A Profile of the

Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement Program

1997–1998 THROUGH 2001–2002

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Federal TRIO Programs

2005

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Education

Offi ce of Postsecondary Education

Federal TRIO Programs

2005

By

Mary Seburn

Tsze Chan

Rita Kirshstein

American Institutes for Research®

A Profi le of the

Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement Program

1997–1998 THROUGH 2001–2002
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-01-CO-0026 by the 

American Institutes for Research.® Frances Bergeron provided technical review of the content. Shirley Johnson 

served as the contracting offi cer’s representative. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No 

offi cial endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise 

mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Offi ce of Postsecondary Education

Sally L. Stroup

Assistant Secretary

Federal TRIO Programs

Larry Oxendine

Director

April 2005

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, 

Offi ce of Postsecondary Education, A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 

1997–1998 Through 2001–2002. Washington, D.C., 2005.

To obtain additional copies of this report:

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 

20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your 

area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734.

or order online at: www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: www.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or 

(202) 205-8113. 
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 iii

Table of Contents 

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................vii

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................ix

Highlights ................................................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................1

Background and purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Annual award and authorization .................................................................................................................................... 2

Project activities, 1999–2000 and 2001–02 .................................................................................................................. 4

Data described in this report ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02 .............................7

Active participants ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Eligibility status ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Race/ethnicity .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Gender ................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Age at project entry ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Current year in college ........................................................................................................................................... 11

New participants ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Eligibility status ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

Race/ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Gender ................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Age at project entry ................................................................................................................................................ 16

Current year in college ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Project entry date ................................................................................................................................................... 16

All project participants, 1997–98 through 2001–02 .................................................................................................... 17

Eligibility status ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

Race/ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................................ 18
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Table of Contents

iv

Gender ................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Age at project entry ................................................................................................................................................ 20

Current year in college ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact .............................................................................................23

A note concerning data quality .................................................................................................................................... 23

Baccalaureate degrees earned ...................................................................................................................................... 24

Graduate school acceptance and entrance .................................................................................................................. 24

Graduate school persistence ........................................................................................................................................ 27

A comparison of graduate school persistence .............................................................................................................. 28

Doctoral and other advanced degrees earned .............................................................................................................. 30

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Chapter 4: Future Directions ..................................................................................................................35

References ..............................................................................................................................................37

Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................39

Appendices

Appendix A: Other Related References ....................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix B: Region of McNair Grantee Institutions .................................................................................................. 45

Appendix C: Response Rates and Data Issues ............................................................................................................. 47

Appendix D: Persistence Rate Documentation ............................................................................................................ 51

Tables

Table 1.01. Annual McNair award, number of grantees, and expected number of program participants: 

1989–90 through 2001–02 ..............................................................................................................3

Table 1.02. Actual number of participants served, average award per participant, and average number of 

participants per grantee: 1996–97 through 2001–02 .......................................................................3

Table 1.03. Number and percent distribution of selected grantee characteristics: 2001–02 ..............................4

Table 1.04. A comparison of program activities: Percent providing project activities and average number of 

participants, 1999–2000 and 2001–02 ............................................................................................5

Table 2.01. Number and distribution of new, active, and all participants, by year: 1997–98 

through 2001–02 .............................................................................................................................7

Table 2.02. Percent distribution of active participants, by eligibility status: 1997–98 through 

2001–02 ..........................................................................................................................................8
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 v

Table 2.03. Percent distribution of active participants, by race/ethnicity: 1997–98 through 

2001–02 ..........................................................................................................................................9

Table 2.04. Percent distribution of active participants, by race/ethnicity and eligibility status: 

2001–02 ........................................................................................................................................10

Table 2.05. Percent distribution of active participants, by gender: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ........................10

Table 2.06. Percent distribution of active participants, by college grade level: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ......12

Table 2.07. Percent distribution of new participants, by length of participation: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ..13

Table 2.08. Percent distribution of new participants, by eligibility status: 1997–98 through 

2001–02 ........................................................................................................................................13

Table 2.09. Percent distribution of new participants, by race/ethnicity: 1997–98 through 

2001–02 ........................................................................................................................................14

Table 2.10. Percent distribution of new participants, by race/ethnicity and eligibility status, 

2001–02 ........................................................................................................................................15

Table 2.11. Percent distribution of new participants, by gender: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ..........................15

Table 2.12. Percent distribution of new participants, by college grade level: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ........17

Table 2.13. Percent distribution of all participant records, by eligibility status and reporting year: 1997–98 

through 2001–02 ...........................................................................................................................18

Table 2.14. Percent distribution of all participant records, by race/ethnicity and reporting year: 1997–98 

through 2001–02 ...........................................................................................................................18

Table 2.15. Percent distribution of all participant records, by gender and reporting year: 

1997–98 through 2001–02 ............................................................................................................19

Table 2.16. Percent distribution of all participant records, by college grade level and reporting 

year: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ...................................................................................................21

Table 3.01. Percent of active participants, by year of active participation and time to bachelor’s degree: 

1997–98 through 2001–02 ............................................................................................................24

Table 3.02. Graduate school acceptance and entrance one year after graduation for McNair bachelor’s 

degree recipients, by graduation year: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ................................................25

Table 3.03. Number and percent of 2000–01 McNair college graduates who enrolled in graduate 

programs at the end of 2001–02, by selected characteristics .........................................................25

Table 3.04. Graduate school acceptance, enrollment, and retention for McNair college graduates 

for the years following graduation, by graduation year: 1997–98 through 2001–02 .......................26

Table 3.05. Graduate school enrollment and persistence rates for McNair college graduates enrolling 

in graduate school immediately after graduation, by graduation year: 

1997–98 through 2000–01 ............................................................................................................27

Table of Contents
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Table of Contents

vi

Table 3.06. Comparing graduate school persistence: McNair and B&B bachelor’s degree 

recipients .......................................................................................................................................29

Table 3.07. Percent distribution of all participants, by academic degrees earned in each reporting year: 

1997–98 through 2001–02 ............................................................................................................30

Table 3.08. Percent distribution of all participants, by highest degree earned and selected demographic 

characteristics: 2001–02 ................................................................................................................31

Table 3.09. Comparison of the percent distribution of doctoral degree recipients and all students who 

ever participated in the program, by selected demographic characteristics: 2001–02 ...................32

Table B-1. Geographic distribution of grantees. ..............................................................................................45

Table C-1. Number of records reported and response rates for McNair grantees: 1996–97 

through 2001–02. ..........................................................................................................................47

Table C-2. Percent of missing, out-of-range, or invalid student records, by reporting year: 

1996–97 through 2001–02. ...........................................................................................................48

Table C-3. Data fi eld changes: 1997–98 through 2001–02. ............................................................................49

Table D-1. Graduate school persistence for McNair college graduates enrolling in graduate 

school immediately after graduation: 1997–98 through 2000–01. .................................................51

Figures

Figure 2.01. Percent distribution of active participants, by race/ethnicity: 2001–02 ........................................9

Figure 2.02. Percent distribution of active participants, by age at project entry: 

1997–98 through 2001–02 .........................................................................................................11

Figure 2.03. Percent distribution of new participants, by race/ethnicity: 2001–02 .........................................14

Figure 2.04. Percent distribution of new participants, by age at project entry: 1997–98 through 2001–02 ....16

Figure 2.05. Percent distribution of all participants, by race/ethnicity: 2001–02 ...........................................19

Figure 2.06. Percent distribution of all participants, by age at project entry: 1997–98 through 2001–02 .......20
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 vii

Foreword 

To ensure the success of President Bush’s education initiative “No Child Left Behind,” highquality postsecondary educational opportunities must be available to all students. In keeping with 

this goal, the Federal TRIO Programs provide outreach and support programs to assist low-income, 

fi rst-generation college students in progressing through the academic pipeline from middle school to 

postbaccalaureate programs.

On behalf of the Federal TRIO Programs, I am pleased to present this report, A Profi le of the Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1997–98 Through 2001–02. The TRIO Program prepares 

low-income, fi rst-generation college students and individuals from groups that are underrepresented in 

graduate education for doctoral studies through involvement in research and other scholarly activities. 

In addition, this report compares McNair participants with a national sample of students with similar 

characteristics from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study conducted by the National Center 

for Education Statistics.

This report is the third in a series of reports that present a national profi le of the McNair Program. 

The previous reports, A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998–99 

and A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999–2000 are available 

from the Department. Individual project reports, published separately, summarize specifi c information 

submitted by each McNair project and provide aggregate information on other McNair projects in the 

same federal region, and the nation. The performance reports, submitted annually by McNair projects, 

served as the primary data source for both the individual project reports and the national profi le.

We are proud to continue our process for sharing national statistical information on the McNair 

Program. It is our hope that the collection and dissemination of this information will foster communication 

aimed at furthering our mission and implementing measures to see how well we are doing. We look 

forward to continuing to work together to improve program services and increase the number of students 

who earn doctoral degrees.

Larry Oxendine

Director

Federal TRIO Programs
viii A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 ix

Acknowledgments 

Publishing this report was a team effort, and we appreciate the support of all who contributed. 

First we thank the project staff members of the McNair projects who reported the data upon which 

this profi le report is based. We also want to thank Linda Byrd-Johnson, team leader for the McNair 

Program, for her contributions. Frances Bergeron, team leader, Program Management and Development, 

Federal TRIO Programs, coordinated the data collection and reporting processes, provided feedback 

as the report developed, and reviewed the report. Teresita Kopka, also of TRIO, provided a careful 

review of the document in preparation for publication. We would also like to thank Paula Knepper of 

the National Center for Education Statistics for clarifying data issues relating to the Baccalaureate and 

Beyond Longitudinal Study.
x A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 xi

Highlights 

This report describes the annual report data provided by McNair grantees for program years 1997–98 

through 2001–02. For the 2001–02 program year, all 156 McNair projects submitted participant- and 

program-level data, resulting in a 100 percent response rate. More than 16,772 participants had received 

services from the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program in the reporting period 

between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

Grantees

• In 2001–02, the program had supported 156 grantees, 80 percent of whom were publicly controlled 

higher education institutions.

• Grantees included 18 percent minority-serving institutions—13 Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCUs) and 15 Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).

• Nine out of ten institutions (92 percent) were doctoral or master’s degree-granting and almost 

two-thirds (65 percent) had full-time equivalent enrollments of 10,000 or more.

• On average, each grantee served 26 students in 2001–02.

Participants

• In 2000–01 and 2001–02, 3,877 and 4,012 students received program services, respectively.

• In both years, more participants were female (69 percent) than male.

• African American students made up 47 percent of the active participants in 2001–02, followed 

by 24 percent Hispanic/Latino, 18 percent white, and fewer than 5 percent each Asian, American 

Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/other Pacifi c Islander.

• In 2001–02, most participants were juniors or seniors in college (25 and 53 percent, 

respectively).

Services

• In 2001–02, grantees received an average award of approximately $9,500 per participant.

• However, because projects served more students than they were initially funded to serve (26 vs. 

24), the average award per actual participant served was approximately $8,900.

• The most common services provided by grantees included academic counseling, seminars, summer 

internships, and assistance with admissions and fi nancial aid.
Highlights

xii A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

• The most popular services for participants were academic counseling, seminars, admission 

assistance, and fi nancial aid assistance.

Outcomes

• Approximately 40 percent of McNair participants who completed their bachelor’s degrees in 

2000–01 were accepted into graduate school, 98 percent of those accepted enrolled.

• The percentage of graduates entering graduate school increased each year, from 13 percent in 

1998–99 to 39 percent in 2000–01.

• A higher percentage of underrepresented students enrolled in graduate school than did low-income 

and fi rst-generation students, and a higher percentage of whites and American Indian/Alaska Natives 

enrolled than did members of other ethnic groups.

• The number of participants who entered graduate programs not only increased each year but 

also increased with each year after graduation, suggesting that many participants do not enroll in 

graduate school immediately after graduation.

• In 2000–01, 93 percent of those who enrolled in graduate school immediately after graduation 

were still enrolled after one year. Of those who graduated in 1999–2000 and enrolled immediately 

in graduate school, 85 percent were still enrolled after one year, and 60 percent were still enrolled 

after two years.

• Compared with a nationally representative sample and a demographically similar sample, a slightly 

higher percentage of McNair participants enrolled in graduate school (10 percent compared with 

6.4 and 5.8 percent). However, compared with the same samples, McNair participants persisted 

less once enrolled in graduate school.

• Although nearly all participants earned bachelor’s degrees (95 percent, four years after program 

participation), whites and Asians were more likely to earn advanced degrees.

• Overall, 16 percent of all participants had earned a master’s degree; 4 percent had earned a doctoral 

or other terminal degree.

• By 2001–02, nearly 500 participants had earned doctorates. Compared to the ethnicity makeup 

of all participants, slightly higher proportions of whites and Asians earned doctorates.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 1

Chapter 1 

Introduction

This report describes the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program for the fi ve 

program years 1997–98 through 2001–02. Grantees are required to submit Annual Performance Reports 

(APRs) to the U.S. Department of Education detailing project-level activities and goals and participant 

demographics and academic progress. This report, the third in a series of reports describing the McNair 

Program, presents grantee data from program years 2000–01 and 2001–02 for the fi rst time and includes 

data from earlier years for comparison purposes. In addition, this report compares McNair participants 

with a national sample of students with similar characteristics from the Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics.

Appendix A lists reference information for other publications describing the McNair Program and 

its participants.

Background and purpose

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, the McNair Program is one of eight federal TRIO 

programs that provide educational support and opportunities to students from economically disadvantaged 

backgrounds. The three original federal programs, from which “TRIO” derived its name, began in 

the 1960s: Upward Bound (1964), Talent Search (1965), and Student Support Services (1968). The 

fourth TRIO program, Educational Opportunity Centers, was added in 1972. The Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, the subject of this report, resulted from the 1986 amendments 

to the Higher Education Act of 1965. In 1990, the Department of Education created the Upward Bound 

Math-Science Program to help Upward Bound students recognize and develop their potential to excel 

in the fi elds of mathematics and science. TRIO also includes a training program for TRIO directors 

and staff, authorized in 1976, and the newest program, TRIO Dissemination Partnership, authorized 

in 1998 to facilitate the replication of successful program practices at institutions and agencies that do 

not have a federally funded TRIO project.

The goal of the McNair Program is to increase the number of doctoral degrees earned by students from 

underrepresented populations. The program awards grants to undergraduate institutions for projects to 

motivate and prepare students from disadvantaged backgrounds with strong academic potential. Grantees 

work with students through the completion of the undergraduate degree, assisting with graduate school 

preparation, application, and entrance. Grantees also track students’ academic progress through the 

successful completion of the doctoral degree.
Chapter 1: Introduction

2 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Services provided to McNair participants include the following:

• Research opportunities for college juniors and seniors

• Mentoring

• Seminars and other activities to prepare students for doctoral studies

• Internships for participants who have completed their sophomore year in postsecondary education 

(with a research stipend of up to $2,800)

• Tutoring

• Academic counseling

• Assistance in securing admission and fi nancial aid for graduate school

Eligible students must be enrolled in an undergraduate degree program at a participating institution. 

At least two-thirds of all participants must be low-income and fi rst-generation college students.1

The remaining one-third may consist of members of groups that are underrepresented in graduate 

education2; currently, this includes those of Hispanic, African American, or American Indian/Alaska 

Native descent.

Annual award and authorization

As previously noted, the McNair Program is authorized under a 1986 amendment to the Higher 

Education Act of 1965. The fi rst projects were funded in 1989, with grant competitions currently held 

every four years. All grants are awarded on a four-year cycle, except for the institutions that score in the 

top 10 percent of each competition. These grants are awarded for fi ve years.

Table 1.01 describes the annual award to the McNair Program along with information about the 

number of participants the program was expecting to serve. In program year 1989–90, the McNair 

Program funded 14 projects that expected to serve 415 students. By program year 2001–02, 156 projects 

were expected to provide services to 3,774 students. The funding level of the McNair Program increased 

from a little less than $1.5 million in program year 1989–90 to $35.8 million in program year 2001–02. 

Even when converted to 2002 dollars (values not displayed in table), the amount expected to be available 

per participant almost doubled over this time period because the average number of students that each 

project was funded to serve did not fl uctuate widely, ranging between 23 and 30 students.

Because the actual number of participants served increased faster than the number of students the 

projects were funded to serve over the last three program years, the average amount actually available per 

participant has decreased slightly (Table 1.02). In program year 1996–97, just more than 2,000 students 

received services from 99 projects with a total appropriation of $19.8 million for an average of $9,772 

available per student. By program year 2001–02, the program served more than 4,000 students at a 

1 A low-income individual is one whose family’s taxable income for the preceding year did not exceed 150 percent of the federal 

poverty level. A fi rst-generation college student is one whose parents (or single parent) have never completed a baccalaureate 

degree.

2 This category initially included women and Asian or Pacifi c Islanders until the current defi nition became policy in 1996. 

Current grantees may seek to include other groups as underrepresented by providing supporting statistical documentation to 

the secretary of education.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 3

Table 1.02. Actual number of participants served, average award per participant, and average number 

of participants per grantee: 1996–97 through 2001–02

 (Actual) number of Average award per Average (actual) number

Program year participants served (actual) participant served served by each grantee

1996–97 2,028 $9,772 20.5

1997–98 2,203 9,245 22.3

1998–99 3,121 6,656 20.0

1999–00 3,338 9,621 21.4

2000–01 3,877 8,991 24.9

2001–02 4,012 8,920 25.7

NOTE: The number of participants served is the same as the number of active participants in each year described 

in Chapter 2. Because APR response rates were less than 100 percent prior to 2000–01, these numbers do not include all 

participants actually served in those years.

SOURCE: Funding data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs; 

participant data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports. 

Table 1.01. Annual McNair award, number of grantees, and expected number of program participants: 

1989–90 through 2001–02

 Number of

 participants Average

grantees Average number of

 Annual Number of funded award per (expected)

 program awards Average (expected) (expected) participants

Program year award (grantees) award to serve participant per award

1989–90 $1,482,000 14 $105,857 415 $3,571 29.6

1990–91 3,000,000 28 107,143 730 4,110 26.1

1991–92 4,944,000 42 117,714 1,000 4,944 23.8

1992–93 9,576,000 68 140,824 1,700 5,633 25.0

1993–94 9,598,000 68 141,147 1,730 5,548 25.4

1994–95 11,900,000 68 175,000 1,800 6,611 26.5

1995–96 19,080,000 99 192,727 2,460 7,756 24.8

1996–97 19,817,000 99 200,172 2,480 7,991 25.1

1997–98 20,367,000 99 205,727 2,480 8,213 25.1

1998–99 20,774,063 99 209,839 2,469 8,414 24.9

1999–00 32,114,068 156 205,859 3,641 8,820 23.3

2000–01 34,859,043 156 223,455 3,774 9,237 24.2

2001–02 35,785,817 156 229,396 3,774 9,482 24.2

SOURCE: Funding data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs. 

Chapter 1: Introduction

3 Grantees reported serving more students than we describe in this report. According to the numbers reported in the APRs alone, 

projects actually reported serving 150 percent of the students they were funded to serve. Through conversations with grantee 

staff and consultation with the TRIO offi ce, we concluded that this over-reporting was likely due to a misunderstanding of the 

defi nition of “students served.” As such, we include only the participants selected as new or continuing based on participant 

status in conjunction with prior year participant and enrollment status (resulting in 106 percent instead of 150 percent). See 

“Future Directions” chapter for further discussion.

funding level of $36 million, averaging approximately $8,900 per student. In program year 2001–02, the 

actual number served was 106 percent of the number of students the program was funded to serve.3
Chapter 1: Introduction

4 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Table 1.03. Number and percent distribution of selected grantee characteristics: 2001–02

 Number of Percent of

Characteristics institutions institutions

All 156 100.0

Control

 Public 125 80.1

 Private 31 19.9

Average size (FTE enrollmenta

)

 <10,000 54 34.6

 10,000 to 25,000 65 41.7

 >25,000 37 23.7

Carnegie classifi cation

 Baccalaureate – General and Liberal Arts 8 5.1

 Master’s I and II 50 32.0

 Doctoral – Extensive and Intensive 94 60.3

 Specialized 3 1.9

 Not applicableb

 1 0.7

Minority institutionsc

 Historically Black Colleges and Universities 13 8.3

 Hispanic-Serving Institutions 15 9.6

 Not identifi ed as minority specifi c 125 80.1

 Unknown/Not applicable 3 1.9

a

Full-time equivalent enrollment.

b

One grantee was a consortium of institutions of varying size; a Carnegie Classifi cation is not reported for this grantee.

c

The minority-serving status of two institutions were not reported, and minority status does not apply to the consortium.

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs and IPEDS College 

Opportunities On-line, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool.

The $36 million appropriation for the McNair Program in program year 2001–02 represents about 

5 percent of the total appropriation to all TRIO programs in that year. The McNair Program is one of the 

smaller TRIO programs, but it is the only one that aims to increase the representation of disadvantaged 

students in graduate school. Table 1.03 describes the characteristics of the 156 grantee institutions for 

2001–02. The majority of grantees were public, doctoral degree-granting universities with total full-time 

equivalent (FTE) enrollments of more than 10,000 students. Twenty-eight grantees were minority-serving 

institutions, either Historically Black Colleges and Universities or Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Appendix 

B describes the geographic dispersion of grantee institutions throughout the United States.

Project activities, 1999–2000 and 2001–02

Grantees report student participation in seven authorized activities central to the goals of the McNair 

Program. To simplify the analysis of the activities, we compared the earliest year for which enough data 

were available (program year 1999–2000) with the most recent year (program year 2001–02). Although 

the two years comprise the same 156 grantees, not all grantees provided APR data in 1999–2000. As 
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 5

such, the comparison is between the 148 grantees (of 156) providing APR data in 1999–2000 and all 

156 grantees in 2001–02. (Table 1.04)

In 2001–02, most projects provided the following activities: academic counseling, seminars, summer 

internships (99 percent), admission assistance (98 percent), fi nancial aid assistance (96 percent), tutorial 

assistance (87 percent), and other research (81 percent). In addition, grantees offered several other 

activities, including workshops, test preparation, visits to graduate schools, and opportunities to attend 

and present at conferences.

Table 1.04. A comparison of program activities: Percent providing project activities and average 

number of participants, 1999–2000 and 2001–02

 1999–00 2001–02 1999–00 2001–02

Authorized activities

 Academic counseling 24.2 28.2 100.0 99.4

 Seminars 22.2 25.1 98.9 99.4

 Summer internshipsb

 17.0 16.5 96.8 98.7

 Admission assistance 18.8 22.2 91.6 98.1

 Financial aid assistance 20.0 22.7 85.3 96.2

 Tutorial assistance 10.6 12.2 76.8 86.5

 Other researchc

 7.0 8.7 65.3 81.4

Other activities

 Conferences, presentations 14.0 15.6 69.2 78.2

 Workshops 16.6 18.3 48.7 53.2

 Graduate school visits, fairs 16.7 16.5 48.7 51.9

 Test preparation 18.3 17.9 48.7 50.0

a

Data presented in table are based on 148 (of 156) grantees in 1999–2000 and 156 (of 156) grantees in 2001–02.

b

Summer internships refer only to those research activities that provided the legislated stipend of up to $2,800.

c

Other research refers to unpaid research activities or those that included compensation from other sources.

NOTE: Most participants receive more than one service and participate in more than one activity and thus may be included 

in the count for more than one activity. Percentages in this table are of all projects from each reporting year.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Percent of institutions

providing activity

Average number of

participants in activitya

More students participated in academic counseling than in any other activity, with an average of 28 

participants per grantee; the fewest students participated in other research activities, with an average 

of nine participants per grantee.

Changes between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 were minimal, but this is expected, given that the 156 

grantees are the same in both years. The most notable change in program offerings was the increase in 

the percentage of institutions offering other research activities; in 1999–2000, 65 percent of grantees 

provided nonfunded research activities, but in 2001–02, 81 percent provided such activities. There 

were more student participants in 2001–02 than in 1999–2000, so the average number of students per 

activity was higher. Except for this increase, student participation in the listed activities was relatively 

constant across both years.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction

6 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Data described in this report

The data used in this report are provided annually by individual grantees. Over the years, the quality 

of these data has greatly improved. Response rates for the annual reports increased from 63.6 percent in 

1996–97 to 100 percent in 2000–01 and 2001–02. The number of invalid and missing fi elds decreased 

from 40 percent for some fi elds to fewer than 5 percent for the same fi elds in recent years. Because the 

1996–97 data were reported by only 63 of the 99 grantees and contained a high percentage of missing, 

invalid, and out-of-range values, we use only data reported after 1996–97. This report describes valid data 

only and therefore the totals reported in the tables may vary. For this report we have excluded missing 

and invalid data from tables and charts. Appendix C provides detailed information about response rates, 

missing data, and other data issues.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 7

Chapter 2 

Student Participants in the McNair Program, 

1997–98 Through 2001–02

This chapter switches the focus from project-level activities to the student participants themselves. 

McNair participants are examined in three ways. The fi rst approach includes only active McNair 

participants, describing students who actually received services in each reporting year. The second 

approach includes new participants only, describing students receiving program services for the fi rst 

time in each reporting year. Describing participants in these two ways highlights any changes in new 

participants or patterns in new participant selection over time.

The third approach describes all individuals reported by projects in a given year, including new, 

continuing, and all former participants.4

 This approach, although consistent with previous McNair 

reports, is somewhat less meaningful in that the majority of students who are included are not receiving 

any direct services from the grantee. This is particularly the case in the more recent years as the number 

of former participants accumulates. By program year 2001–02, active and new participants made up 

only 24 and 14 percent, respectively, of all participants reported. (Table 2.01)

Table 2.01. Number and distribution of new, active, and all participants, by year: 1997–98 through 

2001–02

Program Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

year Number of all of active change Number of all change Number

1997–98 1,590 38.4 72.2 — 2,203 53.2 — 4,140

1998–99 1,892 21.1 60.6 19.0 3,121 34.9 41.7 8,948

1999–00 2,399 22.2 71.9 26.8 3,338 30.9 7.0 10,816

2000–01 2,208 15.4 57.0 -8.0 3,877 27.1 16.1 14,328

2001–02 2,302 13.7 57.4 4.3 4,012 23.9 3.5 16,772

NOTE: The sum of the number of active and new participants differs from the numbers presented in Table 1 in Appendix 

C, which displays participant status for each year as reported by grantees. The active and new participants in Table 2.01 

(and described in this chapter) do not include all participants reported to be new (or continuing) but include only those 

who were selected as new or continuing on the basis of reported status in conjunction with prior year participant status and 

enrollment status.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports. 

New participants Active participants

All

participants

4 Projects are required to follow all students who ever received services at any time from the McNair Program until the time 

they receive a doctoral degree. The program does not currently allow projects to identify participants who have completed their

educations with lesser degrees than the Ph.D. In many cases, this means that a student is reported as being “not enrolled” 

year after year. Because many of these participants are no longer receiving services from the McNair Program or even making 

academic progress, the inclusion of all prior participants in the analysis distorts, to some degree, the actual services that 

projects provide.
Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

8 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Just more than half (53 percent) of the student records reported in 1997–98 were for active participants. 

By 2001–02, only 24 percent of the participant records describe active participants. The percentage of 

active participants who are new to the McNair Program decreases over time. In 1997–98, 72 percent 

of active participants were receiving program services for the fi rst time. By 2001–02, only 57 percent of 

active students receiving McNair services were in their fi rst year of participation in the program.

Active participants

Active participants are those students that received project services during that year; participants 

receiving project services for more than one year are included in each year that services are received.5

In 2001–02, active participants made up approximately 24 percent of all participants described in the 

APRs. This section describes active participants only. The number of active participants described in 

each table varies slightly due to either nonreported data or invalid data. Table 2.01 provides the total 

number of active participants.

Eligibility status

At least two-thirds of the participants served by each project must be low-income and fi rst-generation 

college students. The remaining one-third may belong to certain groups that are underrepresented in 

graduate education, presently defi ned as African American, Hispanic or Latino, and American Indian/

Alaska Native. Table 2.02 shows that during the fi ve years for which data are reported, the percentage of 

low-income and fi rst-generation students participating in McNair was slightly more than 70 percent.

Race/ethnicity

For all years, nearly half of the active participants were African American, approximately 25 percent 

were Hispanic or Latino, and nearly 20 percent were white. (Table 2.03) The race/ethnicity composition 

of McNair participants did not change over the fi ve reporting years.

5 Active participants include those students whom grantees classify as “new” participants and who (a) are not reported in 

previous years or (b) have a project entry date in the academic year in which they are reported as “new.” Active participants 

also include students classifi ed as “continuing” who are currently enrolled as an undergraduate.

Table 2.02. Percent distribution of active participants, by eligibility status: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Eligibility status

 Low-income and fi rst-generation 72.3 73.2 70.8 70.7 70.4

 Underrepresented 27.7 26.8 29.2 29.3 29.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 2,195 3,119 3,334 3,868 3,977

NOTE: Because the number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, the data presented in 

this table include valid cases only. The totals here may differ from totals presented in other tables.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports. 

Active participants
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 9

Table 2.03. Percent distribution of active participants, by race/ethnicity: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska Native 4.7 4.1 3.9 3.8 4.1

 Asian 5.3 5.8 4.5 4.5 4.7

 Black/African American 45.4 41.0 47.1 46.0 47.0

 Hispanic or Latino 24.8 28.3 23.0 24.8 23.5

 White 18.2 19.3 19.1 18.4 17.9

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacifi c Islander — — 0.8 0.9 1.0

 More than one race/othera

 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 2,203 3,115 3,315 3,848 3,993

 —Not available; Native Hawaiians and Pacifi c Islanders were included with Asians in program years 1997–98 and 1998–

99. To compare across years, add the percentage for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander to Asian for the program years 

1999–2000 through 2001–02.

a

Original category was “Other”; in 1999–2000, this option was changed to “More than one race reported.”

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables. Percents in each column may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Year of active participation

Figure 2.01. Percent distribution of active participants, by race/ethnicity: 2001–02

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports. 

American Indian/Alaska Native (4.1%)

Asian (4.7%)

Hispanic or Latino (23.5%) Black/African American (47.0%)

White (17.9%)

Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (1.0%)

More than one race/other (1.8%)

According to eligibility status alone, just fewer than 30 percent of the active participants were reported 

as belonging to underrepresented groups. However, as can be seen by the distribution of race/ethnicity 

in Table 2.03 and Figure 2.01, approximately 75 percent of the active participants each year belonged 

to the three groups underrepresented in graduate education (African American, Hispanic, and American 

Indian/Alaska Native).

For the purpose of determining eligibility for program services, McNair projects report participants 

as low-income and fi rst-generation or as underrepresented. However, many participants are clearly both 

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02
Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

10 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

underrepresented and low-income and fi rst-generation. Indeed, Hispanic and African American students 

are both underrepresented in graduate education and are less likely than Asian or white students to have 

parents with college degrees (Nettles & Millett, 1999). Table 2.04 presents the distribution of race/

ethnicity by eligibility status for the most recent year’s data. This table shows that many underrepresented 

participants were also low-income and fi rst-generation. At least 62 percent of African Americans, 

68 percent of Latinos, and 53 percent of American Indian/Alaska Natives both belonged to ethnic groups 

underrepresented in graduate education and were low-income and fi rst-generation.

Table 2.05. Percent distribution of active participants, by gender: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Gender

 Male 35.3 33.5 32.9 31.1 30.8

 Female 64.7 66.5 67.1 68.9 69.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 2,203 3,118 3,310 3,870 4,004

NOTE: Because the number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, the data presented in 

this table include valid cases only. The totals here may differ from totals presented in other tables.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports. 

Year of active participation

Table 2.04. Percent distribution of active participants, by race/ethnicity and eligibility status: 2001–02

 Percent low-income Percent

 N and fi rst-generation underrepresented Total

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska Native 147 53.1 46.9 100.0

 Asian 179 90.5 9.5 a

 100.0

 Black/African American 1,872 62.1 37.9 100.0

 Hispanic or Latino 934 67.6 32.4 100.0

 White 714 94.3 5.7 a

 100.0

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacifi c Islander 40 75.0 25.0 100.0

 More than one race/otherb

 72 63.9 36.1 100.0

a

Although members of these ethnic groups are not considered underrepresented in graduate education, this table describes 

eligibility status as reported by projects.

b

Original category was “Other”; in 1999–2000, this option was changed to “More than one race reported.”

NOTE: Because the number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, the data presented in 

this table include valid cases only. The totals here may differ from totals presented in other tables.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports. 

Eligibility status

Gender

Approximately two-thirds of the active participants in each year are women, and this proportion 

increases slightly over time, from 65 percent in 1997–98 to 69 percent in 2001–02 (Table 2.05).
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 11

Age at project entry

About a third of active participants each year were between the ages of 17 and 20 at project entry. 

Slightly fewer than 40 percent were between the ages of 21 and 22. More than 10 percent in each year 

were older than 30. Although there were slight fl uctuations from year to year, the overall age distribution 

was similar across the fi ve years reported (Figure 2.02). The average age of active participants at project 

entry decreased slightly each year, from 24.2 years in 1997–98 to 23.5 years in 2001–02.

Figure 2.02. Percent distribution of active participants, by age at project entry: 1997–98 through 

2001–02

NOTE: Because the number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, the data presented in 

this table include valid cases only. Percents in each stacked bar may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

30.5

12.3

7.9

38.1

11.2

9.1 8.2 7.5 7.4

27.5

36.7

12.9

13.8

28.8

36.7

12.8

13.0

28.7

38.2

12.7

12.9

32.7

37.5

11.3

11.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Percent

17–20 years 21–22 years 23–25 years 26–30 years 30+ years

Current year in college

The McNair Program targets doctoral degree-seeking juniors and seniors, and the distribution of grade 

levels for the active participants refl ects this. Approximately 50 percent of active participants in each 

year were seniors, and approximately 25 percent were juniors. Nearly 15 percent were fi fth year/seniors, 

and just fewer than 5 percent were sophomores (see Table 2.06).

Two McNair projects were funded at graduate-level institutions, accounting for the small proportion of 

active graduate-level participants. A small percentage of active participants each year were not currently 

enrolled. This group likely included students who stopped out (are taking a temporary break in otherwise 

continuous enrollment) or dropped out (have quit with no plans to return) during the year in which they 

were participating in the McNair Program.

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02
Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

12 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

New participants

This section describes new participants only. New participants are those students who received 

project services for the fi rst time during a reporting year.6

 In 2001–02, new students accounted for about 

57 percent of the active program participants and approximately 14 percent of all reported student 

records (Table 2.01). The number of new participants described in each table varies slightly due to either 

nonreported or invalid data (Table 2.01 also provides the total number of new participants).

While approximately 40 percent of the new participants each year participated in the program for a 

single year, nearly 60 percent received project services for multiple years (Table 2.07). For program years 

1997–98 through 1999–2000, approximately 30 percent of new participants remained in the program 

for two years, and another 15–25 percent remained involved with the program and received services for 

three years or longer.

Table 2.06. Percent distribution of active participants, by college grade level: 1997–98 through 

2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Current college grade

 1st year, never attended 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3

 1st year, attended before 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3

 2nd year/sophomore 3.7 3.8 5.4 4.4 4.5

 3rd year/junior 25.4 22.6 25.9 24.0 24.9

 4th year/senior 49.2 48.0 49.2 50.3 52.5

 5th year/other undergraduates 12.7 15.7 12.7 15.7 14.3

 1st-year graduate/professional 7.4 6.1 2.9 2.4 1.8

 2nd year or beyond graduate/professional 1.5 2.8 0.3 0.2 0.3

 Not currently enrolled — — 2.7 2.7 1.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 1,992 2,766 3,196 3,811 3,954

 —Not available; this was not an available response option in these reporting years.

NOTE: College grade level is determined by institutional credit hour defi nitions and not by the number of years of 

undergraduate enrollment. The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, thus, the 

totals may differ from totals presented in other tables. Percents in columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Year of active participation

6 New participants were those who were not present in previous year’s data and (a) whose participant status was “new” or (b) 

whose project entry dates indicated they were new to the McNair Program in the year they were fi rst included in the APR.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 13

Table 2.08. Percent distribution of new participants, by eligibility status: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Eligibility status

 Low-income/fi rst-generation 71.8 73.5 69.9 70.1 69.5

 Underrepresented 28.2 26.4 30.1 29.9 30.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 1,585 1,891 2,396 2,203 2,270

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

New participants

Table 2.07. Percent distribution of new participants, by length of participation: 1997–98 through 

2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Length of participation

 Single year 43.5 47.2 40.4 41.8 100.0

 Multiple years 56.5 52.8 59.6 58.2 †

 Two years 32.3 30.4 33.8 58.2 †

 Three years 15.2 14.3 25.5 † †

 Four years 6.5 7.9 † † †

 Five or more years 2.6 † † † †

Number of records 1,590 1,892 2,399 2,175 2,254

†Not applicable; not enough time has passed to determine cell value.

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables. Percents in each column may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

New participants

Eligibility status

Approximately 70 percent of new participants were low-income and fi rst-generation students. 

This percentage remained constant across reporting years and is consistent with program eligibility 

requirements, ranging from 70 to 74 percent (Table 2.08).

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02
Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

14 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Race/ethnicity

In 2000–01, the most recent reporting year, slightly fewer than half of new participants were black 

or African American, a little more than one-fi fth were Hispanic or Latino, and slightly fewer than onefi fth were white (Figure 2.03). These proportions were relatively similar across the years, although some 

fl uctuations occurred (Table 2.09).

Table 2.09. Percent distribution of new participants, by race/ethnicity: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska Native 5.5 3.9 3.5 4.0 4.4

 Asian 5.8 6.0 4.5 4.7 5.1

 Black/African American 43.3 40.8 48.8 45.6 48.0

 Hispanic or Latino 24.4 27.4 21.7 24.8 21.7

 White 19.5 20.4 18.9 18.5 17.6

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacifi c Islander — — 0.5 0.7 1.4

 More than one race/othera

 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 1,590 1,888 2,380 2,195 2,293

 —Not available; Native Hawaiians and Pacifi c Islanders were included with Asians in 1997–99. To compare across years, 

add the percentage of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander to Asian for the years 1999–2002.

a

Original category was “Other;” in 1999–2000 this option was changed to “More than one race reported.”

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables. Percents in each column may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

New participants

Figure 2.03. Percent distribution of new participants, by race/ethnicity: 2001–02

American Indian/Alaska Native (4.4%)

Asian (5.1%)

Hispanic or Latino (21.7%) Black/African American (48.0%)

White (17.6%)

Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (1.4%)

More than one race/other (1.9%)

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 15

Table 2.11. Percent distribution of new participants, by gender: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Gender

 Male 34.6 33.2 32.4 31.0 30.9

 Female 65.4 66.8 67.6 69.0 69.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 1,590 1,889 2,374 2,207 2,299

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

New participants

Table 2.10. Percent distribution of new participants, by race/ethnicity and eligibility status, 2001–02

 Percent low-income Percent

 N and fi rst-generation underrepresented Total

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska Native 82 51.2 48.8 100.0

 Asian 109 87.2 12.8 a

 100.0

 Black/African American 1,098 61.7 38.3 100.0

 Hispanic or Latino 496 65.5 34.6 100.0

 White 402 94.3 5.7 a

 100.0

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacifi c Islander 31 77.4 22.6 100.0

 More than one race/otherb

 43 62.8 37.2 100.0

a

Although members of these ethnic groups are not considered underrepresented in graduate education, this table describes 

eligibility status as reported by projects.

b

Original category was “Other;” in 1999–2000, this option was changed to “More than one race reported.”

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables. Percents in each row may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Eligibility status

Table 2.10 describes the race/ethnicity and eligibility status for new participants. The proportions 

of low-income and fi rst-generation and underrepresented new participants were nearly identical to the 

active participants (Table 2.04). Of the new participants in 2001–02, 62 percent of African Americans, 

66 percent of Latinos, and 51 percent of American Indian/Alaska Natives were also low-income and 

fi rst-generation in addition to being underrepresented in graduate education.

Gender

As Table 2.11 shows, about two-thirds of new participants were female. This number increased 

slightly over time, from 65 percent in 1997–98 to 69 percent in 2001–02.

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02
Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

16 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Age at project entry

The percentage of new participants in 2001–02 falling into the youngest age category was similar 

to that reported in earlier years. At the time they began participating in a McNair project, less than 

one-third of the participants, 28 percent, were between the ages of 17 and 20. In 1997–98, 27 percent 

were in this age range at project entry (Figure 2.04). The average age at project entry for new participants 

varied little each year, ranging from 23.7 in 2001–02 to 24.1 in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

Current year in college

Of the students receiving McNair services for the fi rst time, slightly fewer than one-half were fourth 

year/seniors, and approximately one-third were third year/juniors (Table 2.12). A few participated in 

graduate-level projects, but these accounted for a small proportion of all new participants. A small 

percentage of new participants in each year were not currently enrolled at the end of the academic year 

in which they began participating in the McNair Program.

Project entry date

Students begin participation in McNair projects at three peak times: at the beginning of both 

semesters (January and October) and in the spring. Of the new participants in 2000–01 and 2001–02, 

43 and 41 percent, respectively, entered each spring (March through June) just prior to the onset of 

summer research activities; 12 and 13 percent entered at the beginning of second term in January; and 

21 percent each year entered in the early fall term (October).

NOTE: The data presented in this table include valid cases only. Percents in each stacked bar may not sum to 100% due to 

rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

8.4 9.1 7.7 8.8 7.6

27.3

37.3

13.6

13.4

25.4

39.0

13.2

13.3

26.1

39.8

13.6

12.8

26.2

40.1

13.1

11.8

28.1

41.1

12.0

11.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

17–20 years 21–22 years 23–25 years 26–30 years 30+ years

1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Figure 2.04. Percent distribution of new participants, by age at project entry: 1997–98 through 

2001–02
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 17

All project participants, 1997–98 through 2001–02

The following description of all project participants includes all cases on which grantees report. These 

include active (new and continuing) and all prior-year participants tracked by each project. Because 

grantees must track every participant until he or she obtains a doctoral degree, the data described here 

include all students served by all funded projects over the past fi ve years, except for those who have earned 

a doctoral degree. Every participant is reported every year, beginning with the fi rst year of participation 

and ending with receipt of a doctoral degree. Once students earn a doctorate, they are no longer tracked 

or included in the annual performance reports. Previous program reporting described all participants, 

and we provide this section here for comparison to previous reports.

This section describes all participants reported in each year. The number of active participants 

described in each table varies slightly due to either nonreported data or invalid data. Table 2.01 provides 

the total number of active participants.

Eligibility status

More than 70 percent of all participants were low-income and fi rst-generation students. This surpassed 

the requirement that at least two-thirds of participants be low-income and fi rst-generation. Table 2.13 

describes participant eligibility status.

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

Table 2.12. Percent distribution of new participants, by college grade level: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

College grade

 1st year, never attended 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4

 1st year, attended before 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.4

 2nd year/sophomore 4.7 4.2 6.7 6.3 6.3

 3rd year/junior 29.2 27.4 29.8 30.8 32.7

 4th year/senior 44.8 43.5 47.7 44.2 48.9

 5th year/other undergraduates 9.5 10.1 6.9 9.5 6.2

 Graduate/professional 11.8 13.3 4.1 4.2 3.1

 Not currently enrolled — — 3.5 4.4 2.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 1,481 1,771 2,344 2,180 2,292

 —Not available; this was not an available response option in these reporting years.

NOTE: College grade level is determined by institutional credit hour defi nitions and not by the number of years of 

undergraduate enrollment. The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the 

totals may differ from totals presented in other tables. Percents in each column may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

New participants
Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

18 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Table 2.14. Percent distribution of all participant records, by race/ethnicity and reporting year: 1997–

98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska Native 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.7

 Asian 4.2 6.1 5.8 5.3 5.7

 Black/African American 47.8 40.2 43.9 44.1 44.3

 Hispanic or Latino 19.7 25.4 23.1 24.0 23.8

 White 23.0 22.8 21.4 21.0 20.4

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacifi c Islander — — 1.2 1.1 1.2

 More than one race/othera

 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.8 1.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 4,138 8,937 10,786 14,279 16,725

 —Not available; Native Hawaiians and Pacifi c Islanders were included with Asians in 1997–99. To compare across years, 

add the percentage of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander to Asian for the years 1999–02.

a

Original category was “Other;” in 1999–2000, this option was changed to “More than one race reported.”

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables. Column percents may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

All records in reporting year

Table 2.13. Percent distribution of all participant records, by eligibility status and reporting year: 

1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Eligibility status

 Low-income and fi rst- generation 72.1 72.3 71.8 71.6 71.8

 Underrepresented 27.9 27.7 28.2 28.4 28.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 4,130 8,925 10,803 14,312 16,722

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables. Percents in each column may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

All records in reporting year

Race/ethnicity

Slightly fewer than 50 percent of all participants were black or African American, nearly 25 percent 

were Hispanic or Latino, and approximately 20 percent were white (Table 2.14).
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 19

Gender

The majority of McNair participants were female, and their percent share increased slightly over time. 

In 1997–98, 65 percent of all participants were female. In 2001–02, 67 percent were female.

Figure 2.05. Percent distribution of all participants, by race/ethnicity: 2001–02

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

American Indian/Alaska Native (3.7%)

Asian (5.7%)

Hispanic or Latino (23.8%) Black/African American (44.3%)

White (20.4%)

Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (1.2%)

More than one race/other (1.0%)

Table 2.15. Percent distribution of all participant records, by gender and reporting year: 1997–98 

through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Gender

 Male 35.5 34.7 34.1 33.5 33.3

 Female 64.5 65.3 65.9 66.5 66.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 4,138 8,941 10,691 14,316 16,755

NOTE: Because the number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, the data presented in 

this table include valid cases only. The totals here may differ from totals presented in other tables.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

All records in reporting year

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02
Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

20 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Figure 2.06. Percent distribution of all participants, by age at project entry: 1997–98 through 2001–02

9.9 9.4 9.1 9.4 9.0

25.5

35.9

14.0

14.7

25.5

36.7

14.3

14.1

24.5

38.4

14.5

13.5

24.6

37.7

14.6

13.7

25.3

38.5

14.0

13.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

17–20 years 21–22 years 23–25 years 26–30 years 30+ years

1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

NOTE: Because the number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data, the data presented in 

this table include valid cases only. Percents in each stacked bar may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Age at project entry

In 2001–02, a quarter of all participants were between the ages of 17 and 20; nearly 40 percent were 

between the ages of 21 and 22. For all participants, the population did not change much from year to 

year (because each year differed from the previous year only by the addition of the relatively few new 

participants). As a result, the average age at project entry for all participants varied little across years 

(from 24.1 years of age in 2001–02 to 24.4 in 1997–98).

Current year in college

In 2001–02, slightly fewer than 30 percent of all McNair participants were enrolled in a graduate 

program, and another third were not currently enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate program (Table 

2.16). In any year only about 1 percent of all students tracked had an earned doctorate, and approximately 

3 percent had earned other terminal degrees.

Summary

In 2001–02, the McNair Program had 4,012 active participants. Of those participants, 2,302 were 

new to the program and received services for the fi rst time. Fifty-seven percent of the active participants 

and 14 percent of all participants were new in 2001–02. Twenty-four percent of all students reported 

in the APRs were active and currently receiving program services. For 1997–98 through 2001–02, 

approximately 40–47 percent of new participants each year were involved with the McNair Program 

for a single year, approximately 30–58 percent received services for two years, and approximately 

25 percent received services for three or more years.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 21

There was little difference among the types of participants, although the percentage of new and 

active participants who were white decreased slightly over time. In general, just under half of McNair 

participants were African American, approximately one-quarter were Hispanic or Latino, and nearly 

one-fi fth were white. Approximately 5 percent of participants were Asian; slightly less were American 

Indian/Alaska Native; and only 1 percent were Hawaiian or Pacifi c Islander. New participants were most 

often juniors and seniors in college, whereas active participants followed a similar pattern but with a 

smaller portion of juniors and a higher proportion of fi fth-year undergraduates. Consistently, more than 

70 percent of participants were low-income and fi rst-generation. Approximately one-third of McNair 

participants were male; this percentage decreased slightly over time. Although the average ages at project 

entry were similar, slightly more of the new and active participants were 17 to 20 years old at project 

entry than were all participants. More than half of the students from ethnic groups underrepresented 

in graduate education were also low-income and fi rst-generation.

For all participants, the population did not change much from year to year (because each year differed 

from the previous year only by the addition of the relatively few new participants). As a result, overall 

recruiting patterns showed little change over time. Although projects may be recruiting younger students 

and fewer whites and males, these differences are small.

Chapter 2: Student Participants in the McNair Program, 1997–98 Through 2001–02

Table 2.16. Percent distribution of all participant records, by college grade level and reporting year: 

1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Current college grade

 1st year, never attended 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1

 1st year, attended before 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1

 2nd year/sophomore 2.7 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.4

 3rd year/junior 17.3 11.9 9.7 8.6 7.7

 4th year/senior 35.3 26.7 20.5 19.1 18.0

 5th year/other undergraduates 11.7 12.4 6.9 7.2 6.2

 1st year graduate/professional 17.1 17.0 10.7 10.3 10.4

 2nd year graduate/professional 9.7 13.4 8.8 8.4 8.2

 3rd year graduate/professional 4.4 7.5 4.8 4.5 4.7

 Beyond 3rd-year graduate/professional 1.8 7.1 4.7 5.0 5.9

 Completed doctoral program — — 1.0 1.1 1.3

 Completed other terminal degree program — — 2.3 2.8 3.6

 Not currently enrolled — — 28.2 31.3 32.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 3,047 6,330 9,377 12,700 14,840

 —Not available; this was not an available response option in these reporting years.

NOTE: College grade level is determined by institutional credit hour defi nitions and not by the number of years of 

undergraduate enrollment. The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the 

totals may differ from totals presented in other tables. Percents in each column may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

All records in reporting year
22 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 23

Chapter 3

Program Outcomes and Impact

The ultimate measure of McNair Program success is a doctoral degree. However, obtaining a doctorate 

can take, on average, from 6.3 years for the physical sciences to 19.2 years for education (Kerlin, 1995). 

Although not enough time has elapsed for many McNair participants to obtain this degree, a number of 

interim indicators provide measures of project success in moving participants toward this goal. Specifi cally, 

measures of student progression toward the doctoral degree, or persistence, can be a reasonable proxy 

measure. This chapter describes McNair Program outcomes through students’ enrollment and degree 

status and is organized in chronological order, describing outcomes as participants obtain baccalaureate 

degrees, gain acceptance into graduate programs, and progress through those programs in pursuit 

of doctoral degrees. For additional context, we compare the graduate school persistence of McNair 

participants with that of a national sample.

A note concerning data quality

The analyses in this chapter include participants from program years 1997–98 through 2001–02, 

even though there is some incompatibility between the way certain questions were asked before and 

after the 1999–2000 data collection. (Table C-3 describes these data fi eld changes.)

Because some response options were not available in all years, these years have higher proportions 

of missing and invalid data. This is shown in some tables in this chapter, where occasionally data from 

earlier years are not available and appear to be inconsistent with trends evident in later years. Another 

source of error in the data arises from the practice of updating missing and erroneous information in 

current and subsequent year data fi les only. Errors and omissions are not fi xed retroactively (see Table 

C-2 for the proportion of missing and invalid data for each year). Because this has been the practice 

for updating and correcting student data fi les, the more recent data will always be more accurate and 

complete than the less recent data. As such, confl icts should be resolved by giving precedence to newer 

data. A fi nal note concerns response rates. For all years except 1997–98, at least 95 percent of funded 

projects provided APR data; in 1997–98, only 77 percent did so. See Table C-1 for response rates.

We include data here from all available years to allow the description of project outcomes to encompass 

as many years as possible. However, because of these issues, the interpretation of the fi ndings presented 

in this chapter should take into account that the newer data are more reliable, complete, and accurate 

than the older data.
Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact

24 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Baccalaureate degrees earned

Individuals wanting to pursue a doctorate must fi rst earn a bachelor’s degree. Table 3.01 shows the 

percentage of the active participants in each year who earn a bachelor’s degree in the years following 

participation in the McNair Program. By 2000–01, nearly one-fourth of active students earned a bachelor’s 

degree in the same year they participated in McNair, and approximately two-thirds earned a bachelor’s 

degree one year later.

Graduate school acceptance and entrance

The percentage of McNair participants enrolling in graduate school is promising. Of the McNair 

participants who graduated from college in 2000–01, 40 percent were accepted into graduate programs 

and 39 percent entered those programs in 2001–02. Of the graduating McNair participants in 1999–2000, 

35 percent gained immediate acceptance into graduate school, and 28 percent entered (Table 3.02).

Immediate enrollment in a graduate program after college graduation varied slightly by participant 

status and race/ethnicity. Table 3.03 describes participant characteristics for all 2000–01 college graduates 

and for those who were enrolled in graduate school at the end of the 2001–02 academic year. Although 

there were no gender differences, slightly more underrepresented participants enrolled in graduate 

programs the year after graduation than did low-income and fi rst-generation participants, and higher 

proportions of white and American Indian/Alaska Native students enrolled than did students from other 

ethnic groups. Forty-two percent of underrepresented graduates enrolled in graduate school, whereas 

only 35 percent of the low-income and fi rst-generation students did. Fifty-three percent of American 

Indian/Alaska Native graduates enrolled in graduate school and 48 percent of whites did, compared with 

33 percent for African Americans, 37 percent for Asians, and 30 percent for Hispanics.

Table 3.01. Percent of active participants, by year of active participation and time to bachelor’s 

degree: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Number of records 2,203 3,121 3,338 3,877 4,012

When bachelor’s degree was earned

 In year of program participation 35.9 a

 38.7 a 23.8 23.4 21.0

 One year later 54.3 a

 70.0 58.7 63.0 †

 Two years later 86.9 86.6 84.5 † †

 Three years later 92.1 93.0 † † †

 Four years later 94.8 † † † †

a

For reporting years 1997–99, “has not yet earned a BA” was not an option for degree status. Because of this, this variable 

has a high nonresponse rate ranging from 45.6 to 64.1 percent for the active participants in those years. We assume that 

the missing cases for this variable indicate those who had not yet earned a bachelor’s degree and include them in the 

denominator when calculating these percentages.

†Not applicable; not enough time has passed to determine cell value.

NOTE: Percentages reported include bachelor’s degrees or higher because a bachelor’s degree is assumed if a more 

advanced degree is reported and a bachelor’s degree is not. Percentages reported are of the total number of active 

participants in each year and exclude missing cases from the denominator (<10% are missing for all years); as such, the 

totals here may differ from totals presented in other tables.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Year of active participation
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 25

Table 3.03. Number and percent of 2000–01 McNair college graduates who enrolled in graduate 

programs at the end of 2001–02, by selected characteristics

 Number of graduates Percent who enrolled in graduate school 

 in 2000–01 at the end of 2001–02

All 1,069 36.3

Gender

 Male 353 36.0

 Female 712 36.7

Eligibility status

 Low-income/fi rst-generation 811 34.5

 Underrepresented 258 41.9

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska Native 47 53.2

 Asian 57 36.8

 Black/African American 428 32.9

 Hispanic or Latino 279 30.1

 White 225 48.0

 Native Hawaiian/other Pacifi c Islander ‡ 25.0 !

 More than one race ‡ 33.3 !

‡Based on fewer than 25 cases, number not reported.

!Percents are based on a small number of cases.

NOTE: The number of participants reported under each of the demographic categories (gender, eligibility, and race/ethnicity) 

do not sum to 1,069 due to missing data. The denominator used in computing the percent enrolling in graduate school 

reported here uses the valid number of cases in each category as the denominator.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Table 3.02. Graduate school acceptance and entrance one year after graduation for McNair bachelor’s 

degree recipients, by graduation year: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Number of graduates 574 1,282 1,126 1,069 1,362

Number accepted into graduate school — — 390 425 474

Percent of graduates accepted into

 graduate school — — 34.6 39.8 34.8

Number immediately enrolling in graduate

 school the year after graduationa

 79 166 312 417 †

Percent of graduates who entered

 graduate school 13.8 13.0 27.7 39.0 †

Percent accepted who enrolled — — 80.0 98.1 †

 —Not available; this was not an available response option in these years.

†Not applicable; not enough time has passed to determine cell value.

a

This number is the sum of those still enrolled, graduated, or withdrawn from a graduate program at the end of the next year.

NOTE: Percentages reported in table are of the total number of graduating students in each year; the denominator used for 

calculating percentages is the total number of students receiving a bachelor’s degree in each year.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Undergraduate graduation year

Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact
Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact

26 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Nationally, approximately 25 to 30 percent of undergraduates enroll in graduate school at any time 

following college graduation (McCormick, Nuñez, Shah, & Choy, 1999; Nettles & Millett, 1999; Golde & 

Dore, 2001; Choy & Geis, 2002). Of the McNair graduates in 2000–01, 36 percent enrolled in graduate 

school immediately after graduation and more will enroll in subsequent years after graduation. Unlike 

graduate students in general, McNair graduate students are made up of 72 percent low-income/fi rstgeneration and 28 percent from groups underrepresented in graduate education. Nationally, 41 percent 

of graduate students are fi rst-generation and 14.9 percent are from groups underrepresented in graduate 

education (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

The number of McNair participants enrolling in graduate school also increases in subsequent years 

after graduation. As can be seen in Table 3.04, the number of participants enrolled in graduate school 

increased each year as time from the undergraduate degree increased. Of the McNair participants 

Table 3.04. Graduate school acceptance, enrollment, and retention for McNair college graduates for 

the years following graduation, by graduation year: 1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Number of college graduates 574 1,282 1,126 1,069 1,362

Number accepted into graduate school — — 390 425 474

One year after graduation

 Number enrolled at beginning of yeara

 79 166 312 417 †

 Number enrolled at end of year 76 131 265 388 †

 Percent of graduates enrolled 

 at end of 1st year 13.2 10.2 23.5 36.3 †

Two years after graduation

 Number enrolled at beginning of yeara

 124 247 415 † †

 Number enrolled at end of year 101 192 306 † †

 Percent of graduates enrolled 

 at end of 2nd year 17.6 15.0 27.2 † †

Three years after graduation

 Number enrolled at beginning of yeara

 142 310 † † †

 Number enrolled at end of year 98 211 † † †

 Percent of graduates enrolled 

 at end of 3rd year 17.1 16.5 † † †

Four years after graduation

 Number enrolled at beginning of yeara

 160 † † † †

 Number enrolled at end of year 97 † † † †

 Percent of graduates enrolled 

 at end of 4th year 16.9 † † † †

—Not available; the enrollment status variables after 1999–2000 are not comparable to enrollment status before 1999.

†Not applicable; not enough time has passed to determine cell value.

a

The sum of the number of students who remained enrolled at the end of that year and those who had graduated or withdrew 

during the year.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Undergraduate graduation year
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 27

graduating in 1998–99, 166 were enrolled in graduate school the year following graduation, 247 were 

enrolled the following year, and 310 were enrolled three years after graduation (an increase of 49 percent 

from the fi rst to second year, and 26 percent from the second to third year).

One explanation for the increase in numbers of McNair participants enrolling in graduate school each 

year is that many participants do not enroll immediately after graduation from college. Therefore, the 

number of students enrolled in graduate school increases with each year following college graduation. 

Research indicates that only 25 to 30 percent of graduate students enroll immediately after college 

graduation and that another 17 to 29 percent enroll within two years. However, immediate enrollment 

is more common for those enrolled in doctoral programs than for those enrolled in master’s or fi rst 

professional degree programs (McCormick, Nuñez, Shah, & Choy, 1999; Nettles & Millett, 1999; Golde 

& Dore, 2001; Choy & Geis, 2002).

Although it is likely that delayed enrollments account for much of the increase in graduate degree 

enrollments with each subsequent year after college graduation, another explanation is that the quality 

of the data continues to improve greatly with each year. As the data quality and response rate improve 

each year, grantees include more participants in the annual reports and correctly report them as enrolled. 

Those who may have enrolled in graduate school but were not consistently tracked would be considered 

missing or would have incorrect enrollment status reported until the program corrected or updated the 

data; at that time, that individual would be included in that year as a graduate student. Therefore, in 

addition to those who delayed graduate school enrollment, the increase in graduate enrollments likely also 

refl ects those who may have immediately enrolled in graduate school but were not previously reported 

as such until their records were updated in subsequent years.

Graduate school persistence

Because it is diffi cult to accurately determine persistence when the number of enrollees increases 

every year (because every subsequent year after the fi rst has more students enrolled in graduate school, 

the persistence rate will be greater than 100 percent each year), Table 3.05 describes graduate school 

Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact

Table 3.05. Graduate school enrollment and persistence rates for McNair college graduates enrolling 

in graduate school immediately after graduation, by graduation year: 1997–98 through 

2000–01

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01

Number of graduates enrolling immediately in graduate schoola

 79 166 312 417

Percent of enrollees persisting to end of fi rst year 96.2 78.9 84.9 93.0

Percent of enrollees persisting to end of second year 62.0 59.6 60.3 †

Percent of enrollees persisting to end of third year 53.2 44.0 † †

Percent of enrollees persisting to end of fourth year 43.0 † † †

†Not applicable; not enough time has passed to determine cell value.

a

The sum of the number of students who remained enrolled at the end of that year and those who had graduated or withdrew 

during the year.

NOTE: Persistence for the graduates of 2001–02 will be included in this table in future reports as their persistence data 

become available. For details describing how these rates were computed, see Appendix D.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Undergraduate graduation year
Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact

28 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

persistence for just those students who enrolled in graduate programs the year after college graduation. 

This approach likely underestimates persistence because students who took time off between graduating 

from college and enrolling in graduate school are not included, nor are the students who may have enrolled 

immediately following graduation but whose records were missing or invalid in the report for that year.

After the fi rst year of graduate school, between 79 and 96 percent of these students were persisting 

(still enrolled at the end of the year). At the end of the second year of graduate school, approximately 

60 percent were still persisting, and after three years, between 44 and 53 percent were still enrolled. 

Forty-three percent persisted through the fourth year.

We note that on average, nearly half of all students who begin doctoral study never obtain the Ph.D. 

(Golde, 2001; Kerlin, 1995). Underrepresented and low-income students have less fi nancial and social 

support in graduate school, making an ambitious goal even more diffi cult for McNair participants, who 

are more likely to be underrepresented and low-income than are graduate students in general (see Future 

Directions for further discussion). This research suggests that doctoral students from lower-income 

backgrounds tend to be less successful in graduate education, and many McNair participants are both 

low-income and underrepresented. Thus, the 43 percent persistence rate after four years (compared 

with a 50 percent completion rate on average for all doctoral students) for McNair participants needs 

to be interpreted with the fact that McNair participants are likely to have less fi nancial and social 

support throughout graduate school than are others who are not low-income and fi rst-generation or 

underrepresented.

A comparison of graduate school persistence

To provide additional context for the persistence of McNair participants through graduate school, we 

compare the academic progress of McNair participants with the academic progress of other students. 

In addition to providing context, the comparison is also a measure of the impact of the program on 

participants’ pursuit of graduate degrees. As mentioned earlier, the desired outcome for participants 

is the doctoral degree. However, because not enough time has elapsed for most participants to have 

completed graduate school, graduate school persistence is our proxy outcome measure. This section 

compares the persistence rates of McNair participants with the rates of both a nationally representative 

sample and a sample of similar students.

The Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B), funded by the National Center for Education 

Statistics, is a longitudinal study of the employment and graduate school experiences of bachelor’s degree 

recipients. Approximately 11,000 students who completed their undergraduate degrees in 1992–93 

make up the 1993 cohort of the B&B. The study tracks participants for 10 years, collecting data on 

employment, family education background, and graduate school enrollment at each of three follow-up 

periods (1, 4, and 10 years following graduation).7

 Although a second B&B cohort of students obtaining 

their bachelor’s degree in 2000–01 has begun, not enough time has passed for this cohort to provide the 

graduate degree persistence information needed here.

The B&B study provided two groups for comparing graduate school enrollment and persistence with 

that of McNair participants. The fi rst was a nationally representative sample. This included everyone in 

7 Additional information on the B&B can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/b&b.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 29

the 1993 cohort who participated in both the initial and follow-up surveys and provided information on 

postbaccalaureate enrollment (representing approximately 1.18 million individuals).8 Applying defi nitions 

similar to those used by McNair projects, we selected only the underrepresented, low-income, and fi rstgeneration students (representing approximately 700,000). This is the demographically similar sample.

9

The McNair group consists of all participants who received bachelor’s degrees in 1998–99 (n=1,282).

Table 3.06 presents the results of these analyses, which must be interpreted with the following note 

of caution: Because the data quality has improved greatly in recent years (see earlier in this chapter and 

Appendix C for details), the persistence comparison based on these data, although promising, likely 

underrepresents the true persistence of McNair students. We used the 1998–99 participant data because 

we wanted data from the earliest year possible to allow enough time to measure persistence while still 

allowing the use of a prior year’s data to confi rm the year of bachelor’s degree obtainment. The prior 

year’s data were necessary because many projects repeatedly report the highest degree earned each year, 

making it diffi cult, even combined with end-of-year enrollment status, to otherwise determine when a 

participant actually earned a degree.

Table 3.06. Comparing graduate school persistence: McNair and B&B bachelor’s degree recipients

 McNair bachelor’s Estimated

 degree recipients, Estimated demographically

 1998–99 population similar population

Number of graduates 1,282 1,180,000 700,000

Percent completed 1st year 10.2 6.4 * 5.8 *

Percent completed 2nd year 7.7 6.1 * 5.4 *

Percent completed 3rd year 5.7 5.4 4.9 *

*p<.05; statistical comparisons are made between McNair graduates and the national and similar samples. Percents in table 

with asterisks differ signifi cantly from the McNair group.

NOTE: The denominator used for each cell is the number of graduates that year. The numbers in this table describing 

McNair graduates are the same as those in Table 3.05. These enrollment rates differ from the persistence rates presented 

there in that here the percentages are of all graduates and not just of those enrolling in graduate school. The number of 

graduates reported in the three years following graduation is not removed from the denominator for any of the persistence 

rates described in this table because the McNair Program objective is obtainment of the Ph.D., and Ph.D.s are unlikely to be 

earned in three years. B&B proportions presented here are weighted.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports; Baccalaureate and Beyond, National Center 

for Education Statistics 93/94, www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/b&b/.

1992–1993 B&B bachelor’s degree 

recipients, 1993–97

Ten percent of the McNair participants who obtained a bachelor’s degree in 1998–99 enrolled in 

graduate school during the 1999–2000 academic year. In comparison data from the 1992–93 B&B Study 

of bachelor’s degree recipients, 6.4 percent of this population and 5.8 percent of a demographically 

similar population enrolled in graduate school. A similar pattern is evident for the second and third 

years (Table 3.06).

8 As the goal of the McNair Program is obtainment of the doctoral degree, “postbaccalaureate enrollment” included only those who 

enrolled in master’s or doctoral programs and excluded those enrolled in MBA, JD, OD, certifi cation, and licensing programs.

9 Although demographically similar, the B&B sample is not proportionally similar to the McNair sample—the proportion of lowincome students is higher in the similar sample than for McNair participants, and conversely, the proportion of underrepresented 

students is smaller in the similar sample than in the McNair population.

Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact
Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact

30 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

This comparison suggests that the McNair program has a positive impact on applying to and enrolling 

in graduate study for participants immediately after graduation. In the year following graduation, a higher 

percentage of the McNair students entered graduate school than did the national and similar comparison 

sample students. However, after three years, the gain narrows and the proportion of McNair students 

that persists is similar to the proportion of the other samples (5.7 vs. 5.4 and 4.9 percent). This suggests 

that although the McNair Program helps participants enroll in graduate school, they may have more 

diffi culty staying enrolled once there.

Examining just those completing the fi rst year of graduate school reveals differences in graduate 

school persistence. Of the 131 McNair students who completed the fi rst year of graduate school, 

76 percent persisted through the second year, compared with 95 percent of the national and 94 percent of 

the similar sample. By the end of the third year, 60 percent persisted, compared with 85 and 84 percent 

of the national and similar samples, respectively. This indicates that although McNair participants gain 

acceptance into graduate school at higher rates than do non-McNair participants, a smaller percentage 

persists once enrolled.

Doctoral and other advanced degrees earned

Table 3.07 displays the degrees reported by all McNair projects in each reporting year between 

1997–98 and 2001–02. Although just more than half of all participants have earned a bachelor’s degree, 

this number will continue to increase as those currently enrolled in undergraduate programs complete 

their degrees. Approximately 15 percent of all participants in each year have earned a master’s degree, 

and approximately 4 percent of all participants have earned a doctoral or other terminal degree. However, 

the average time to complete doctoral studies is approximately 10 years, and the participants described 

Table 3.07. Percent distribution of all participants, by academic degrees earned in each reporting year: 

1997–98 through 2001–02

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Earned degree

 Bachelor’s degree 85.9 79.7 56.8 56.2 55.7

 Master’s degree 11.9 16.6 13.4 14.8 16.1

 Doctoral degree 2.3a 3.6 a

 1.2 1.4 1.7

 Other terminal degree — — 1.6 2.0 2.4

 Has not earned a BA — — 27.0 25.6 24.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of records 2,442 6,314 10,077 13,713 16,223

 —Not available; this was not an available response option in these years.

a

Percentages are higher because there was no category for other advanced degrees, which were likely included here as 

doctoral degrees.

NOTE: The number of participants reported here excludes those with missing or invalid data; thus, the totals may differ from 

totals presented in other tables. Percents in each column may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Year degree was earned
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 31

here have had time to complete only four years of graduate school. As such, the interpretation of these 

results is constrained by the abbreviated timeframe. Obtaining a doctorate in four years or less is relatively 

uncommon. The number of earned doctorates will increase in the future as time allows students to 

progress through graduate programs.

Research suggests that although women and men are equally likely to enroll in graduate school, women 

are more likely to enroll in master’s degree programs and thus earn master’s degrees, whereas men are 

more likely to enroll in and earn degrees from fi rst-professional and graduate degree programs (Bradburn, 

Berger, Li, Peter, & Rooney, 2003; Kerlin, 1995). Other sources also report a higher percentage of males 

than females earning doctorates (23 vs. 13 percent; Clune, Nuñez, & Choy, 2001).

For McNair participants, men and women were equally likely to enroll in graduate school (see Table 

3.03). Table 3.08 describes participants’ earned degrees by gender and suggests that McNair participants 

do not show any large gender difference in their obtaining either the bachelor’s or the doctoral degree. 

However, the percentage of males earning other terminal degrees is slightly higher than that of females, 

and the percentage of females earning master’s degrees is slightly higher than that of males. These 

Table 3.08. Percent distribution of all participants, by highest degree earned and selected demographic 

characteristics: 2001–02

 Other

 Number of No degree Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral terminal Total

 participants earned yet degree degree degree degree

All 17,807 23.9 56.5 15.5 1.9 2.3 100.0

Gender

 Male 5,972 24.0 56.2 15.0 1.9 2.9 100.0

 Female 11,823 23.8 56.6 15.7 1.9 2.0 100.0

Eligibility status

 Low-income and fi rst

 Generation 12,661 23.6 56.6 15.8 1.8 2.2 100.0

 Underrepresented 5,098 24.2 56.4 14.7 2.0 2.6 100.0

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska

 Native 638 29.9 55.8 11.8 1.3 1.3 100.0

 Asian 991 18.9 58.8 16.3 2.5 3.4 100.0

 Black/African American 7,997 25.0 55.9 15.3 1.6 2.1 100.0

 Hispanic or Latino 4,202 23.6 59.3 13.7 1.3 2.0 100.0

 White 3,568 21.2 54.0 18.8 3.1 2.9 100.0

 Native Hawaiian/other

 Pacifi c Islander 210 22.9 58.6 15.2 1.9 1.4 100.0

 More than one race 170 38.8 50.0 8.8 0.1 2.4 100.0

NOTE: The number of participants reported here is cumulative, refl ecting all participants up to and including 2001–02, 

and thus, the totals may differ from totals presented in other tables. Percents in each row may not sum to 100% due to 

rounding. Percents here are accumulative and therefore are larger than those described in table 3.07.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Highest degree earned as of 2001–02

Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact
Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact

32 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Table 3.09. Comparison of the percent distribution of doctoral degree recipients and all students who 

ever participated in the program, by selected demographic characteristics: 2001–02

 All participants

 Participants with Ph.D.s in database 2001–02

 (478) (18,714)

All 100.0 2.6

Gender

 Male 35.2 33.3

 Female 64.8 66.7

 Total 100.0 100.0

Eligibility status

 Low-income and fi rst-generation 68.5 71.8

 Underrepresented 31.5 28.3

 Total 100.0 100.0

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian/Alaska Native 2.6 3.7

 Asiana

 7.4 5.7

 Black/African American 41.9 44.3

 Hispanic or Latino 18.1 23.8

 White 29.0 20.4

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacifi c Islanderb

 1.0 1.2

 More than one race/other 0.0 1.0

 Total 100.0 100.0

a

Prior to 1999–2000 the number of doctorates awarded to Asians included those awarded to Native Hawaiians and Pacifi c 

Islanders.

b

Not a response option in all years; doctorates awarded to Native Hawaiians or Pacifi c Islanders prior to 1999–2000 were 

included with Asians.

NOTE: The number of participants reported here includes all students ever reported–including those who had graduated with 

their doctorates in earlier years. Percents may not sum to 100% due to rounding. The total here represents all students ever 

reported in any reporting year.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

results suggest that for McNair participants, men may be more likely to earn other terminal degrees, 

and women may be more likely to earn master’s degrees, but there are no gender differences in who 

earns doctoral degrees. However, these differences are quite small and are the result of relatively small 

numbers of advanced-degree holders. Future reports will continue to explore any gender differences as 

more participants obtain degrees.

There were little differences in highest degree obtained for low-income and fi rst-generation and 

underrepresented students. Higher proportions of white and Asian participants earned advanced degrees, 

including master’s, doctoral, and other terminal degrees, whereas smaller proportions of African American, 

Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native participants earned advanced degrees.

Individuals who participated in McNair projects between 1997–98 and 2001–02 earned 478 doctorates 

as of 2001–02; 121 of those were reported in 2001–02. Table 3.09 describes the participants who have 
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 33

earned doctoral degrees. Compared with all McNair participants, the group of doctoral degree recipients 

comprised more whites and Asians and fewer Hispanics and American Indians than were expected. 

There were no differences by gender or eligibility status.

Refl ecting the target population served, the McNair Program is producing higher proportions of 

doctorates among low-income and fi rst-generation and underrepresented groups. Nationally, women 

earn 35 percent of doctorates; fi rst-generation college students earn exactly half, and members of 

underrepresented ethnic groups earn only 8 percent (Nettles & Millett, 1999; Kerlin, 1995). Compared 

with these national proportions, higher percentages of McNair doctorate recipients were female, fi rstgeneration and low-income, and underrepresented. McNair doctorate recipients were 65 percent female 

and 69 percent low-income and fi rst-generation. Sixty-three percent of McNair doctorates were earned 

by students from groups underrepresented in graduate education.10

Summary

Approximately 40 percent of McNair graduates gain acceptance to graduate school, and in 2000–01, 

98 percent of those accepted enrolled. The percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients enrolling in graduate 

school increases with each program year, from 13 percent in 1998–99 to 39 percent in 2000–01. A 

higher percentage of underrepresented students enrolled in graduate school than did low-income and 

fi rst-generation students, and a higher percentage of whites and American Indian/Alaska Natives enrolled 

than did members of other ethnic groups.

The number of participants enrolled in graduate programs not only increases with each program year 

but also increases with each year following college graduation (by 15 to 47 percent, depending on the 

year), suggesting that many participants do not enroll in graduate school immediately after graduation. 

Of the participants who enrolled in graduate school, between 79 and 96 percent (depending on the 

cohort) persisted after one year, approximately 60 percent persisted after two years, just fewer than half 

persisted through three years, and 43 percent persisted to four years. Compared with other groups (a 

national sample and a demographically similar sample), a slightly higher percentage of McNair participants 

enrolled in graduate school (10.2 percent, compared with 6.4 and 5.8 percent). However, compared 

with the same samples, McNair participants persist less once in graduate school, (60 percent after three 

years compared with 85 and 83 percent, respectively).

Although nearly all participants earn bachelor’s degrees (95 percent after four years), whites and Asians 

are more likely to earn advanced degrees. Overall, 15 percent of all participants have a master’s degree; 

4 percent have earned a doctoral or other advanced degree. In the past fi ve years, nearly 500 participants 

have earned doctorates, and of those who did, slightly higher percentages were Asian and white.

Chapter 3: Program Outcomes and Impact

10 We obtained the 62 percent by adding the percent of doctorates received for underrepresented ethnic groups as reported in 

Table 3.09 and not by reported eligibility status.
34 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 35

Chapter 4

Future Directions

Participation in the McNair Program is associated with increased graduate school entrance rates. 

McNair participants, who benefi t from a higher entrance rate into graduate school than nonparticipants, 

persist through graduate school at similar rates as nonparticipants. On average, nearly half of all students 

who begin doctoral study obtain the Ph.D. (Golde, 2001; Kerlin, 1995). Of McNair participants who 

enroll in graduate school, slightly less than half are still enrolled four years later.

Research suggests that fi nancial diffi culty is the most frequent reason for graduate school withdrawal, 

and students from low-income backgrounds (the target population of the McNair Program) are particularly 

vulnerable to fi nancial diffi culties (Nettles & Millett, 1999; Kerlin, 1995; Lovitts, 2001). Further, 

most graduate support comes in the form of research or teaching assistantships, and the amount and 

availability of this support vary by fi eld of study. Assistantships in science and engineering programs 

are more readily available and tend to provide more money than assistantships in other fi elds (Choy 

& Geis, 2002). However, the majority of doctoral students are not enrolled in science or engineering 

fi elds. In addition, the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic students is particularly 

pronounced in science and engineering, the fi elds that provide more assistantships (National Association 

of Graduate-Professional Students, 2000; Nettles & Millett, 1999). Because McNair participants may 

be more likely than traditional graduate students to face fi nancial diffi culty, exploring the relationship 

between fi nancial assistance, pursued majors, and persistence in graduate school could be of great 

relevance and warrants future exploration.

After fi nancial diffi culties, a lack of social support is the most frequent reason for leaving doctoral 

programs (National Academy of Sciences, 1997). Even though most graduate programs actively recruit 

members of groups underrepresented in graduate school, the environment is not always supportive of 

them once they enroll. Fewer women reported satisfaction with the graduate school environment than 

did men (69 vs. 80 percent), and smaller proportions of African Americans, Latinos, and Alaska Natives 

reported satisfaction than did whites and Asians (60 vs. 74 percent; National Association of GraduateProfessional Students, 2000). Indeed, more Hispanic and African American doctoral students stopped 

out of their programs because of a “lack of social fi t” than did whites and Asians (8 and 6 percent vs. 

4 and 5 percent; Nettles & Millett, 1999). We suspect that students who continue their graduate studies 

in the same institution from which they received McNair Program services would receive a higher level 

of social support than those who continued their graduate work in a different institution. As a result, a 

plausible research question is determining whether participants who pursue their graduate work in the 

same institution have a higher retention rate than those who transfer to a different institution.
Chapter 4: Future Directions

36 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

In addition to determining persistence from the APRs, we also recommend conducting a small intensive 

survey on former McNair students who have dropped out of graduate school. The purpose of this survey 

is to gain understanding about the circumstances under which the student decided to terminate his or 

her graduate work, thus providing insights into how existing services and activities should be modifi ed 

and what new activities should be developed. However, querying students about the reasons they stopped 

pursuing a doctoral degree requires identifying who, among the McNair participants, has actually dropped 

out and will not continue. Presently, there is no defi nition of dropout for McNair participants—the 

assumption applied is that ultimately all McNair participants will earn their doctoral degrees so there is 

no defi nition for failure. Defi ning dropouts among the McNair participants would be a useful fi rst step 

in exploring the factors related to graduate school attrition among McNair participants.

The Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study began following a new cohort consisting of 2000–01 

bachelor’s recipients. In future years, we will compare McNair participants with this newer cohort for 

graduate persistence and degree obtainment rates. Including graduate fi nancial aid and graduate fi eld 

of study in future data collections will highlight how these factors relate to graduate school success for 

McNair participants.

As briefl y described in Chapter 1, our analysis also revealed that some grantees report serving many 

more students than they were funded to serve. Further investigation based on conversations with project 

staff and analysis of the project objective portion of the APRs suggests that overreporting may be the result 

of lacking a common understanding of how “students served” should be defi ned—some grantees defi ne 

students served more liberally than others. For example, some grantees defi ne the number of participants 

a program is funded to serve as the number of new participants they are expected to recruit each year 

instead of the total number they are expected to serve including new and continuing participants. Another 

reason for the overreporting is a misconception that grantee performance is determined, in part, by how 

far the grantee exceeds the targeted number of students to be served. Future correspondence to the 

grantees should clarify the defi nition of students served and the importance of defi ning and reporting 

this number correctly in the evaluation of grantee performance.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 37

References

Golde, C. M. (2001). Questions to ask when thinking about pursuing a Ph.D. Madison: Wisconsin Center 

for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at www.phd-survey.

org/advice/advice.htm.

Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal 

about doctoral education. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts. Available at www.phd-survey.org.

Kerlin, S. P. (1995). Pursuit of the Ph.D.: “Survival of the fi ttest,” or is it time for a new approach? 

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(16).

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral 

study. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefi eld.

National Academy of Sciences. (1997). The path to the Ph.D.: Measuring graduate attrition in the sciences 

and humanities. Washington, DC: Author. Available at www.nap.edu/books/0309054826/html/index.

html.

National Association of Graduate-Professional Students. (2000). The 2000 national doctoral program 

survey. Washington, DC: Author. Available at survey.nagps.org/about/factsDocEd.php.

Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (1999). The human capital liabilities of underrepresented 

minorities in pursuit of science, math, and engineering doctoral degrees. Making Strides, 1(2), 

11–14, 16.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study. Available at www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1993–94). Baccalaureate and 

Beyond Longitudinal Study. Available at www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/b&b/.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Life after college: A 

descriptive summary of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients in 1997, with an essay on participation 

in graduate and fi rst-professional education, NCES 1999–155, by A. C. McCormick, A. M. Nuñez, 

V. Shah, and S. P. Choy. Washington DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). National Education 

Data Resource Center (NEDRC) Table Library, Table 80. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/

tables_listings/nedrc_table.asp?sbj=parent%20education.
References

38 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Competing choices: 

men’s and women’s paths after earning a bachelor’s degree, NCES 2001–154, by M. S. Clune, A. M. 

Nuñez, and S. P. Choy. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Student fi nancing of 

graduate and fi rst-professional education, 1999–2000, profi les of students in selected degree programs 

and their use of assistantships, NCES 2002–166, by S. P. Choy and S. Geis. Washington, DC: 

Author.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). A descriptive summary of 

1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients one year later, with an analysis of time to degree, NCES 2003–

165, by E. M. Bradburn, R. Berger, X. Li, K. Peter, and K. Rooney. Washington, DC: Author.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 39

Glossary

This glossary lists the terms used in the report. Some of them are specifi c to the TRIO program and 

do not necessarily apply to other Department of Education programs or grants.

Annual Performance Report (APR) is a program report submitted to TRIO by each grantee. APRs 

include information describing the participants, activities and outcomes for every funded program.

The Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B), sponsored by the U.S. Department 

of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, is a longitudinal study providing information 

concerning education and work experiences after completion of bachelor’s degrees. B&B provides 

both cross-sectional information one year after bachelor’s degree completion, comparable to the 

Recent College Graduate (RCG) Survey, and longitudinal data concerning entry into and progress 

through graduate-level education and the workforce. B&B provides information on entry into, 

persistence and progress through, and completion of graduate-level education. This information 

has not been available through follow-ups involving high school cohorts or even college-entry 

cohorts, both of which are restricted in the number who actually complete the bachelor’s degrees 

and continue their education.

 In the fi rst B&B study, about 11,000 students were identifi ed in the National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS):93 who completed their degree in the 1992–93 academic year. These students 

made up the fi rst B&B cohort and were followed up in 1994 (B&B:93/94) and 1997 (B&B:93/97), with 

a third follow-up scheduled for 2003 (B&B:93/2003). A new B&B cohort began with NPSAS:2000 

and involved only a one-year follow-up in 2001 (B&B:2000/01). Future B&B cohorts will alternate 

with Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) in using NPSAS surveys as their base. See http://nces.

ed.gov/surveys/b&b/.

Carnegie classifi cation system is a systematic classifi cation of institutions of higher education in 

the United States according to such variables as degrees offered, size, and commitment to research. 

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in Menlo Park, California, offers a free 

online version of A Classifi cation of Institutions of Higher Education (2000) (www.carnegiefoundation.

org/Classifi cation/). The Carnegie Classifi cation, originally published in 1973, was subsequently 

updated in 1976, 1987, 1994, and 2000.
Glossary

40 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Federal regions are as follows:

Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

Region II: New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, New York

Region III: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Region IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee

Region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin

Region VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Region IX: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana 

Islands

Region X: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington

FTE enrollment is full-time equivalent enrollment (FTE). Full-time equivalent enrollment is determined 

by taking the total number of credit hours in which students are enrolled and dividing by 15 (the 

credit hour load of a hypothetical full-time student). The resulting statistic expresses instructional 

activity in terms that are comparable to headcount enrollment.

Low-income individual is defi ned in the McNair Program as a person whose family taxable income did 

not exceed 150 percent of the poverty-level amount in the calendar year preceding the year in which 

the individual initially participated in the project. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

the Census, sets guidelines to determine the defi nition of the poverty level. For example, the poverty 

threshold in 2000 for a four-person family with two children less than 18 years of age was $17,463 

(Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children: 1980–2003, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Current Population Survey, January 30, 2004, www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld.html). For this 

family, 150 percent of the poverty threshold would be $26,195.

Participant status indicates each student’s involvement in the McNair Program for each year. Participant 

status can be one of the following: new, continuing, or prior year. We describe two types of participant 

status—the status as reported by grantees in the APRs and status as verifi ed by the data. We verifi ed 

participant status to resolve inconsistencies in this variable as reported by grantees.

 Participant status as reported by grantees could be one of the following:

 (1) A new participant is an individual who participated in the McNair Program for the fi rst time in 

the reporting period.

 (2) A continuing participant is an individual who participated in the project in both the current reporting 

period and in a previous reporting period.

 (3) A prior-year participant is a former project participant who did not participate in the project during 

the current reporting period.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 41

 Participant status was then verifi ed using prior-year data for all students as described below, and all 

students reported in each year were then reclassifi ed into one of the following participant groups 

for that year: active participant, new participant, and all participants. It is according to the following 

defi nitions of participant status that we describe participants in Chapters 2 and 3.

 (1) Active participants as described in Chapters 2 and 3 include those students whom grantees classify 

as “new” participants and who (a) are not reported in previous years or (b) have a project entry date 

in the academic year in which they are reported as “new.” Active participants also include students 

classifi ed as “continuing” who are currently enrolled as an undergraduate.

 (2) New participants as described in Chapters 2 and 3 include those who (a) were not present in 

previous year’s data and whose participant status was “new” or (b) whose project entry dates indicated 

they were new to the McNair Program in the year they were fi rst included in the APR.

 (3) All participants as described in Chapter 2 include active (new and continuing) and all prior-year 

participants reported by each project, except for those who have earned a doctoral degree (once a student 

earns a doctorate, they are no longer tracked or included in the annual performance reports).

A fi rst-generation college student is the following:

 (1) an individual neither of whose natural or adoptive parents received a baccalaureate degree; or

 (2) a student who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one 

natural or adoptive parent and whose supporting parent did not received a baccalaureate degree.

Services. Defi nitions applicable to “services” include the following:

• Academic counseling means assisting students in making educational plans, selecting appropriate 

courses, developing career plans, meeting academic requirements, and planning for graduation 

education.

• Admissions assistance means workshops or individualized assistance to help participants successfully 

complete graduate school applications.

• Campus visitations mean project-sponsored trips to postsecondary institutions for the purpose of 

acquainting students with institutions that the project participants may wish to attend.

• Career awareness means project-sponsored activities, such as fi eld trips, special lectures, and 

workshops, to increase students’ knowledge of the various career opportunities available.

• College entrance exam preparation means workshops, tutoring, or individualized assistance 

specifi cally designed to help students meet scoring requirements on national or state standardized 

tests given to students for admission into a postsecondary educational institution.

• Financial aid assistance means workshops or individualized assistance to help participants complete 

various fi nancial aid applications, including scholarship applications, U.S. Department of Education 

federal student fi nancial aid applications, and state applications for fi nancial aid.

• Other research means research activities for which students did not receive any payment from the 

McNair program.

• Seminars mean any seminar intended to prepare students for graduate school.

Glossary
Glossary

42 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

• Summer internships mean only those research activities for which students who have completed 

their sophomore year received the legislated stipend of up to $2,800.

• Tutorial assistance means individual or small-group informal academic assistance provided by 

professional staff or students who are either part-time paid, volunteer, or internship-for-credit 

students.

An underrepresented student is one belonging to a group that is underrepresented in graduate education, 

including those of Hispanic, African American or American Indian/Alaska Natives descent.
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 43

Appendix A

Other Related References

Bailey, J. D. (1996, February). Encouraging diversity in an era of recession. Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Higher Education Coordinating Council. (1995). McNair reserve 

study panel: Final report. Unpublished paper. Boston: Author.

Grimmett, M. A. S., Bliss, J. R., & Davis, D. M. (1998). Assessing Federal TRIO McNair Program 

participant’s expectations and satisfaction with project services: A preliminary study. Journal of 

Negro Education, 67(4), 404–415.

Hopkins, V. M., & Ishiyama, J. T. (2001, April). Assessing the impact of the McNair Program on students 

at a public liberal arts university. Opportunity Outlook, 20–24.

Lees, K. A., & Carruthers, S. S. (1997). Unlocking the door to effective mentoring: An activity-based 

handbook for mentors and mentees. Greenly: University of Northern Colorado, Center for Human 

Enrichment.

Nnadozie, E., Ishiyama, J. T., & Chon, J. (2001). Undergraduate research internships and graduate 

school success. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 145–156.

Thayer, P. B. (2000, May). Retention of students from fi rst-generation and low-income backgrounds. 

Opportunity Outlook. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446633)

U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Postsecondary Education. (2002). A Profi le of the Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998–1999. By W. Mansfi eld, K. D. Sergeant, & 

M. Cahalan. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Postsecondary Education. (2002). A Profi le of the Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999–2000. By J. Humphrey, N. Carey, & W. 

Mansfi eld. Washington, DC: Author.
44 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 45

Table B-1. Geographic distribution of grantees.

 Percent of

Federal region grantees States included in region

Region I 2.6 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont

Region II 13.5 New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands

Region III 9.0 Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

Region IV 12.8 Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

 Tennessee

Region V 18.6 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin

Region VI 16.0 Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

Region VII 6.4 Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska

Region VIII 5.1 Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming

Region IX 12.2 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, The Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 

 Islands, and American Samoa

Region X 3.8 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs.

Appendix B

Region of McNair Grantee Institutions
46 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 47

Table C-1. Number of records reported and response rates for McNair grantees: 1996–97 through 

2001–02.

 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Number of student records 3,618 4,140 8,948 10,816 14,328 16,772

Number of institutions 99 99 99 156 156 156

Number of new and continuing participants 2,028 2,286 3,509 4,245 5,074 5,645

Number of prior year participants 1,586 1,850 5,205 6,481 9,138 10,937

Number of institutions responding 63 76 95 148 156 156

Percent responding 63.6 76.8 96.0 94.9 100.0 100.0

NOTE: The sum of the total number of current (new and continuing) and prior-year participants does not equal the total 

number of student records because of missing data for participant status, and for years with response rates lower than 100%.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Appendix C

Response Rates and Data Issues

For all years except 1997–98, at least 95 percent of funded projects provided APR data; in 1987–98, 

only 77 percent did so. Because of these issues, the interpretation of the fi ndings presented in this 

report (especially in Chapter 4) should incorporate the awareness that the newer data are more reliable, 

complete, and accurate than the older data.

Table C-1 describes the number of projects, student records, and response rates for the reporting 

years 1996–97 through 2001–02. Recently, the response rate for the data collection efforts reached 

100 percent, with all funded institutions providing Annual Performance Reports (APR).

Another source of error in the data arises from the practice of updating missing and erroneous 

information in current and subsequent year data fi les only. Errors and omissions are not fi xed retroactively. 

In other words, information that is missing for a participant in 1996 will always be missing in 1996 

even if it is corrected and updated in 1997. (Table C-2 describes missing and invalid data for each 

year.) An erroneously reported doctoral degree in 1998 will always be part of that year’s data even 

if the error is corrected and updated information is reported in subsequent years. Because this has 

been the practice for updating and correcting student data fi les, the more recent data will always be 

more accurate and complete than will less recent data. As such, confl icts should be resolved by giving 

precedence to newer data.
Appendix C: Response Rates and Data Issues

48 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

The quality of the data provided by McNair grantees is steadily improving. Table C-2 describes 

the percentage of all cases reported each year by all projects that are missing, invalid, or out of range. 

Most data fi elds have fewer than 5 percent of cases that are invalid, and the percentage of these cases 

decreases each year.

Because McNair Programs are required to track participants until the Ph.D. is awarded, each 

participant is included in every year’s Annual Performance Report until the Ph.D. (or other terminal 

degree) is granted. After a participant graduates, projects must track and report on his or her academic 

progress through graduate school. Because not all participants enroll in graduate school or obtain a 

Ph.D., the APRs include many prior-year participants not currently enrolled in any academic program. 

The diffi culty associated with tracking and reporting on participants every year who are no longer making 

academic progress accounts for the relatively higher percentage of invalid data for the “current grade 

level,” “enrollment status,” and “degree” variables.

Table C-2. Percent of missing, out-of-range, or invalid student records, by reporting year: 1996–97 

through 2001–02.

 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Number of records reported 3,618 4,140 8,948 10,816 14,328 16,772

 Gender 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 a

 0.0 0.0

 Race/ethnicity 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2

 Date of birth 0.6 2.8 3.1 4.8 2.5 2.1

 First school enrollment date 0.9 2.9 2.3 1.7 3.5 3.7

 Project entry date 0.8 6.1 2.5 6.5 3.0 3.3

 Eligibility status 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.0

 Participant status 0.1 0.1 2.6 0.8 0.8 1.1

 College grade-level at entry into project 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.4 1.5 0.6

 Current college grade-level 23.4 a

 26.4 a 29.3 a 13.3 11.5 11.5

 End of year enrollment status 10.2 5.7 7.4 5.5 4.7 4.6

 Degree 39.9 b

 41 b 30 b 6.9 4.3 3.3

a

For these reporting years, there was no response option for participants who were no longer enrolled in a graduate or 

undergraduate program.

b

For these reporting years, there was no response option available for those who had not yet earned a bachelor’s degree.

SOURCE: Data from the program fi les of the U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Reporting year

The analyses in this report include participants from 1997–98 through 2001–02, although there is 

some incompatibility between the way certain questions were asked before and after the 1999–2000 

data collection. The “degrees earned” and “enrollment status” items for the two earlier years, for example, 

did not allow projects to identify pre-baccalaureate participants (enrolled undergraduates with no 

degree yet) or students who were no longer enrolled in any academic program. Because these options 

were not available, these years have higher proportions of missing and invalid data (i.e., projects not 

reporting students for which there was no appropriate option or including them in other, less appropriate 

categories). This incompatibility is evidenced in the tables presented in Chapter 4, where occasionally 

data from the earlier years exaggerate or diminish trends evident in later years. Data for these years are 
A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 49

Appendix C: Response Rates and Data Issues

included (with this caveat) to allow the description of project outcomes to encompass as many years 

as possible. As more years of data become available, analyses will exclude data from the earliest, most 

problematic years.

Table C-3 describes the data fi eld changes that occurred during the data collection for the participantlevel information described in this report.

Table C-3. Data fi eld changes: 1997–98 through 2001–02.

Data fi eld 1997–98 and 1998–99 1999–00 and after

Current grade 1 ‘1st year, never attended’ 1 ‘1st year, never attended’

 2 ‘1st year, attended before’ 2 ‘1st year, attended before’

 3 ‘2nd year/sophomore’ 3 ‘2nd year/sophomore’

 4 ‘3rd year/junior’ 4 ‘3rd year/junior’

 5 ‘4th year/senior’ 5 ‘4th year/senior’

 6 ‘5th year/other undergraduate’ 6 ‘5th year/other undergraduate’

 7 ‘1st year graduate/professional’ 7 ‘1st year graduate/professional’

 8 ‘2nd year graduate/professional’ 8 ‘2nd year graduate/professional’

 9 ‘3rd year graduate/professional’ 9 ‘3rd year graduate/professional’

 10 ‘Beyond 3rd year graduate/professional’ 10 ‘Beyond 3rd year graduate/professional’

 11 ‘Completed doctoral program’

 12 ‘Completed other terminal degree program’

 13 ‘Not currently enrolled in a postsecondary or graduate 

 degree program’

End of year enrollment 1 ‘Enrolled in undergraduate program’ 1 ‘Enrolled in undergraduate program/has not earned a BA’

 2 ‘Dismissed or withdrew’ 2 ‘Dismissed or withdrew from undergraduate program’

 3 ‘Graduated’ 3 ‘Graduated from undergraduate program’

 4 ‘Enrolled in Graduate degree program’ 4 ‘Graduated and accepted to graduate program’

 5 ‘Enrolled in Graduate degree program’

 6 ‘Dismissed or withdrew from graduate program’

 7 ‘Graduated from graduate program’

Degree 1 ‘Bachelor’s degree’ 1 ‘Bachelor’s degree’

 2 ‘Master’s degree’ 2 ‘Master’s degree’

 3 ‘Doctoral degree’ 3 ‘Doctoral degree’

 4 ‘Other terminal degree’

 5 ‘Has not earned BA yet’

Race/ethnicity 1 ‘American Indian/Native American’ 1 ‘American Indian or Alaska Native

 2 ‘Asian/Pacifi c Islander’ 2 ‘Asian’

 3 ‘Black (non-Hispanic)’ 3 ‘Black or African American’

 4 ‘Hispanic’ 4 ‘Hispanic or Latino’

 5 ‘White (non-Hispanic)’ 5 ‘White’

 6 ‘Other’’ 6 ‘Native Hawaiian or Pacifi c Islander’

 7 ‘More than one race reported’.

Reporting year
50 A Profi le of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002
A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002 51

Appendix D

Persistence Rate Documentation

Table D-1. Graduate school persistence for McNair college graduates enrolling in graduate school 

immediately after graduation: 1997–98 through 2000–01.

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Number graduating 574 1,282 1,126 1,069 1,362

Number accepted into graduate school † † 390 425 474

Number enrolled – beginning of first yeara 79 166 312 417 †

Number quit/withdrew during 1st year 1 16 14 3 †

Number graduating at end of 1st year 2 19 33 13 †

Number enrolled – end of 1st year 76 131 265 388 †

Percent persisting after one yearb 96.2 78.9 84.9 93.0 †

Percent exiting program for 1st yearc 1.3 9.6 4.5 0.7 †

Number enrolled – beginning of 2nd yeara 59 109 224 † †

Number quit/withdrew during 2nd year 3 0 7 † †

Number graduating at end of 2nd year 7 10 29 † †

Number enrolled – end of 2nd year 49 99 188 † †

Percent persisting after two years 62.0 59.6 60.3 † †

Percent exiting program for 2nd year 5.1 0.0 3.1 † †

Number enrolled – beginning of 3rd year 62 103 † † †

Number quit/withdrew during 3rd year 6 1 † † †

Number graduating during 3rd year 14 29 † † †

Number enrolled – end of 3rd year 42 73 † † †

Percent persisting after three years 53.2 44.0 † † †

Percent exiting program for 3rd year 9.7 1.0 † † †

Undergraduate graduation year

Table continued on next page
Appendix D: Persistence Rate Documentation

52 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 1997–1998 Through 2001–2002

Table D-1. Graduate school persistence for McNair college graduates enrolling in graduate school 

immediately after graduation: 1997–98 through 2000–01—Continued.

 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02

Number enrolled – beginning of 4th year 59 † † † †

Number quit/withdrew during 4th year 4 † † † †

Number graduating during 4th year 21 † † † †

Number enrolled – end of 4th year 34 † † † †

Percent persisting after 4th year 43.0 † † † †

Percent exiting program for 4th year 6.8 † † † †

†Not applicable; not enough time has passed to determine cell value.

a

The sum of the number of students who remained enrolled at the end of that year and those who had graduated or withdrew 

during the year.

b

The number enrolled at the end of the year divided by the number who enrolled in graduate school immediately after 

graduation.

c

The number dismissed/withdrew divided by the number enrolled at the beginning of that year. Attrition is underreported by 

projects; true attrition rates would be the difference between the number enrolled and the number who graduated minus any 

missing cases.

NOTE: The number of graduates is not removed from the denominator for any of the persistence rates in this table because 

the objective of the McNair Program is obtainment of the Ph.D., and Ph.D.s are unlikely to be earned in less than four years. 

Program graduates in the first few years of graduate school are unlikely to represent PhD recipients and as such, are retained 

in the denominator. In future years, as Ph.D.s are earned, the recipients will be subtracted from the denominator when 

computing persistence rates. The majority of the degrees reported here are assumed to be master’s degrees, many of which 

may be earned enroute to a doctoral degree. The numbers in bold were used as the denominators for the persistence rate 

each year.

SOURCE: Data from the program files of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Undergraduate graduation year