last followup in 2000.5

 The analysis sample was further restricted to 1992 12th-graders who had completed 

high school by August 31, 1992 (96 percent of 12th-graders for whom high school transcripts 

had been collected). 

BPS:96/01 is a longitudinal component of the NPSAS:96 survey. The survey consists of 

students who were enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96 among those 

who had participated in NPSAS:96.6

 The BPS survey began with a nationally representative 

sample of approximately 12,000 students who were identified in NPSAS:96 as having entered 

postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96. The first follow-up took place 2 years 

later in 1998, and the second follow-up was conducted in 2001, 6 years after the students had 

enrolled in postsecondary education. All respondents to the first follow-up, as well as a 

subsample of nonrespondents in 1998, were eligible to be interviewed. About 9,000 students 

were located and interviewed, with a weighted response rate of 83.6 percent overall. 

The key variable in this study is an indicator of whether students delayed their 

postsecondary enrollment. The variable was computed by subtracting the calendar year of high 

school graduation from the calendar year of postsecondary enrollment.7

 Thus, by definition, high 

school dropouts are excluded. Students who do not delay their enrollment are typically those 

who graduate from high school in June and enroll in postsecondary education the following 

4

 For more information on NELS:88/2000, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: Base-Year to Fourth Follow-up Data File User’s Manual (NCES 2002–323) 

(Washington, DC: 2002). 

5

 The weight used allows for unbiased projections to 12th-graders in the spring of 1992 for whom high school transcripts had 

been collected. 

6

 For more information on BPS:96/01, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study:1996–2001 Methodology Report (NCES 2002–171) (Washington, DC: 2002). 7

 The actual dates of high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment, which include months and years, were missing in too 

many cases in NPSAS to provide reliable estimates; however, it was possible to impute the year if it was missing based on the 

students’ age and other timing information (for more information, see the glossary in appendix A for the NPSAS variable 

“DELAYENR”). 

3 
 

 

 

 

Introduction 

September. However, because the delayed enrollment variable is derived only from the calendar 

years of the two points in time, a small percentage of cases (about 2 percent) are coded as having 

delayed 1 year when the length of delay is actually less than a year, typically a semester. For 

example, in the NPSAS sample, if a student graduated from high school in June 1999 and 

enrolled in college in January 2000, that student was identified as delaying for a year when in 

fact they only delayed 6–7 months. 

Only BPS data were used to analyze differences among delayed entrants with respect to 

how long they delayed. This survey includes all students who enrolled in postsecondary 

education for the first time in 1995–96. Therefore, it captures the first enrollment of all delayed 

entrants, regardless of how long they waited to enroll. While all delayed entrants can be 

identified in the NPSAS data, many of them have enrolled in postsecondary education more than 

once. Delayed enrollment is based on students’ first postsecondary enrollment. Thus, there are 

some NPSAS students identified as short-term delayed entrants who may have enrolled two or 

three times and resemble long-term delayed entrants in age and experience. Because it is not 

possible to disentangle the effects of delayed enrollment from multiple enrollments, the NPSAS 

data were used only to provide a general profile of all delayed entrants (i.e., a snapshot of 

delayed entrants among all undergraduates enrolled in 1999–2000). 

For different reasons, the NELS data, which were used to examine the high school 

academic preparation of delayed entrants, could not be disaggregated by duration of the delay. 

The NELS survey represents a high school cohort (i.e., participants are roughly the same age), 

and most of those who enrolled in postsecondary education usually did so immediately after high 

school graduation (80 percent).8 In addition to the relatively small sample of delayed entrants, 

the last follow-up of NELS took place 8 years after most of the cohort had graduated from high 

school, so it was not possible to identify long-term delayed entrants. 

The length of delay categories analyzed in the study—no more than 1 year, 2–4 years, 5–9 

years, and 10 or more years—was empirically determined based on the distribution of students, 

by the number of years delayed. The categories also were designed to distinguish short-term (less 

than 5 years) from long-term (5 years or more) delayed entrants. The short-term delayed entrants 

were divided into those who delayed no more than 1 year and those who delayed 2–4 years. The 

long-term delayed entrants were divided into those who delayed 5–9 years and those who 

delayed 10 or more years. 

8

 NELS:88/2000 Data Analysis System. As a point of comparison, the proportion of immediate entrants among all 1999–2000 

undergraduates was 63 percent and among all first-time freshman who enrolled in 1995–96 (BPS:96/2001) was 64 percent (see 

figures A and K). 

4 
Introduction 

The analysis uses standard t tests to determine the statistical significance of differences 

between estimates, one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to detect trends and control for 

multiple comparisons, and a multivariate commonality analysis to examine relationships between 

variables while controlling for the common variance of independent variables. All differences 

noted are statistically significant at the p < .05 level. For more information on statistical methods, 

see appendix B. The analysis presented in this report is entirely descriptive in nature. While 

associations are noted and discussed, no causal inferences should be made. 

Organization of the Report 

The remainder of this report is divided into four sections beginning with an overview 

comparing delayed entrants with their peers who enroll in postsecondary education immediately 

after high school graduation. Comparisons are made between the two groups with respect to their 

demographic characteristics, high school academic preparation, and postsecondary enrollment 

patterns. The second section focuses on delayed entrants and examines differences within this 

group based on how long they delayed. The third section examines the activities of delayed 

entrants in the intervening years between high school and college, and the reasons they gave for 

enrolling in postsecondary education. The fourth section analyzes the rates of persistence and 

degree completion of delayed entrants, and the fifth and final section summarizes and concludes 

the report. 

5 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

Delayed Entrants: An Overview 

Because delayed entrants by definition are older than students who enroll in postsecondary 

education immediately after graduating from high school, delayed entrants would be expected to 

have gained life experiences related to age such as family formation and employment experience. 

While these patterns have been observed (Horn and Premo 1996), delayed entrants also differed 

in other respects from their peers who enrolled in postsecondary education right after high school 

graduation. 

Demographic Characteristics 

Earlier research demonstrated that compared to students who enrolled immediately after 

high school, delayed entrants were more likely to come from low-income families, to be single 

parents, and to be Black, and were less likely to be White (Horn and Premo 1996). The current 

analysis, based on results from the NPSAS:2000 data confirmed these differences (table 1). 

Additional analyses revealed that delayed entrants were more likely than immediate entrants to 

be Hispanic, American Indian, to have parents who never attended postsecondary education, and 

to speak a language other than English as their primary language. 

High School Dropout Risk Factors and Academic Preparation 

Using the NELS data, 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education 

were examined in several respects. First, delayed entrants were compared with those who did not 

delay in terms of their likelihood of having characteristics in the 8th grade that may have placed 

them at risk of dropping out of high school. The high school dropout risk variable is based on 

indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), family stability, and academic performance in 1988. If 

students had one or more of the following six characteristics, they were identified as being at risk 

of dropping out: being in the lowest 25 percent on a socioeconomic status indicator, living with a 

single parent, changing schools two or more times between 1st and 8th grade, repeating a grade 

between kindergarten and 8th grade, earning grades of C’s or lower in middle school (6th–8th 

grade), and having a sibling who dropped out of high school (Kaufman, Bradby, and Owings 

1992). As illustrated in table 2, students who delayed their postsecondary enrollment were more 

likely than their peers who did not delay to have been at risk of dropping out of high school. In 

fact, nearly three-quarters (74 percent) had at least one dropout risk factor, compared with about 

7 
—

Table 1.—

Delayed Entrants: An Overview 

Table 1. Percentage distributions of selected student characteristics among all undergraduates, by timing 

of their postsecondary enrollment: 1999–2000 

Timing of postsecondary enrollment 

U.S. total Total after high school graduation 

(excluding (50 states, DC, Delayed 1 or 

Selected student characteristics Puerto Rico) and Puerto Rico) No delay more years

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Gender

 Male 43.6 43.6 43.4 44.0

 Female 56.4 56.4 56.6 56.0 

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.0

 Asian 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.0

 Black 12.0 11.8 10.3 14.4

 Hispanic 10.3 11.5 10.2 13.1

 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8

 White 67.9 66.8 70.0 62.0

 More than one race 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1

 Other2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Dependency and marital status

 Dependent 50.5 50.7 66.5 23.6

 Independent 49.5 49.3 33.5 76.4

 Unmarried, no dependents 15.2 15.1 12.0 20.3

 Unmarried, dependents (single parent) 11.7 11.8 6.9 19.9

 Married, no dependents 6.9 6.9 5.1 9.9

 Married, dependents 15.7 15.6 9.4 26.3 

Income level

 Dependent

 Bottom 25 percent 22.7 23.5 22.0 30.4

 Middle 50 percent 50.3 49.9 50.3 47.6

 Top 25 percent 27.0 26.6 27.7 22.0

 Independent

 Bottom 25 percent 22.2 22.7 24.0 21.3

 Middle 50 percent 51.1 50.9 49.7 52.0

 Top 25 percent 26.7 26.4 26.3 26.8 

Parents’ education

 High school diploma or less 36.7 37.1 28.9 52.0

 Some postsecondary education 23.0 22.8 24.2 20.4

 Bachelor’s degree 22.9 22.8 26.0 17.1

 Advanced degree 17.4 17.3 20.9 10.5 

Primary language

 English 87.7 87.3 89.3 83.6

 Not English 12.3 12.7 10.7 16.4 

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and 

Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 

2 Students were given the opportunity to list a specific racial/ethnic identification under “Other.” 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:2000). 

8 
—

Table 2.—

Table 2.—

Delayed Entrants: An Overview 

Table 2. Among 1992 high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education by 2000, percentage 

distributions of high school dropout risk status and academic preparation measures, by timing of 

their postsecondary enrollment: 1999–2000 

High school dropout risk status or Delayed 1 or 

academic preparation measures No delay more years 

 Total 100.0 100.0 

Socioeconomic status level

 Bottom 25 percent 10.5 27.4

 Middle 50 percent 50.3 55.5

 Top 25 percent 39.2 17.1 

High school dropout risk status1

 No risk 50.7 26.5

 Any risk factors 49.3 73.5 

High school mathematics courses completed

 None or nonacademic 7.3 24.6

 Courses through algebra 2 44.0 60.4

 Any advanced course beyond algebra 2 48.7 15.0 

Academic curriculum intensity level2 

 Bottom 20 percent 7.8 24.9

 Middle 60 percent 63.3 73.5

 Top 20 percent 29.0 6.5 

4-year college qualification level3

 Not qualified 24.2 58.5

 Qualified

 Bottom 25 percent 15.6 19.0

 Middle 50 percent 16.7 12.9

 Top 25 percent 43.5 9.6 

1 Risk factors were determined when students were in 8th grade and included family income in lowest 25 percent among 

8th-grade cohort, live with a single parent, older sibling dropped out of high school, changed schools two or more times, 

average grades of C or lower from 6th to 8th grade, and repeated a grade between kindergarten and 8th grade. 2 High school academic curriculum intensity level is a composite measure of students’ highest level of mathematics, total 

mathematics credits, total Advanced Placement courses, total English credits, total foreign language credits, total science credits, 

total core laboratory science credits, total social science credits, and total computer science credits. For more information, see 

Adelman, Daniel, and Berkovits (2003). 

3 College qualification is a composite index of 4-year college readiness or qualification based on five possible measures of 

academic performance: cumulative academic coursework GPAs, senior class rank, the NELS 1992 test scores, and the SAT and 

ACT college entrance examination scores. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 

1988 (NELS:88/2000). 

9 
 

 

Delayed Entrants: An Overview 

one-half (49 percent) of those who did not delay. Consistent with their risk levels for dropping 

out of high school as determined in the 8th grade, delayed entrants also were more likely to be in 

the lowest SES group in 1992 when most were in the 12th grade (27 versus 11 percent). Yet the 

fact that delayed entrants completed high school and subsequently enrolled in postsecondary 

education indicates that they could overcome the odds of dropping out. 

Along with their increased risk of dropping out of high school, delayed entrants trailed 

their counterparts who did not delay in three measures of academic preparation—highest 

mathematics course completed,9

 the overall academic intensity of students’ high school 

curriculum,10 and their college readiness.11 

Looking first at students’ mathematics coursetaking revealed that one-quarter of delayed 

entrants completed courses no higher than those identified as nonacademic (such as remedial or 

business mathematics), compared with 7 percent of immediate entrants (table 2). Conversely, 

nearly half of immediate entrants (49 percent) completed an advanced mathematics course (i.e., 

beyond algebra 2), compared with 15 percent of delayed entrants. 

Students’ intensity of overall academic curriculum is based on the highest level 

mathematics course taken and total mathematics credits completed, as well as the total credits 

completed in Advanced Placement, English, foreign language, science, and computer science 

courses. Based on the academic intensity indicator, delayed entrants differed notably from their 

peers who did not delay. For delayed entrants, 7 percent completed a curriculum at the highest 

academic intensity level, compared with 29 percent of those who had not delayed. Conversely, 

25 percent of delayed entrants completed a curriculum at the lowest intensity level, compared 

with 8 percent of those who had not delayed. 

The final measure of academic preparation examined is an indicator of students’ readiness 

or level of qualification for attending a 4-year college. The variable is also based on a number of 

academic performance measures including cumulative academic coursework, high school grade 

point average (GPA), senior class rank, the NELS 1992 test scores, and the SAT and ACT 

college entrance examination scores (see appendix A for more details). Nearly 6 in 10 (59 

percent) of delayed entrants were not prepared to enroll in a 4-year college, compared with onequarter of their peers who did not delay. Conversely, 1 in 10 delayed entrants scored at the 

highest college qualification level, compared with just over 4 in 10 (44 percent) of those who did 

not delay. 

9

 Developed by Burkam and Lee (2003). 

10 Developed by Adelman (1999). 

11 Developed by Berkner and Chavez 1998). 

10 
Delayed Entrants: An Overview 

The results based on the NELS high school cohort, indicate that delayed entrants were 

more likely than their peers who enrolled in college immediately after high school to have risk 

factors associated with dropping out of high school and to struggle academically. Based on the 

mathematics courses they completed and their overall academic coursetaking patterns, delayed 

entrants were much less likely to have the academic preparation to undertake college-level work. 

Postsecondary Enrollment Patterns 

Given the NELS findings regarding delayed entrants’ academic preparation findings, it is 

not surprising to find that delayed entrants pursue vocational training and enroll in public 2-year 

colleges at higher rates and in 4-year institutions at lower rates than students who enroll in 

college immediately after high school graduation. For example, in 1999–2000, delayed entrants 

were more likely than their peers who enrolled immediately after high school to attend public 2-

year colleges and private for-profit institutions, and less likely to attend 4-year colleges (table 3). 

Corresponding to the institution in which they first enrolled, delayed entrants also were more 

likely to be enrolled in programs leading to vocational certificates and associate’s degrees than in 

bachelor’s degree programs. 

Delayed entrants also differed from immediate entrants with respect to their postsecondary 

attendance and work patterns. Compared with their peers who did not delay postsecondary 

enrollment, delayed entrants were less likely (or able) to attend classes on a full-time basis and 

were more likely to work more than 30 hours a week while enrolled in school. 

Taken together, the results from the NPSAS data indicate that, compared with their peers 

who enroll in postsecondary education immediately after high school, delayed entrants begin 

their postsecondary education at a relative disadvantage with respect to their family background, 

parents’ education levels, and tendency to have their own family responsibilities. Also, delayed 

entrants spend less time attending classes and more time working while enrolled, and they are 

more likely to pursue vocational training and short-term credentials. 

11 
—

Table 3.—

Delayed Entrants: An Overview 

Table 3. Percentage distributions of enrollment and employment characteristics of all undergraduates, by 

timing of their postsecondary enrollment: 1999–2000 

Timing of postsecondary enrollment 

U.S. total Total after high school graduation 

Enrollment or (excluding (50 states, DC, Delayed 1 or 

employment characteristics Puerto Rico) and Puerto Rico) No delay more years

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Type of institution

 Public 2-year 42.7 42.1 33.5 56.2

 4-year institutions 44.7 45.4 55.1 29.3

 Public 4-year 31.4 31.3 38.6 19.7

 Private not-for-profit 13.3 14.0 16.5 9.7

 Private for-profit 4.8 4.9 3.3 7.6

 Other1 7.7 7.7 8.1 6.9 

Degree program

 No undergraduate degree 4.4 4.4 3.6 5.3

 Certificate 14.1 14.1 9.0 22.1

 Associate’s degree 37.8 37.5 32.4 46.3

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 43.7 44.1 54.9 26.4 

Attendance intensity

 Exclusively full-time 51.8 52.3 60.1 39.2

 Half-time 17.2 17.1 13.6 22.9

 Less than half-time 18.0 17.8 12.9 26.0

 Mixed 13.0 12.8 13.5 11.9 

Hours worked while enrolled

 Did not work 19.0 19.4 19.3 18.8

 30 or less 40.0 40.0 47.3 27.7

 More than 30 41.0 40.7 33.4 53.6 

1 “Other” institutions include public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit 2-year, and private not-for-profit less-than-2-year 

institutions. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). 

12 
 

 

Duration of Delay 

While delayed entrants differ in many respects from their peers who enroll in 

postsecondary education immediately after high school graduation, the question addressed in this 

section is whether delayed entrants differ from one another based on how long they delay. 

For the remainder of the study, the results presented are based on data from the Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01), a cohort of students who first began 

their postsecondary studies in the 1995–96 academic year. Unlike the NPSAS sample, BPS does 

not include students who enrolled in postsecondary education before their current enrollment 

(i.e., excludes returning students). And unlike the NELS sample, the BPS cohort represents all 

beginning postsecondary students regardless of how long they waited to enroll. The 

postsecondary experiences captured by the BPS survey, therefore, represent those of students 

who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time after graduating from high school, 

regardless of how many years elapsed between high school graduation and postsecondary 

enrollment. 

Among BPS students, roughly one-third had delayed their postsecondary enrollment, 

including 9 percent who delayed no more than 1 year, 8 percent who delayed 2–4 years, 7 

percent who delayed 5–9 years, and 12 percent who delayed 10 or more years after high school 

graduation (figure 1). 

Student Characteristics 

By definition, delayed entrants are older than their peers who enroll in postsecondary 

education right after high school graduation. However, it is worth noting that the median age of 

students who did not delay enrollment is 17 years old, compared with 19 years old for those who 

delayed no more than 1 year (figure 1). This difference suggests that students who delay a year 

may be somewhat older at high school graduation than those who do not delay. 

The age at which students are considered financially independent of their parents for 

financial aid purposes is 24 years old. However, students under 24 years old may be identified as 

independent for reasons other than age—primarily if they are married or have children of their 

own. Among students who delayed their postsecondary enrollment less than 5 years, nearly all 

were under the age of 24. Yet roughly one-quarter of those who delayed no more than 1 year and 

13 
 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, by number of years 

between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment, and median age 

10 or more years (12%)

5–9 years (7%)

2–4 years (8%)

1 year (9%) No delay (66%)

10 or more years (12%) 

5–9 years (7%) 

Median age 25 

2–4 years (8%) 

Median age 21 

1 year (9%) No delay (66%) 

Median age 19 Median age 17 

Median age 37 

—

Figure 1.—

Duration of Delay 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

about one-half of those who delayed 2–4 years were identified as independent (table 4). Many of 

these students had children: about one-fifth (21 percent) of those who delayed 1 year and onethird (32 percent) of those who delayed 2–4 years. In contrast, among students who did not delay 

their enrollment, 2 percent had children or other dependents. Thus, parenthood is a major factor 

that distinguishes younger delayed entrants (i.e., delayed less than 5 years) from their peers who 

do not delay. 

As was shown in figure 1, the median ages for students who delayed 5–9 years or 10 or 

more years were 25 and 37 years old, respectively. Given their ages, one would expect many of 

these students to have family responsibilities. Indeed, for those who delayed 5–9 years, 55 

percent were parents, as were 63 percent of those who delayed 10 or more years (table 4). 

Among BPS students, the gender distribution appeared to vary with the duration of 

enrollment delay (table 5).12 With the exception of those who delayed 2–4 years, the percentage 

of women appeared to increase with each successive group of delayed entrants; however, the 

apparent trend is not statistically significant. 

12 For additional information, a table is presented in appendix C (table C-1) showing the percentage of students who delayed their 

enrollment, by the characteristics and educational experiences presented in tables 5 and 6. 

14 
 

—

Table 4.—

Duration of Delay 

Table 4. Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students’ dependency and marital 

status, by number of years between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment 

Total 

U.S. total (50 states, Duration of delay 

(excluding DC, and 10 or 

Puerto Puerto No Any 2–4 5–9 more 

Dependency and marital status Rico) Rico) delay delay 1 year years years years

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Dependency and marital status in 1995–96

 Dependent 72.1 72.5 96.4 31.0 73.2 50.9 4.6 #

 Independent, no dependents, unmarried 5.6 5.5 0.7 15.1 2.4 13.2 31.3 17.1

 Independent, no dependents, married 4.0 4.0 0.5 10.2 3.8 4.3 9.1 19.6

 Independent with dependents 18.2 18.0 2.4 43.8 20.6 31.5 55.0 63.4 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

Examining delayed entrants with respect to their income at the time they first enrolled in 

postsecondary education revealed an inverse relationship of income to the duration of delay in 

enrolling in postsecondary education. In this analysis, the income distribution is based on family 

income for dependent students (i.e., those students who are considered financially dependent on 

their parents for financial aid purposes) and student income for those who are independent. As 

was shown in table 4, about three-quarters (73 percent) of those who delayed enrollment by 1 

year were dependent, as were about one-half of those who delayed 2–4 years, while students who 

delayed 5 or more years were nearly all independent. Based on their age and length of time in the 

labor market, one would expect that those who delayed 5 or more years would have higher 

incomes than those who delayed a shorter period. This was clearly observed in table 5: the 

likelihood of being in the lowest income group declined between those who delayed less than 5 

years and those who delayed longer; 42 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of those who 

delayed 1 year or 2–4 years were in the lowest income group, compared with 26 percent and 17 

percent, respectively, of those who delayed 5–9 years or 10 or more years.13 Thus, the likelihood 

of being in the lowest income group declined as the duration of delay increased, and income 

level distinguished entrants who delayed for the short term (less than 5 years) from those who 

delayed for the long term (5 or more years). 

13 To simplify the statistical test reporting, when ANOVA trend results are presented, unless otherwise noted, the overall F is also 

significant. 

15 
—

Table 5.—

Table 5.—

Duration of Delay 

Table 5. Percentage distributions of selected student characteristics among 1995–96 beginning 

postsecondary students, by number of years between high school graduation and first 

postsecondary enrollment 

Selected student 

characteristics 

Total 

U.S. total (50 states, 

(excluding DC, and 

Puerto Puerto 

Rico) Rico) 

No 

delay 

Any 

delay 

Duration of delay 

2–4 5–9 

1 year years years 

10 or 

more 

years

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Gender

 Male 

 Female 

45.2 

54.8 

45.1 

54.9 

46.4 

53.6 

42.6 

57.4 

46.3 

53.7 

51.0 

49.0 

43.9 

56.1 

33.6

66.4 

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 

 Black 

 Hispanic 

 White 

 Other2 

0.8 

4.8 

12.0 

10.8 

71.4 

0.3 

0.8 

4.7 

11.9 

12.1 

70.3 

0.3 

0.5 

4.7 

9.6 

12.3 

72.6 

0.2 

1.2 

3.4 

13.8 

11.5 

69.8 

0.3 

1.0 

3.9 

15.8 

16.7 

62.0 

0.6 

1.9 

2.8 

15.9 

12.6 

66.8 

0.1 

0.9 

4.3 

15.7 

9.8 

69.2 

0.2 

1.1

2.8

9.8

7.9

78.1

0.3 

Income level in 1994

 Bottom 25 percent 

 Middle 50 percent 

 Top 25 percent 

26.2 

51.8 

22.0 

27.0 

51.3 

21.7 

24.0 

51.2 

24.8 

29.4 

53.7 

16.9 

41.7 

45.3 

13.0 

37.8 

52.1 

10.1 

25.8 

66.8 

7.4 

16.6

53.9

29.6 

Parents’ highest education level

 High school diploma or less 

 Some postsecondary education 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 

44.0 

19.2 

36.8 

44.4 

19.1 

36.6 

33.2 

20.4 

46.4 

64.2 

16.8 

19.1 

44.1 

24.5 

31.4 

58.3 

18.6 

23.0 

61.9 

20.4 

17.6 

85.2

7.4

7.4 

Primary language

 English 

 Not English 

89.4 

10.6 

89.3 

10.7 

91.1 

8.9 

87.6 

12.4 

82.6 

17.4 

86.7 

13.3 

89.4 

10.6 

91.1

8.9 

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, 

and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 

2 Students were given the opportunity to list a specific racial/ethnic identification under “Other.” 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

A clear inverse relationship between parents’ education levels and the length of delay was 

apparent. The likelihood of having a parent who had never attended college increased sharply in 

each successive delay group from 44 percent of those who delayed 1 year to 85 percent of those 

who delayed 10 or more years. 

16 
 

 

 

Duration of Delay 

Examining racial/ethnic group differences revealed that the proportion of White students 

rose as the duration of delay increased. Among those who delayed no more than 1 year, 62 

percent were White, compared with 78 percent of those who delayed 10 or more years. 

Consistent with the increase in the proportion of White students was the decline in the proportion 

of students who spoke a foreign language while growing up. Seventeen percent of students who 

delayed 1 year spoke a foreign language as a child, compared with 9 percent of those who 

delayed 10 or more years. 

In summary, the length of time students waited to enroll in postsecondary education was 

clearly related to their race/ethnicity, income level, family responsibilities, and the level of 

education achieved by their parents. As the length of time between high school graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment increased, the likelihood of being White increased while the likelihood 

of being in the lowest income level and speaking a foreign language while growing up declined. 

Taken together, these results suggest that the delayed entrants who delay less time may be at a 

greater socioeconomic disadvantage than those who delayed longer. On the other hand, the trend 

showing a decline in parents’ education levels with the length of time delayed also suggests that 

short-term delayed entrants are more likely to experience the advantage of having parents who 

have attended college, relative to their peers who delayed longer. 

Enrollment Characteristics 

When asked to report the highest level of education they ever expected to complete, 

delayed entrants reported relatively high educational expectations. Nearly 6 in 10 hoped to earn a 

bachelor’s degree (28 percent) or aspired to an advanced degree (29 percent) (table 6). 

Aspirations for advanced degrees, however, declined with the length of time between high 

school graduation and postsecondary enrollment—from 42 percent of those who delayed 1 year 

to 13 percent of those who delayed a decade or more—while aspirations for credentials below a 

bachelor’s degree increased from 13 percent to 48 percent for the same groups. The results 

indicate that as delayed entrants age, they tend to look to postsecondary education for vocational 

training, while those who delay less than 5 years are likely to carry aspirations for bachelor’s 

degrees or even advanced degrees. 

To some extent, the types of postsecondary programs delayed entrants first attended 

paralleled their educational expectations. For example, when students first enrolled in 

postsecondary education, the likelihood of being enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program 

declined with each successive delay group. Nearly one-third (30 percent) of those who delayed 

no more than 1 year were pursuing bachelor’s degrees, compared with 8 percent of those who 

17 
—

Table 6.—

Duration of Delay 

Table 6. Percentage distributions of enrollment characteristics of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary 

students, by number of years between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment 

Total 

U.S. total (50 states, 

(excluding DC, and 

Puerto Puerto 

Enrollment characteristics Rico) Rico) 

No 

delay 

Duration of delay 

10 or 

Any 2–4 5–9 more 

delay 1 year years years years

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Type of first institution

 Public 2-year 45.9 45.5 

 Public 4-year 25.7 25.9 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 14.6 14.8 

 Private for-profit 10.9 11.0 

 Other1 2.9 2.9 

52.0 

34.4 

20.8 

4.8 

1.3 

56.2 38.7 47.5 62.5 61.5

12.7 22.6 15.5 7.6 6.3

5.6 9.5 6.5 3.1 3.5

19.7 12.4 23.8 22.5 20.9

5.8 3.5 6.7 4.3 7.8 

Degree program at first institution

 Certificate 18.2 18.2 

 Associate’s degree (including transfer) 43.1 42.9 

 Bachelor’s degree 38.7 38.9 

6.7 

39.9 

53.3 

34.2 22.6 32.2 32.9 45.4

49.1 47.3 47.6 57.0 47.0

16.7 30.1 20.2 10.1 7.7 

Degree expected at first institution

 None 11.6 11.6 

 Certificate 13.9 13.8 

 Associate’s degree 25.7 25.7 

 Bachelor’s degree or transfer

 to 4-year insitution 48.9 48.9 

8.6 

4.8 

22.5 

64.0 

16.4 13.3 13.2 14.5 22.0

26.0 15.3 24.8 25.1 35.3

32.6 26.6 35.9 42.3 29.4

25.0 44.9 26.1 18.0 13.3 

Highest degree ever expected 

 Don’t know 12.0 12.0 

 Less than a bachelor’s degree 14.7 14.6 

 Bachelor’s degree 27.9 27.9 

 Advanced degree 45.4 45.5 

10.5 

6.2 

27.1 

56.3 

14.4 14.1 13.8 17.3 13.5

28.9 13.3 20.6 27.7 47.9

27.9 30.9 28.0 27.0 26.0

28.7 41.8 37.6 28.1 12.5 

Attendance intensity first year

 Exclusively full-time 65.3 65.6 

 Mixed full-time/part-time 13.9 13.8 

 Half-time 9.4 9.3 

 Less than half-time 11.4 11.3 

76.3 

13.6 

6.1 

4.0 

46.0 56.2 58.8 37.9 34.7

13.8 18.9 14.4 12.5 10.2

15.2 11.2 12.5 26.3 13.5

25.0 13.6 14.3 23.4 41.5 

Remedial coursetaking in first year

 Did not take courses 82.1 82.1 

 Took courses 17.9 17.9 

81.3 

18.7 

82.5 85.0 79.1 79.7 84.7

17.5 15.0 21.0 20.3 15.3 

1 “Other” institutions include public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit 2-year, and private not-for-profit less-than-2-year 

institutions. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

18 
 

Duration of Delay 

delayed 10 or more years. Conversely, the longer students delayed enrollment, the more likely 

they were to pursue a program leading to a vocational certificate. 

Short-term delayed entrants (i.e., less than 5 years) also differed from those who delayed 

longer with respect to the time they were able to spend in the classroom. Fifty-six percent and 59 

percent of those who delayed 1 year and 2–4 years, respectively, attended exclusively full time 

during their first year of enrollment, compared with 38 percent and 35 percent, respectively, of 

those who delayed 5–9 years and 10 years or more. Thus, along with focusing more on shortterm programs, as delayed entrants aged they spent less time attending classes. 

19 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

—

Table 7.—

Table 7.—

The Interim Years and Reasons for Enrolling 

Beginning postsecondary students who waited a year or more between their high school 

graduation and postsecondary enrollment were asked about their activities in the interim years 

between high school and college. About three-quarters of those who delayed enrollment reported 

working, and about one-fifth said they had started or raised a family (table 7). As would be 

expected given the increasing age of students, the longer they delayed the more likely they were 

to report working, getting married, and starting or raising a family during the interim years. For 

example, 70 percent of students who had waited no longer than a year to enroll reported working 

during that time, compared with 86 percent who had delayed enrollment 10 or more years. In 

addition to their employment and family formation experiences, about 7 percent of delayed 

entrants reported serving in the military in the years between high school and college, including 

1 in 10 of those who delayed 2–4 years or 5–9 years, though differences among groups were not 

significant. 

Table 7. Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who reported engaging in various types 

of activities between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment, by number of 

years between high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment 

Started or 

Duration of delay Worked In the military Got married raised a family 

U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 76.7 6.9 12.0 20.3

 Total (50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico) 76.4 6.9 12.1 20.3 

Years between high school graduation

 and first postsecondary enrollment

 1 year 70.0 5.0 3.8 8.0

 2–4 years 78.1 9.6 9.1 11.6

 5–9 years 80.8 9.5 14.4 24.6

 10 or more years 85.6 8.0 21.6 31.6 

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

21 
—

Table 8.—

Table 8.—

The Interim Years and Reasons for Enrolling 

Why They Enrolled 

When asked why they decided to enroll in postsecondary education, students who delayed 

enrollment reported a number of important considerations for enrolling. Most were related to 

employment, such as training to enter the workforce, changing careers, or qualifying for a new 

position. Reasons related to a change in employment or enhancing job opportunities tended to be 

reported by those who delayed longer (i.e., those with more experience in the workforce), while 

training to enter the workforce was reported more often by those who delayed a shorter amount 

of time. Specifically, students who reported enrolling to change careers or improve job skills 

were more likely to do so as the duration of time between high school graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment increased (table 8). For example, a change of career was reported by 9 

percent of those who delayed 1 year and 24 percent for those who delayed 10 or more years. 

Conversely the likelihood of reporting the need for training to enter the workforce declined with 

the duration of time between high school and college, from 36 percent for those who delayed 1 

year to 17 percent for those who delayed 10 or more years. 

Table 8. Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who reported various reasons as 

important for enrolling in postsecondary education, by number of years between high school 

graduation and first postsecondary enrollment 

Personal 

satisfaction Training 

of earning to enter Improve Qualify Change 

Duration of delay degree workforce job skills for new job careers

 U.S. total (excluding Puerto Rico) 28.1 28.0 23.8 15.8 16.2

 Total (50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico) 28.1 28.2 23.7 15.8 16.1 

Years between high school graduation

 and first postsecondary enrollment

 1 year 26.1 35.6 15.6 16.6 9.4

 2–4 years 25.0 36.1 21.1 14.4 15.0

 5–9 years 31.6 26.6 26.4 16.8 19.6

 10 or more years 28.9 17.4 30.0 16.9 23.7 

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

Outside of work-related reasons, nearly 3 in 10 students (28 percent) reported enrolling in 

postsecondary education to experience the personal satisfaction of earning a degree. No 

significant difference was detected among delay groups in the likelihood of reporting this as an 

important reason for enrolling, however. 

22 
 

—

Table 9.—

Table 9.—

Persistence and Degree Completion 

Among students who first enrolled in postsecondary education in 1995–96, about one-half 

(51 percent) had completed a postsecondary credential within 6 years of first enrolling, including 

29 percent who had attained a bachelor’s degree, 10 percent who had attained an associate’s 

degree, and 12 percent who earned a certificate (table 9). Another 14 percent had not attained a 

degree but were still enrolled: 9 percent were in a 4-year college, and 6 percent were enrolled in 

subbaccalaureate institutions. The remaining 35 percent had not attained a degree and were no 

longer enrolled as of 2001. It is possible these students returned later (i.e., were “stopouts”), but 

as of 6 years after their first enrollment, they had left without earning a degree. 

Table 9. Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed 

postsecondary credentials or were still enrolled in postsecondary education as of 2001, by number 

of years between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment 

Total 

U.S. total (50 states, 

(excluding DC, and 

Persistence, attainment, Puerto Puerto 

and enrollment status Rico) Rico) 

No 

delay 

Any 

delay 

Duration of delay 

2–4 5–9 

1 year years years 

10 or 

more 

years

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Persistence and attainment as of 2001

 Attained any degree 50.9 50.9 

 Attained bachelor’s degree 29.0 28.8 

 Attained associate’s degree 9.8 10.0 

 Attained certificate 12.1 12.1 

57.5 

41.9 

10.3 

5.4 

39.9 

8.6 

9.6 

21.7 

43.3 41.1 35.7 

19.9 7.5 5.6 

9.3 10.9 8.4 

14.1 22.7 21.8 

38.8

2.4

9.6

26.8

 Never attained, still enrolled 14.4 14.4 

 Never attained, enrolled at 4-year

 institution 8.7 8.8 

 Never attained, enrolled at 

 less-than-4-year institution 5.7 5.6 

 Never attained, not enrolled 34.7 34.7 

15.4 

10.5 

4.9 

27.1 

13.4 

6.1 

7.3 

46.7 

16.0 17.4 13.1 

8.2 9.8 3.6 

7.8 7.6 9.5 

40.7 41.5 51.2 

9.0

3.4

5.5

52.2 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

23 
 

 

Persistence and Degree Completion 

Given delayed entrants’ lower levels of high school academic preparation relative to 

immediate entrants, one would expect delayed entrants not to be as successful at completing their 

postsecondary education.14 Indeed, while a majority (58 percent) of students who did not delay 

enrollment had completed a degree within 6 years, 40 percent of delayed entrants had done so. 

Looking at specific types of credentials, delayed entrants were more likely than immediate 

entrants to earn a vocational certificate (22 vs. 5 percent)—which is consistent with delayed 

entrants’ greater emphasis on vocational training—and they were much less likely to attain a 

bachelor’s degree (9 vs. 42 percent). In contrast, the likelihood of completing an associate’s 

degree was not related to delayed enrollment; about 1 in 10 delayed and immediate entrants 

completed an associate’s degree within 6 years. 

When taking persistence into account (i.e., earning a credential or still being enrolled), 

students who delayed enrollment were still less successful than immediate entrants in persisting 

in their postsecondary programs. Nearly half (47 percent) of delayed entrants had left their 

postsecondary program without earning a credential, compared with roughly one-quarter (27 

percent) of students who did not delay. 

Because of the relatively small sample sizes, it was difficult to detect an association 

between postsecondary persistence and the length of time students delayed enrollment. No 

differences could be detected among the delay groups in their likelihood of completing a 

credential. However, when specific degrees were examined, consistent with the decreasing 

tendency to enroll in bachelor’s degree programs as the length of delay increased, the likelihood 

of earning a bachelor’s degree declined. Conversely, the likelihood of completing a vocational 

certificate increased with the duration of delay. While it appears as though the likelihood of 

leaving postsecondary education without a credential increases with the length of delay, the 

result is not statistically significant. 

To better assess differences in program completion with respect to the duration of delay, it 

is necessary to take into account several related variables, especially degree goals and the type of 

institutions where students first enrolled. However, the BPS sample size of delayed entrants is 

too small to disaggregate in such a way. Therefore, to take into account the interrelationship 

between delayed enrollment and other characteristics related to the likelihood of persisting and 

completing a postsecondary degree, a multivariate analysis was conducted. 

14 In addition, as shown in table 6, delayed entrants were also less likely to attend exclusively full time (46 vs. 76 percent) and 

more likely report that they did not expect to obtain a degree at the institution they currently attended (16 vs. 9 percent). 

24 
 

Persistence and Degree Completion 

Controlling for Related Variables 

The multivariate approach used for this study is sometimes referred to as “commonality 

analysis,” where multiple linear regression is used to adjust for the common variation among a 

group of independent variables. (See appendix B for a detailed description of the methodology 

used.) The independent variables were selected based on the tabular analysis discussed in the 

preceding sections of the report, rather than on a theoretical model. Two analyses were 

performed. In both analyses, the dependent variable was a dichotomous outcome (yes/no)—that 

is, the student completed a postsecondary credential or was still enrolled 6 years after first 

enrolling in postsecondary education.15 

The main independent variable in both analyses was an indicator of delayed enrollment. 

The first analysis used a dichotomous version, while the second analysis disaggregated delay into 

the same categories used for the bivariate analysis. Other variables included demographic and 

socioeconomic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, income, and language spoken as a child); 

attendance and enrollment characteristics (attendance intensity, degree program, and educational 

expectations); and remedial coursetaking as a proxy for academic preparation. 

The results of the first multivariate analysis are shown in table 10. The italicized category 

for each variable is the reference group against which all comparisons and tests of statistical 

significance are made. The first column displays the unadjusted percentages—that is, the 

proportion of students who had either completed a postsecondary degree or certificate or were 

still enrolled 6 years after they began. The second column displays the least squares coefficient 

as a percentage. Significant coefficients represent the observed differences that remain between 

the analysis group (such as those who delayed enrollment) and the comparison group (did not 

delay) after controlling for the relationships of all the selected independent variables. If asterisks 

appear in both columns, it means that even after controlling for related variables, a particular 

variable is associated with the outcome, in this case, the completion of a credential or being 

enrolled 6 years after first enrollment. 

As displayed in the first column, before taking the covariation of related variables into 

account, students who did not delay were more likely than those who did to have attained a 

postsecondary credential: 73 percent of students who did not delay had attained or were still 

enrolled 6 years after initial enrollment, compared with 53 percent of students who did delay. 

However, even after the covariation of related variables was controlled, students who delayed 

15Although the DAS simplifies the process of conducting a linear regression analysis, it also limits the range of procedures that 

can be used. The least squares regression procedure used in this analysis is sometimes sufficient for binary outcomes (such as the 

outcome studied here). However, when the proportion of the sample participating in the outcome is very low or very high, logit 

or probit procedures are preferred. See appendix B for more details. 

25 
—

Table 10.—

Table 10.—

Table 10.—

Persistence and Degree Completion 

Table 10. Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed a postsecondary 

credential or were still enrolled in 2001, and least squares coefficients and standard errors, 

by timing of their postsecondary enrollment and other selected student and enrollment 

characteristics 

Selected student Unadjusted Least squares Standard 

and enrollment characteristics1 percentage coefficient2 

error

3 

 Total 65.2 56.20 3.05 

Delayed enrollment after high school

 No delay 72.9 † † 

 Delayed 1 or more years 53.1* -6.30* 2.57 

Gender

 Male 64.9 † † 

 Female 65.5 3.20* 1.61 

Race/ethnicity4

 Black 54.7* -10.40* 2.57 

 Hispanic 61.1 -7.90* 2.89 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 74.0 -2.50 4.50 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 58.5 -6.00 9.33 

 Other5 79.6 0.30 9.00 

 White 67.0 † † 

Income level

 Bottom 25 percent 62.8 -0.30 2.09 

 Middle 50 percent 64.5 † † 

 Top 25 percent 70.3* -0.50 2.25 

Parents’ highest education level

 High school diploma or less 57.2 † † 

 Some postsecondary education 60.4 0.40 2.25 

 Bachelor’s degree 75.2* 10.00* 2.41 

 Advanced degree 83.1* 13.90* 2.73 

Dependency status and marital status in 1995–96

 Dependent 71.3 † † 

 Independent, no dependents, unmarried 57.0* 2.90 4.18 

 Independent, no dependents, married 43.8* -7.50 4.66 

 Independent with dependents 51.6* -0.20 3.05 

Primary language

 English 64.9 † † 

 Non-English 70.0 10.00* 3.38 

See notes at end of table. 

26 
 

—

Table 10.—

Table 10.—

Table 10.—

Persistence and Degree Completion 

Table 10. Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed a postsecondary 

credential or were still enrolled in 2001, and least squares coefficients and standard errors, 

by timing of their postsecondary enrollment and other selected student and enrollment 

characteristics—Continued 

Selected student Unadjusted Least squares Standard 

and enrollment characteristics1 percentage coefficient2 

error

3 

Type of first institution

 Public 2-year 53.1 † † 

 Public 4-year 77.5* 10.90* 2.57 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 82.8* 13.40* 3.05 

 Private for-profit 63.3* 11.20* 3.05 

 Other6 63.9* 13.10* 5.14 

Attendance status in 1995–96

 Full-time 72.4 † † 

 Part-time only 43.6* -14.20* 2.41 

 Mixed full- and part-time 66.3* 1.70 2.57 

Degree expected at first institution

 None 43.7* -13.60* 2.73 

 Associate’s or certificate 58.2 † † 

 Bachelor’s degree or transfer 77.0* 2.20 2.57 

Highest degree ever expected in 1995–96

 Less than bachelor’s degree 47.5 † † 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 70.1* 7.00* 2.09 

Remedial coursetaking in first year

 Did not take courses 67.8 † † 

 Took courses 56.4* -8.30* 2.09 

† Not applicable for the reference group. 

* p < .05. 1 The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. 2 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage. The first entry in the total row is the intercept term. 

Significant coefficients represent the observed differences that remain between the analysis group (such as those who delayed 

enrollment) and the comparison group (did not delay) after controlling for the relationships of all the selected independent 

variables. The coefficient for delayed 1 or more years is -6.3, which means delayed entrants might be expected to complete 

or persist at a rate about 6 percent lower than those who do not delay. 

3 Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 4 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, 

and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 

5 Students were given the opportunity to list a specific racial/ethnic identification under “Other.” 

6 “Other” institutions include public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit 2-year, and private not-for-profit less-than-2-year 

institutions. 

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) Data Analysis System. 

27 
 

Persistence and Degree Completion 

postsecondary enrollment remained significantly less likely to complete a degree or still be 

enrolled 6 years after enrollment than their peers who did not delay. The results demonstrate a 

clear difference in the likelihood of completing a postsecondary credential between students who 

enroll in postsecondary education immediately after high school graduation and those who delay 

their enrollment. 

The next analysis attempts to determine whether the negative association between delayed 

enrollment and postsecondary success can be attributed to specific groups of delayed entrants. 

The analysis is exactly the same as the first one with the exception of disaggregating delayed 

entrants into the same categories as analyzed in the bivariate analysis: 1 year, 2–4 years, 5–9 

years, and 10 or more years. Again, the comparison group is immediate entrants. The results 

shown in table 11 indicate that, while the least squares coefficients for all the delayed categories 

are negative relative to immediate entrants, only the coefficient for students who delayed 1 year 

remained statistically significant. In other words, delayed entrants who delayed their enrollment 

no more than 1 year remained significantly less likely than immediate entrants to complete a 

degree or stay enrolled, while the analysis could not detect a significant difference for longer 

delay groups. The implication is that the youngest group of delayed entrants may be more at risk 

of not completing their postsecondary education than those who delayed longer. This result is 

consistent with the tabular analysis showing students who delayed a shorter length of time at a 

greater disadvantaged than those who delayed longer with respect to socioeconomic 

characteristics. That is, the longer students waited to enroll, the less likely they were to be in the 

lowest income group and the more likely they were to be White. 

In addition to delayed enrollment, several other variables remained significantly associated 

with completing postsecondary education after controlling for the independent variables. 

Specifically, students who attended public 2-year institutions were less likely than students who 

attended all other types of institutions to either complete a credential or still be enrolled after 6 

years. Students who attended exclusively part time were much less likely to complete or persist 

in postsecondary education than their full-time counterparts, as were those who aspired to a 

shorter term degree or certificate relative to those who sought to attain a bachelor’s degree. Not 

surprisingly, students who did not expect to earn a credential at their first institution were less 

likely than those who did have such an expectation to earn any credential. Also, students who 

took remedial courses were less likely than their counterparts who took no remedial courses to 

complete a degree or persist in postsecondary education. Students who spoke a foreign language 

while growing up did better than their English-speaking peers, after the multivariate analysis, but 

the difference in the bivariate comparison was not statistically significant. 

28 
—

Table 11.—

Table 11.—

Table 11.—

Persistence and Degree Completion 

Table 11. Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed a postsecondary 

credential or were still enrolled in 2001, and least squares coefficients and standard errors, 

by number of years between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment and 

other selected student and enrollment characteristics 

Selected student Unadjusted Least squares Standard 

and enrollment characteristics1 percentage coefficient2 

error

3 

 Total 65.2 56.10 3.05 

Years delayed enrollment after high school

 No delay 72.9 † † 

 No more than 1 year 59.2* -6.80* 3.05 

 2–4 years 58.6* -4.90 3.54 

 5–9 years 48.0* -9.10 4.66 

 10 or more years 47.8* -5.90 4.50 

Gender

 Male 64.9 † † 

 Female 65.5 3.20* 1.61 

Race/ethnicity4

 Black 54.7* -10.40* 2.57 

 Hispanic 61.1 -7.80* 2.89 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 74.0 -2.40 4.50 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 58.5 -6.10 9.33 

 Other5 79.6 0.10 9.00 

 White 67.0 † † 

Income level

 Bottom 25 percent 62.8 -0.40 2.09 

 Middle 50 percent 64.5 † † 

 Top 25 percent 70.3* -0.60 2.25 

Parents’ highest education level

 High school diploma or less 57.2 † † 

 Some postsecondary education 60.4 0.60 2.25 

 Bachelor’s degree 75.2* 10.00* 2.41 

 Advanced degree 83.1* 14.10* 2.73 

Dependency status and marital status in 1995–96

 Dependent 71.3 † † 

 Independent, no dependents, unmarried 57.0* 3.60 4.66 

 Independent, no dependents, married 43.8* -7.30 5.14 

 Independent with dependents 51.6* 0.10 3.54 

Primary language

 English 64.9 † † 

 Non-English 70.0 10.1* 3.38 

See notes at end of table. 

29 
 

 

—

Table 11.—

Table 11.—

Table 11.—

Persistence and Degree Completion 

Table 11. Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who completed a postsecondary 

credential or were still enrolled in 2001, and least squares coefficients and standard errors, 

by number of years between high school graduation and first postsecondary enrollment and 

other selected student and enrollment characteristics—Continued 

Selected student Unadjusted Least squares Standard 

and enrollment characteristics1 percentage2 coefficient3 

error

4 

Type of first institution

 Public 2-year 53.1 † † 

 Public 4-year 77.5* 10.90* 2.57 

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 82.8* 13.40* 3.05 

 Private for-profit 63.3* 11.10* 3.05 

 Other6 63.9* 12.90* 5.14 

Attendance status in 1995–96

 Full-time 72.4 † † 

 Part-time only 43.6* -14.20* 2.41 

 Mixed full- and part-time 66.3* 1.70 2.57 

Degree expected at first institution

 None 43.7* -13.60* 2.73 

 Associate’s or certificate 58.2 † † 

 Bachelor’s degree or transfer 77.0* 2.20 2.57 

Highest degree ever expected in 1995–96

 Less than bachelor’s degree 47.5 † † 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 70.1* 7.00* 2.09 

Remedial coursetaking in first year

 Did not take courses 67.8 † † 

 Took courses 56.4* -8.40* 2.25 

† Not applicable for the reference group. 

* p < .05. 1 The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. 2 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage. The first entry in the total row is the intercept term. 

Significant coefficients represent the observed differences that remain between the analysis group (such as those who delayed 

enrollment) and the comparison group (did not delay) after controlling for the relationships of all the selected independent 

variables. The coefficient for delayed no more than 1 year is -6.8, which means delayed entrants might be expected to 

complete or persist at a rate about 7 percent lower than those who do not delay. 

3 Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 4 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, 

and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 

5 Students were given the opportunity to list a specific racial/ethnic identification under “Other.” 

6 “Other” institutions include public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit 2-year, and private not-for-profit less-than-2-year 

institutions. 

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) Data Analysis System. 

30 
Persistence and Degree Completion 

The results of the multivariate commonality analysis confirmed that delayed entrants in the 

aggregate are less successful in completing their postsecondary education relative to their peers 

who enroll in postsecondary education soon after high school graduation. However, when 

delayed entrants were broken out by the length of time they waited to enroll, only students who 

delayed no more than a year remained significantly less likely than immediate entrants to 

complete a degree or persist in postsecondary education. 

31 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Summary and Conclusions 

The findings from this study clearly demonstrate that students who delay their 

postsecondary enrollment a year or more after high school graduation differ fundamentally from 

those who enroll immediately. Early on, delayed entrants are more likely than immediate 

entrants to have family and educational experiences that place them at greater risk for dropping 

out of high school. In addition, based on high school curriculum measures such as the highest 

mathematics courses completed and overall academic rigor, delayed entrants are much less likely 

to be academically prepared to undertake college-level work. When delayed entrants do enroll in 

postsecondary education they are likely to do so to gain or enhance their work skills by enrolling 

in shorter term vocational programs rather than by enrolling in bachelor’s degree programs. 

However, delayed entrants are not a homogeneous group. The number of years students 

wait to enroll in college varies with their demographic characteristics and educational 

expectations. In general, as the length of delay increases, students are more likely to be White, 

less likely to be in the lowest income group, and less likely to speak a foreign language while 

growing up. At the same time, younger delayed entrants tended to be from families where at least 

one parent held a bachelor’s degree more often than their older counterparts. 

Educational expectations tended to decline with the length of delay. Correspondingly, the 

longer delayed entrants waited to enroll in postsecondary education, the less likely they were to 

enroll in bachelor’s degree programs, and the more likely they were to enroll in vocational 

certificate programs. Furthermore, older delayed entrants were less likely than their younger 

peers to attend classes full time when they did enroll. 

While delayed entrants as a whole were less successful than immediate entrants in 

completing a degree or remaining enrolled in their postsecondary program, based on the 

multivariate analysis, students who delayed the shortest amount of time—those who delayed no 

more than 1 year after high school graduation—remained significantly less likely to complete a 

degree or persist while the results for those who delayed longer were not conclusive. Delayed 

entrants who wait no more than 1 year to enroll in postsecondary education are typically 19 years 

old and nearly one-fifth already have children of their own. Compared with students who delay 

longer, they have had less time to gain life and work experiences, which may provide additional 

motivation and resources to older students. Nevertheless, despite their disadvantages, a 

substantial proportion—43 percent—of students who delayed their postsecondary enrollment no 

33 
Summary and Conclusions 

more than 1 year had successfully completed a postsecondary credential, including one-fifth who 

earned a bachelor’s degree in 6 years. 

34 
References 

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and 

Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Adelman, C., Daniel, B., and Berkovits, I. (2003). Postsecondary Attainment, Attendance, 

Curriculum, and Performance: Selected Results From the Postsecondary Education 

Transcript Study (PETS), 2000 (NCES 2003–394). U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Berkner, L., and Chavez, L. (1998). Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High 

School Graduates (NCES 98–105). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Berkner, L.K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., and McCormick, A.C. (1996). Descriptive Summary of 

1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students 5 Years Later: With an Essay on Postsecondary 

Persistence and Attainment (NCES 96–155). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Berkner, L.K., He, S., and Cataldi, E.F. (2002). Descriptive Summary of 1995–96 Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Six Years Later (NCES 2003–151). U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Burkam, D., and Lee, V. (2003). Mathematics, Foreign Language, and Science Coursetaking 

and the NELS:88 Transcript Data (NCES 2003–01). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics Working Paper. 

Carroll, C.D. (1989). College Persistence and Degree Attainment for 1980 High School 

Graduates: Hazards for Transfers, Stopouts, and Part-Timers (NCES 89–302). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Horn, L.J. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates: Trends in Enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and 

Persistence and Attainment Among 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 97– 

578). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

35 
References 

Horn, L., and Premo, M. (1996). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education 

Institutions: 1992–93 (NCES 97–237). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Kaufman, P., Bradby, D., and Owings, J. (1992). Characteristics of At-Risk Students in NELS:88 

(NCES 92–042). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Tuma, J., and Geis, S. (1995). Educational Attainment of 1980 High School Sophomores by 1992 

(NCES 95–304). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

36 
 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The items were taken directly from the NCES BPS: 

96/98/01, the NPSAS:2000 and NELS:88/2000 Data Analysis Systems (DAS), an NCES software application that 

generates tables from the data (see appendix B for a description of the DAS). The glossary index lists the variables 

as they appear in the report for each survey. The glossary is in alphabetical order by variable name (displayed along 

the right-hand column). 

Glossary Index 

UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS AND 

ENROLLMENT (NPSAS) 

Delayed enrollment...................................DELAYENR 

Sex ................................................................. GENDER 

Race/ethnicity ....................................................RACE2 

Dependency and marital status ..................DEPEND5B 

Income level (Dependent)............................... PCTDEP 

Income level (Independent) ........................ PCTINDEP 

Parents’ education.......................................... NPARED 

Primary language ...........................................NBLANG 

Institution type.............................................. AIDSECT 

Degree program .......................................... DEGFIRST 

Ever taken a remedial course ................... NEREMEVR 

Attendance intensity 1999–2000............... ATTNPTRN 

Work intensity .............................................. ENRJOB3 

HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC PREPARATION (NELS) 

Delayed enrollment: 

 high school completion date ...................F3HSCPDT

 date first attended postsecondary education 

..................................................................... F4EFMY 

Risk of dropping out of high school ..............BYRISK2 

Socioeconomic status in 1992........................... F2SES1 

Highest mathematics course completed... MTHQUAL8 

High school academic preparation............ACCURHSQ 

College qualification index.........................CQCOMV2 

BEGINNING POSTECONDARY STUDENTS (BPS) 

Student characteristics 

Delayed enrollment...................................ENDELAYN 

Dependency status ......................................SBDEP1Y1 

Dependency status and marital status ......... SBDEP3Y1 

Gender ...................................................... SBGENDER 

Race/ethnicity (including Hispanic) ...............SBRACE 

Income level ................................................. PCTALL2 

Parents’ education.......................................... PBEDHI3 

Primary language............................................SBLANG 

Either parent’s education .............................PAREDUC 

Postsecondary enrollment and attainment 

First degree program 1995–96..................... DGPGMY1 

Highest degree ever expected 1995–96 ......EPHDEGY1 

Remedial courses taken in first year................REMED2 

Degree expected at first institution ............... DGEXPY1 

Type of first institution .................................. ITNPSAS 

Attendance intensity 1995–96 ...................ATTNPTRN 

Persistence and attainment as of 2001 ........PRENRL2B 

Activities between high school and postsecondary 

enrollment 

Military service..............................................DAMILIT 

Got married................................................ DAMARRY 

Started or raised a family.......................... DAFAMILY 

Worked ................................................... DAWORKED 

Reasons for enrolling 

To change careers ......................................RPCAREER 

Training to enter workforce.......................... RPTRAIN 

Qualify for new job................................... RPNEWJOB 

Personal satisfaction of earning degree ......RPPERSAT 

Improve job skill.......................................RPADVANC 

WEIGHT VARIABLES 

BPS 

Longitudinal weight 1996/2001......................WTD00 

NPSAS 

CATI weight 1999–2000 ................................WTB00 

NELS 

High school transcript panel weight ............... WTP00 

37 
 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

High school academic preparation (NELS:88/2000) ACCURHSQ 

A composite measure of students’ highest level of mathematics, total mathematics credits, total Advanced 

Placement courses, total English credits, total foreign language credits, total science credits, total core laboratory 

science credits, total social science credits, and total computer science credits. 

Scored in bottom 20 percent 

Scored in middle 60 percent 

Scored in top 20 percent 

Institution type (NPSAS:2000) AIDSECT 

Indicates the level and control of the institution attended. Students who attended more than one institution are coded 

in a separate category. For students who attended more than one institution during 1999–2000, the NPSAS sample 

institution may not represent where all or part of the financial aid was actually received. 

Public 2-year 

Public 4-year 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 

Private for-profit 

Other 

More than one institution 

Attendance intensity 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000) ATTNPTRN 

Attendance intensity during the months enrolled in 1999–2000. Indicates whether the student was enrolled only fulltime, half-time, less than half-time, or a mixed pattern. Students were considered to have enrolled exclusively fulltime if they were enrolled for full-time during all enrolled months. Students were considered to have enrolled mixed 

full-time/part-time if they were enrolled for both full-time and part-time during enrolled months. Students were 

considered to have enrolled half-time if they were enrolled for half-time during all enrolled months. Students were 

considered to have enrolled exclusively less than half-time if they were enrolled for less than half-time during all 

enrolled months. 

Exclusively full-time 

Half-time 

Less than half-time 

Mixed 

Attendance intensity 1995–96 (BPS:96/2001) ATTNPTRN 

Same as NPSAS variable described above except for the 1995–96 academic year 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Risk of dropping out of high school (NELS:88/2000) BYRISK2 

The sum of six possible risk characteristics associated with dropping out of high school. All factors were identified 

when the student was in the 8th grade except sibling dropout status, which was identified in the 10th grade. The risk 

factors include: in the lowest 25 percent on the socioeconomic indicator, living with a single parent, having an older 

sibling who dropped out of high school, changed schools two or more times, average grade of C or lower in 6th to 

8th grade, or repeated a grade between kindergarten and 8th grade. 

College qualification index (NELS:88/2000) CQCOMV2 

A composite index of 4-year college readiness or qualification based on the five measures of academic performance: 

cumulative academic coursework GPAs, senior class rank, the NELS 1992 test scores, and the SAT and ACT 

college entrance examination scores. Since admission standards and requirements vary widely among 4-year 

colleges and universities, the approach used here was to examine the actual distribution of these five measures of 

academic aptitude and achievement among those graduating seniors who did attend a 4-year college or university. 

Data sources were available for approximately half (45 percent) of the NELS graduating seniors for four or five of 

the criteria: class rank, GPA, the NELS test, and ACT or SAT scores or both. For about one-third of the seniors 

there were only three data sources available because they had no ACT or SAT scores. All of these students had 

NELS test scores, however. In order to identify as many students as possible who were potentially academically 

qualified for a 4-year college, even if data were missing for these students on some of the criteria, the seniors were 

classified according to the highest level they had achieved on any of the five criteria for which data were present. 

• Not qualified: those who had no value on any criterion that would put them among the top 75 percent of 

4-year college students (i.e., all values were in the lowest quartile). In a few instances either because of 

missing data or because students were considered special admissions, about 10 percent of the students 

who were identified as not qualified had enrolled in 4-year institutions. 

• Bottom 25 percent: those whose highest value on any of the five criteria would put them among the top 

75 percent of 4-year college students for that criterion. Minimum values were GPA=2.7, class rank 

percentile=54, NELS test percentile=56, combined SAT=820, composite ACT=19. 

• Middle 50 percent: those whose highest value on any of the five criteria would put them among the top 

50 percent of 4-year college students for that criterion. Minimum values were GPA=3.2, class rank 

percentile=76, NELS test percentile=56, combined SAT=960, composite ACT=22. 

• Top 25 percent: those whose highest value on any of the five criteria would put them among the top 25 

percent of 4-year college students for that criterion. Minimum values were GPA=3.6, class rank 

percentile=89, NELS test percentile=90, combined SAT=1110, composite ACT=25. 

Activities during interim years between high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment (BPS:96/2001) 

Started or raised a family (BPS:96/2001) DAFAMILY 

During delay between high school and postsecondary enrollment, respondent started and/or raised a family 

(Yes/No). 

Got married (BPS:96/2001) DAMARRY 

During delay between high school and postsecondary enrollment, respondent got married (Yes/No). 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Activities during interim years between high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment (BPS:96/2001)— 

Cont. 

Military service (BPS:96/2001) DAMILIT 

During delay between high school and postsecondary enrollment, respondent served in the military (Yes/No). 

Worked (BPS:96/2001) DAWORKED 

During delay between high school and postsecondary enrollment, respondent worked (Yes/No). 

Degree program (NPSAS:2000) DEGFIRST 

Degree program in which student was enrolled, as reported by the student or indicated by the NPSAS sample 

institution. If not available from the institution, information was taken from student interview. Refers to NPSAS 

institution for those enrolled in more than one institution. 

No degree program Student is not in any of the above degree programs. 

Certificate Student pursuing a certificate or formal award other than an 

associate’s or bachelor’s degree. 

Associate’s degree Student pursuing an associate’s degree. 

Bachelor’s degree Student pursuing a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science 

degree. 

Delayed enrollment (NPSAS:2000) DELAYENR 

Number of years between the year of high school graduation and the year of first postsecondary enrollment. Derived 

by subtracting the calendar year of postsecondary enrollment from the calendar year of high school graduation. For a 

small percentage of students who are identified as having delayed 1 year, the length of delay is less than a year. For 

example, if a student graduated from high school in June 1999 and enrolled in college in January 2000, that student 

is identified as delaying for a year even though only 6 months had elapsed. Because of frequent discrepancies found 

when comparing birth year, high school graduation year, and first year of postsecondary education as reported by the 

CADE (institution data) and the CATI (student reported data), the two date variables required editing and 

imputation. If the date of first postsecondary enrollment differed for CADE and CATI, the earliest date was 

identified as the enrollment date. For the date of high school graduation, 11 percent (unweighted) of missing or outof-range values were imputed by stochastic imputation. For this analysis, the CATI weight was used, which means 

only the students who participated in the student interview were included in the analysis and therefore, more than 

one source of data was available to identify the dates of high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment. 

No delay Enrolled within the same calendar year after high school 

graduation 

Any delay At least one calendar year elapsed between high school 

graduation and postsecondary enrollment 

40 
 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Dependency and marital status (NPSAS:2000) DEPEND5B 

Identifies independent students by marital status and dependents. Married but separated students are classified as 

unmarried. 

Dependent (for definition of dependent, see entry for SBDEP1Y1) 

Independent

 Unmarried, no dependents

 Unmarried, dependents

 Married, no dependents

 Married, dependents 

Degree expected at first institution (BPS:96/2001) DGEXPY1 

Highest degree expected at the first institution attended in 1995–96. 

None 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s or transfer to 4-year 

First degree program 1995–96 (BPS:96/2001) DGPGMY1 

First type of degree program at the first institution attended in 1995–96. 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree (including transfer) 

Bachelor’s degree 

Delayed enrollment (BPS:96/2001) ENDELAYN 

Respondents who received their high school diploma prior to 1995 or reached the age 20 before December 31, 1995 

were identified as delayed entrants. The number of years between the year of high school (HS) graduation and the 

year of first postsecondary enrollment was derived by subtracting the calendar year of postsecondary enrollment 

from the calendar year of high school (HS) graduation. Dates were provided by the students in the CATI interview. 

If student-reported information was missing, dates were obtained from the institutional (CADE) record or financial 

aid form. For a small percentage of students who are identified as having delayed 1 year, the length of delay is less 

than a year. For example, if a student graduated from high school in June 1995 and enrolled in college in January 

1996, that student is identified as delaying for a year even though only 6 months had elapsed. 

No delay Enrolled within the same calendar year after HS graduation 

1 year delay Enrolled in the calendar year following HS graduation 

2 to 4 year delay Enrolled 2 to 4 calendar years following HS graduation 

5 to 9 year delay Enrolled 5 to 9 calendar years following HS graduation 

10 or more year delay Enrolled 10 or more calendar years following HS graduation 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Work intensity (NPSAS:2000) ENRJOB3 

Categories of intensity of working while enrolled, including unreported work-study job hours (estimated at 15 hours 

per week). 

Did not work 

Worked 30 hours/week or less 

Worked more than 30 hours/week 

Highest degree ever expected 1995–96 (BPS:96/2001) EPHDEGY1 

Response to the question “What is the highest level of education you ever expect to complete?” 

Don’t know 

Less than bachelor’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Advanced degree 

Socioeconomic status in 1992 (NELS:88/2000) F2SES1 

A composite variable based on household income, parents’ occupations and education levels, and selected items that 

exist in the house such as a home computer. If sufficient information existed in the parent file, the variable was 

created from base year parent’s education (BYPQ30-31), occupation (BYPQ34B & 37B) and total household 

income (BYPQ80). If that information was not adequate, the variable was based on the student-reported parent’s 

education (BYS34A-B) and occupation (BYS4B & 7B) as well as the number of selected items that exist in the 

household (BYS35A-P). If neither parent nor student base year files had sufficient information, data from second 

followup (F2) new student supplement file was used. 

High school completion date (NELS:88/2000) F3HSCPDT 

Year and month (YYMM) that the sample member completed high school. It includes award dates for high school 

diploma, GED, and certificates. Special values are used to indicate instances where the sample member has not 

received any of these or where the date of award is not known. If this information was collected in 1994 for a sample 

member, the 1994 data were used. Otherwise, 1992 transcript and questionnaire data were used to limit sample 

members to those who completed high school by June 30, 1992. The analysis refers to these students as 1992 high 

school graduates, but a very small percentage had completed a GED or certificate of completion. 

Date first attended postsecondary education (NELS:88/2000) F4EFMY 

Date of first attendance in postsecondary education of those respondents who attended a postsecondary institution. 

Used to filter the analysis sample to those who enrolled by 1994. This variable was used to identify students who 

delayed enrollment (i.e., enrolled on or after January 1993).1 

1

 There are two other variables in the NELS DAS that identify delayed enrollment (DELAYTRI and DELAY). However, the 

postsecondary enrollment date used for these variables is extracted from postsecondary transcripts. Because we did not want to 

limit the sample only to those who had postsecondary transcripts, we used the self-reported date of postsecondary enrollment to 

compute the number of years delayed. Preliminary crosstabulations using all the delay variables produced similar findings with 

respect to differences in academic preparation. 

42 
 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Sex (NPSAS:2000) GENDER 

Male 

Female 

Type of first institution (BPS:96/2001) ITNPSAS 

Level and control of the NPSAS institution. 

Public 2-year 

Public 4-year 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 

Other (less-than-2-year and private not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions) 

Highest mathematics course completed (NELS:88/2000) MTHQUAL8 

Describes the level of the highest mathematics student took, based on high school transcript. 

No mathematics/low or nonacademic Student did not take any mathematics courses; took 

nonacademic or low academic courses including those 

classified as “general mathematics” or “basic skills 

mathematics”; low academic courses which comprise 

preliminary (e.g., pre-algebra) or reduced rigor/pace 

mathematics courses (algebra 1 that is spread over 2 academic 

years, and “informal geometry”). 

Courses through algebra 2 Completed 3 years of mathematics including algebra 1 and 

geometry, or 2 years of unified mathematics, 

and algebra 2 or a third year of a unified mathematics 

program. 

Any advanced course beyond algebra 2 Took at least one of any courses labeled as “advanced,” 

including various trigonometry, probability, statistics, 

introductory analysis or precalculus, algebra 3, or calculus 

courses. 

Primary language (NPSAS:2000) NBLANG 

Student’s response to the question “What language was spoken most often at home as you were growing up?” 

Asked by student CATI. 

English 

Not English (see SBLANG for detailed list of languages) 

Ever taken a remedial course (NPSAS:2000) NEREMEVR 

Student’s response to the question: “Since you’ve been in college, have you ever taken remedial or developmental 

courses to improve your basic skills, such as in mathematics, reading, or writing?” (Yes/No). 

43 
 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Either parent’s education (BPS:96/2001) PAREDUC 

Highest educational level achieved by either or both parents. 

High school diploma or less 

Some postsecondary education 

Bachelor’s degree or higher 

Parents’ education (BPS:96/2001) PBEDHI3 

The highest level of education completed by the student’s mother or father, whoever had the highest level. The 

variable was aggregated to the following categories in this report: 

High school diploma or less 

Some postsecondary education including associate’s degree or certificate 

Bachelor’s degree 

Advanced degree 

Parents’ education (NPSAS:2000) NPARED 

See PDEDHI3 above. 

Income level (BPS:96/2001) PCTALL2 

Indicates 1994 income percentile ranges for all students’ income (calculated separately for dependents and 

independents) and merged into a single variable. 

Low Income at the 25th percentile or below. 

Middle Income at the 26th to 74th percentile. 

High Income at or above the 75th percentile. 

Income level (Dependent) (NPSAS:2000) PCTDEP 

Indicates income percentiles for parents of dependent students. 

See PCTALL2 above for levels 

Income level (Independent) (NPSAS:2000) PCTINDEP 

Indicates income percentiles for independent students. 

See PCTALL2 above for levels 

44 
 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Persistence and attainment as of 2001 (BPS:96/2001) PRENRL2B 

Indicates the highest degree the student attained or the level of the institution in which the student is still enrolled if 

no degree had been attained, as of June 2001. The variable was aggregated (“lumped”) in three different ways: 

Attained bachelor’s degree 

Attained associate’s degree 

Attained certificate 

Never attained, enrolled at 4-year 

Never attained, enrolled at less-than-4-year 

Never attained, not enrolled 

Attained any degree 

Never attained, not enrolled 

Never attained, enrolled 

Attained or still enrolled 

Never attained, not enrolled 

Race/ethnicity (NPSAS:2000) RACE2 

Specifies student’s race/ethnicity, including Hispanic/Latino and those indicating more than one race. Gives priority 

to Hispanic/Latino regardless of race, and then to those who chose more than one race. Race categories exclude 

Hispanic origin unless specified. 

American Indian/Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

North America and who maintains cultural identification 

through tribal affiliation or community recognition. Includes 

Alaska Native. 

Asian A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. This includes 

people from China, Japan, Korea, India, the Philippine Islands, 

and Vietnam. 

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of 

Africa. Includes African American. 

Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the Pacific Islands including 

Native Hawaiian, and Samoa. 

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. 

More than one race Students were given the opportunity to pick more than one 

race. 

Other Students were given the opportunity to list a specific 

racial/ethnic identification under “Other.” 

Hispanic or Latino A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin. Includes Latino. 

45 
 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Remedial courses taken in first year (BPS:96/2001) REMED2 

Indicates whether student reported ever having taken any remedial or developmental courses in language, 

mathematics, reading, or writing (Yes/No). 

Reasons for enrolling in postsecondary education (yes/no) (BPS:96/2001) 

Response to the question, “Why did you decide to pursue your education beyond high school?” 

Personal satisfaction of earning degree (BPS:96/2001) RPPRESAT 

Training to enter work force (BPS:96/2001) RPTRAIN 

Improve job skill (BPS:96/2001) RPADVANC 

Qualify for new job (BPS:96/2001) RPNEWJOB 

To change careers (BPS:96/2001) RPCAREER 

Dependency status (BPS:96/2001) SBDEP1Y1 

Dependency status 1995–96. Students were considered independent if they were: 1) age 24 or older as of 12/31/1995 

(born before January 1,1972); 2) a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces; 3) enrolled in a graduate or professional 

program beyond a bachelor’s degree in 1995–96; 4) married; 5) an orphan or ward of the court; or 6) had legal 

dependents, other than spouse. 

Dependent 

Independent 

Dependency status and marital status (BPS:96/2001) SBDEP3Y1 

Indicates student’s dependency status with presence of dependents and marital status. 

Dependent 

Independent, no dependent, unmarried 

Independent, no dependent, married 

Independent with dependents 

Gender (BPS:96/2001) SBGENDER 

Male 

Female 

Primary language (BPS:96/2001) SBLANG 

Student’s response to the question “What language was spoken most often at home as you were growing up?”

 English 

Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Basque

 Arabic

 Bahasa 

Chinese, Cantonese, Mandarin 

 Farcey (Pharsi) 

46 
 

Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

Primary language (BPS:96/2001)—Cont. 

French and Canadian French

 Gaelic 

 German

 Hebrew 

Hindi, Malay, Tamil 

 Japanese

 Korean 

Malaysian (Bahasa Malay) 

Urdu, Punjabi, Sindi

 Tagalog 

 Thai

 Vietnamese 

 Welsh 

American Sign Language or other Sign Language

 Bengel

 Dutch

 Kurdish

 Portuguese 

Race/ethnicity (including Hispanic) (BPS:96/2001) SBRACE 

See RACE2 for description. 

NPSAS CATI weight 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000) WTB00 

Weight applied to items asked in the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI). The main variable used in the 

analysis (delayed enrollment) is based primarily on information from the student interview. 

BPS longitudinal weight 1996/2001 (BPS:96/2001) WTD00 

Weight for longitudinal analysis of students who responded in both NPSAS:96/2001 and BPS:1996/2001. 

High school transcript panel weight (NELS:88/2000) WTP00 

High school transcript weight for respondents who participated in the second, third, and fourth followups. This 

weight allows projections to the population of persons who were 12th-graders during the spring of 1992. 

47 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) is the latest in a 

series of comprehensive studies of all students enrolled in postsecondary education in the United 

States and Puerto Rico. The study is conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for 

postsecondary education.1 It also describes demographic and other characteristics of students 

enrolled. The first NPSAS study was conducted in 1986–87 (NPSAS:87) and since then four 

additional studies have been conducted (NPSAS:90, NPSAS:93, NPSAS:96, and NPSAS:2000). 

The sixth administration (NPSAS:2004) is currently being conducted. 

The institutional sampling frame for NPSAS:2000 was constructed from the 1998–99 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Institutional Characteristics (IC) file 

and, because NPSAS:2000 also served as the base-year survey for a longitudinal study of 

baccalaureate recipients, the 1996–97 IPEDS Completions file. Eligible institutions were 

partitioned into 22 institutional strata based on institutional control, highest level of offering, and 

percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded in education. Approximately 1,100 institutions 

were initially selected for NPSAS:2000, and all but 10 of these institutions were found to be 

eligible. Sampling frames for selecting students consisted of enrollment lists or data files 

provided by the institutions for those students enrolled during the NPSAS:2000 year, and at least 

40 students were sampled from each institution. The study is based on a nationally representative 

sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, 

and first-professional students. Information was obtained from approximately 50,000 

undergraduate, 10,600 graduate, and 1,200 first-professional students. They represented about 

16.5 million undergraduates, 2.4 million graduate students, and 300,000 first-professional 

students who were enrolled at some time between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000. 

Data were collected using computer-assisted telephone and in-person interviews (CATI and 

CAPI). Supplementary sources of data included the National Student Loan Data System 

1

 For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Methodology Report for the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES 2002–152) (Washington, DC: 2001). 

Additional information is also available at the NPSAS website http://nces.ed.gov/npsas. 

49 
 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

(NSLDS), ACT database, SAT records from ETS, Central Processing System data, and data 

from institutions collected using a computer-assisted data entry (CADE) program. Data editing 

and imputations were conducted both during the interview and after data collection was 

complete. Range editing, item consistency, and other checks were made to ensure data quality, 

and logical imputation was performed where appropriate. 

The institutional response rate was 91 percent, CATI response rate was 72 percent, and the 

weighted overall student interview response rate was 65.6 percent.2 Because the student 

telephone interview response rate for NPSAS:2000 was less than 70 percent in some institutional 

sectors, an analysis was conducted to determine if computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) 

estimates were significantly biased due to CATI nonresponse. Considerable information was 

known for CATI nonrespondents, and these data were used to analyze and reduce the bias. The 

distributions of several variables using the design-based, adjusted weights for study respondents 

(study weights) were found to be biased before CATI nonresponse adjustments. The CATI 

nonresponse and poststratification procedures, however, reduced the bias for these variables, and 

the remaining relative bias ranged from 0 to 0.35 percent.3

 The weight used in this analysis is 

WTB00, the weight applied to all CATI respondents. 

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) began in 1988 with a 

nationally representative, two-stage stratified probability sample of 1,052 8th-grade schools 

across the nation and 26,432 sampled students in the schools.4 Of the sampled students, 24,599 

participated. Subsamples of this cohort were followed up in 1990, when most members were in 

10th grade; in 1992, when most were in 12th grade; and in 1994 and 2000, when most of the 

cohort members had been out of high school for 2 and 8 years, respectively.5 The study was 

designed not only to follow a cohort of 8th-grade students over time but also to “freshen” the 

sample in the 1990 and 1992 surveys to obtain a representative sample of students enrolled in 

10th grade in 1990 and in 12th grade in 1992, which could be compared with the earlier cohorts 

from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS:72) and the High 

School and Beyond Longitudinal Study (HS&B). The approximate sample sizes of the 1990 and 

1992 followup surveys were 18,000 and 16,000, respectively. In late 1992, high school 

2

 Ibid. 

3

 For nonresponse bias analysis, see U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000), CATI Nonresponse Bias Analysis Report (NCES 2002–03) 

(Washington, DC: 2002), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=200203. 4

 For more information on NELS:88/2000, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: Base-Year to Fourth Follow-up Data File User’s Manual (NCES 2002–323) 

(Washington, DC: 2002). 

5

 In order to meet budgetary constraints, students were subsampled in each follow-up. 

50 
 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

transcripts were collected for sample members from students in 12th grade attending in spring of 

1992, all dropouts, early graduates, and students who were ineligible for the three previous 

followups. The overall response rate was 94 percent.6 The final followup was conducted in 2000 

when sample members were about 26 years old. Data were collected for about 15,000 individuals 

subsampled from the third followup with a weighted response rate of about 83 percent. 

Because the analysis of the NELS data in this report focuses on high school academic 

coursetaking, only students with high school transcripts were included in the analysis (i.e., the 

high school transcript weight was used—WTP00). The sample was further restricted to students 

who completed high school in the spring of 1992 (i.e., 1992 high school graduates) and who had 

enrolled in postsecondary education at any time up until the last followup in 2000. The date of 

postsecondary entry was used to determine postsecondary participation (F4EFMY) and also to 

determine if a student had delayed postsecondary enrollment. 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

The Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study was first conducted in 

the 1989–90 academic year. The BPS:96/01 study was the second in the series of studies 

focusing on first-time beginning students (FTBs) in postsecondary education, and is composed of 

the students who participated in the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:96). NPSAS:96 consisted of a nationally representative sample of students enrolled in 

all levels of postsecondary education during the 1995–96 academic year. Respondents were 

selected for inclusion in NPSAS:96 using a two-stage sampling design; the first stage involved 

selecting eligible institutions (derived from the 1993–94 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) Institutional Characteristics (IC) file), and the second stage was the 

selection of eligible respondents within each eligible institution. Approximately 9,500 

institutions were identified in the IPEDS IC file. These eligible institutions were then partitioned 

into institutional strata based on level and control, and additional implicit stratification was done 

within each institution type by region and size. Sampling frames for selecting students consisted 

of enrollment lists or data files provided by the institutions for those students enrolled during the 

NPSAS:96 year, which yielded a total of 12,400 students eligible for the BPS:96 cohort. At least 

40 students were sampled from each institution, where possible. The BPS sample consisted of 

approximately 12,400 students identified in NPSAS:96 who were beginning postsecondary 

education for the first time at some point in the 1995–96 academic year, and who were not 

concurrently enrolled in secondary education or a high school completion program. The First 

Follow-up of the BPS cohort (BPS:96/98) was conducted in 1998, approximately 3 years after 

6

 Ingals, S. et al. Second Follow-Up: Transcript Component Data File User’s Manual (NCES 95–399). U.S Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Washington DC: 1995). 

51 
 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

these students first enrolled. Approximately 10,300 of the students who first began in 1995–96 

were located and interviewed in the 1998 follow-up, for an overall weighted response rate of 

79.8 percent. This response rate includes those who were nonrespondents in 1996; among the 

NPSAS:96 respondents, the response rate was 85.9 percent.7 The Second Follow-up of the BPS 

cohort (BPS:96/2001) was conducted in 2001, 6 years after students’ college entry. All 

respondents to the First Follow-up, as well as a subsample of nonrespondents in 1998, were 

eligible to be interviewed, and after excluding respondents who were deceased by 2001, 12,100 

cases were eligible for BPS:96/01. Over 9,100 of these students were located and interviewed, 

resulting in a weighted sample size of 2.8 million respondents. The weighted response rate was 

76.1 percent overall, with an institutional response rate of 91.1 percent and student response rate 

of 83.6 percent.8 

The BPS:96/01 interviews were conducted using computer-assisted interviewing 

technology to conduct both telephone (CATI) and in-person (CAPI) interviews. Data were also 

collected from the institutions in which the students were enrolled, the Central Processing 

System (CPS) database, and the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). The CATI and 

CAPI systems were programmed with range editing and consistency edits. There were also 

multiple post-interview data cleaning steps that were designed to ensure internal consistency 

within items and maintain skip-pattern relationships. Logical imputations were performed where 

appropriate, with the goal of maximizing the number of respondents to which each item applied. 

Nonresponse among cohort members causes bias in survey estimates when the outcomes of 

respondents and nonrespondents are shown to be different. A bias analysis was conducted on the 

2001 survey results to determine if any variables were significantly biased due to nonresponse.9 

Considerable information was known from the 1996 and 1998 surveys for nonrespondents to the 

2001 interviews, and nonresponse bias could be estimated using variables with this known 

information. Weight adjustments were applied to the BPS:96/2001 sample to reduce any bias 

found due to unit nonresponse. After the weight adjustments, some variables were found to 

reflect zero bias, and for the remaining variables, the bias did not differ significantly from zero. 

All analyses in this report are weighted to compensate for unequal probability of selection into 

the BPS sample. The weight variable used in this report for analysis of the BPS:96/2001 data is 

WTD00, the longitudinal weight for students who responded in 1996 and in 2001. 

7

 For more information on the BPS:96/98 survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-up 1996–98, Methodology Report (NCES 2000–157) 

(Washington, DC: 2000). 

8

 For more information on the BPS:1996/2001 survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study:1996–2001 Methodology Report (NCES 2002–171) 

(Washington, DC: 2002). 

9

 Ibid. 

52 
 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are made only on samples of students, not entire populations. Nonsampling errors 

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. 

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete 

information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions 

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous 

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct 

information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, 

sampling, and imputing missing data. 

Item Response Rates 

Weighted item response rates were calculated for the analysis samples for all variables 

used in this report. The weighted item response rates were calculated by dividing the weighted 

number of valid responses in each analysis sample by the weighted population for which the item 

was applicable. All of the items had response rates of 86 percent or higher. For these variables, it 

is unlikely that reported differences are biased because of missing data. 

Data Analysis System 

The series of studies conducted under the Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis 

Reports (PEDAR) contract with NCES require all analyses to be based on the Data Analysis 

System (DAS), a web-based software application that provides public access to the NCES 

postsecondary datasets. The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate 

their own tables. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this 

report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors10 and 

weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B-1 contains standard errors that 

correspond to table 6, generated by the DAS. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce 

a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the 

estimate. All standard errors for estimates presented in this report can be viewed at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

10 None of the survey samples were based on simple random sampling procedures and, therefore, simple random sample 

techniques for estimating sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the 

sampling procedures and calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors 

used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is 

typically referred to as the Taylor series method. 

53 
—

Table B-1.—

Table B-1.—

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

Table B-1. Standard errors for table 6: Percentage distributions of enrollment characteristics of 1995–96 

beginning postsecondary students, by number of years between high school graduation and first 

postsecondary enrollment 

Total 

U.S. total (50 states, Duration of delay 

(excluding DC, and 10 or 

Puerto Puerto No Any 2–4 5–9 more 

Enrollment characteristics Rico) Rico) delay delay 1 year years years years 

Type of first institution

 Public 2-year 3.01 2.99 3.13 4.06 4.11 5.83 6.49 5.60

 Public 4-year 1.88 1.90 2.50 1.37 2.33 2.49 1.75 1.81

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 1.38 1.41 1.93 1.17 1.75 1.95 1.45 0.93

 Private for-profit 2.45 2.39 0.77 4.22 3.13 4.54 6.04 5.25

 Other 0.48 0.47 0.32 1.31 0.47 1.98 1.74 1.78 

Degree program at first institution

 Certificate 2.18 2.13 0.79 4.12 4.08 4.83 6.70 5.14

 Associate’s degree (including transfer) 2.20 2.16 2.63 3.68 3.22 4.96 6.21 5.13

 Bachelor’s degree 2.30 2.31 2.82 1.86 3.21 3.56 2.16 1.57 

Degree expected at first institution

 None 0.60 0.59 0.68 2.00 2.01 3.22 3.69 3.69

 Certificate 1.87 1.83 0.74 3.37 3.43 4.67 4.88 4.41

 Associate’s degree 1.66 1.69 1.82 3.17 4.27 5.73 7.34 3.40

 Bachelor’s degree or transfer

 to 4-year insitution 2.02 2.03 1.69 1.97 4.26 3.89 3.13 2.27 

Highest degree ever expected 

 Don’t know 0.57 0.57 0.66 1.27 2.97 2.80 3.54 2.24

 Less than a bachelor’s degree 1.38 1.38 0.58 3.01 2.54 3.99 5.23 4.80

 Bachelor’s degree 0.91 0.91 1.05 1.56 4.21 3.48 5.17 3.22

 Advanced degree 1.75 1.75 1.26 2.17 4.11 5.32 4.62 2.00 

Attendance intensity first year

 Exclusively full-time 1.64 1.65 1.61 3.38 6.11 4.23 6.64 4.72

 Mixed full-time/part-time 1.15 1.14 1.29 1.41 3.59 2.26 3.22 2.72

 Half-time 0.79 0.79 0.77 2.07 2.67 2.67 3.95 3.27

 Less than half-time 0.98 0.97 0.54 2.70 2.72 3.39 3.27 4.61 

Remedial coursetaking in first year

 Took courses 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.09 4.36 3.93 3.75 3.22 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to 

be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the 

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally 

54 
 

 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors 

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the stratified sampling method used 

in the surveys. 

For more information about the Data Analysis Systems, consult the NCES DAS website 

(http://nces.ed.gov/das) or contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8115 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 502-7334 

E-mail: Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov 

Statistical Procedures 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,11 or 

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values 

for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

E1 − E2 

= (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

E1 − E2 

t = (2) 

se 2 + se 2 − 2(r)se se 1 2 1 2 

11 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such true difference is present. 

2 

2 

2 

1 sese 

t 

+ 

55 
 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.12 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

E − Etot t = sub (3) 2 2 2

sesub + setot − 2 p sesub 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.13 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of respondents would produce a large t 

statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this report 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced no more than one 

time out of twenty when there was no actual difference in the quantities in the underlying 

population. When hypotheses are tested that show t values at the .05 level or smaller, this finding 

is treated as rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two quantities. 

Failing to reject the null hypothesis (i.e., finding no difference), however, does not necessarily 

imply that the values are the same or equivalent. 

When significant results are detected that are not indicated by any hypothesis, or when a 

large number of comparisons in a table are tested, Type I errors should not be ignored. For 

example, in this analysis, comparisons were sometimes made among four categories of delayed 

entrants based on how long they waited to enroll in postsecondary education—1 year, 2–4 years, 

5–9 years, and 10 or more years. The probability of a Type I error for these comparisons taken as 

a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more than one comparison 

between groups of related characteristics are tested for statistical significance, one must apply a 

standard that assures a level of significance for all of those comparisons taken together. In this 

12 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 13 Ibid. 

56 
 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

analysis, the Fisher’s protected t-test method (also called the “least significant difference” 

method) was used to protect against the inflation of the overall probability of a Type I error.14 

The method involves calculating the overall F ratio (computed as part of the linear trend test 

described below) and determining whether the F value is sufficiently large to reject the null 

hypothesis. When the value of the overall F exceeded the value at the .05 level, the comparison 

was considered significant. 

Linear Trends 

While many descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using Student’s t statistics, 

some comparisons among categories of an ordered variable (i.e., categories of delayed 

enrollment) involved a test for a linear trend across all categories, rather than a series of tests 

between pairs of categories. In this report, when differences among percentages were examined 

relative to the ordered categories of delayed enrollment, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was 

used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA models 

included orthogonal linear contrasts corresponding to successive levels of the delayed enrollment 

categories (independent variable). The squares of the standard errors, the variance between the 

means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to partition total sum of squares into withinand between-group sums of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and 

between-group variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then 

compared with published values of F for a significance level of .05.15 Significant values of both 

the overall F and the F associated with the linear contrast term were required as evidence of a 

linear relationship between the two variables. Means and balanced replicated standard errors 

were calculated by the DAS. Unweighted sample sizes are not available from the DAS and were 

provided by NCES. 

Multivariate Commonality Analysis 

There are many ways for members of the public and other researchers to make use of 

NCES results. The most popular way is to read the written reports. (Other ways include 

obtaining and analyzing public use and restricted use data files. These allow researchers to carry 

out and publish their own secondary analyses of NCES data.) 

It is very important when reading NCES reports to remember that they are descriptive in 

nature. That is, they are limited to describing some aspect of the condition of education. These 

14 See Snedecor, G. and Cochran, W. Statistical Methods (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1980, p. 234); or Harris, R. A 

Primer of Mulitivariate Statistics (New York: Academic Press, 1975, p. 11). 15 More information about ANOVA and significance testing using the F statistic can be found in any standard textbook on 

statistical methods in the social and behavioral sciences. 

57 
 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

results are usefully viewed as suggesting various ideas to be further examined in light of other 

data, including state and local data, and in the context of the large research literature elaborating 

on the many factors predicting and contributing to educational achievement or to other outcome 

variables of interest. 

However, some readers are tempted to make unwarranted causal inferences from simple 

cross tabulations. It is never the case that a simple cross tabulation of any variable with a 

measure of educational achievement is conclusive proof that differences in that variable are a 

cause of differential educational achievement or that differences in that variable explain any 

other outcome variable. The old adage that “correlation is not causation” is a wise precaution to 

keep in mind when considering the results of NCES reports. Experienced researchers are aware 

of the design limitations of many NCES data collections. They routinely formulate multiple 

hypotheses that take these limitations into account and readers of this volume are encouraged to 

do likewise. As part of the Institute of Education Sciences, NCES has a responsibility to try to 

discourage misleading inferences from the data presented and to educate the public on the 

genuine difficulty of making valid causal inferences in a field as complex as education. Our 

reports are carefully worded to achieve this end. 

This focus on description, eschewing causal analysis, extends to multivariate analyses as 

well as bivariate ones. Some NCES reports go beyond presenting simple crosstabulations and 

present results from multiple regression equations that include many different independent 

(“predictor”) variables. This can be useful to the reader, especially those without the time or 

training to access the data on their own. Because many of the independent variables included in 

descriptive reports are related to each other and to the outcome they are predicting, a multivariate 

approach can help users to understand their interrelation. For example, many of the independent 

variables included in this study are related, and to some extent, the patterns of differences 

displayed in the descriptive tables reflect a common variation. For instance, when examining 

degree attainment or persistence by delayed enrollment status, some of the observed relationship 

may be due to differences in other factors related to delaying enrollment (e.g., delayed entrants 

enroll in public 2-year institutions and attend part time at higher rates than immediate entrants). 

While it is possible to create three-variable tables, when the number of independent variables 

increases to four or more, the number of cases in individual cells of such a table often becomes 

too small to find significant differences simply because there are too few cases to achieve 

statistical significance. To make economical use of the many available independent variables in 

the same data display, other statistical methods must be used that can take multiple predictor 

variables into account simultaneously. 

58 
 

 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

Multiple linear regression is often used for this purpose: to adjust for the common variation 

among a list of independent variables.16 This approach is referred to as “commonality 

analysis,”17 because it identifies lingering relationships after adjustment for “common” variation. 

This method is used simply to confirm statistically significant associations observed in the 

bivariate descriptive analysis while taking into account the interrelationships among the predictor 

variables. 

Thus, this multiple regression approach is descriptive. Significant coefficients reported in 

the regression tables indicate that when the variable is deleted from (or added to) the set of 

independent variables, it results in a non-zero change in R-squared, which is the basis of the 

commonality analysis. In other words, a significant coefficient means that the independent 

variable has a relationship with the outcome variable that is unique, or distinct from its 

relationship with other independent variables in the model. 

Multivariate description of this sort is distinct from either a modeling approach in which an 

analyst attempts to identify the smallest relevant set of causal or explanatory independent 

variables associated with the dependent variable or variables or an approach using one of the 

many varieties of structural equation modeling. In contrast, a multivariate descriptive or 

commonality approach provides a richer understanding of the data without needing to make any 

kind of causal assumptions, which is why descriptive multivariate commonality analysis is often 

employed in NCES statistical reports. 

When should commonality analysis be employed? It should be used in statistical analysis 

reports when independent variables are correlated with both the outcome variable and with each 

other. This will allow the analyst to determine how much of the effect of one independent 

variable is due to the influence of other independent variables, since in a multiple regression 

procedure these effects are adjusted for. As discussed in the section “Data Analysis System” 

above, all analyses included in PEDAR reports must be based on the DAS, which is available to 

the public online (http://nces.ed.gov/DAS). Exclusively using the DAS in this way provides 

readers direct access to the findings and methods used in the report so that they may replicate or 

expand on the estimates presented. However, the DAS does not allow users access to the raw 

data, which limits the range of multivariate procedures that can be used. Specifically, the DAS 

produces correlation matrices, which can be used as input in standard statistical packages to 

produce least squares regression models. This means that logit or probit procedures, which are 

16 For more information about least squares regression, see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression: An Introduction, Vol. 22 

(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980); William D. Berry and Stanley Feldman, Multiple Regression in Practice, Vol. 

50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987). 17 For more information about commonality analysis, see F. Kerlinger and E. Pedhauzer, Multiple Regression in Behavioral 

Research (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc., 1973). 

59 
 

 

 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

more appropriate for dichotomous dependent variables cannot be used.18 However, empirical 

studies have shown that when the mean value of a dichotomous dependent variable falls between 

0.25 and 0.75 (as it does in this analysis), regression and log-linear models are likely to produce 

similar results.19 

The independent variables analyzed in this study and subsequently included in the 

multivariate model were chosen based largely on earlier empirical studies (cited in the text), 

which showed significant associations with the key analytic variable, delayed enrollment. Before 

conducting the study, a detailed analysis plan was reviewed by a Technical Review Panel (TRP) 

of experts in the field of higher education research and additional independent variables 

requested by the TRP were considered for inclusion. The analysis plan listed all the independent 

variables to be included in the study. The TRP also reviewed the preliminary results as well as 

the first draft of this report. The analysis plan and subsequent report were modified based on 

TRP comments and criticism. 

Missing Data and Adjusting for Complex Sample Design 

The DAS computes the correlation matrix using pairwise missing values. In regression 

analysis, there are several common approaches to the problem of missing data. The two simplest 

approaches are pairwise deletion of missing data and listwise deletion of missing data. In 

pairwise deletion, each correlation is calculated using all of the cases for the two relevant 

variables. For example, suppose you have a regression analysis that uses variables X1, X2, and 

X3. The regression is based on the correlation matrix between X1, X2, and X3. In pairwise 

deletion, the correlation between X1 and X2 is based on the nonmissing cases for X1 and X2. 

Cases missing on either X1 or X2 would be excluded from the calculation of the correlation. In 

listwise deletion, the correlation between X1 and X2 would be based on the nonmissing values 

for X1, X2, and X3. That is, all of the cases with missing data on any of the three variables 

would be excluded from the analysis. 

The correlation matrix produced by the DAS can be used by most statistical software 

packages as the input data for least squares regression. The DAS provides either the SPSS or 

SAS code necessary to run least squares regression models. The DAS also provides additional 

information to incorporate the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the 

18 See John H. Aldrich and Forrest D. Nelson, “Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models” (Quantitative Applications in Social 

Sciences, Vol. 45) (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984). Analysts who wish to estimate other types of models can apply for a 

restricted data license from NCES. 

19 See for example, Goodman, L.A., “The Relationship Between Modified and Usual Multiple-Regression Approaches to the 

Analysis of Dichotomous Variables”; pp. 83-110 in David Hoise ed., Sociolgical Methodology (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 

1976), and Knoke, D. “A Comparison of Log-Linear and Regression Models for Systems of Dichotomous Variables” 

(Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 3: Sage, 1975). 

60 
 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

parameter estimates. Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when 

computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used 

for the survey, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to 

multiply each standard error by the design effect associated with the dependent variable 

(DEFT),20 where the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error computed 

under the assumption of simple random sampling. The DEFT is calculated by the DAS and 

displayed with the correlation matrix output. 

Interpreting the Results 

The least squares regression coefficients displayed in the regression tables in this report are 

expressed as percentages. Significant coefficients represent the observed differences that remain 

between the analysis group (such as those who delayed enrollment) and the comparison group 

(did not delay) after controlling for the relationships of all the selected independent variables. 

For example, in table 11, the least squares coefficient for those who delayed enrollment for one 

year is –6.80. This means that compared to those who did not delay enrollment, roughly 7 

percent fewer of the group who delayed 1 year would be expected to attain a degree or be 

enrolled within 6 years of initial postsecondary enrollment, after controlling for the relationships 

among all the other independent variables. 

20 The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith, eds., Analysis of 

Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989). 

61 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix C—Supplemental Table 

63 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
—

Table C-1.—

Appendix C—Supplemental Table 

Table C-1. Percentage distributions among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who 

delayed enrollment 1 or more years, by selected student and enrollment characteristics 

Duration of delay 

10 or 

Selected student and enrollment No Any 2–4 5–9 more 

characteristics delay delay 1 year years years years

 Total (excluding Puerto Rico) 65.4 34.6 8.8 7.6 6.5 11.7

 Total (50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico) 65.7 34.3 8.7 7.6 6.5 11.5 

Gender

 Male 67.6 32.4 8.9 8.6 6.3 8.6

 Female 64.2 35.8 8.5 6.8 6.6 14.0 

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 46.1 53.9 11.2 18.2 7.6 16.9

 Asian/Pacific Islander 73.4 26.6 6.8 5.0 6.8 8.0

 Black 57.3 42.7 12.5 11.0 8.9 10.3

 Hispanic 67.1 32.9 12.2 7.9 5.3 7.6

 White 66.7 33.3 7.6 6.9 6.3 12.6 

Income level in 1994

 Bottom 25 percent 61.0 39.0 14.0 11.1 6.4 7.4

 Middle 50 percent 64.6 35.4 7.6 7.6 8.3 12.0

 Top 25 percent 73.8 26.2 5.1 3.5 2.2 15.5 

Parents’ highest education level

 High school diploma or less 49.4 50.6 8.8 10.5 8.7 22.6

 Some postsecondary education 71.3 28.7 10.7 7.0 7.2 3.8

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 82.7 17.3 7.6 4.6 3.0 2.2 

Dependency and marital status

 Dependent 85.8 14.2 8.6 5.2 0.4 0.0

 Independent, no dependents, unmarried 7.9 92.1 3.7 18.0 35.7 34.7

 Independent, no dependents, married 9.3 90.7 8.6 8.6 15.2 58.3

 Independent with dependents 9.6 90.4 10.9 14.5 21.3 43.7 

Primary language

 English 66.7 33.3 8.1 7.4 6.5 11.2

 Not English 57.9 42.1 15.3 10.2 6.9 9.8 

Type of first institution

 Public 2-year 56.9 43.1 10.1 8.1 9.0 15.9

 Public 4-year 83.9 16.1 7.3 4.4 1.8 2.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 87.7 12.4 5.3 3.2 1.3 2.6

 Private for-profit 32.0 68.0 10.9 18.2 14.6 24.3

 Other 2 29.7 70.3 10.7 17.9 9.8 31.8 

See notes at end of table. 

65 
—

Table C-1.—

Table C-1.—

Appendix C—Supplemental Table 

Table C-1. Percentage distributions among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who 

delayed enrollment 1 or more years, by selected student and enrollment characteristics— 

Continued 

Duration of delay 

Selected student and education 

characteristics 

No 

delay 

Any 

delay 1 year 

2–4 

years 

5–9 

years 

10 or 

more 

years 

Attendance intensity first year

 Exclusively full-time 

 Mixed full-time/part-time 

 Part-time only 

76.2 

65.7 

33.4 

23.8 

34.3 

66.6 

7.3 

11.8 

10.3 

6.7 

8.0 

10.1 

3.7 

5.9 

15.5 

6.0

8.6

30.7 

Degree expected at first institution

 None 

 Associate’s or certificate 

 Bachelor’s degree or transfer

 to 4-year insitution 

50.3 

47.4 

83.2 

49.7 

52.6 

16.8 

10.1 

9.4 

7.5 

9.0 

12.2 

3.9 

8.5 

11.6 

2.3 

22.3

19.5

3.0 

Highest degree ever expected 

 Less than a bachelor’s degree 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 

29.3 

74.0 

70.8 

26.0 

8.4 

8.6 

11.4 

6.8 

12.9 

4.8 

38.0

5.7 

Remedial coursetaking in first year

 Did not take courses 

 Took courses 

65.5 

67.3 

34.5 

32.7 

9.0 

7.2 

7.6 

9.0 

6.4 

7.3 

11.5

9.3 

Attainment or level of enrollment 2001

 Attained or still enrolled 

 Never attained, not enrolled 

72.4 

52.6 

27.6 

47.4 

7.8 

10.5 

6.7 

9.3 

4.8 

9.8 

8.3

17.8 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ 

reports.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). 

66