U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T I O N

Educational and Employment 

Outcomes of Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement 

Program Alumni
Education and 

Employment Outcomes of 

the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement Program 

Alumni 

By: 

Ann McCoy 

Anna Wilkinson 

Russell Jackson 

Decision Information Resources, Inc. 

Houston, Texas 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2008 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-01-CO-0027 with 

Decision Information Resources, Inc. The project monitor was Sandra Furey in the Policy and Program Studies 

Service. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of 

Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

March 2008 

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 suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Education and Employment Outcomes of 

the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Alumni, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

Via fax, dial 301-470-1244; 

or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.gov. 

You may also call 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 1-800-437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html. 

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

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 
 iii 

Contents 

Figures .......................................................................................................................................v

Tables ......................................................................................................................................vii

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

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................xi

Methodology..........................................................................................................................xi 

Outcomes for McNair Program Participants ..........................................................................xii 

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

Background of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program .....................1 

Previous Studies of the McNair Program.................................................................................5 

Current Research Objectives and Study Questions...................................................................6 

Methodology...........................................................................................................................6 

Sampling Frame ..................................................................................................................7 

Survey Administration.........................................................................................................8

Response Rates and Weighting............................................................................................8 

Study Design and Implementation Issues...............................................................................10 

Data Availability ...............................................................................................................10 

Terminology for Doctoral Degrees....................................................................................10 

Structure of the Remainder of the Report...............................................................................11 

Chapter 2. McNair Participant Institutions and Services Received......................................13

Institutions Attended by McNair Participants........................................................................13 

Services and Activities Offered by McNair Grantees.............................................................13 

Chapter 3. Educational and Employment Outcomes ............................................................17

Educational Outcomes...........................................................................................................17 

McNair Program Doctoral Recipients ................................................................................17 

Characteristics of McNair Program Doctoral Recipients ....................................................18 

McNair Program Professional Degree Recipients ..............................................................21 

Disciplines of Doctoral and Professional Degrees..............................................................23 

Factors Contributing to Degree Completion Among Doctoral Recipients...........................23 

Educational Attainment of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees........................24 

Continuing Graduate Studies of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees ...............26 

Employment Outcomes .........................................................................................................30 

McNair Program Doctoral Recipients and Employment in Institutions of Higher 

Education...............................................................................................................30 

McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients Not Employed as Faculty 

Members in Institutions of Higher Education .........................................................32 

Earnings................................................................................................................................33 

Employment of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees............................................34 
 iv 

Chapter 4. Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................35

To what extent do McNair Program participants earn doctoral degrees? ................................35 

To what extent are program participants still pursuing doctoral studies?................................35 

What are the characteristics of likely degree earners? ............................................................35 

In which disciplines do McNair Program participants earn doctoral and professional 

degrees?.....................................................................................................................35

To what extent do McNair Program participants join faculties of higher education upon 

completion of the doctoral program?..........................................................................36 

What is the employment status of students who entered the program but for whom there 

is no evidence of an earned Ph.D., other doctoral, or professional degree? .................36 

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

Appendixes 

Appendix A. Technical Notes for the Survey of 1989–2000 McNair Participants................39

Appendix B. Unweighted Estimate Tables.............................................................................47

Appendix C. Logistic Regression Models—Multivariate Logistic Regression Analyses......73
 v 

Figures 

Figure 1. Pipeline of Doctoral or First Professional Degree Attainment by Early Cohort 

Participants (1989–93) by 2004—per Typical 100 McNair Program Participants at 

Least 10 Years After Program Participation............................................................. xiii 

Figure 3-1. Educational Attainment of McNair Participants, by Gender.................................25 

Figure 3-2. Educational Attainment of McNair Participants, by Race and Ethnicity...............26 

Figure 3-3. Educational Attainment of McNair Participants, by Eligibility Criteria................26 

Figure 3-4. Pipeline of Doctoral or First Professional Degree Attainment of Early Cohort 

Participants (1989–93) by 2004—per Typical 100 McNair Program Participants at 

Least 10 Years After Program Participation...............................................................29 
 vi 
 vii 

Tables 

Table 1-1. Summary of McNair Program Statistics, 1989–2000 Grantees................................2 

Table 1-2. McNair Participants Gender and Year Joined: 1989–2000 ......................................3 

Table 1-3. McNair Participants Ethnicity and Year Joined, 1989–2000 ...................................4 

Table 1-4. McNair Participants Eligibility Criteria and Year Joined, 1989–2000 .....................5 

Table 1-5. Number of McNair Participants in the Sampling Frame, Sampling Fraction, and 

Number of Selected Participants, by Sampling Stratum................................................7 

Table 2-1. McNair Participants by Carnegie Classification of Undergraduate Institution and 

Educational Attainment .............................................................................................13 

Table 2-2. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected McNair Program Services by Participants’ 

Level of Academic Attainment ..................................................................................14 

Table 2-3. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected McNair Research-Related Program Activities 

Received by Participants’ Level of Academic Attainment..........................................15 

Table 3-1. McNair Program Participants from 1989 to 1998 Who Earned a Doctorate 

by 2003......................................................................................................................18

Table 3-2. Doctoral Degrees by Gender and Type of Doctorate.............................................19 

Table 3-3. Doctoral Degrees by Race or Ethnicity and Type of Doctorate .............................20 

Table 3-4. Doctoral Degrees by Eligibility Criteria and Type of Doctorate............................21 

Table 3-5. 1989–2000 McNair Program Professional Degree Recipients...............................22 

Table 3-6. Professional Degree Recipients by Sociodemographic Characteristics and Data 

Source .......................................................................................................................22

Table 3-7. Disciplines of Doctoral Degrees ...........................................................................23 

Table 3-8. Disciplines of Professional Degrees......................................................................23 

Table 3-9. Educational Attainment of the Total Pool of McNair Participants, 1989–2003......24 

Table 3-10. Degrees Being Pursued by McNair Participants with Bachelor’s or Master’s 

Degrees .....................................................................................................................28 

Table 3-11. Educational Attainment of McNair Alumni, by Cohort, by mid-2004 .................29 

Table 3-12. Employment Status of McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients .....30 

Table 3-13. McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients Employed in Higher 

Education ..................................................................................................................31 

Table 3-14. Rank and Tenure Status of McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree 

Recipients on the Faculty at Institutions of Higher Education ....................................32 

Table 3-15. Employment of McNair Doctoral Recipients Outside of Higher Education.........32 

Table 3-16. Earnings for 2003 Among McNair Participants with Doctoral or Professional 

Degrees, by Employment Status ................................................................................33 

Table 3-17. Educational Debt Among McNair Participants with Doctoral or Professional 

Degrees, by Employment Status ................................................................................33 

Table 3-18. Employment Status of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees...............34 

Table A-1. Number of McNair Participants in the Sampling Frame and Number of Selected 

Participants, Sampling Fraction, and Sampling Weight by Sampling Stratum ............40 

Table A-2. Response Rates by Selected Demographic Subgroup...........................................45 

Table A-3. Response Bias Among Early and Late Survey Respondents.................................46 

Table B-1. McNair Survey Respondents by Carnegie Classification of Undergraduate 

Institution and Educational Attainment......................................................................47 

Table B-2a. McNair Program Services Received by Participants’ Level of Academic 

Attainment.................................................................................................................48 
 viii 

Table B-2b. McNair Program Services Received by Participants’ Level of Academic 

Attainment.................................................................................................................49 

Table B-3. Activities or Opportunities Received by McNair Participants Who Completed 

the DIR Survey by Level of Academic Attainment ....................................................50 

Table B-4. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected McNair Program Services by Participants’ 

Level of Academic Attainment ..................................................................................51 

Table B-5. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected McNair Program Activities (Opportunities) 

Received by Participants’ Level of Academic Attainment..........................................52 

Table B-6. McNair Program Participants from 1989 to 1998 Who Earned Doctorate 

by 2003......................................................................................................................53

Table B-7. Doctoral Degrees by Gender and Data Source......................................................54 

Table B-8. Doctoral Degrees by Race or Ethnicity and Data Source......................................55 

Table B-9. Doctoral Degrees by Eligibility Criteria and Data Source.....................................56 

Table B-10. 1989–2000 McNair Program Professional Degree Recipients.............................57 

Table B-11. Professional Degree Recipients by Sociodemographic Characteristics and 

Data Source ...............................................................................................................58 

Table B-12. Disciplines of Doctoral Degrees.........................................................................59 

Table B-13. Disciplines of Professional Degrees ...................................................................60 

Table B-14. Educational Attainment of the Total Pool of McNair Participants, 1989–2000 ...61 

Table B-15. Gender of McNair Participants..........................................................................62 

Table B-16. Race/Ethnicity of McNair Participants...............................................................63 

Table B-17. Eligibility Criteria of McNair Participants..........................................................64 

Table B-18. Degrees Being Pursued by McNair Participants with Bachelor’s or Master’s 

Degrees .....................................................................................................................65 

Table B-19. Percent of McNair Participant Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients 

by Category of Employer...........................................................................................66 

Table B-20. Percent of McNair Participant Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients 

by Type of Higher Education Employer.....................................................................67 

Table B-21. Rank and Tenure Status of McNair Participant Doctoral and Professional 

Degree Recipients on the Faculty at Institutions of Higher Education ........................68 

Table B-22. Doctoral Recipient Employment Outside of Higher Education...........................69 

Table B-23. Earnings for 2003 Among McNair Participants With Doctoral or Professional 

Degrees, by Employment Status ................................................................................70 

Table B-24. Educational Debt Among McNair Participants With Doctoral or Professional 

Degrees, by Employment Status ................................................................................71 

Table B-25. Employment Status of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees..............72 

Table C-1. Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) and Confidence Intervals (CI) for 

Individual, Institutional, and Program Characteristics Among Doctoral Degree 

Holders......................................................................................................................75
 ix 

Acknowledgments 

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

We thank the current and former participants of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement Program who provided the date on which this report is based. We also thank 

Sandra Furey, the contracting officer’s representative, for her substantial contributions. In 

addition, we would also like to thank Amang Sukasih of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for 

his work regarding the statistical issues related to sampling, and Vince Welch of the National 

Opinion Research Center for his assistance with obtaining data from the Survey of Earned 

Doctorates. 
 x 
 xi 

Executive Summary 

This report presents findings from a study of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccaulaureate 

Achievement (McNair) Program. The McNair Program was established in 1986 to increase the 

attainment of doctoral degrees by students from disadvantaged and underrepresented 

backgrounds. The McNair Program awards grants to institutions of higher education to provide 

participants with educationally enriching scholastic experiences that help prepare them to enter 

graduate school and to pursue and complete doctoral degrees. Students typically enter the 

program during their senior year in college, although they are able to participate in the McNair 

Program during any year of their undergraduate studies. Recipients of summer research 

internships must have completed their sophomore year in college. To qualify for the program, 

students must be enrolled in a degree-granting program at an accredited college or university and 

be low-income, first-generation college students or underrepresented minorities who are not lowincome, first generation. 

From its first grantee awards in 1989, the McNair Program has grown steadily in the number of 

grantee institutions, level of appropriation, and number of students participating in the program. 

By 2000, which included the period from which many of the participants in this study were 

drawn, the program was awarding close to $35 million in grants and serving more than 3,700 

students annually. Females have always been a larger proportion—roughly two-thirds—of 

participants in the McNair Program. Blacks have consistently been the largest single ethnic 

category represented among McNair Program participants (from 40 to 45 percent of enrollees), 

followed by Latinos (approximately 25 percent) and whites (approximately 20 percent). As 

required by law, more individuals are eligible to participate in the program by virtue of being 

low-income and first-generation (roughly 70 percent) than by being underrepresented minorities 

who are not low-income and first-generation. 

Methodology 

This study is a descriptive analysis of participant outcomes and not an impact study. No attempt 

is made to compare the outcomes of McNair participation to any other program or condition. To 

address the study questions, Decision Information Resources, Inc. (DIR) conducted a telephone 

survey with a sample of participants identified as enrolled in the McNair Program, according to 

Annual Performance Report (APR) records, between the fall of 1989 and the spring of 2000. 

The final universe from which the sample was selected consisted of 11,116 cases. DIR conducted 

a telephone survey of the selected McNair alumni about their experiences as undergraduates and 

their educational and employment outcomes. Estimates presented throughout this report use 

weighted data to account for probability of selection, nonresponse, and post-stratification 

weighting to adjust for the respondent’s actual strata compared to the initial sampling strata and 

to bring estimates in line with population totals contained in the APR. 

Although we do not have survey data on the educational and employment outcomes for 

nonresponders, we used a method cited by the National Center for Education Statistics to 

estimate nonresponse bias by comparing the outcomes for early and late survey responders. We 

found no systematic differences between early and late respondents to this survey on key 

outcome variables, suggesting that outcomes for nonrespondents may not differ significantly 
 xii 

from those of respondents. Nonetheless, in view of the low response rates to the survey overall, 

findings should be interpreted cautiously. 

Outcomes for McNair Program Participants 

• To what extent do McNair Program participants earn doctoral degrees? 

Overall, among former McNair participants who had sufficient time to earn a doctorate degree at 

the time of this study, 6.1 percent reportedly had earned their doctorates. As expected, the rate 

for earning a doctorate increased the more time that had elapsed since participating in the 

McNair Program. For students in the program between 1989 and 1993, 14.4 percent reportedly 

had earned doctorates, and 3.9 percent of participants in the program between 1994 and 1998 

reported having earned a doctoral degree. None of the participants in the program between 1999 

and 2003 indicated that they had earned a doctoral degree. 

• To what extent are program participants still pursuing doctoral studies? 

Of the 62 percent of former McNair participants who were enrolled in graduate school at the 

time of the study, approximately 22 percent indicated that they were in doctoral programs, and 

15 percent reported that they were pursuing professional degrees. 

The findings from this survey of former McNair participants suggest a high percentage 

(73 percent) of McNair participants with bachelor's degrees had enrolled in graduate school at 

some time within a five- to seven-year period after receiving their bachelor’s degree. As a point 

of reference, 30 percent of typical B.A. recipients surveyed in NCES’ Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Survey entered graduate schools within five years after college graduation. 

• In what fields of study are McNair Program participants earning a doctoral degree? 

The largest percentages of doctoral degrees reportedly were earned in the life sciences 

(26.0 percent), social sciences (24.1 percent), or physical sciences (14.6 percent). Those who 

earned professional degrees most often reportedly held doctorates of jurisprudence 

(55.3 percent), medicine (26.3 percent), or osteopathic medicine (8.7 percent). 

• To what extent do McNair Program participants join faculties of higher education upon 

completion of the doctoral program? 

Of McNair participants who completed doctoral degrees, about 65 percent indicated that they 

were employed in higher education. Seventy-two percent of that group reportedly were on the 

faculty of the institutions in which they worked. Only 4 percent of professional degree recipients 

indicated that they were employed in higher education. Of that group, about 40 percent were on 

the faculty. Overall, then, about 20 percent of McNair doctoral and professional degree recipients 

reported that they were faculty members in institutions of higher education. 

Although the majority of Ph.D. and other doctoral degree recipients on faculties were in tenuretrack positions, only six individuals indicated that they had obtained tenure. That is not 

surprising, in view of the time it takes to obtain tenure after joining the faculty of an institution. 

In contrast, the majority of professional degree recipients were not in tenure-track positions, and 
 xiii 

none held tenured faculty positions. The largest proportion of doctoral and professional degree 

recipients who were not faculty at institutions of higher education were employed in industry or 

business (61.2 percent). 

McNair participants with doctoral degrees other than the Ph.D. who did not work in higher 

education reportedly earned significantly more income than those employed in higher education. 

There was no statistically significant difference in the reported earnings of Ph.D. and 

professional degree recipients based on whether they worked in higher education or not. 

Similarly, McNair Program graduates who were not employed in higher education did not report 

significantly different education-related debt than their peers who were employed in higher 

education. 

• What is the employment status of students who entered the program but for whom there is 

no evidence of an earned doctoral degree? 

Overall, reported employment levels were higher among master’s (93.6 percent) and bachelor’s 

degree (83.8 percent) holders who were not enrolled in school compared with their peers who 

were enrolled in school (76.6 and 62.8 percent, respectively). 

Figure 1 graphically presents the pipeline for producing low-income, first-generation and 

underrepresented minority doctorate or first professional degree recipients from an average of 

100 McNair Program participants who had been in the program at least 10 years before the time 

of the study survey (the early cohort). This breakdown depicts survey findings converted from 

percentages to reflect a typical set of 100 McNair participants. 

Figure 1. Pipeline of Doctoral or First Professional Degree Attainment of Early Cohort Participants 

(1989–93) by 2004—per Typical 100 McNair Program Participants at Least 10 Years After 

Program Participation 

Source: Percentages derived from analysis of McNair survey, 2004–06. 

98 

Completed 

B.A. 

73 

Entered 

graduate 

school at 

any time 

44 

Received 

M.A. 

(highest 

degree) 

14.4 

Earned 

doctorate 

12.1 

Earned first 

professional 

degree 

26.5 

Earned 

doctorate or 

first 

professional 

degree

100 

McNair 

participants 
 xiv 
 1 

Chapter 1. Introduction 

This chapter describes the background of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement 

(McNair) Program and sets forth the methodology for the study. 

The McNair Program is one of the Federal TRIO Programs offered by the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) to motivate and support students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. 

The McNair Program was established in 1986 to increase the attainment of doctoral degrees by 

students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds. Recipients of summer research 

internships must have completed their sophomore year in college. 

In 2002, ED’s Policy and Program Studies Service awarded a contract to Decision Information 

Resources, Inc. (DIR), to undertake a study of McNair Program participants to assess the extent 

to which they complete doctoral studies and to determine the extent to which they obtained 

faculty or research positions at institutions of higher education. 

Background of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement 

Program 

Authorized by Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1, Section 402E of the Higher Education Act

of 1965, as amended (P.L. 102-325), the McNair Program awards grants to institutions of higher 

education for grantees to provide participants with educationally enriching scholastic experiences 

that help prepare them to enter graduate school and complete doctoral degrees. Historically, lowincome first-generation college students and minorities—particularly blacks, Hispanics, 

American Indians and Alaska Natives, and mixed or other races or ethnicities—have been 

underrepresented among doctoral degree recipients. The hope was that by increasing the pool of 

doctoral degree recipients among these groups, their representation on college faculties would 

also be increased. The program awards grants to institutions of higher education that give these 

students opportunities to engage in research and other scholarly activities to increase the 

likelihood of success in graduate school. 

Students typically enter the program during their senior year, although they are able to 

participate in the McNair Program during any year of their undergraduate studies. To qualify for 

the program, students must be enrolled in a degree-granting program at an accredited college or 

university and be low-income, first-generation college students or underrepresented minorities 

who are not low-income, first generation. The program tracks and reports on participants in 

project Annual Performance Reports (APRs) through graduate school to degree completion. 
 2 

The McNair Program offers a range of services and activities: 

• academic counseling 

• conferences and presentations 

• seminars and workshops 

• summer internships (research activities providing the legislated stipend of up to $2,800) 

• test preparation 

• tutorial assistance 

• mentoring 

• opportunities for research (other than research activities which include a stipend) 

• assistance for obtaining student financial aid 

From its first grantee awards in 1989, the McNair Program has grown steadily in the number of 

grantee institutions, level of appropriation, and number of students participating in the program. 

Table 1-1 presents a summary of McNair Program statistics through the year 2000.1 

Table 1-1. Summary of McNair Program Statistics, 1989–2000 Grantees 

Year Appropriation Number of 

McNair 

Grantees 

Average 

Award 

Amount 

Number of 

Students 

Served* 

Average Award

per 

Student 

2000 $34,859,043 156 $223,455 3,744 $9,237 

1999 $32,114,068 156 $205,859 3,641 $8,820 

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

1997 $20,367,000 99 $205,727 2,480 $8,213 

1996 $19,817,000 99 $200,172 2,480 $7,991 

1995 $19,080,000 99 $192,727 2,460 $7,756 

1994 $11,900,000 68 $175,000 1,800 $6,611 

1993 $9,598,000 68 $141,147 1,730 $5,548 

1992 $9,576,000 68 $140,824 1,700 $5,633 

1991 $4,944,000 42 $117,714 1,000 $4,944 

1990 $3,000,000 28 $107,143 730 $4,110 

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

Source: Office of Federal TRIO Programs, http://www.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/index.html, accessed 2006. 

*Number of participants currently enrolled at that time; does not include former students in graduate programs. 

The Annual Performance Reports provided by grantees to the U.S. Department of Education 

captures information about the characteristics of McNair Program participants, although before 

1996, it was not required that individual-level data be reported.2

 Tables 1-2 through 1-4 show 

that selected characteristics of participants (gender, ethnicity, and eligibility classification) 

remain relatively consistent over the years. As required by law, two-thirds of program 

participants must be low-income, first-generation college students. The remaining participants 

may be members of groups who are underrepresented in graduate education (black, Hispanic, 

American Indian and mixed or other ethnicities) who are not low-income, first- generation. 

 

1

 Data are presented through 2000 because that is the main period of focus for this study. 

2

 When individual-level performance reports were begun in 1996, projects were required to include participants 

served since the program began in 1989. 
 3 

Females have continued to be a larger proportion of McNair Program participants. This finding 

parallels those of other TRIO studies, such as the Upward Bound and Student Support Services 

studies, which also found that more women enrolled in TRIO programs than men.3

 

Table 1-2. McNair Participants Gender and Year Joined: 1989–2000 

Gender 

Overall Female Male Missing 

Year Participants 

Joined McNair 

N N % N % N % 

Total 12,171 8,077 66.4 4,071 33.4 23 0.2 

2000 1,559 1,069 68.6 485 31.1 5 0.3 

1999 1,752 1,180 67.4 561 32.0 11 0.6 

1998 1,452 993 68.4 456 31.4 3 0.2 

1997 1,465 946 64.5 518 35.4 1 0.1 

1996 1,704 1,126 66.1 577 33.8 1 0.1 

1995 1,289 838 65.0 450 34.9 1 0.1 

1994 835 558 66.8 277 33.2 0 0.0 

1993 867 548 63.2 319 36.8 0 0.0 

1992 618 401 64.8 216 35.0 1 0.2 

1991 307 195 63.5 112 36.5 0 0.0 

1990 226 158 69.9 68 30.1 0 0.0 

1989 97 65 67.0 32 33.0 0 0.0 

Source: McNair Program Annual Performance Reports 1989–2000, not including updates provided by grantees. 

Blacks have consistently been the largest single ethnic group represented among McNair 

Program participants. As required by law, the majority of program participants are eligible by 

virtue of being low-income, first-generation rather than by being underrepresented minorities 

who are not low-income, first generation. 

 

3

 “The National Evaluation of Upward Bound. Summary of First-Year Impacts and Program Operations. Executive 

Summary.” Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 1997, Mary T. Moore and David Myers. 
ticipants Ethnicity and Year Joined, 1989–2000 Ethnicity 

all Asian Black (not Hispanic) Latino White (not Hispanic) Mixed American Indian Missing 

% N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 

100.0 692 5.7 5,344 43.8 3,075 25.3 2,319 19.1 84 0.7 631 5.2 26 0.2 

100.0 65 4.2 801 51.3 324 20.8 267 17.1 32 2.1 57 3.7 13 0.8 100.0 109 6.2 799 45.6 457 26.1 287 16.4 20 1.2 76 4.3 4 0.2 100.0 96 6.6 588 40.6 397 27.3 263 18.1 12 0.8 93 6.4 3 0.2 100.0 84 5.7 582 39.7 439 30.0 237 16.2 4 0.3 119 8.1 0 0.0 100.0 107 6.3 685 40.1 494 29.0 323 19.0 4 0.3 88 5.2 3 0.2 100.0 80 6.2 527 40.9 315 24.4 283 22.0 5 0.2 79 6.1 0 0.0 

100.0 38 4.6 387 46.3 207 24.8 163 19.5 3 0.4 36 4.3 1 0.1 100.0 58 6.7 377 43.5 199 23.0 186 21.5 3 0.3 42 4.8 2 0.2 100.0 26 4.2 275 44.5 146 23.6 143 23.1 1 0.2 27 4.4 0 0.0 100.0 12 3.9 151 49.2 67 21.8 70 22.8 0 0.0 7 2.3 0 0.0 100.0 13 5.8 142 62.7 13 5.8 51 22.6 0 0.0 7 3.1 0 0.0 

100.0 4 4.1 30 30.9 17 17.6 46 47.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Annual Performance Reports 1989–2000, not including updates provided by grantees. 
 5 

Table 1-4. McNair Participants Eligibility Criteria and Year Joined, 1989–2000 

Eligibility 

Overall Low Income & 

First-Generation

Underrepresented 

Minority 

Missing 

Year Participants Joined

McNair 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Total 12,171 100.0 8,658 71.1 3,326 27.3 187 1.5 

2000 1,559 100.0 1,087 69.7 464 29.8 8 0.5 

1999 1,752 100.0 1,246 71.1 499 28.5 7 0.4 

1998 1,452 100.0 1,065 73.4 382 26.3 5 0.3 

1997 1,465 100.0 1,053 71.8 411 28.1 1 0.1 

1996 1,704 100.0 1,198 70.3 494 29.0 12 0.7 

1995 1,289 100.0 942 73.1 345 26.7 2 0.2 

1994 835 100.0 603 72.3 215 25.7 17 2.0 

1993 867 100.0 612 70.6 216 24.9 39 4.5 

1992 618 100.0 387 62.6 138 22.4 93 15.0 

1991 307 100.0 238 77.5 68 22.2 1 0.3 

1990 226 100.0 154 68.2 71 31.4 1 0.4 

1989 97 100.0 73 75.3 23 23.7 1 1.0 

Source: McNair Program Annual Performance Reports 1989–2000, not including updates provided by grantees. 

Previous Studies of the McNair Program 

Studies and reports of the McNair Program have been limited. Perhaps the best-known reports on 

the McNair Program are those distributed by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). ED has 

produced several comprehensive national profiles of the McNair Program that highlight program 

activities and participant outcomes. A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program: 1997–1998 through 2001–2002 is the most recently produced publication 

available.4

 The data for these profile reports come from Annual Performance Reports (APRs) 

prepared or compiled by the McNair grantees for the U.S. Department of Education. The only 

participant self-reported information, to date, came from a mail survey conducted by the Pell 

Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education that focused on how participants 

financed their first year of postbaccalaureate studies.5

 Thus, no prior study of the McNair 

Program or its participants has obtained information directly from former program participants 

specifically about their educational and employment outcomes. 

 

4

 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1997–1998 through 2001–2002, 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Washington, D.C., 2005. 

5

 Norfles, Nicole, and Mortenson, Thomas, “Financing the First Year of Graduate School: A Study of TRIO Ronald 

E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Alumni,” Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher 

Education, March 2002. 
 6 

Current Research Objectives and Study Questions 

This study of educational and employment outcomes of McNair participants had two main 

objectives: 

• To determine the extent to which McNair Program participants earn doctoral degrees 

• To assess the extent to which McNair Program participants obtain faculty or research 

positions at institutions of higher education 

To examine these objectives, the study addressed the following research questions: 

• To what extent do McNair Program participants earn doctoral degrees? 

• In what fields of study are McNair Program participants earning a doctoral degree? 

• To what extent do McNair Program participants join faculties of higher education upon 

completion of the doctoral program? 

• What is the employment status of students who entered the program but for whom there is 

no evidence of an earned doctorate? 

• To what extent are program participants still pursuing doctoral studies? 

Methodology 

As evidenced by the study questions and the methodology employed, this study is a descriptive 

analysis of participant outcomes. As such, no attempt is made to compare the outcomes of 

McNair participation to any other program or condition. To address the study questions, DIR 

conducted a telephone survey with a sample of participants identified as enrolled in the McNair 

Program, according to APR records, between the fall of 1989 and the spring of 2000.6

 The 

survey was designed to query program participants on four major themes: 

• Experiences as undergraduates

• Experiences as graduate students

• Employment-related experiences 

• Sociodemographic characteristics 

The design of the survey called for interviewing 100 percent of the McNair participants who 

reportedly had earned doctoral or professional degrees and a sample of McNair graduates who 

had completed master’s or bachelor’s degrees or who had not earned any degree. 

 

6

 Updates from a subset of grantees added a small number of participants, who had enrolled in the program after 

2000, to the survey sample. 
 7 

Sampling Frame 

The APRs provided by the grantee institutions were used as the base sample frame for 

identifying the universe of McNair Program participants and their degree status. These reports 

present profiles of grantees, program participants, program services, and the academic attainment 

of the participants. Before 1996, however, grantees were not required to collect data at the 

individual student level. As a result, only aggregate data on grantee activities and participants 

were consistently available from 1989–95. In 1996, ED required all McNair Program grantees to 

begin reporting data on all new, current, and prior-year participants. 

To help identify participants in years before 1996 and to update APR-reported information on all 

students for this study, DIR asked current grantee program directors to provide any additional 

information available about former participants. However, the extent to which program directors 

were able to accurately capture retrospective data about individuals pursuing graduate study is 

unknown. Nevertheless, DIR used the additional information provided to update the base APR 

frame. Twenty-four grantees did not respond to requests for updates, so DIR used only 

information originally contained in their APRs for those programs. 

The APR and grantee updates initially identified 12,640 individuals as participants in the McNair 

Program during the study time frame. However, the degree completion status of 1,524 of those 

cases could not be determined from either the APR or subsequent update information from the 

grantees. This prevented us from assigning those individuals to a sampling stratum. As a result, 

they were excluded from the sample frame for the study. Therefore, the final sampling universe 

consisted of 11,116 cases, reweighted in the analysis to reflect the population totals in the APR. 

The universe was stratified according to the highest educational attainment reported in the APR 

records or in grantee’s update of the APR information. A census for doctoral (and professional) 

degree recipients (n = 813) was conducted. Random samples were drawn from the three 

remaining subgroups of McNair participants—those who had earned master’s degrees (n = 580), 

those who had earned bachelor’s degrees (n = 615), and those who had earned no degree (n = 

604), according to the APR and grantee reports. Weights were assigned to each record in the 

sample to appropriately represent their probability of selection and account for nonresponse. A 

more detailed explanation of the weights used is provided in Appendix A. Estimates presented 

throughout this report use weighted data. Unweighted data tables are provided in Appendix B. 

Table 1-5. Number of McNair Participants in the Sampling Frame, Sampling Fraction, and 

Number of Selected Participants, by Sampling Stratum 

Sampling Stratum Sampling Frame Sampling Fraction Selected 

Participants 

Bachelor’s degree 6,537 .0941 615 

Master’s degree 1,363 .04255 580 

Doctoral and professional 

degree 

 813 1.00 813 

No bachelor’s degree 2,403 .2514 604 

Total 11,116 N/A N/A 

Source: McNair Program Annual Performance Reports, 1989–2000. 
 8 

Survey Administration 

DIR interviewers attempted to contact and interview McNair participants in each of the 

identified groups to complete the survey. A substantial amount of searching and tracing was 

conducted in an effort to locate potential respondents. In May 2004, the names and Social 

Security numbers of members of each respondent group were sent to Lexis-Nexis to obtain home 

addresses and telephone numbers. One week before we called sample members, we sent advance 

letters to all those for whom home addresses had been obtained. The letters informed potential 

respondents about the purpose of the survey, the hours of operation for the computer-assisted 

telephone interview (CATI) center, and the incentive of $25 that respondents would receive after 

they completed the survey. 

In June 2004, DIR staff members began efforts to locate 1,277 individuals for whom they had 

received returned letters indicating a bad address and those for whom telephone numbers from 

Lexis-Nexis were wrong, disconnected, or missing. DIR staff members relied on several 

Internet-based resources, including www.555-1212.com, www.superpages.com, 

www.anywho.com, www.go.com, and www.google.com, to locate potential respondents. Staff 

members obtained new telephone numbers and addresses for 459 individuals of the 1,277 records 

traced and sent advance letters to these individuals. 

In July 2004, DIR retained the services of National Change of Address (NCOA). A total of 1,674 

records were sent to NCOA. New telephone numbers were obtained for 54 respondents, new 

addresses for 82 respondents, and new telephone numbers and new addresses for 201 

respondents. No new information was received regarding the remaining 1,337 records. 

In September 2004, DIR retained the services of TransUnion, a credit-reporting agency. A total 

of 1,385 records of potential survey respondents were sent to TransUnion. New addresses were 

received for 199 records and new telephone numbers and new addresses for 1,001 records from 

TransUnion. No new information was received regarding the remaining 185 records. 

DIR’s interviewers administered the survey in either English or Spanish through DIR’s CATI 

system. Survey administration began in May 2004 and ended in December 2004. During this 

time, 1,003 surveys were completed with current or former McNair participants. 

Response Rates and Weighting 

The response rate for the survey was 39 percent, despite extensive tracing efforts to obtain 

correct addresses and telephone numbers for all potential respondents. DIR contacted 

40.6 percent of the potential respondents. The remaining 59.4 percent of the groups resulted in 

noncontacts such as “wrong numbers,” “nonworking numbers,” faxes, modems, cell phones, 

pagers, refusals, ring with no answers, mechanical answering devices, etc. 
 9 

The sample of 2,612 cases was partitioned into four groups based on the final survey disposition: 

A = completers (1,003 cases) 

B = nonrespondents (eligible sample), such as refusals, request do-not-call, etc. (33 cases) 

C = ineligible samples, such as deceased, did not participate in McNair, or duplicate records (24 

cases 

D = unknown eligibility samples (due to no contact), such as busy number, no answer, fax, 

modem, answering machine, wrong number, not working number, etc. (1,552 cases) 

The low response rate of 39 percent obtained in this survey was largely based on difficulties in 

locating respondents. A variety of searching and locating data bases and techniques were used in 

addition to tracking using contact information available through grantee and APR data. But, in 

view of the age of the data (in many cases 7 to 8 years old and without complete Social Security 

Numbers in many instances), this low response rate was not unexpected. We conducted several 

analyses to determine if and how respondents and nonrespondents likely differed in their 

characteristics or reported outcomes. 7 Using information available in the APR on the 

characteristics of the responding and nonresponding sample members, we found whites had 

significantly higher and Hispanics significantly lower rates of response compared to the overall 

rate. Persons with masters’ and doctoral degrees responded at a higher rate compared to those 

with bachelors’ degrees or no degree. This suggests that caution should be used in interpreting 

and generalizing from the results. 

Although we do not have survey data on the educational and employment outcomes for 

nonresponders, we used a method cited by the National Center for Education Statistics to 

estimate nonresponse bias by comparing the outcomes for early and late survey responders 

(Bose, 2001). Using that methodology, we found no systematic differences between early and 

late respondents to this survey on key outcome variables, suggesting that outcomes for 

nonrespondents may likely not differ significantly from that of respondents. Nonetheless, in view 

of the low response rates to the survey overall, findings should be interpreted cautiously. 

DIR made sample adjustments for eligibility and nonresponse in two steps. The first step 

adjusted for unknown eligibility in the sample due to non-contact. For the 1,552 cases of 

unknown eligibility (group D) who could not be contacted, their eligibility could not be 

confirmed. It was assumed that among the non-contacted cases in group D, some unknown 

number were ineligible like the ineligible cases in group C (that is, individuals that claimed they 

were not McNair participants, were deceased, or were duplicates). Thus, the first step in sample 

adjustments was to account for unknown eligibility. The second step adjusted for those eligible 

sample members who did not respond to the survey. 

The final component of the weighting process was post-stratification weighting to adjust the final 

weights to the population totals identified in the APRs. To provide estimates that reflected the 

total McNair population, the data were weighted to account for the probability of selection into 

the survey, sample eligibility, and nonresponse. This resulted in an estimated total number of 

12,558 McNair participants, based on the weighted results. Appendix A contains additional 

details on the weighting procedures and calculations of nonresponse. 

 

 

7

 The results of these analyses are reported in Appendix A. 
 10 

Study Design and Implementation Issues 

Several issues regarding the study implementation, including availability and quality of data used 

for this report are noteworthy. We discussed problems related to the low response rate in the 

previous section. Two other important issues are reporting problems in the data available through 

the APR files and definitional differences in the use of the term “doctoral.” 

Data Availability 

Before 1996, McNair Program grantees were not required to provide data to ED on individual 

participants in the program; only aggregate reports were required. Since that time, grantees have 

been expected to report on the academic attainment of individual participants until they earn a 

doctoral degree. For many grantees, their records of participants before 1996 were incomplete. 

Additionally, data in the initial years after moving to individual-level reporting were, not 

unexpectedly, subject to varying levels of completeness and accuracy. 

This current (DIR) study focuses on McNair participants from 1989 to 2000, tracking their 

educational attainment through 2004, to ensure that sufficient time had elapsed to expect that 

some participants could have completed a doctoral degree. But, since many of those participants 

would have been in the program before mandatory reporting on individuals or in the early years 

of such reporting, we expect that some unknown, but potentially large, number of participants 

may not have been identified in this sample. As part of the study procedures, we asked grantees 

to update information that we provided them from APR data to identify prior participants who 

were not shown or for whom new information was available. This met with mixed results—

85 percent of the grantees responded to requests for updated information; however, in many 

cases, they could not provide any useful information regarding missing prior participants or 

updated academic attainments. Therefore, the APR data file used for constructing the sample 

frame for this universe suffers from potentially substantial omissions of early participants from 

the 1989–2000 time period, thereby underestimating the number of doctoral degree recipients. 

Terminology for Doctoral Degrees 

Depending upon the source used—the authorizing legislation or the program’s Web site—

inconsistent terminology is used to discuss the doctoral-level degree that is the focus of the 

McNair Program. The authorizing legislation indicates that the McNair Program was created to 

awards grants to institutions of higher education for grantees to provide participants with 

educationally enriching scholastic experiences that help prepare them to enter graduate school 

and to pursue and complete doctoral degrees. On ED’s TRIO Web site, the statement is made 

that the McNair Program is designed to prepare participants for “doctoral” studies. Later in that 

same reference, the goal of McNair is stated to increase the attainment of the “Ph.D. . . . ” 

However, the Ph.D. is only one of many doctoral-level research degrees that could be potentially 

impacted by the services of the McNair Program. The National Science Foundation, which is 

responsible for conducting the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), identifies close to 50 other 

doctoral degrees (for example, Doctor of Social Work (D.S.W.), Doctor of Public Health 

(D.P.H.), Doctor of Engineering (D.Eng.) that they consider equivalent to the Ph.D. These 

research doctoral degrees are considered distinct from professional degrees—for example, 

doctorates in law, medicine, or pharmacy. 
 11 

So, although we consider the Ph.D. and other research doctoral degrees equivalent for fulfilling 

the purposes and goals of the McNair Program, we have shown data for them separately in this 

report, to the extent feasible, as instructed by ED. We use the terms “doctoral degree” or 

“doctorate” to refer to the Ph.D. and all other research doctoral degrees. Professional degrees are 

presented separately whenever data permits. Professional degree recipients are not aggregated 

with Ph.D. and other doctoral degrees in any of the analyses, although those recipients were 

included in the strata with other doctoral degrees for the purposes of sampling. 

Structure of the Remainder of the Report 

This introductory chapter briefly described the McNair Program, the rationale and background 

for this current study, the methodology for the survey conducted, and several data issues. 

Chapter 2 describes the institutions attended by McNair Program participants and the program 

services they received, as determined from the survey. Chapter 3 presents findings regarding the 

educational and employment outcomes of McNair participants. In Chapter 4, we summarize the 

study’s findings. 
 12 
 13 

Chapter 2. McNair Participant Institutions and Services Received 

This chapter provides brief information about the McNair grantee institutions and participants’ 

perceptions of the helpfulness of the services and activities received during their McNair 

Program participation. 

Institutions Attended by McNair Participants 

As undergraduates, the majority of McNair participants reported that they were enrolled in 

research institutions that granted doctoral degrees. Table 2-1 presents the educational attainment 

of McNair participants by the type of undergraduate institution they attended as program 

participants. Over 70 percent of participants whose highest degrees were masters’ or bachelors’ 

or who had not completed bachelors’ degrees reportedly attended research institutions that 

granted doctoral degrees. However, among doctoral and professional degree recipients, 

57 percent said that they attended research institutions that granted doctoral degrees, and 

42.5 percent reported attending colleges and universities that granted masters’ degrees. 

Table 2-1. McNair Participants by Carnegie Classification of Undergraduate Institution and 

Educational Attainment 

 Highest Degree Completed 

No 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

(N = 305) 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

(N = 5,936) 

Master’s 

Degree 

(N = 4,985) 

Doctoral or 

Professional 

Degree 

(N = 1,331) 

Classification of Institution 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Doctoral or research universities 223 73.2 4,233 71.3 3,494 70.1 758 57.0 

Master’s colleges and universities 68 22.2 1,402 23.6 1,237 24.8 565 42.5 

Baccalaureate colleges 14 4.6 329 3.9 137 2.7 5 0.4 

Specialized institutions 0 0.0 72 1.2 117 2.4 3 0.2 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Note: “In 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education developed a classification of colleges and 

universities to support its program of research and policy analysis. Derived from empirical data on colleges and 

universities, the ‘Carnegie Classification’ was published for use by other researchers in 1973 and subsequently 

updated in 1976, 1987, 1994 and 2000. For over three decades, the Carnegie Classification has been the leading 

framework for describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education. It has been widely used in the study of 

higher education, both as a way to represent and control for institutional differences and also in the design of 

research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty.” The Carnegie 

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2006. 

Services and Activities Offered by McNair Grantees 

A goal of the McNair Program is to provide participants with educationally enriching scholastic 

experiences that will prepare them for graduate studies. ED does not prescribe the types of 

services or activities that McNair grantees must provide for participating students; as a result, the 

offerings of these programs vary. Survey respondents were asked for their perceptions of the 

helpfulness of McNair Program services they received as undergraduates, once they were 

enrolled in graduate school. The results are presented in Table 2-2. On a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 
 14 

being the most positive endorsement, the lowest average rating of any service received by a 

McNair participant as an undergraduate was 2.95. Their ratings indicate that McNair participants 

found the services they received during their enrollment in the McNair Program to be beneficial 

during their graduate studies. 

Table 2-2. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected McNair Program Services by Participants’ Level of 

Academic Attainment 

Perceived Helpfulness of Services Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Master’s 

Degree 

Doctoral 

Degree 

Professional

Degree 

Doctoral 

and 

Professional

Degree 

Career counseling 3.44 3.47 3.48 3.38 3.73 

Instruction: library resources 3.48 3.44 3.46 3.29 4.00 

Seminars: developing research skills 3.45 3.53 3.60 3.26 3.73 

Seminars: networking 3.63 3.40 3.44 3.49 NR 

Seminars: scientific methods 3.44 3.47 3.48 3.38 3.73 

Special for-credit courses 3.64 3.51 3.62 3.34 3.28 

Workshops: improve study skills 3.51 3.46 3.30 3.40 3.00 

Workshops: improve test-taking skills 3.39 3.37 3.34 2.95 3.00 

Workshops: improve time 

management 

3.53 3.30 3.35 3.24 3.00 

Workshops: writing skills 3.53 3.57 3.43 3.49 3.62 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Notes: 

1. Scores range from 1 to 4; 4 = very helpful, 3 = somewhat helpful, 2 = not very helpful, 1 = not at all helpful. 

2. Bachelor’s degree group includes participants whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree and who are currently 

enrolled in graduate school. Master’s, doctoral, professional, and doctoral and professional degree groups include 

all participants whose highest degree is a master’s doctoral, professional, and doctoral and professional degree 

respectively. 

3. Ns vary, depending on the number of participants who responded “don’t know.” 

NR = no responses. 
 15 

Similarly, respondents perceived the research-related McNair Program activities they received as 

undergraduates to be helpful during their graduate studies. Table 2-3 presents the perceived 

helpfulness of selected program activities and opportunities. On a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being 

the most positive endorsement, the lowest average rating of any activity was 3.45. 

Table 2-3. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected McNair Research-Related Program Activities 

Received by Participants’ Level of Academic Attainment 

Perceived Helpfulness of 

Activities 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Master’s 

Degree 

Doctoral 

 Degree 

Professional 

Degree 

Doctoral and 

Professional 

Degree 

Faculty mentor 3.47 3.67 3.63 3.67 3.45 

Publish papers 3.68 3.69 3.84 3.49 4.00 

Summer research activities 3.63 3.84 3.71 3.50 3.73 

Work on faculty research 3.66 3.70 3.76 3.59 3.73 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Notes: 

1. Scores range from 1 to 4; 4 = very helpful, 3 = somewhat helpful, 2 = not very helpful, 1 = not at all helpful. 

2. Bachelor’s degree group includes participants whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree and who are currently 

enrolled in graduate school. Master’s, doctoral, professional, and doctoral and professional degree groups include 

all participants whose highest degree is a master’s doctoral, professional, and doctoral and professional degree 

respectively. 

3. Ns vary, depending on the number of participants who responded “don’t know.” 
 16 
 17 

Chapter 3. Educational and Employment Outcomes 

This chapter discusses findings related to the educational and employment outcomes reported by 

former McNair Program participants. As part of the educational outcomes assessment, we looked 

at both doctoral degree and professional degree recipients in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, 

eligibility criteria, disciplines in which the doctorate or professional degree was earned, and the 

status of McNair participants still pursuing degrees. In assessing employment outcomes of 

doctoral and professional degree recipients, we looked at the extent to which McNair alumni 

joined the staff and faculty of institutions of higher education, their employment earnings, and 

the employment status of nondoctoral degree participants. Recall that much of the outcome data 

is based on the self-reports of the survey respondents. 

Educational Outcomes 

A central goal of the McNair Program, as reflected in its authorizing legislation, is to increase the 

number of doctoral degrees completed by students from disadvantaged and underrepresented 

backgrounds. Therefore, answering the question, “To what extent do McNair Program 

participants earn doctoral degrees?” was a primary focus of this study. To answer this question, 

we used data from the ED Annual Performance Reports (APR) obtained from McNair grantees 

to provide the base sample for a survey of McNair Program participants. 

McNair Program Doctoral Recipients 

The survey population was initially identified on the basis of APR-reported McNair Program 

participants who were enrolled in the program between 1989 and 2000. Data reflecting the 

highest degree obtained were available from the APRs and from updates provided by grantees 

for the years 1989 to 2003. Fifteen grantees also provided data on participants who enrolled in 

the McNair Program between 2001 and 2003, and those individuals were included in the survey 

sample frame. From this population, three cohorts of participants were created—an early cohort 

of former participants in the McNair Program between 1989 and 1993, a middle cohort of former 

participants in the program between 1994 and 1998, and a late cohort of participants who joined 

the program after 1999. 

We assumed that enough time had elapsed for some of the participants in the early and middle 

cohorts to have completed their doctoral studies at the time of our study in 2004. Therefore, 

those two cohorts are the focus of our analysis of doctoral completion rates. Table 3-1 presents 

estimates of the extent to which early and middle cohort McNair participants completed doctoral 

degrees (Ph.D.s and other doctorates) based on data from the McNair participant survey and 

from the APRs, without the survey. All of the following discussion in this chapter focuses on the 

results from the survey of participants, which reflects the most updated information available. 

Survey results indicate that 14.4 percent of the early cohort of 1,807 former McNair participants 

reportedly had earned doctorates, and 3.9 percent of the middle cohort of 7,122 former 

participants indicated that they had earned doctorates. Combined, 6.1 percent of former McNair 

participants from the early and middle cohorts reported that they had obtained a doctoral degree 

by 2003. As expected, none of the participants in the late cohort indicated that they had obtained 

a doctoral degree. 
 18 

Table 3-1. McNair Program Participants from 1989 to 1998 Who Earned a Doctorate by 2003 

Doctoral Degrees 

Total Ph.D. Other Doctorate 

Data Source 

N % N % N % 

APR—Nonsurvey 

(N = 8,860) 

286 3.2 — — — — 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 

(N = 2,115) 

169 8.0 — — — — 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 

(N = 6,745) 

117 1.7 — — — — 

McNair Participant Survey 

(N = 8,929) 

541 6.1 319 3.6 222 2.5 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 

(N = 1,807) 

261 14.4 138 7.6 123 6.8 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 

(N = 7,122) 

280 3.9 181 2.5 99 1.4 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data for the participant survey (fall 1989–spring 2000) and APR-reported data for 

the nonsurvey data year. 

Note: APR reports do not distinguish Ph.D. from other doctorates. 

Characteristics of McNair Program Doctoral Recipients 

In absolute numbers, women reportedly earned more doctoral degrees (Ph.D. and other 

doctorates combined) than male program participants. This finding, presented in Table 3-2, is not 

surprising, in view of the fact that more women participate in the McNair Program than men. 

However, it is important to note that, despite their lower absolute level of program participation, 

male McNair participants reportedly earned doctoral degrees at a higher rate than women. 

Although males represent 33 percent of McNair participants, as noted in Chapter 1, they reported 

earning 48 percent of the doctoral degrees (Ph.D. and other doctorates combined), based on the 

survey findings. Women, representing 67 percent of McNair participants, reportedly earned 52 

percent of the combined Ph.D. and other doctoral degrees.
 19 

Table 3-2. Doctoral Degrees by Gender and Type of Doctorate 

Doctoral Degree Recipients 

Combined 

(N = 541) 

Ph.D. 

(N = 319) 

Other Doctorates

(N = 222) 

Characteristics

N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Gender 

 Male 261 (48.2) 190 (59.5) 71 (31.9) 

 Female 280 (51.8) 129 (40.5) 151 (68.1) 

 Missing --- --- --- --- --- 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

In comparison to their representation in the McNair Program, whites and Asians, who are not 

considered underrepresented minorities, were overrepresented among those McNair survey 

respondents who reportedly obtained doctoral degrees while blacks and Hispanics were 

underrepresented (Table 3-3). Whites constitute about 19 percent of the McNair Program but 

indicated that they earned over 42 percent of the doctoral degrees (Ph.D. and other doctorates 

combined). Blacks, who represent 44 percent of program participants, reportedly earned about 26 

percent of doctoral degrees. Hispanics, who make up about 25 percent of McNair Program 

participants, indicated that they earned about 16 percent of doctoral degrees. 
 20 

Table 3-3. Doctoral Degrees by Race or Ethnicity and Type of Doctorate 

Doctoral Degree Recipients 

Combined 

(N = 541) 

Ph.D. 

(N = 319) 

Other 

Doctorates 

(N = 222) 

Characteristics 

N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Race or Ethnicity 

 White 230 42.5 136 42.8 94 42.3 

 Black 140 25.9 80 25.0 60 27.0 

 Hispanic 85 15.7 60 18.8 25 11.5 

 Asian 36 6.7 20 6.4 16 7.0 

 American 

Indian* 

 26 4.8 8 2.5 18 7.9 

 Mixed/Other 18 3.3 9 2.9 9 4.2 

 Refused/Missing 6 1.1 6 1.8 0 0.0 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

*Includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders. 

Study findings indicated that more low-income and first-generation program alumni held 

doctoral degrees (Ph.D. and other doctorates combined) than underrepresented minorities who 

are not low-income and first-generation (see Table 3-4). But in relation to the proportion of their 

number in the program, low-income and first-generation participants were slightly less likely to 

report having earned a doctorate. Low-income and first-generation alumni reportedly earned 

about 63 percent of the doctoral degrees; however, they represent about 71 percent of all McNair 

Program participants. 
 21 

Table 3-4. Doctoral Degrees by Eligibility Criteria and Type of Doctorate 

Doctoral Degree Recipients 

Combined 

(N = 541) 

Ph.D. 

(N = 319) 

Other 

Doctorates 

(N = 222) 

Characteristics 

N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Eligibility 

 Low-income and firstgeneration 340 62.8 186 58.3 154 69.5 

 Underrepresented 

minorities, not lowincome and firstgeneration 

201 37.2 133 41.7 68 30.5 

 Missing — — — — — — 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

McNair Program Professional Degree Recipients 

The survey also provided information on McNair alumni who had earned professional degrees. 

Included in the category of professional degrees are degrees in law, medicine, pharmacy, 

chiropractic medicine, and osteopathic medicine. Because some professional degrees require 

fewer years to complete than doctoral degrees, we report data from all three cohorts for the 

professional degree recipients. 

The study findings shown in Table 3-5 indicate that approximately 6.4 percent of former McNair 

Program participants reportedly earned professional degrees. The survey found that from the 

early cohort subpopulation of 1,807 former McNair participants, 12.5 percent indicated that they 

had earned a professional degree; from the middle cohort of 7,122 former participants, 

6.7 percent said they had earned a professional degree; and from the late cohort of 3,631, 

2.8 percent of McNair alumni reported having earned a professional degree. Of particular interest 

are the findings that a larger number of McNair participants completed professional degrees than 

doctoral degrees, and some were able to do so in a shorter period of time. 
 22 

Table 3-5. 1989–2000 McNair Program Professional Degree Recipients 

Data Source Professional Degree Recipients 

N % 

APR 505 4.0 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 171 8.1 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 272 4.0 

 Late Cohort (1999 to 2003) 62 1.7 

McNair Survey 802 6.4 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 225 12.5 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 477 6.7 

 Late Cohort (1999 to 2003) 100 2.8 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data year (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Study findings show that a higher percentage of male than female McNair alumni reported 

holding professional degrees. This is contrary to study findings for McNair alumni that hold 

doctorates. In terms of eligibility, most degree recipients were low-income, first-generation 

former participants. In terms of race and ethnicity, most degree recipients were underrepresented 

minorities who were not low-income and first generation. Table 3-6 presents the demographic 

characteristics of McNair professional degree recipients. 

Table 3-6. Professional Degree Recipients by Sociodemographic Characteristics and Data Source 

Professional Degree Recipients 

(N = 802) 

Characteristics 

N (%) 

Gender 

 Male 448 55.9 

 Female 354 44.1 

 Missing — — 

Race/Ethnicity 

 White 112 14.0 

 Black 375 46.7 

 Hispanic 99 12.3 

 Asian 92 11.5 

 American Indian* 13 1.6 

 Mixed 107 13.4 

 Refused/Missing 4 0.5 

Eligibility 

 Low-income & first-generation 469 58.5 

 Underrepresented minorities 333 41.5 

 Missing — — 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data year (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

*Includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders. 
 23 

Disciplines of Doctoral and Professional Degrees 

Former McNair Program participants reported receiving their doctoral degrees in an array of 

disciplines. The largest percentage of doctoral degrees earned by former participants was 

reportedly in the life sciences—for example, biochemistry, microbiology, agronomy, etc.—

(26.0 percent). McNair doctoral recipients were also concentrated in social sciences 

(24.1 percent) and physical sciences (14.6 percent). Those who earned professional degrees most 

often held doctorates of jurisprudence (55.3 percent), medicine (26.3 percent), and osteopathic 

medicine (8.7 percent). Tables 3-7 and 3-8 present the disciplines in which former McNair 

Program participants reported earning doctoral and professional degrees. 

Table 3-7. Disciplines of Doctoral Degrees 

 Total 

(N = 541) 

Ph.D. 

(N = 319) 

Other Doctorate 

(N = 222) 

Field of Study N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Life Sciences 140 26.0 77 24.3 63 28.5 

Social Sciences 130 24.1 79 24.8 51 23.1 

Professional/Other* 85 15.6 59 18.5 26 11.5 

Physical Sciences 79 14.6 50 15.6 29 13.1 

Humanities 51 9.4 48 15.1 3 1.2 

Education 29 5.4 3 0.85 26 11.8 

Engineering 27 4.9 3 0.85 24 10.8 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

* The “Professional/Other” category represents doctoral degrees awarded in business management and 

administrative services, communications, and professional fields such as architecture, law, library science, and 

social work. These are not considered among professional degrees. 

Table 3-8. Disciplines of Professional Degrees 

Professional Degrees 

(N = 802) 

Field of Study 

N % 

Law (J.D.) 444 55.3 

Medicine (M.D.) 211 26.3 

Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) 70 8.7 

Other 36 4.5 

Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) 27 3.4 

Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.) 14 1.8 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Factors Contributing to Degree Completion Among Doctoral Recipients 

To look more closely at factors contributing to the completion of the doctoral degree among 

McNair Program participants, we conducted a multivariate logistic regression, using data from 

the McNair survey, to examine the relative contribution of individual, institutional, and McNair 
 24 

Program services. The dependent variable in this model was the completion of a doctoral degree 

(either Ph.D. or other doctorate) or not. Although the unadjusted analysis suggested a number of 

possibly significant factors, the adjusted analysis indicated that only the following two factors 

significantly (that is, p < 0.05) increased the likelihood of completing a degree: 

• Working 12 hours a week or less as an undergraduate compared to those who worked more 

than 12 hours per week 

• Working with a faculty mentor who was perceived as helpful as opposed to a mentor who 

was not perceived as helpful 

Appendix C contains the full results of the logistic regression. 

Educational Attainment of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees 

Although this study focuses on the receipt of doctoral degrees by McNair Program participants, 

we also looked at their other educational attainments in order to examine the pipeline of potential 

doctoral students. For this portion of the analysis, we used the total sample of respondents from 

all three cohorts. For that reason, the percentages of doctoral and professional degree recipients 

discussed in this section are not comparable with those rates presented earlier in this chapter 

when we focused only on the early and middle cohorts. 

Based on reports from the survey respondents, the highest degree attained by 47.3 percent of 

McNair participants was a bachelor’s degree, the highest degree for 39.7 percent was a master’s, 

and only 2.4 percent had attained no degree at the time of the study (see Table 3-9). 

Table 3-9. Educational Attainment of the Total Pool of McNair Participants, 1989–2003 

McNair Participant Total 

(N = 12,530) 

Highest Degree Attained 

N % 

No Bachelor’s 298 2.4 

Bachelor’s 5,922 47.3 

Master’s 4,980 39.7 

Doctoral or Professional 1,330 10.6 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

We also looked at educational attainment of McNair Program participants by gender, race and 

ethnicity, and eligibility criteria. Figures 3-1 through 3-3 display these results. Similar 

percentages of men and women reported completing bachelor’s degrees. However, as seen in 

Figure 3-1, a larger proportion of women (43.3 percent) than men (32.6 percent) reported 

completing master’s degrees while a larger proportion of men (16.5 percent) than women 

(7.6 percent) indicated that they had completed doctoral and professional degrees, combined. 
 25 

Figure 3-1. Educational Attainment of McNair Participants, by Gender 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Male

Female

No Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Professional

Degrees

2.5 46.6 43.3 3.1 4.5

2.3 48.6 32.6 6.1 10.4

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–2000). 

Similar to the results for gender, there were also differences reported in educational attainment 

by race and ethnicity (see Figure 3-2). Mixed race (15 percent) and Asian (13 percent) 

participants were more likely to report having a professional degree; blacks (46 percent) were 

more likely to report having a master’s degree; and Hispanics (57 percent) were more likely than 

others to indicate that they had received a bachelor’s degree as the highest degree obtained. 

Underrepresented minorities—blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and mixed race 

participants—were more likely (56 percent) than low-income and first-generation respondents to 

report having an advanced degree, (48 percent) (see Figure 3-3). 
 26 

Figure 3-2. Educational Attainment of McNair Participants, by Race and Ethnicity 

2.4

2.6

0.1

1.1

3.4

10.7

0.0

47.2

41.7

57.1

41.9

52.6

50.1

58.1

35.6

46.2

36.4

38.6

34.9

21.0

36.0

9.1

2.6

3.0

5.2

6.0

2.7

3.5

5.7

6.8

3.5

13.2

3.0

15.5

2.3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

Mixed

Refused

No Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Professional

Degrees

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–2000).

Figure 3-3. Educational Attainment of McNair Participants, by Eligibility Criteria 

2.7

1.8

49.5

42.1

38.8

41.1 5.10

5.2

10.0

3.8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

First generation & low income

Underrepresented minorities

No Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Professional 

Degrees

Source: Weighted NcNair survey data (fall 1989–2000). 

Continuing Graduate Studies of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees 

A recent report by Hoffer and Welch (2006) indicates that, on average, people who earned their 

doctoral degrees between 1989 and 2003 were registered as graduate students for 7.1 to 
 27 

7.5 years. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that many McNair participants would be 

still pursuing degrees during the timeline of our study. As a result, another major question for 

this study was, “To what extent are program participants still pursuing doctoral studies?” 

Of the 47.3 percent of McNair alumni whose highest degree reportedly was a bachelor’s degree 

(see Table 3-9), 62.4 percent indicated that they were enrolled in graduate school, and of these, 

62.9 percent said they were enrolled in master’s programs, 21.7 percent were reportedly enrolled 

in doctoral programs, and 9.8 percent said they were enrolled in professional degree programs 

(see Table 3-10). 

Of the 39.7 percent of former McNair participants whose highest degree was a master’s (see 

Table 3-9), 28.4 percent were enrolled in graduate school. Of those, 73.8 percent were enrolled 

in doctoral programs, 19.2 percent were pursuing an additional master’s degree, and 7.1 percent 

were pursuing professional degrees (see Table 3-10). 
 28 

Table 3-10. Degrees Being Pursued by McNair Participants with Bachelor’s or Master’s Degrees 

Degrees Being Pursued Degree Completed 

Bachelor’s 

N = 5,922 

Master’s 

N = 4,980 

 N % N % 

Total Currently in Graduate School 3,698 62.4 1,414 28.4 

 

Masters 2,327 62.9 271 19.2 

Business Administration (M.B.A.) 324 13.9 5 1.8 

Science (M.S.) 324 13.9 0 0.0 

Arts (M.A.) 59 2.5 41 1.5 

Education (M.Ed.) 311 13.4 67 24.7 

Public Administration (M.P.A.) 45 1.9 0 0.0 

Public Health (M.P.H.) 14 <1.0 3 1.1 

Applied Arts (M.A.A.) 0 0.0 8 2.9 

Teaching (M.A.T.) 14 <1.0 0 0.0 

Divinity (M.Div.) 14 <1.0 11 4.0 

Social Work (M.S.W.) 128 5.5 0 0.0 

Other Master’s 1,094 47.0 136 50.0 

Doctoral 804 21.7 1,043 73.8 

Philosophy (Ph.D.) 61 7.6 78 7.5 

Education (Ed.D.) 0 0.0 140 13.4 

Business Administration (D.B.A). 0 0.0 8 <1.0 

Engineering (D.Eng.) 0 0.0 48 4.6 

Public Administration (D.P.A.) 27 3.4 6 <1.0 

Science (D.Sc. or S.Cd.) 151 18.8 23 2.2 

Psychology (Psy.D.) 33 4.1 76 7.3 

Other 532 66.2 664 63.7 

Professional Degree 567 9.8 100 7.0 

Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.) 1 <1.0 0 0.0 

Medicine (M.D.) 218 38.4 41 41.0 

Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) 0 0.0 9 9.0 

Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) 18 3.2 0 0.0 

Podiatry (D.P.M. or Pod.D.) 0 0.0 6 6.0 

Law (J.D.) 162 28.6 36 36.0 

Theology (D.D. [Divinity] or D.T.) 8 1.4 0 0.0 

Other 160 28.2 8 8.0 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–2000). 

As shown in Table 3-11, approximately 73 percent of McNair alumni reported having ever 

enrolled in graduate school at some time since receiving their bachelor’s degree. As a point of 

reference, NCES’ Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study of bachelor’s degree recipients 

found that five years after they received their degree, 39 percent had taken a graduate admissions 

exam, and 30 percent had enrolled in a graduate program (McCormick, et al, 1999). The findings 
 29 

from this survey of former McNair participants indicate a higher rate of graduate school 

enrollment among this group than among other bachelor degree recipients. 

Table 3-11. Educational Attainment of McNair Alumni, by Cohort, by mid-2004 

Cohort Number

in 

Cohort

(N = 

12,560)

% No 

Bachelor’s

Degree 

(N = 298)

% 

Bachelor’s

Degree 

(highest

degree) 

(N = 5,937)

% 

Master’s

Degree

(highest

degree)

(N = 

4,980) 

% Ph.D. or

other 

doctoral

degree at

the time

of study 

(N = 541) 

% Ph.D., 

Other 

Doctorate, or

Professional

Degree 

(N = 1,341)a

% in 

Graduate

School at

Time of

Survey 

(N = 

3,798) 

% Ever 

Enrolled in

Graduate

School 

(N = 9,184)

All Cohorts 

Combined 

12,560 2.4% 47. 3% 39.6% 4.3% 10.7% 30.2% 73.1% 

Early Cohort 1,807 1.8 27.4 44.3 14.4 26.5 16.0 75.1 

Middle Cohort 7,122 2.2 43.4 43.7 3.9 10.7 26.0 74.0 

Late Cohort 3,631 3.0 64.8 29.4 NA NA 45.6 70.3 

a Four individuals reported earning both a research doctorate (Ph.D. or other doctorate) and a professional degree. 

NA—insufficient time elapsed since program entry. 

Figure 3-4 graphically presents a pipeline for producing low-income, first-generation and 

underrepresented minority doctorate or first professional degree recipients from an average of 

100 McNair Program participants who had been in the program at least 10 years before the time 

of the study survey (the early cohort). This breakdown depicts survey findings converted from 

percentages to reflect a typical set of 100 McNair participants. 

Figure 3-4. Pipeline of Doctoral or First Professional Degree Attainment of Early Cohort 

Participants (1989–93) by 2004—per Typical 100 McNair Program Participants at Least 10 Years 

After Program Participation 

Source: Percentages derived from analysis of McNair survey 2004–06. 

98 

Completed

B.A. 

73 

Entered

graduate

school at

any time

44 

Received

M.A. 

(highest

degree) 

14.4 

Earned

doctorate

12.1 

Earned first

professional

degree 

26.5 

Earned 

doctorate or

first 

professional

degree 

100 

McNair 

participants
 30 

Employment Outcomes 

In assessing employment outcomes, we asked former McNair Program participants a series of 

questions about their employment experiences, focusing on positions in higher education, 

position responsibilities, and earnings. This section highlights study findings on those topics. 

McNair Program Doctoral Recipients and Employment in Institutions of Higher Education 

The survey queried McNair participants about employment within institutions of higher 

education. Specifically, we were interested in knowing the extent to which former McNair 

Program participants who were doctoral recipients joined institutions of higher education in 

either a faculty or research position. 

As shown in Table 3-12, among all respondents, 29 percent said that they were employed in 

higher education. However, among those McNair participants with either a Ph.D. or other 

doctorate, 65 percent reportedly were employed in higher education (75 percent of the Ph.D. 

recipients and 50 percent of other doctoral degree holders). Only 4.4 percent of the professional 

degree recipients indicated that they were employed by institutions of higher education. 

Table 3-12. Employment Status of McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients 

Overall 

(N = 1,332) 

Ph.D. 

(N =319) 

Other Doctorates

(N = 222) 

Professional 

Degree 

(N = 791) 

Employer 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Higher Education 386 29.0 240 75.1 111 50.2 35 4.4 

Outside of Higher 

Education 

 862 64.7 65 20.4 107 48.6 690 87.2 

Not Working 84 6.3 14 4.5 4 1.2 66 8.5 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Note: Ns are slightly lower than in previous tables due to missing employment status data. 

Table 3-13 presents the type of higher education institution in which McNair doctoral and 

professional degree recipients reportedly were employed, regardless of their faculty status. Most 

doctoral and professional degree recipients reported being employed in four-year colleges or 

universities; among professional degree recipients, a sizable proportion were also employed in 

medical schools. 
 31 

Table 3-13. McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients Employed in Higher Education 

Overall Ph.D. 

Other 

Doctorates 

Professional 

Degree 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Total employed in higher 

education 

386 100.0 240 62.9 111 25.1 35 12.0 

Type of Institution 

Four-year college or 

university 

362 93.8 233 97.0 107 95.3 23 73.5 

Medical school 17 4.5 5 2.2 0 0.0 12 26.5 

Junior or community college 7 1.7 2 0.8 5 4.7 0 0.0 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Table 3-14 focuses on the current academic rank and tenure status of doctoral and professional 

degree recipients who were employed in higher education as faculty members at the time of the 

survey. Of those doctoral and professional degree holders employed in institutions of higher 

education, approximately 69 percent reportedly were on the faculty (267 out of 386 higher 

education employees). Most of those not in faculty positions reported conducting research in 

university-based research centers. The remainder indicated that they provided clinical services or 

were employed in administration. 75 percent of Ph.D. holders and 65 percent of doctoral degree 

recipients employed in higher education were in faculty positions. Approximately 40 percent of 

professional degree holders employed in higher education said than they were on the faculty. 

While the majority of Ph.D. and other doctoral degree recipients on faculties were reportedly in 

tenure-track positions, we estimate that only 2 percent had obtained tenure. Given that obtaining 

tenure takes, on average, at least five or six years, the percentage with tenure is not surprising. 

The majority of professional degree recipients indicated that they were not in tenure-track 

positions and none held tenured faculty positions. 
 32 

Table 3-14. Rank and Tenure Status of McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients on the 

Faculty at Institutions of Higher Education 

Overall Ph.D. Other 

Doctorates 

Professional 

Degree 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Employed in Higher 

Education 386 100.0 240 100.0 111 100.0 35 100.0 

In faculty position 267 69.2 181 75.4 72 64.9 14 40.0 

Currently on faculty 267 100.0 181 100.0 72 100.0 14 100.0 

 Professor/Associate Prof 9 2.7 3 1.7 6 8.3 0 0.0 

 Assistant professor 250 93.6 178 98.3 64 88.9 8 57.1 

 Instructor/Lecturer 8 2.5 0 0.0 2 2.8 6 42.9 

Tenure status of faculty 267 100.0 181 100.0 72 100.0 14 100.0 

 Tenured 6 2.2 3 1.6 3 4.3 0 0.0 

 Tenure-track 169 63.3 114 63.0 51 70.8 4 28.6 

 Not on tenure-track 54 20.2 28 15.5 16 22.2 10 71.4 

 Tenure status unknown 38 14.2 36 19.9 2 2.7 0 0.0 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

McNair Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients Not Employed as Faculty Members in 

Institutions of Higher Education 

Table 3-15 presents the types of employers by whom Ph.D., other doctoral, and professional 

degree recipients are reportedly employed outside of academia. The largest concentration of 

Ph.D. (66.2 percent), other doctoral (65.4 percent), and professional degree recipients 

(60.0 percent) not employed in higher education at the time they completed the survey was in 

industry or business. 

Table 3-15. Employment of McNair Doctoral Recipients Outside of Higher Education 

Employer Type Overall 

N = 862 

Ph.D. 

N = 65 

Other Doc 

N = 108 

PD 

N = 689 

 Elem. or secondary school 53 6.2 5 7.3 8 7.8 40 5.9 

 U.S. federal government 89 10.3 0 0.0 6 5.5 83 12.1 

 U.S state government 61 7.2 3 5.5 2 1.9 56 8.1 

 U.S. local government 9 1.0 4 5.9 2 1.9 3 0.4 

 Nonprofit 28 3.2 3 4.1 13 12.1 12 1.8 

 Industry or business 528 61.2 43 66.2 71 65.4 414 60.0 

 Self employed 94 10.9 7 11.0 6 5.4 81 11.7 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 
 33 

Earnings 

Among McNair survey respondents who worked outside of higher education, all who had earned 

Ph.D.s or other doctorates and 97.3 percent of those who had earned professional degrees cited 

the level of debt incurred as students as one of the most important factors influencing their 

decisions to seek employment outside of higher education. 

Table 3-16 highlights the amount of current earnings among Ph.D., other doctoral, and 

professional degree recipients by type of employer. McNair graduates who held other doctoral 

degrees and who did not work in higher education reported earning significantly more than those 

who were employed in higher education (FOD = 12.01; p > 0.01). The other differences in 

earnings shown in Table 3-16 were not significantly different. 

Table 3-16. Earnings for 2003 Among McNair Participants with Doctoral or Professional Degrees, 

by Employment Status 

Degree Employed in Higher 

Education 

Not Employed in 

Higher Education 

P-value* 

Doctorate of Philosophy $54,261 $60,875 0.26 

Other Doctorate $53,548 $76,071 <0.01 

Professional Degree $59,062 $69,854 0.22 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Note: The mean amount earned was calculated on the basis of the median value of the reported range. Participants 

who indicated that they earned less than $29,999 were assigned a value of $20,000, and those who indicated that 

they earned more than $100,000 were assigned a value of $110,000. 

*Statistically not significant. 

Table 3-17 highlights the amount of accumulated educational debt reported among Ph.D., other 

doctoral degree, and professional degree recipients by type of employer. With regard to reported 

levels of undergraduate and graduate debt, there were no statistically significant differences 

between McNair graduates employed in higher education and those not employed in higher 

education, although the difference for Ph.D. degree holders approached statistical significance at 

p =.06 and was quite substantial. 

Table 3-17. Educational Debt Among McNair Participants with Doctoral or Professional Degrees, 

by Employment Status 

Degree Employed in Higher 

Education 

Not Employed in 

Higher Education 

P-value* 

Doctorate of Philosophy $27,877 $57,375 0.06 

Other Doctorate $21,015 $30,862 0.28 

Professional Degree $73,034 $81,631 0.61 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–spring 2000). 

Note: Initial response options for the question probing “amount owed” were based on ranges; however, respondents 

who owed over $30,000 (roughly 60 percent) indicated the exact amount owed. The mean was calculated by 

using the exact amount reported for the 60 percent of respondents who owed $30,000 or more and the median 

value of the reported range for the other 40 percent of respondents who owed less than $30,000. 

* Statistically not significant. 
 34 

Employment of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees 

In looking at the employment patterns among McNair Program doctoral recipients, we gained 

useful information about the employment status of students who entered the McNair Program but 

for whom there is no evidence of an earned research doctorate or other doctoral or professional 

degree. 

Not surprisingly, reported employment levels were higher among master’s and bachelor’s degree 

recipients who were not enrolled in school than employment levels of their peers who were 

enrolled in school. Among those not in school, 83.8 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients and 

93.6 percent of master’s degree recipients reportedly were working. Of the master’s and 

bachelor’s degree recipients currently in school, the majority, 76.6 percent and 62.6 percent 

respectively, indicated that they were working. Table 3-17 presents the employment status of 

McNair participants who have not completed doctoral or professional degrees. 

Regardless of whether they were in school or not, master’s degree recipients reported the highest 

levels of employment. When compared to the employment levels of individuals with bachelor’s 

degrees, employment levels among those with master’s degrees were more than 10 percentage 

points higher (see Table 3-18). 

Table 3-18. Employment Status of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees 

Employed Not 

Employed

Degree Held 

(%) (%) 

Master’s degree recipients (N = 4,984) 89.2 10.8 

Currently enrolled in school (N = 1,181) 76.6 23.4 

Not currently enrolled (N = 3,605) 93.6 6.4 

Missing (no response) (N = 99) 92.3 7.7 

Bachelor’s degree recipients (N = 5,937) 75.2 24.8 

 Currently enrolled in school (N = 2,456) 62.8 37.2 

 Not currently enrolled (N = 3,429) 83.8 16.2 

 Missing (no response) (N = 51) 100.0 0.0 

No bachelor’s degree (N = 305) 87.0 13.0 

Source: Weighted McNair survey data (fall 1989–2000). 
 35 

Chapter 4. Summary of Findings 

This chapter summarizes the study findings about the educational and employment outcomes of 

individuals who participated in the McNair Program, focusing on the research questions. 

To what extent do McNair Program participants earn doctoral degrees? 

Overall, among former McNair participants who had sufficient time to earn a doctorate degree at 

the time of this study, 6.1 percent reportedly had earned their doctorates. As expected, the rate 

for earning a doctorate increased the more time that had elapsed since participating in the 

McNair Program. For students in the program between 1989 and 1993, 14.4 percent reportedly 

had earned doctorates, and 3.9 percent of participants in the program between 1994 and 1998 

reported having earned a doctoral degree. None of the participants in the program between 1999 

and 2003 indicated that they had earned a doctoral degree. 

To what extent are program participants still pursuing doctoral studies? 

Of the 62 percent of former McNair participants who were enrolled in graduate school at the 

time of the study, approximately 22 percent indicated that they were in doctoral programs, and 

15 percent reported that they were pursuing professional degrees. 

The findings from this survey of former McNair participants suggest a high percentage 

(73 percent) of McNair participants with bachelor's degrees had enrolled in graduate school at 

some time within a five- to seven-year period after receiving their bachelor’s degree. As a point 

of reference, 30 percent of typical B.A. recipients surveyed in NCES’ Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Survey entered graduate schools within five years after college graduation. 

What are the characteristics of likely degree earners? 

Based on the results of multivariate analyses of the likelihood of earning a doctorate, McNair 

Program participants who worked 12 or fewer hours per week as undergraduates and those who 

worked with faculty mentors whom they perceived as helpful were more likely to have earned a 

doctoral degree than their peers who worked more than 12 hours per week or who had faculty 

members whom they perceived as not helpful. 

In which disciplines do McNair Program participants earn doctoral and 

professional degrees? 

The largest percentages of doctoral degrees reportedly were earned in the life sciences (26.0 

percent), social sciences (24.1 percent), or physical sciences (14.6 percent). Those who earned 

professional degrees most often reportedly held doctorates of jurisprudence (55.3 percent), 

medicine (26.3 percent), or osteopathic medicine (8.7 percent). 
 36 

To what extent do McNair Program participants join faculties of higher 

education upon completion of the doctoral program? 

Of McNair participants who completed doctoral degrees, about 65 percent indicated that they 

were employed in higher education. Seventy-two percent of that group reportedly were on the 

faculty of the institutions in which they worked. Only 4 percent of professional degree recipients 

indicated that they were employed in higher education. Of that group, about 40 percent were on 

the faculty. Overall, then, about 20 percent of McNair doctoral and professional degree recipients 

reported that they were faculty members in institutions of higher education. 

Although the majority of Ph.D. and other doctoral degree recipients on faculties were in tenuretrack positions, only six individuals indicated that they had obtained tenure. That is not 

surprising, considering the time it takes to obtain tenure after joining the faculty of an institution. 

In contrast, the majority of professional degree recipients were not in tenure-track positions, and 

none held tenured faculty positions. The largest proportion of doctoral and professional degree 

recipients who were not faculty at institutions of higher education were employed in industry or 

business (61.2 percent). 

McNair participants with doctoral degrees other than the Ph.D. who did not work in higher 

education reportedly earned significantly more income than those employed in higher education. 

There was no statistically significant difference in the reported earnings of Ph.D. and 

professional degree recipients based on whether they worked in higher education or not. 

Similarly, McNair Program graduates who were not employed in higher education did not report 

significantly different education-related debt than their peers who were employed in higher 

education. 

What is the employment status of students who entered the program but for 

whom there is no evidence of an earned Ph.D., other doctoral, or professional 

degree? 

Overall, reported employment levels were higher among master’s (93.6 percent) and bachelor’s 

degree (83.8 percent) holders who were not enrolled in school compared with their peers who 

were enrolled in school (76.6 and 62.8 percent, respectively). 
 37 

References 

 

Bose, J. “Nonresponse Bias Analyses at the National Center for Education Statistics,” Achieving 

Data Quality in a Statistical Agency: A Methodological Perspective, Proceedings of 

Statistics Canada Symposium, 2001. 

Hoffer, T.B., Welch, V., Williams, K., Hess, M., Webber, K., Lisek, B., Lowe, D., GuzmanBarron, I. Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 

2004. Chicago, Illinois, NORC, 2005. 

Hoffer, T.B., Welch, V. Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients. National 

Science Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 

Arlington, Va, March 2006. 

McCormick, A.C., Nunez, A-M., Vishant, S., Choy, S.P. “Life After College: A Descriptive 

Summary of 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in 1997 with an Essay on 

Participation in Graduate and First Professional Education,” NCES 1999-155, U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 

1999. 

Moore, M.T. and Myers, D. The National Evaluation of Upward Bound. Summary of First-Year 

Impacts and Program Operations, Executive Summary. Washington, D.C., Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc., May 1997. 

NCES Statistical Standards, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

Washington, D.C., NCES Publication Number 2003-601. 

Norfles, N. Mortenson, T. Financing the First Year of Graduate School: A Study of TRIO Ronald 

E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Alumni, Pell Institute for the Study of 

Opportunity in Higher Education, March 2002. 

Paying for Graduate School, Education Planner, 2005, posted at: 

http://www.educationplanner.com/education_planner/paying_article.asp?sponsor=2859&

articleName=Paying_for_Graduate_School, accessed and cited August 2006. 

A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1997–98 Through 

2001–02, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 

Washington, D.C., 2005. 

Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B. “Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification 

on Propensity Scores,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1984; 79, 516–

524. 

Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, The 

American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, Kan., 2000. 

Stata User’s Guide, Release 7, Stata Press, College Station, Texas, 2001. 
 38 

SUDAAN User's Manual, Release 8.0, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C, 

2001. 

Wolter, K.M., Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 1985. 
 39 

Appendix A. Technical Notes for the Survey of 1989–2000 McNair 

Participants 

Appendix A presents discussions of the following topics: 

• Weighting adjustments 

• Estimation and variance computation 

• Response, cooperation, and refusal rates 

Weighting Adjustments 

The sampling weights properly quantify the representation of units in the frame by the units in 

the sample. These weights were calculated as the reciprocal of the selection probability. 

Weighted estimates that were computed by using these sampling weights and on the basis of a 

complete sample are expected to be unbiased. When nonresponse is part of the survey data, the 

survey estimates are calculated from only the respondents (that is, the persons who completed 

the survey) rather than from all sample cases. However, if the respondents and nonrespondents 

differ in the characteristics being surveyed, the estimates that were calculated only from the 

respondents may be biased. 

The common method of accounting for this bias is to make nonresponse adjustments by using 

the weighting adjustment method. The objective of weighting adjustment is to avoid and reduce 

bias in the survey estimates. In this case, the sampling weights are adjusted to account for sample 

cases with unknown eligibility and nonrespondents. 

Weighting adjustments were conducted for the McNair survey to reduce potential bias due to 

nonresponse. There are two types of nonresponse: 

• Unit nonresponse—individuals in the sample did not complete the survey because of 

refusals, the inability to participate, or the interviewer’s inability to locate and make contact. 

• Item nonresponse—individuals in the sample did not answer individual survey items as a 

result of refusing to answer certain questions, responding “don’t know” to certain questions, 

inadvertent omissions by interviewers, or unintentional data deletions during the editing 

process. 

Unit nonresponse was addressed through weighting adjustment. Item nonresponse was not 

specially treated in the data analyses. Items not answered by respondents were either dropped 

from the analyses or presented in the tables as a category labeled “missing.” 

The sample was selected from the list of McNair participants (that is, sampling frame). Sampling 

weights that represented a specific number of units were assigned to each record in the sample. 

Table A-1 presents the calculations of the basic sampling weights. 
 40 

Table A-1. Number of McNair Participants in the Sampling Frame and Number of Selected 

Participants, Sampling Fraction, and Sampling Weight by Sampling Stratum 

Sampling Frame Selected 

Participants 

Sampling Stratum 

N N 

Sampling 

Fraction 

Sampling 

Weight 

Bachelor’s degree 6,537 615 0.0941 10.6293 

Master’s degree 1,363 580 0.4255 2.35 

Doctoral and professional degree 813 813 1.0 1.0 

No bachelor’s degree 2,403 604 0.2514 3.9785 

Total 11,116 2,612 — — 

Source: Sampling frame accessed from McNair Program Annual Performance Reports, 1989–2000. 

Note: The APR and grantee updates initially identified 12,640 individuals as participants in the McNair Program 

during the study timeframe. However, the degree completion status of 1,524 of those cases could not be 

determined from either the APR or subsequent update information from the grantees. This prevented us from 

assigning those individuals to a sampling stratum. As a result, they were excluded from the sample frame for the 

study. Therefore, the final sampling universe consisted of 11,116 cases. 

Some strata in the sample were over sampled; as a result, the sample was not self-weighting. 

The sample adjustments were carried out in two steps. The first step adjusted for unknown 

eligibility in the sample due to non-contact. The second step adjusted for those eligible samples 

who did not respond to the survey. 

The sample of 2,612 cases was partitioned into four groups based on the final survey disposition: 

A = Completers (eligible sample)—1,003 cases 

B = Nonrespondents, such as refusals, request do-not-call, etc.—33 cases 

C = Ineligible samples, such as deceased, did not participate in McNair, or duplication records— 

 24 cases 

D = Unknown eligibility sample (due to no contact), such as busy number; no answer; fax, 

 modem, or answering machine; wrong number; not working number; etc.—1,552 cases 

Initial sample selection was based on the list of participants obtained from the McNair Annual 

Performance Reports (APR) data. This list, however, may not have accurately identified the 

target population of McNair participants. As the field data collection was conducted, some 

sample members were ineligible (group C) because they had not participated in McNair, were 

deceased, or were duplicate cases (24 out of 2,612 cases). These ineligible cases were excluded 

from the analyses. 

In addition, there were 1,552 cases of unknown eligibility (group D). For these cases, contact 

could not be established; therefore, their eligibility was not confirmed. It was assumed that 

among the non-contacted cases in group D, there were ineligible cases as well (note that the 

frame still has some errors, such as the inclusion of cases that were not McNair participants, 

were deceased, or were duplicate cases), but unfortunately the number is unknown. The 

remaining eligible but non-contacted samples should be accounted for in the analysis. Hence, the 

first step of weighting adjustment is done to account for samples with unknown eligibility. 
 41 

We made the adjustment for unknown-eligibility cases by inflating the weights of the cases with 

known eligibility to account for the cases with unknown eligibility. We did this by first modeling 

the propensity of being contacted (that is, propensity of known eligibility) by using a logistic 

regression in which the following variables were used as predictors:8

• sampling strata (educational attainment status recorded in the APR data) 

• ethnicity or race 

• program eligibility (low-income, first-generation college student, or underrepresented 

minority) 

We then constructed weighting cells on the basis of estimates of propensity scores. Six weighting 

cells were constructed based on estimated propensity scores where the boundary between two 

cells was determined according to the equal-quantile method (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1984).9

 

The sample was then partitioned into one of the six cells. For each cell, an adjustment factor was 

computed as a weighted ratio of all samples to the samples with known eligibility (groups A, B, 

and C). We produced the unknown-eligibility adjusted weights by multiplying the individual 

basic sampling weight with this adjustment factor. For cases in group D, we set the adjusted 

weight to be zero. The unknown-eligibility adjusted weights represent all eligible cases in the 

frame. We dropped cases in group D from the analysis. 

We made the next adjustment to account for the nonrespondents (group B). The unknowneligibility adjusted weight of cases in group A (completers or respondents) was inflated to 

account for cases in group B (nonrespondents). The response propensity model did not identify 

any variables that could be used to predict the response propensity, because among the eligible 

cases, only a small number did not respond to the survey (about 3.3 percent). As a result, we 

computed a single adjustment factor in this step as the weighted ratio of all eligible respondents 

(groups A and B) to the completers (group A only). We computed the nonrespondent adjusted 

weight as the unknown-eligibility adjusted weight, multiplied by this adjustment factor. We 

attached this weight to each respondent record, while the nonrespondents received a weight equal 

to zero. The analysis was based only on the respondents. 

The last step in the weighting adjustment was controlling the weights (post-stratification) relative 

to known population totals based on updated APR data. We made this adjustment through the 

raking method, in which the sum of weights was controlled to meet population totals by gender, 

race or ethnicity, and program eligibility. This step produced the final survey weights that were 

used for the analyses. 

Estimation and Variance Computation 

We computed the weighted estimates of totals, percentages, and means by using the final 

analysis weights produced from the previous steps. The estimation method accounted for the 

 

8

 A logistic regression model was used in which a binary variable that indicates whether or not a case is in group D 

was regressed with sampling strata, most recent educational attainment status based on survey, race or ethnicity, 

gender, and program eligibility as predictors. 

9

 Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1984), “Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on 

Propensity Scores,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516–524. 
 42 

stratified random sampling used in selecting the sampled cases. The sampling fraction was large 

in the master’s degree strata. Therefore, computation of the variance incorporated the finite 

population correction (fpc) factor by defining the sample design as a without-replacement

(WOR) sample. 

In addition to estimates of totals and means presented in the body of the report, we also present 

the precision of the estimates computed as standard errors (that is, the square root of variances) 

of the estimates. For the McNair survey variance estimation, we used a design-based method that 

takes into account the sample design. We produced estimates of McNair survey parameters 

presented in the body of this report by using weighted estimation procedures that relied on the 

final analysis weights. 

The estimate of a population total Td of variable Y can be computed as a weighted sum of values 

of Y across respondents included for domain d as follows: 

ˆ nd

d kk

k d

T wy = 

where 

 final analysis weight for respondent ,

 value of variable for respondent ,

total number of respondents in domain .

k

k

d

w k

y Yk

n d

=

=

=

Examples of total estimates are: 

• total number of McNair bachelor’s degree holders 

• total number of male McNair participants 

• total number of years to complete bachelor’s degrees 

The estimate of the population mean or proportion (denoted by y ) can be computed as: 

d

d

n

k k

k d

d n

k

k d

w y

y

w





=





where the proportion variable k y will have a value of either 0 or 1. 

The following items are examples of this (ratio) type of estimate: 

• percent of bachelor’s degree holders 

• percent of male McNair participants 

• average number of years to complete bachelor’s degrees 
 43 

For each table presented in the body of the report, standard errors, which are the square root of 

variances, were computed. We computed variance estimation for the McNair survey sample by 

using a design-based method that took into account the sample design and sample selection 

probabilities—that is, a stratified random sampling without replacement (STRWOR). This 

variance represents the level of precision of the estimate. 

When the statistic of interest is a nonlinear statistic such as the weighted mean or proportion, the 

variance is computed by using a Taylor Series expansion-linearization approach.10 We used this 

method to compute the variance of the weighted estimates. We computed the estimates and their 

variances by using the statistical software SUDAAN (Research Triangle Institute, 2001).11 

Response, Cooperation, and Refusal Rates 

We computed unweighted and weighted response rates. We used the unweighted response rate to 

assess how successful the data collection effort was in getting responses from sample members. 

We used the weighted response rate to assess possible bias in the survey estimates when the 

nonrespondents have different characteristics than the respondents. The weighted response rate is 

computed by using the basic sampling weight so that a weighted response rate is an estimate of 

the proportion of the survey population with usable or available data. 

The unweighted response rate was calculated by using the following formula: 

count of completers Unweighted Response Rate = . count of "eligible" cases

The weighted response rate was calculated in a similar way by using the sampling weights to get 

the counts: 

weighted count of completers Weighted Response Rate = . weighted count of "eligible" cases

Based on the survey response outcomes, the sample (2,612 cases) was partitioned into four 

groups: 

A = Completers (eligible sample)—1,003 cases 

B = Nonrespondents, such as refusals, request do-not-call, etc.—33 cases 

C = Ineligible samples, such as deceased, did not participate in McNair, or duplication records— 

 24 cases 

D = Unknown eligibility sample (due to no-contact); such as busy number; no answer; 

 fax, modem, or answering machine; wrong number; not working number; etc.—1,552 cases 

 

10 The variance of a nonlinear statistic cannot be computed by simply summing the within-stratum variances across 

strata. The Taylor Series approach will first linearize the nonlinear estimator and then use the first-order terms to get 

the variance components. See Wolter, K.M., Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag, New York, 

1985, for such approximation methods. 

11 SUDAAN User's Manual, Release 8.0, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 2001. 
 44 

According to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the definition of 

response rate assumes that group D may contain some eligible cases that unfortunately could not 

be contacted. These cases should be taken into account when computing the response rate. 

Therefore, the number of eligible cases in group D must be estimated. We computed the 

eligibility rate by using the groups of cases with known eligibility status (that is, A, B, and C). 

Thus, we computed the unweighted response rate as follows: 

Unweighted Response Rate 100% A

A B AB D

ABC

= 

 +

+ +   

  + +

, 

where the term (A + B) / (A + B + C) represented the eligibility rate among the contacted cases. 

Therefore, the unweighted response rate was computed as follows: 

1003 Unweighted Response Rate 100% 39.3% 1003 33 1003 33 1552

1003 33 24

=  =  +

+ +   

  + +

The estimated number of eligible cases in the denominator of the formula is 1,003 + 33 + 1,586 

= 2,552 cases. Therefore, using this formula, the unweighted overall response rate is 1,003 / 

2,552 = 39.3 percent. A similar computation for a weighted response rate where the basic 

sampling weights were used as the weight for this computation resulted in a weighted overall 

response rate of 36.8 percent. 

We used the formulas of the AAOPR12 to calculate the cooperation and refusal rates.13

Cooperation Rate 2 (COOP2) was calculated by using the following formula: 

 

COOP2 = (I+P) / (I+P) + R+O 

1003 Unweighted Cooperation Rate 2 100% 94.6% 1003 33 24

=  = + +

Refusal Rate 1 (REF1) was calculated by using the following formula: 

REF1 = R / (I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+OU) 

33 Unweighted Refusal Rate 1 100% 1.3% 1003 33 24 1,552

=  = +++

 

12 Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, The American 

Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, Kansas, 2000. 

13 The final disposition codes used to calculate the outcome rates are defined as follows: I = complete interview; 

P = partial interview; R = refusal and break-off; NC = non-contact; O = other; UH = unknown if household 

occupied; and OU = unknown, other. 
 45 

Nonresponse Bias Analyses 

The overall response rate to the McNair survey was 39 percent and warranted a more detailed 

look at possible nonresponse bias. We used two approaches. First, we examined differences in 

the response rates of specific demographic subgroups for which we had consistent information 

from the APR data used to construct the sample. We then conducted an analysis of possible 

nonresponse bias in the outcome variables of interest. The results of those analyses are described 

in the following sections. 

Analysis of differential response by demographic subgroups. Table A-2 displays differences 

in response rates of selected subgroups. We found significant differences in the response rates of 

racial and ethnic groups on the basis of degree status as indicated in the APR. Among racial and 

ethnic groups, Hispanics and Asians had much lower response rates, while whites and those in 

the mixed race or other category had higher response rates. Persons with no bachelor’s degree 

and those with a bachelor’s degree had substantially lower response rates than those with higher 

degrees. This suggests that caution be used in interpreting and generalizing these survey results. 

Table A-2. Response Rates by Selected Demographic Subgroup 

Demographic Subgroup % Responding P-value 

Gender .155 

Male (N = 854) 37.4 

Female (N = 1,738) 38.8 

Race/ethnicity .000 

Black (N = 1,111) 37.7 

Hispanic (N = 610) 32.5 

White (N = 559) 48.3 

Asian (N = 173) 27.2 

American Indian & Pacific Islander (N = 122) 41.9 

Mixed/Other (N = 22) 45.5 

Eligibility Status .180 

Low income & first generation (N = 1,841) 37.4 

Underrepresented minority; not low income & first 

generation (N = 744) 

30.6 

APR degree status* .000 

Bachelor’s (N = 735) 34.3 

Master’s (N = 708) 44.9 

Doctorate (N = 236) 43.2 

Other terminal degree (N = 219) 42.0 

No bachelor’s (N = 620) 33.5 

Sources: Unweighted McNair survey data for the participant survey (fall 1989–2000), and APR reported data for 

the nonsurvey data. 

* APR reports do not distinguish Ph.D. from other doctorates. 

Analysis of differences in outcome variables. Although we do not have survey data on the 

educational and employment outcomes for nonresponders, we used a method cited by the 

National Center for Education Statistics to estimate nonresponse bias by comparing the outcomes 
 46 

for early and late survey responders (Bose, 2001). We did this to address obvious concerns 

regarding the generalizability of the survey’s findings with such a low response rate. We used the 

extrapolation method to investigate the relationship between specific respondent characteristics 

and their propensity to respond to the survey. This method assumes that late survey respondents 

are similar to and approximate nonrespondents; any statistically significant differences between 

early and late survey respondents indicate bias that can be extrapolated to nonrespondents. 

Of 1,003 surveys completed between May 2004 and December 2004, 500 were completed on or 

before July 17, 2004. Early respondents were defined as those who completed the survey on or 

before July 17, 2004; late respondents were those who completed the survey after July 17, 2004. 

The analyses presented in Table A-3 indicate that early and late McNair survey respondents were 

not significantly different. We found no systematic differences between early and late 

respondents to this survey on key outcome variables, suggesting that outcomes for 

nonrespondents are likely not to differ significantly from that of respondents. Nonetheless, 

because of the low response rates to the survey overall, findings should be interpreted cautiously. 

Table A-3. Response Bias Among Early and Late Survey Respondents 

Characteristic N Mean SD t-value df p-value 

APR Status 

Early respondents 497 2.55 1.46 –1.86 994 .063 

Late respondents 499 2.72 1.53 –1.86 992 .063 

Gender 

Early respondents 500 1.65 .485 –1.076 996 .282 

Late respondents 498 1.69 .477 –1.076 996 .282 

Eligibility 

Early respondents 499 1.32 .477 .754 .997 .451 

Late respondents 500 1.30 .472 .754 .997 .451 

Employment status 

Early respondents 500 .86 .349 –.065 1000 .948 

Late respondents 502 .86 .347 –.065 1000 .948 

Source: Sampling frame accessed from McNair Program Annual Performance Reports, 1989–2000. 

Item Response Bias 

Overall item response rates were very high; once McNair participants began the interview, they 

answered the majority of questions asked. Among the items that queried the undergraduate 

experience, the question “As a McNair participant, which services were you offered?” had the 

lowest response rate of 95.5 percent. Among the items that dealt with the graduate school 

experience, the question “How many programs did you apply to before entering your program?” 

had the lowest response rate (98.7 percent). In the sections that covered employment 

experiences, the lowest item response rate was obtained for the questions about income; 

94.1 percent responded to “Please stop me when I reach the income category that best represents 

your 2003 earnings on this job.” In the demographic section of the survey, 93 percent answered 

“Please stop me when I reach the income category that includes your best estimate of the 

combined yearly household income of your family when you were an undergraduate student.” 
 47 

Appendix B. Unweighted Estimate Tables 

Table B-1. McNair Survey Respondents by Carnegie Classification of Undergraduate Institution 

and Educational Attainment 

No 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Master’s 

Degree 

Doctoral or 

Professional 

Degree 

Classification of Institution* 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Doctoral or research universities 13 76.5 215 69.4 287 70.3 166 62.4 

Master’s colleges and universities 3 17.6 80 25.8 102 25.0 97 36.5 

Baccalaureate colleges 1 5.9 11 3.5 10 2.5 2 .7 

Specialized institutions 0 .0 4 1.3 9 2.2 1 .3 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06). 

* “In 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education developed a classification of colleges and universities to 

support its program of research and policy analysis. Derived from empirical data on colleges and universities, the 

‘Carnegie Classification’ was published for use by other researchers in 1973, and subsequently updated in 1976, 

1987, 1994 and 2000. For over three decades, the Carnegie Classification has been the leading framework for 

describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education. It has been widely used in the study of higher 

education, both as a way to represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research 

studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty.” Source: The Carnegie 

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2006. 
ogram Services Received by Participants’ Level of Academic Attainment 

m McNair survey, 2004–06.

No 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Master’s 

Degree 

Doctoral 

Degree 

Professional

Degree 

Doctoral and 

Professional Degree

N (%) N (%) N (0%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

 3 75.0 167 75.6 234 78.5 56 77.8 59 68.6 1 33.3 

hool 

3 33.3 211 83.1 307 88.2 91 91.9 92 86.0 4 100.0 

for 

3 60.0 108 63.2 154 70.3 40 78.4 31 50.0 1 100.0 

 school 

2 25.0 164 69.5 254 80.4 73 84.9 60 62.5 2 66.7 

0 0.0 67 83.8 56 81.2 4 57.1 16 88.9 0 0.0 

2 33.3 152 78.4 218 83.2 59 77.6 74 81.3 2 100.0 

tuition & 

2 66.7 63 70.0 110 79.1 12 60.0 31 75.6 1 100.0 

earch 

4 50.0 158 77.8 231 83.1 58 80.6 64 78.0 3 100.0 

ication 

2 25.0 137 61.7 200 78.4 53 88.3 40 64.5 1 50.0 

aivers 3 37.5 163 73.1 209 79.8 49 76.6 35 59.3 0 0.0 

1 14.3 104 58.4 139 61.2 35 58.3 38 50.7 0 0.0 

ources 7 63.6 186 85.7 246 84.0 67 83.8 79 81.4 1 100.0 

5 50.0 41 70.7 23 60.5 9 60.0 12 85.7 0 0.0 

1 50.0 73 67.0 101 73.7 25 71.4 30 76.9 1 100.0 

 research

8 66.7 213 76.1 281 79.4 94 81.7 89 12.9 4 100.0 
rogram Services Received by Participants’ Level of Academic Attainment 

m McNair survey, 2004–06.

No 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Master’s 

Degree 

Doctoral Degree Professional 

Degree 

Doctoral and 

Professional Degree

N (%) N (%) N (0%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

9 69.2 138 83.1 140 78.2 37 86.0 51 83.6 0 0.0 

thods 7 77.8 165 82.1 218 85.5 69 84.1 68 79.1 4 100.0 

es 0 0.0 113 82.5 151 82.1 31 73.8 37 80.4 3 75.0 

7 63.6 207 89.2 285 91.3 86 90.5 98 93.3 2 66.7 

ties 

6 66.7 231 89.5 294 87.8 104 91.2 93 84.5 4 100.0 

udy 

4 50.0 141 77.0 194 73.5 47 73.4 50 72.5 1 100.0 

st

6 54.5 165 84.2 230 79.9 61 83.6 51 73.9 1 50.0 

me 

5 71.4 142 77.2 173 78.6 40 78.4 46 69.7 1 100.0 

s 4 50.0 189 78.4 259 82.5 73 77.7 69 71.9 2 100.0 
 50 

Table B-3. Activities or Opportunities Received by McNair Participants Who Completed the DIR 

Survey by Level of Academic Attainment 

Activities or 

Opportunities 

Received 

No 

Bachelor’s

Degree 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Master’s 

Degree 

Doctoral 

Degree 

Professional

Degree 

Doctoral and

Professional

Degree 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Attend 

professional 

meetings 

 8 88.9 109 85.2 178 84.8 46 85.2 52 83.9 3 100.0

Faculty mentor 11 100.0 171 94.0 297 98.3 79 100.0 77 96.3 3 100.0

Present research 

findings (campus)

 9 75.0 144 85.2 240 90.9 66 94.3 65 86.7 3 100.0

Present research 

findings 

(conference) 

 2 40.0 70 61.9 118 67.0 36 75.0 34 56.7 1 100.0

Publish papers 6 75.0 109 82.6 196 88.7 29 93.5 42 77.8 0 0.0

Summer research

activities 

10 100.0 156 89.1 249 90.9 71 100.0 70 86.4 3 100.0

Visit graduate 

programs 

 4 50.0 75 63.0 138 74.2 32 86.5 22 52.4 2 100.0

Work on faculty 

research 

11 91.7 167 92.8 272 93.8 75 97.4 76 96.2 3 100.0

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

Note: Bachelor’s group includes participants whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree and who are currently 

enrolled in graduate school. Master’s and doctoral or professional degree groups include all participants whose 

highest degree is a master’s degree and doctoral or professional degree respectively. 
Helpfulness of Selected McNair Program Services by Participants’ Level of Academic Attainment 

pfulness of Services Bachelor’s Degreea,b Master’s Degreea,b Doctoral Degree Professional Degree Doctoral and Professional Degree 

ng 3.32 3.40 3.26 3.43 3.00 

ry resources 3.55 3.49 3.50 3.51 4.00 

loping research skills 3.51 3.62 3.53 3.44 3.67 

orking 3.55 3.49 3.36 3.60 0.0 

tific methods 3.47 3.50 3.46 3.51 3.67 

it courses 3.63 3.53 3.45 3.56 3.33 

prove study skills 3.52 3.46 3.23 3.55 3.00 prove test-taking skills 3.40 3.34 3.20 3.30 3.00 prove time management 3.52 3.42 3.24 3.37 3.00 

ting skills 3.61 3.57 3.49 3.52 3.50 

m McNair survey, 2004–06. 

1 to 4; 4 = very helpful, 3 = somewhat helpful, 2 = not very helpful, 1 = not at all helpful. 

s participants whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree and who are currently enrolled in graduate school. Master’s and doctoral or 

ups include all participants whose highest degree is a master’s degree and doctoral or professional degree, respectively. 

e number of participants who responded “don’t know.” 
 52 

Table B-5. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected McNair Program Activities (Opportunities) Received 

by Participants’ Level of Academic Attainment 

Perceived Helpfulness of 

Activities 

Bachelor’s 

Degreea,b

Master’s 

Degreea,b

Doctoral 

 Degreea,b

Professional 

Degreea,b

Doctoral and 

Professional 

Degreea,b

Faculty mentor 3.51 3.65 3.65 3.56 3.33 

Publish papers 3.67 3.72 3.85 3.60 4.00 

Summer research activities 3.71 3.79 3.79 3.61 3.67 

Work on faculty research 3.70 3.70 3.75 3.56 3.67 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

Note: Scores range from 1 to 4; 4 = very helpful, 3 = somewhat helpful, 2 = not very helpful, 1 = not at all helpful. a

 Bachelor’s group includes participants whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree and who are currently enrolled 

in graduate school. Master’s and doctoral or professional degree groups include all participants whose highest 

degree is a master’s degree and doctoral or professional degree respectively. b

 Ns vary, depending on the number of participants who responded “don’t know. 
 53 

Table B-6. McNair Program Participants from 1989 to 1998 Who Earned Doctorate by 2003 

Doctoral Degrees 

Total Ph.D. Other Doctorate 

Data Source 

N % N % N % 

APR—Nonsurvey 291 2.3 — — — — 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 169 7.9 — — — — 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 117 1.7 — — — — 

McNair Participant Survey 130 13.1 62 3.7 68 4.2 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 79 30.2 37 14.2 42 16.1 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 51 10.4 25 5.1 26 5.3 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

Note: APR reports do not distinguish Ph.D. from other doctorates. 
 54 

Table B-7. Doctoral Degrees by Gender and Data Source 

McNair Survey Data 

Ph.D. 

(N = 64) 

Other Doctorates 

(N = 69) 

Characteristics 

N (%) N (%) 

Gender 

 Male 38 (59.4) 48 (69.9) 

 Female 26 (40.6) 21 (30.4) 

 Missing — — — — 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 55 

Table B-8. Doctoral Degrees by Race or Ethnicity and Data Source 

McNair Survey Data 

Ph.D. 

(N = 64) 

Other Doctorates 

(N = 69) 

Characteristics 

N (%) N (%) 

Race or Ethnicity 

 White 26 40.6 32 46.4 

 Black 17 26.6 18 26.1 

 Hispanic 9 14.1 9 13.0 

 Asian 5 7.8 4 5.8 

 American Indian* 2 3.1 3 4.3 

 Mixed/Other 3 4.7 3 4.3 

 Refused/Missing 2 3.1 0 0 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

*Includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders. 
 56 

Table B-9. Doctoral Degrees by Eligibility Criteria and Data Source 

McNair Survey Data 

Ph.D. 

(N = 64) 

Other Doctorates 

(N = 69) 

Characteristics 

N (%) N (%) 

Eligibility 

 First generation & low-income 44 68.8 46 66.7 

 Underrepresented minorities 20 31.3 23 33.3 

 Missing — — — — 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 57 

Table B-10. 1989–2000 McNair Program Professional Degree Recipients 

Data Source Professional Degrees 

N % 

APR 775 6.2 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 171 9.0 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 272 5.0 

 Late Cohort (1999 to 2003) 62 5.0 

McNair Survey 131 13.1 

 Early Cohort (1989 to 1993) 50 19.2 

 Middle Cohort (1994 to 1998) 77 15.8 

 Late Cohort (1999 to 2003) 4 1.6 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 58 

Table B-11. Professional Degree Recipients by Sociodemographic Characteristics and Data Source 

McNair Survey Data 

Professional Degree 

(N = 133) 

Characteristics 

N (%) 

Gender 

 Male 67 50.4 

 Female 66 49.6 

 Missing — — 

Race/Ethnicity 

 White 45 33.8 

 Black 51 38.3 

 Hispanic 17 12.8 

 Asian 6 4.5 

 American Indian* 4 3.0 

 Mixed 8 6.0 

 Refused/Missing 2 1.5 

Eligibility 

 First generation & low-income 91 68.4 

 Underrepresented minorities 42 31.6 

 Missing — — 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

*Includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders. 
 59 

Table B-12. Disciplines of Doctoral Degrees 

Total 

(N = 134) 

Ph.D. 

(N = 66) 

Other Doctorate 

(N = 68) 

Field of Study 

N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Life Sciences 39 29.1 19 28.8 20 29.4 

Social Sciences 30 22.4 14 21.2 16 23.5 

Professional/Other* 20 14.9 13 19.7 7 10.3 

Physical Sciences 16 11.9 8 12.1 8 11.8 

Humanities 10 7.5 2 3.0 8 11.8 

Education 10 7.5 8 12.1 2 2.9 

Engineering 9 6.7 2 3.0 7 10.3 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

* The “Professional/Other” category represents doctoral degrees awarded in business management and 

administrative services, communications, and professional fields such as architecture, law, library science, and 

social work. These are not considered among professional degrees. 
 60 

Table B-13. Disciplines of Professional Degrees 

Professional Degrees 

(N = 141) 

Field of Study 

N % 

Law (J.D.) 64 45.4 

Medicine (M.D.) 42 29.8 

Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) 14 9.9 

Other 9 6.4 

Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) 7 5.0 

Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.) 5 3.5 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 61 

Table B-14. Educational Attainment of the Total Pool of McNair Participants, 1989–2000 

McNair Survey Data 

(N = 1,003) 

Highest Degree Attained 

N % 

No Bachelor’s 18 1.8 

Bachelor’s 310 30.9 

Master’s 408 40.7 

Doctoral or Professional 267 26.6 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 62 

Table B-15. Gender of McNair Participants 

Gender N (%) 

Female 677 67.5 

Male 326 32.5 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 63 

Table B-16. Race/Ethnicity of McNair Participants 

Race/Ethnicity N (%) 

White 268 26.7 

Black 403 40.2 

Hispanic 181 18.0 

Asian 53 5.3 

American Indian and Alaska Native 30 3.0 

Mixed 52 5.2 

Refused 16 1.6 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 64 

Table B-17. Eligibility Criteria of McNair Participants 

Eligibility Criteria N (%) 

First-generation low income 695 69.3 

Underrepresented minority 305 30.4 

Missing 3 .3 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06.
 65 

Table B-18. Degrees Being Pursued by McNair Participants with Bachelor’s or Master’s Degrees

Degree Completed 

Bachelor’s 

N = 310 

Master’s 

N = 408 

Degrees Being Pursued 

N N 

Masters 125 20 

Business Administration (M.B.A.) 13 2 

Science (M.S.) 18 0 

Arts (M.A.) 4 2 

Education (M.Ed.) 19 3 

Public Administration (M.P.A.) 2 0 

Public Health (M.P.H.) 1 1 

Applied Arts (M.A.A.) 0 1 

Teaching (M.A.T.) 1 0 

Divinity (M.Div.) 1 2 

Social Work (M.S.W.) 6 0 

Other Master’s 60 9 

Doctoral 51 73 

Philosophy (Ph.D.) 4 6 

Education (Ed.D.) 0 12 

Business Administration (D.B.A.) 0 1 

Engineering (D.Eng.) 0 3 

Public Administration (D.P.A.) 2 1 

Science (D.Sc. or Sc.D.) 8 4 

Psychology (Psy.D.) 3 7 

Other 34 39 

Professional 32 5 

Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.) 0 0 

Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.) 1 0 

Medicine (M.D.) 13 2 

Optometry (O.D.) 0 0 

Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) 0 1 

Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) 2 0 

Podiatry (D.P.M. or Pod.D.) 0 1 

Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) 0 0 

Law (J.D.) 8 1 

Theology (Th.D. or D.Min.) 1 0 

Other 7 0 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 66 

 

Table B-19. Percent of McNair Participant Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients by 

Category of Employer 

Overall 

(N = 270) 

Ph.D. 

(N = 67) 

Other Doctorates

(N = 69) 

Professional 

Degree 

(N = 141) 

Employer 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Higher Education 93 34.4 45 67.2 35 50.7 14 7.1 

Other Locations 168 62.2 19 28.4 33 47.8 116 82.3 

Not Working 9 3.3 3 4.5 1 1.4 5 3.5 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

Note: Ns are slightly lower than in previous tables due to missing employment status data.
 67 

Table B-20. Percent of McNair Participant Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients by Type of 

Higher Education Employer 

Overall Ph.D. 

Other 

Doctorates 

Professional 

Degree 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Total employed in higher 

education 93 100.0 45 48.4 35 37.6 14 15.1 

Type of Institution 

Four-year college or 

university 

84 90.3 41 91.1 33 94.3 10 71.4 

Medical school 6 6.5 2 4.4 0 0.0 4 28.6 

Junior or community 

college 

 3 3.2 1 2.2 2 5.7 0 0.0 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 68 

 

Table B-21. Rank and Tenure Status of McNair Participant Doctoral and Professional Degree 

Recipients on the Faculty at Institutions of Higher Education 

Overall Ph.D. Other 

Doctorates 

Professional 

Degree 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Current rank 68 100.0 33 48.5 28 41.2 7 10.3 

Professor/associate prof 5 7.4 2 6.1 3 10.7 0 0.0 

Assistant professor 44 64.7 22 66.7 18 64.3 4 57.1 

Instructor/lecturer 19 27.9 9 27.2 7 25.0 3 42.9 

Tenure status 

Tenured 2 2.9 1 3.0 1 3.6 0 0.0 

Tenure-track 39 57.4 20 60.6 17 60.7 2 28.6 

Not on tenure-track 27 39.7 12 36.4 10 35.7 5 71.4 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 69 

Table B-22. Doctoral Recipient Employment Outside of Higher Education 

Overall Ph.D. Other Doctoral

Degrees 

Professional

Degrees 

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 

Employer Type 

168 100.0 19 11.3 33 19.6 116 69.0 

Elementary or secondary school 9 5.4 2 10.5 3 9.0 4 3.4 

U.S. federal government 7 4.2 0 0.0 3 9.0 4 3.4 

U.S state government 9 5.4 1 5.3 1 3.0 7 6.0 

U.S. local government 3 1.8 1 5.3 1 3.0 1 0.9 

Nonprofit 12 7.1 1 5.3 6 18.2 5 4.3 

Industry or business 104 61.9 11 57.9 16 48.5 77 66.4 

Self employed 24 14.3 3 15.8 3 9.0 18 15.5 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 70 

Table B-23. Earnings for 2003 Among McNair Participants With Doctoral or Professional Degrees, 

by Employment Status 

Degree Employed In Higher

Education 

Not Employed in 

Higher Education 

Doctorate of philosophy $54,261 $60,875 

Other doctoral degree $53,548 $76,071 

Professional degree $59,062 $69,854 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

Note: The mean amount earned was calculated on the basis of the median value of the reported range. Participants 

who indicated that they earned less than $29,999 were assigned a value of $20,000, and those who indicated that 

they earned more than $100,000 were assigned a value of $110,000. 
 71 

Table B-24. Educational Debt Among McNair Participants With Doctoral or Professional Degrees, 

by Employment Status 

Degree Employed in Higher

Education 

Not Employed in 

Higher Education 

Doctorate of Philosophy $27,877 $57,375 

Other Doctorate $21,015 $30,862 

Professional Degree $73,034 $81,631 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 

Note: Initial response options for the question probing “amount owed” were based on ranges; however, respondents 

who owed over $30,000 (roughly 60 percent) indicated the exact amount owed. The mean was calculated by 

using the exact amount reported for the 60 percent of respondents who owed $30,000 or more and the median 

value of the reported range for the other 40 percent of respondents who owed less than $30,000. 
 72 

 Table B-25. Employment Status of McNair Participants Without Doctoral Degrees 

Degree Held Employed Not Working 

N (%) N (%) 

Master’s degree 354 86.76 54 13.24 

Currently enrolled in school 68 71.58 27 28.42 

Not currently enrolled 282 91.56 26 8.44 

Missing (no response) 4 80.00 1 20.00 

Bachelor’s degree 236 76.13 74 23.87 

Currently enrolled in school 92 64.79 50 35.21 

Not currently enrolled 142 85.54 24 14.46 

Missing (no response) 2 100.00 0 0.00 

No bachelor’s degree 14 77.78 4 22.22 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. 
 73 

Appendix C. Logistic Regression Models—Multivariate Logistic 

Regression Analyses 

Logistic regression analysis is a robust statistical technique that can be used to predict a binary 

outcome variable from one or more predictor variables. In Chapter 3, the results from a 

multivariate analysis designed to establish the relative influence of the individual characteristics, 

type of undergraduate institution attended, and McNair Program characteristics on completing 

doctoral degrees were presented. This appendix presents an explanation of the analytic 

techniques used and the detailed data tables of the results. 

About Logistic Regression Analysis 

Logistic regression analysis is the appropriate analytic technique to use when the outcome of 

interest is binary (that is, having completed a doctoral degree as opposed to a master’s degree or 

less). The odds ratios obtained from logistic regression analyses represent the likelihood or risk 

that a person with a specific characteristic will experience a specific outcome compared to a 

person who does not share the characteristic. To determine if an odds ratio is statistically 

significant we review the 95 percent confidence interval associated with the odds ratio. If the 

confidence interval does not encompass the value 1, we can assume the odds ratio is statistically 

significant. In this report we are interested in determining which characteristics are associated 

with successfully completing a doctoral degree. Thus, when we obtain an unadjusted odds ratios 

of 2.16 for the predictor variable gender (with a confidence interval of 1.81 to 2.58), it means 

that the probability of a man obtaining a doctoral degree is double that for a woman. Of equal 

importance are the variables that are not statistically significant, as they inform us about those 

attributes that are unrelated to obtaining a doctoral degree. 

Statistical Adjustment 

When a logistic regression analysis includes only one predictor variable the resulting odds ratio 

is referred to as unadjusted. However, when a logistic regression analysis includes two or more 

predictor variables, the resulting odds ratios are referred to as adjusted. Statistical adjustment 

essentially simultaneously controls for the influence of all the predictor variables included in the 

model for estimation on the outcome variable. After adjusting, the resulting odds ratio provides a 

“cleaner” indication of the relationship between the each predictor variable and the outcome 

variable of interest. 

Research Question 

Which characteristics (individual, institutional, or McNair Program Services) are associated with 

successfully completing a doctoral degree? 

Unadjusted Individual Characteristics. The unadjusted results (Table C-1) indicated that men 

were just over two times more likely than women to complete doctoral degrees and that those 

participants with higher GPAs were just over four times more likely to finish doctoral degrees 

than their peers with lower undergraduate GPAs. McNair participants who worked for 12 hours a 

week or less were two and a quarter times more likely than their peers who worked for more than 
 74 

12 hours a week to complete doctoral degrees. McNair eligibility criteria and where participants 

were born were unrelated to successfully completing doctoral degrees. In other words, whether 

McNair participants were first generation, low-income college students or underrepresented 

minorities was unrelated to successfully completing doctoral degree. Similarly whether they 

were born in the United States or not was unrelated to successfully completing doctoral degree. 

Unadjusted Institutional Characteristics. Compared to McNair participants who attended a 

research university, those who attended master’s, bachelor’s, or specialized institutions were two 

times more likely to complete doctoral degrees. 

Unadjusted McNair Program Services. If McNair participants worked with a faculty mentor 

and perceived that mentor as helpful, they were just over six times more likely to earn a doctoral 

degree than their peers who did not perceive the faculty mentor as helpful. Those who worked on 

research with a faculty mentor or during the summer were over eight times more likely to earn a 

doctoral degree than those who did not engage in research and those who published were almost 

three and a half times more likely to earn a doctoral degree. Receiving a stipend was unrelated to 

earning a doctoral degree. 

Adjusted Results. Only two predictors maintained significance in the multivariate model: 

working less than 12 hours a week and perceiving a faculty mentor as helpful. 
 75 

Table C-1. Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) and Confidence Intervals (CI) for 

Individual, Institutional, and Program Characteristics Among Doctoral Degree Holders 

 Unadjusted Adjusteda

 OR 95% CI OR 95% CI 

 N = 3,660 

Individual Characteristics 

Gender 

Male 2.16* (1.19, 3.92) 2.34 (0.86, 6.35) 

Undergraduate G.P.A. 4.17* (1.71, 10.18) 2.74 (0.70, 10.78) 

Country of origin 

USA 1.37 (0.57, 3.33) 2.51 (0.74, 8.49) 

No. hours worked as undergraduate 

 12 hours/week 2.25* (1.11, 4.54) 5.01* (1.76, 14.27) 

McNair Eligibility 

Underrepresented minority 1.40 (0.73, 2.70) 1.16 (0.37, 2.04) 

Institutional Characteristics 

Type of undergraduate institution 

Master’s, bachelor’s, or specialized 2.19* (1.20, 3.99) 2.06 (0.86, 4.95) 

McNair Program Services 

Undergrad faculty mentor helpful 

Yes 6.41* (2.37, 17.36) 13.80* (1.55, 122.83)

Undergrad faculty research helpful 

Yes 8.40* (2.72, 25.92) b b

Undergrad summer research helpful 

Yes 8.73* (2.88, 26.45) 1.61 (0.28, 9.36) 

Undergrad publication(s) helpful 

Yes 3.41* (1.17, 9.92) 1.16 (0.35, 3.84) 

Undergrad stipend helpful 

Yes 1.82 (0.97, 3.43) 1.85 (0.70, 4.90) 

Source: Data derived from McNair survey, 2004–06. a Adjusted for all the other variables in the analysis. 

b Parameter not estimated in the fully adjusted model due to high inter-correlation between faculty mentor and 

working on faculty research. 

* = significant at p < .05. 
 76 

Notes 

Because the survey sample was stratified and weighted with unequal probabilities of selection 

and differential nonresponse by strata, STATA analysis software was used. A robust variance 

estimation technique is automatically used to adjust for the design characteristics so that 

variances, standard errors and confidence intervals are correct. 

In the multivariate analyses described above, we were unable to evaluate the role that ethnicity 

might play on successfully completing doctoral or professional degrees, because ethnicity is 

confounded with the program’s eligibility criteria. We were also unable to estimate influence of 

working on faculty research on obtaining a doctoral degree because the correlation between 

having a faculty mentor and working on faculty research was very high (r = 0.81, p < 0.01). 
The Department of Education’s mission is to provide equal access to education 

and promote educational excellence throughout the nation.

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for 

global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov