A Profile of the

Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate

Achievement

Program: 1998-99

With selected data from 1997-98 and 1996-97

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

April 2002

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

April 2002

A Profile of the

Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate

Achievement

Program: 1998-99

With selected data from 1997-98 and 1996-97

Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Wendy Mansfield

Kathryn Downey Sargent

Margaret Cahalan

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

Robert L. Belle Jr.

Frances Bergeron
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract

No. 1-36U-6742 (031). The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. 

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

should be inferred.

U. S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Wilbert Bryant

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

Robert L. Belle Jr.

Director

April 2002

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

is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation

should be: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, A

Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99,

Washington, D.C., 2002.

To obtain additional copies of this report,

write to: Office of Federal TRIO Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990

K Street, NW, Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20006-8510;

or fax your request to: (202) 502-7857;

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

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at:

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/mcnair.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large

print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the

Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
CONTENTS

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

HIGHLIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. TRIO Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. The McNair Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B. Classifications used in the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

C. Response rates and characteristics of host institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Response rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Distribution of grantees and participants by institutional

characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

D. Data issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Data reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Unclear and missing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Miscoded data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

E. Structure of the remainder of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

II. STUDENT PARTICIPANTS IN THE McNAIR PROGRAM: 1998-99,

WITH SELECTED DATA FROM 1997-98 AND 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. Participant status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. Eligibility status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Race and ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5. Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B. Program entry and academic progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Entry year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Current grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3. Comparing grade level across years to determine graduate 

school progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4. Enrollment status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5. Degree status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
III. McNAIR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

IV. McNAIR PROGRAM PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

A. Classification scheme used in coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B. Institutional administrative objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

C. Institutional program objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

D. Student-related process objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

E. Student intermediate outcome objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

F. Student long-term outcome objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

G. Objectives met . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

V. FUTURE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and

Hispanic-Serving Institutions with McNair Projects: 1998-99. . . . . . 37

B. Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES

1 Description of annual awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Number of grantees reporting participant-level performance 

information, by institutional characteristics: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Number and percentage of participants with missing or blank 

responses: 1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5 McNair participant characteristics by participant status: 1998-99 . . . . . . 12

6 Estimated percentage of graduating seniors in 1997-98 reported 

as having a current grade status of “enrolled” in graduate school: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

7 Activities reported by McNair projects: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8 “Other” scholarly activities reported by McNair projects: 1998-99 . . . . . 28

9 Average number of program objectives reported, by institutional

characteristics: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

10 Percentage of objectives met for each type of McNair Program 

objective: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

APPENDIX B TABLES

1a Participant status : 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1b Participant status: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1c Participant status: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2a Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . 40

2b Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . 41

2c Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . 41

3a Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3b Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3c Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4a Age: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4b Age: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4c Age: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5a College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 

1998-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5b College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 

1997-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5c College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 

1996-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6a Grade level of participants: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6b Grade level of participants: 1997-98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6c Grade level of participants: 1996-97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

7a Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1998-99 . . . . . 48

7b Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1997-98 . . . . . 48

7c Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1996-97 . . . . . 50

8a End-of-year enrollment status: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

8b End-of-year enrollment status: 1997-98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

8c End-of-year enrollment status: 1996-97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

9a Percentage of participants who had earned a degree, by degree type 

and participant characteristics: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

9b Percentage of participants who had earned a degree, by degree type 

and participant characteristics: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

9c Percentage of participants who had earned a degree, by degree type 

and participant characteristics: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

FIGURES

1 Percentage of McNair projects submitting participant data: 1998-99 . . . 5

2 Percentage of McNair projects submitting aggregate performance 

data: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Participant status, by year: 1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Eligibility status: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5 Distribution of McNair participants by race and ethnicity: 1998-99 . . . . 13

6a Underrepresented participants, by race and ethnicity: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . 14

6b Low-income and first-generation participants, by race and ethnicity: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7 Participant gender: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

8 Participant race and ethnicity, by gender: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

9 Age distribution of new, continuing, and prior-year participants 

on the performance report files: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

10 College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

11 College year in which participants entered the McNair Program, 

by percentage of low-income and first-generation participants: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

12a Grade level of new, continuing, and prior-year McNair participants: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

12b Grade level of current (new and continuing) McNair participants: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

13 Grade level of participants, by participant status: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

14 End-of-year enrollment status, by race and ethnicity: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . 23
15 End-of-year enrollment status, by gender and eligibility: 1998-99. . . . . . 24

16 Participant degree status: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

17 Distribution of degrees by race and ethnicity: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

18 End-of-year enrollment status in 1997-98, by end-of-year enrollment 

status in 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

19 Classification of McNair Program objectives: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

20 McNair Program objectives, institutional administrative objectives: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

21 McNair Program objectives, institutional program objectives: 1998-99. . 31

22 ∆McNair Program objectives, student-related process objectives: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

23 McNair Program objectives, student intermediate outcome 

objectives: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

24 McNair Program objectives, student long-term outcome 

objectives: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
FOREWORD

To ensure the success of President Bush’s education initiative “No Child Left

Behind,” high-quality postsecondary educational opportunities must be available 

to all students. In keeping with this goal, the Federal TRIO Programs provide 

outreach and support programs to assist low-income, first-generation college students in progressing through the academic pipeline from middle school to postbaccalaureate programs.

On behalf of the Office of Federal TRIO Programs, I am pleased to present this report,

A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99. This

TRIO Program prepares low-income, first-generation college students and individuals

from groups that are underrepresented in graduate education for doctoral studies

through involvement in research and other scholarly activities.

This report is the first in a series of planned reports that present a national profile of

the McNair Program. Individual project reports, under separate cover, summarize

specific information submitted by each McNair project and provide aggregate information on other McNair projects in the same federal region, the same institutional

sector, and the nation. The performance report, submitted annually by McNair projects, was the primary data source for both the individual project reports and the

national profile.

The Office of Federal TRIO Programs is proud to begin a systematic process—

through these publications—for sharing with you national statistical information on

the McNair Program. It is our hope that the collection and dissemination of this

information will foster communication aimed at furthering our mission and implementing measures to see how well we are doing. We look forward to continuing to

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

earn doctoral degrees.

Robert L. Belle Jr.

Director

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

contributed. First, we thank the project staff members of the McNair projects who

reported the data upon which the report is based. Computer Business Methods Inc.

processed the student-level record files. The Office of Federal TRIO Programs,

directed by Robert L. Belle Jr., sponsored the report, and Frances Bergeron of the

Office of Federal TRIO Programs coordinated the reporting process. Linda 

Byrd-Johnson, team leader for the McNair Program, assisted in reviewing the report.

Jessica Wilkens, August Parker, and Valerie Williams of Mathematica Policy Research

Inc. deserve special mention for administrative support. Mary Fran Miklitsch designed

this publication.

ix

HIGHLIGHTS

This report provides a comprehensive profile of the McNair Program using the

1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97 performance report data. Ninety-seven percent of

the McNair projects funded for program year 1998-99 (or 96 of 99 projects) provided data on 9,090 current and prior-year project participants. In addition, 98 percent

(or 97 of 99 projects) reported aggregate data on their services and activities.

The highlights below include information on the following: 1) McNair grantees and

participants, 2) services provided to project participants, and 3) performance objectives and outcomes. The program outcome addresses graduate school enrollment

rates. Future reports will use data from multiple project years to examine student persistence and graduate school completion rates over a longer time period.

Grantees

• Three of every four McNair grantees (75 percent) were public institutions, and

almost four-fifths (79 percent) were institutions that had 5,000 or more full-time

enrollment (FTE) students. One-third of the projects (34 percent) were housed at

research institutions, one-third (33 percent) at master’s institutions, and one-fifth

(18 percent) at doctoral institutions, according to Carnegie classifications.

• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) made up 10 percent 

of grantees, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) accounted for another 

11 percent.

Participants

• Four-fifths of McNair participants (80 percent) attended public institutions; the

same proportion attended institutions with 5,000 or more FTE students. Over

one-third of both groups (37 percent) attended master’s and research institutions.

• Thirty-three percent of the participants included in the 1998-99 performance

files were current participants (those receiving McNair services in the 1998-99

academic year), with 17 percent classified as new participants (those receiving

services for the first time) and 16 percent classified as continuing participants

(those who received services in a prior academic year). Sixty-seven percent were

prior-year participants (those who received McNair services in a previous academic year and were not currently receiving services).

xi
• More than seven of every 10 participants (72 percent) were classified as 

low-income and first-generation students, and almost three of every 10 participants (28 percent) were classified as members of underrepresented racial and 

ethnic groups.

• Black non-Hispanic students accounted for the largest percentage of McNair participants: 40 percent. Women accounted for 65 percent of McNair participants.

Students ages 17 to 24 made up 52 percent of participants, and 36 percent were

ages 25 to 34.

Program Services

• Almost all projects reported offering internships (99 percent), academic counseling (98 percent), seminars (98 percent), financial aid assistance (96 percent), and

admission assistance (95 percent). Tutorial assistance was reported by 

85 percent and research activities (other than internships) were reported by 

78 percent of McNair projects.

• The services participants most frequently made use of were academic counseling

(89 percent), seminars (78 percent), financial aid assistance (68 percent), admission assistance (61 percent), and summer internships (51 percent).

Program Performance Objectives

• To examine McNair Program objectives reported in narrative form, we selected

33 projects and coded their objectives. As is common, we grouped performance

objectives into process and outcome objectives, and we looked at intermediate

and long-term outcomes (Hatry 1998). We also categorized the objectives

according to whether they applied to the projects or institutions themselves or to

the student participants. The former were all process objectives; the latter were

either process or outcome objectives. 

• About six of every 10 program objectives (61 percent) were institution-related,

with one-third (33 percent) addressing program activities and almost one-third

(28 percent) involving administrative activities. Student intermediate outcomes

(18 percent) and student long-term outcomes (15 percent) were the next most

frequently reported objectives. The least frequently reported objectives (6 percent) were those classified as student process objectives.

• The programs’ performance objectives were categorized most often as having

been exceeded (88 percent) rather than met (10 percent) or partially met 

(1 percent).

Outcomes

• Of the McNair students who graduated from an undergraduate program in 

1997-98, an estimated 31 percent to 47 percent were reported as attending a

graduate program in 1998-99.

xii
I. INTRODUCTION

This report is the first in a series of reports that provide information on the Ronald

E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program. The report is presented in two

documents as follows:

• This first document, the national report, provides information on the status of

McNair performance reporting and gives the overall results from all projects

reporting.

• A second, companion document provides individual reports that summarize data

from each project. 

Both documents cover results from the aggregate portion of the performance reports

and from the participant-level records.

This report contains three years of data, with a focus on the most recently available data:

the data from 1998-99. Though the text of this report focuses on the 1998-99 data, the

appendices include tables detailing the data for 1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97.

In addition to this report, there are four other recent reports of interest to the

McNair Program that we wish to highlight. The first is from the Program

Monitoring and Information Technology Service, Higher Education Programs, U.S.

Department of Education, titled Program Assessment: Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, March 1999. The second is from the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Higher Education Coordinating Council, titled

the McNair Reserve Study Panel: Final Report, October, 1995. Finally, two research

journals recently featured articles on McNair participants and projects; the publications are the Journal of Negro Education and The Council Journal.1

A. Background

1. TRIO Programs

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

Department of Education (ED) to motivate and support students from economically

disadvantaged backgrounds. The name TRIO was created in the late 1960s when

there were three such programs (Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support

1

1Grimmett, M.A.S., J.R. Bliss, D.M. Davis, and L. Ray. (1999). Assessing Federal

TRIO McNair Program Participants’ Expectations and Satisfaction with Project

Services: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Negro Education, 67 (4), 404-415.

Taylor, O. L. (December, 1999). The Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate

Achievement Program: A Vehicle for Achieving Diversity in Graduate Education. The

Council Journal, 6-9.
Services). The TRIO Programs expanded in the early 1970s with the development of

the Educational Opportunity Centers, and again in the mid-1980s with the inclusion

of the McNair Program. TRIO also includes a training program for TRIO project

directors and staff and a dissemination program to encourage the replication of successful practices.

TRIO programs have the following mission:

... to maximize educational opportunities for low-income and potential firstgeneration college students through direct services that provide access to education and encourage retention through the education pipeline.

The ultimate goal of the TRIO Programs is “to help students succeed in attaining

postsecondary education and graduating from degree programs.”2

2. The McNair Program

Description. The McNair Program awards grants to institutions of higher education

for projects designed to prepare participants for doctoral studies through involvement

in research and other scholarly activities. The McNair Program is designed for college students from disadvantaged backgrounds who have demonstrated strong academic potential. Institutions work closely with these participants through their

undergraduate requirements, encourage their entrance into graduate programs, and

track their progress to successful completion of advanced degrees. The goal of the

McNair Program is to increase the attainment of Ph.D.s by students from underrepresented segments of society.

The program offers participants the following services:

• Mentoring

• Summer internships

• Tutoring

• Academic counseling

• Seminars and other scholarly activities designed to prepare students for doctoral

studies

• Assistance in securing admission and financial aid for enrollment in graduate 

programs

• Research opportunities for participants who have completed their sophomore

year of college

Legislation, appropriations, and awards. The Higher Education Act of 1965, Title

IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1, Sec. 402E, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1070a-5, author2 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

2The Office of Higher Education Programs, www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/

hepss/index.html.
izes the McNair Program. Grant competitions were held in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992,

1995, and 1999. Since 1995, all funded grants have been on a four-year cycle. Those

institutions scoring in the top 10 percent receive an additional year of funding.

The McNair Program, which began with 14 projects, grew to 156 funded institutions as of 1999-2000 (FY 1999; Table 1). Once projects received their initial funding, most were awarded grants in each succeeding competition. There were 

99 grants awarded in 1995, and these same institutions participated from 1995-98.

There were 156 programs awarded grants in the latest competition, the 1999-2000

academic year. Almost nine times as many students participated in the McNair

Program in 1999 as did in 1989.

Appropriations for the program began at $1,482,000 in fiscal year 1989 and, 12 years

later, had increased to $34,859,043 in fiscal year 1999 (Table 1).

It is helpful to look at McNair in the context of the other TRIO programs. Table 2

shows TRIO funding in constant 1999 dollars. This table shows the program’s

growth since its inception. From 1990, the McNair Program has increased eightfold

in constant dollars. Only the Upward Bound Math/Science Program has grown

almost as rapidly. (The Talent Search Program experienced a similar increase in funding levels, but over a much longer period.) 

I. Introduction 3

Table 1. Description of annual awards

Average

Fiscal Number of Average Number of cost per

year Appropriation awards award participants* participant

2000 $34,859,043 156 $223,455 3,774 $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

*Estimate: “No. of participants” is the number of participants (new and continuing) funded to

be served for that year. The rest of this report includes data on new, continuing, and prioryear participants. FY 2000 is academic year 2000-01.

Source: Office of Federal TRIO Programs, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/ mcnair.html,

and Program Monitoring and Information Technology Service, Higher Education Programs, U.S.

Department of Education, Program Assessment: Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement

Program, March, 1999.
B. Classifications used in the report

This report presents information by the characteristics of the host institution. Data

from the performance reports were merged with the ED’s Integrated Postsecondary

Educational Data System (IPEDS). The following institutional characteristics are

shown: control (public or private); Carnegie classification3 (research I and II, doctoral I and II, master’s I and II, baccalaureate I and II, and associate and specialized); and

full-time enrollment (FTE) size (less than 1,500 FTE students, 1,500 to 4,999 FTE

students, 5,000 or more FTE students). We also present some data by the federal program regions and for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and

Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).

Because the McNair Program follows participants from the time they enroll until

they complete their doctoral degrees, institutions track participants who are not currently receiving services. The program categorizes students into the following three

types of participants:

• New—a student who is being served by the project for the first time in the current reporting period.

• Continuing—a student who was served by the project for the first time in another reporting period and also received services during the current reporting period.

• Prior year—a student who received services in a previous reporting period but

who has not received services during the current reporting period.

This report presents information on all three types of participants. It also presents

some data only for participants served in the 1998-99 academic year (new and con4 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 2. TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars

Upward

Educational Student Bound

Talent Opportunity Upward Support Math/

Year Search Centers Bound Services McNair Science

1999 $98.5 $29.8 $220.5 $178.9 $32.1 $29.3

1995 $85.7 $26.9 $208.3 $156.9 $20.9 $20.8

1990 $34.5 $15.2 $128.2 $115.9 $3.8 $4.3

1985 $32.1 $14.2 $114.0 $108.5

1980 $30.9 $15.6 $126.4 $121.3

1975 $18.6 $9.3 $118.6 $71.2

1970 $21.5 $127.1 $42.9

1967 $12.4 $139.7

Source: Calculated from information in U.S. Department of Education Annual Report, and U.S.

Statistical Abstract, Table 752.

3The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classification of

Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 Edition, (Princeton, NJ).
tinuing students). The data reported herein do not necessarily reflect all McNair participants, but only those participants reported by the programs.

C. Response rates and characteristics of host institutions

1. Response rates

Performance reporting response rates have increased every year since the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new McNair performance report form

calling for participant records. In 1996-97, 64 percent of grantees (63 of 99) submitted

participant records on 3,618 students. In program year 1997-98, 78 percent of grantees

(77 of 99) submitted participant records on 4,140 students. For 1998-99 (FY 1999), 

97 percent of all grantees (96 of 99) submitted participant records on 9,090 students.

Table 3 gives the percentage of grantees reporting 1998-99 performance information by

institutional characteristics. There were few differences in response rates by institutional characteristics. All HBCUs and HSIs submitted participant-level data in 1998-99.

Table 3 and Figure 1 also show the percentage of grantees reporting participant-level

performance information by region. The percentage of grantees reporting participant

data ranged from 83 percent in Region IX (San Francisco) and 89 percent in Region

III (Philadelphia) to 100 percent for the remaining regions. Because there are a low

number of McNair projects in each region, one or two projects that do not report

lowers the percentage substantially.

I. Introduction 5

Figure 1. Percentages of McNair projects submitting participant data: 

1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Region X - 100% Region VIII - 100%

Region VII - 100%

Region V - 100%

Region IX - 83%

Region VI - 100%

Region IV - 100%

Region II - 100%

Region III - 89%

Region I - 100%
6 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 3. Number of grantees reporting participant-level performance information, by

institutional characteristics: 1998-99

Percentage of

institutions

serving Number of

under- grantees Participant- Percentage

graduates, reporting level Number of of

Institutional as reported Percentage Total participant- report participant participant

characteristics in IPEDS1 of grantees grantees level data response records records

All 2,880 99% 99 96 97% 9,090 100%

Control

Public 22% 75% 74 72 97% 7,230 80%

Private 78% 25% 25 24 96% 1,860 20%

Carnegie Classification

Research I and II 6% 34% 34 33 97% 3,370 37%

Doctoral I and II 5% 18% 18 17 94% 3,320 17%

Master’s I and II 25% 33% 33 32 97% 1,498 37%

Baccalaureate I and II 30% 12% 12 12 100% 735 8%

Specialized2 34% 2% 2 2 100% 167 2%

Size

Fewer than 1,500 60% 3% 3 3 100% 164 2%

1,500 to 4,999 22% 18% 18 18 100% 1,071 12%

5,000 or more 18% 79% 78 75 96% 7,855 86%

Region

Region I (Boston) 8% 6% 6 6 100% 455 5%

Region II (New York) 12% 12% 12 12 100% 1,504 17%

Region III (Philadelphia) 12% 9% 9 8 89% 575 6%

Region IV (Atlanta) 16% 13% 13 13 100% 1,069 12%

Region V (Chicago) 17% 16% 16 16 100% 1,236 14%

Region VI (Dallas) 8% 14% 14 14 100% 1,170 13%

Region VII (Kansas City) 6% 8% 8 8 100% 966 11%

Region VIII (Denver) 4% 7% 7 7 100% 586 6%

Region IX (San Francisco) 14% 12% 12 10 83% 1,347 15%

Region X (Seattle) 3% 2% 2 2 100% 182 2%

Minority Institutions

Historically Black

Colleges and

Universities 3% 10% 10 10 100% 729 8%

Hispanic-Serving

Institutions 3 11% 11 11 100% 1,122 12%

1Institutions in three sectors from the 1997-98 IPEDS were included: public, four-year; private, nonprofit,

four-year; and private, for-profit, four-year.

2The “specialized” category includes specialized institutions and 88 of the approximately 1,200 Associate of

Arts colleges.

3Data were not available in IPEDS on the percentage of Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1997-98.
For 1998-99, 97 institutions (98 percent) returned program performance reports

(aggregate reports). Of those, 95 institutions (96 percent) also submitted participant

records and were included in calculations of the number and percentage of participants engaged in various McNair activities. Figure 2 shows the response rates for the

aggregate reports by region.

2. Distribution of grantees and participants by institutional characteristics

Table 3 also gives the percentage distribution of McNair projects and participants by

the characteristics of the host institutions. For comparison, the table shows the distribution of all degree-granting institutions included in IPEDS for 1998.

Three of every four McNair grantee institutions (75 percent) were public, and one of

every four (25 percent) was private or nonprofit. This distribution is almost the

reverse of that for all degree-granting institutions. Overall, 22 percent are public and

78 percent are private.

It is no surprise that McNair projects were more likely to be found at institutions with

graduate programs. Overall, only 6 percent of all degree-granting institutions were classified as research institutions in the Carnegie classification. About one-third of McNair

projects, however, were at research institutions (34 percent), and another one-third 

(33 percent) were at master’s institutions. Nearly one-fifth (18 percent) were at doctoral institutions, and nearly one-eighth of McNair projects (12 percent) were at baccalaureate institutions. There were two programs (2 percent) at specialized institutions.

I. Introduction 7

Figure 2. Percentages of McNair projects submitting aggregate performance

data: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Region X - 100% Region VIII - 100%

Region VII - 100%

Region V - 100%

Region IX - 92%

Region VI - 100%

Region IV - 100%

Region II - 100%

Region III - 100%

Region I - 83%
HBCUs made up 10 percent of the grantees, and HSIs accounted for 11 percent. (The

HBCUs and the HSIs that received McNair grants are listed in Appendix A.)

Corresponding to the distribution by Carnegie classification, most McNair host institutions were large. Almost four of every five grantees (79 percent) were institutions

that had FTEs of 5,000 or more, and close to another fifth (18 percent) had from 1,500

to 4,999 FTEs. Three percent of McNair institutions had FTEs fewer than 1,500.

The distribution of participants was similar to that of the grantees. The largest proportion of participants (80 percent) attended public institutions, and the remaining

participants (20 percent) matriculated at private or nonprofit institutions (Table 3).

Master’s and research institutions each had 37 percent, and doctoral institutions had

17 percent of the reported participants. One of every 10 McNair students participated at either a baccalaureate college (8 percent) or a specialized institution (2 percent).

Institutions with FTEs of 5,000 or more had 86 percent of the participants. About

one of every eight participants (12 percent) attended a college or university with

1,500 to 4,999 FTEs (Table 3). Two percent of the reported participants were at institutions with fewer than 1,500 FTEs. About one of every 12 participants (8 percent)

was a student at an HBCU. The federal region with the highest percentage of

McNair participants was Region II, New York, with 17 percent; the region with the

lowest percentage was Region X, Seattle, with 2 percent.

D. Data issues

McNair performance reporting using individual records is a relatively new undertaking. Each year, the number of students covered by project reports has increased.

Given the differences in the response rates among reporting years, caution should be

taken when making interpretations regarding yearly trends. The data in this report

reflect information on reported participants, not all McNair participants.

1. Data reporting

In addition to the overall increase in the response rate from year to year, there was an

expected increase in the number of people on the participant file. In 1996-97, there

were 3,618; in 1997-98, there were 4,140; and in 1998-99, there were 9,090. Also

expected, the percentage of prior-year participants increased. (Each year, students

completing their undergraduate degree move from continuing to prior-year participants.) In 1997-98, prior-year participants were 45 percent of the total reported.

There were 5,268 prior-year participants in 1998-99, which was 60 percent of the

reported participants for that year, as shown in Figure 3.

The goal of maintaining participant-level data is to track students through completion of their doctoral program. Therefore, institutions were asked to include McNair

participants in their databases until these students earned their doctoral degrees. The

data for the three years of reporting indicate that projects are still in the process of

establishing whom to include in the files and how long to include them. Individual

reports noting students omitted from performance reports have been prepared for

8 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99
projects. There were 52 institutions that submitted participant-level data for all three

academic years (1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99). Of the total reported in 1998-99,

there were 3,874 participants on the file in all three academic years.

2. Unclear and missing data

Most items on the form had little missing data. Certain items, however, did not offer

grantees all relevant response options, and those items had higher nonresponse rates

(Table 4). For example, the item requesting the participant’s degree status did not

provide a response option appropriate for participants who were undergraduate students. Nearly three out of every 10 reported participants left that item blank.

We investigated items with high nonresponse rates by examining the responses to

other items. For instance, we looked at the distribution of responses to “end of year

enrollment status” for those cases that had no response for “degree status.” Of those

McNair participants with a blank (missing) degree status in 1998-99, 81 percent were

enrolled in an undergraduate degree program at the end of the academic year (as

identified in their end of year enrollment status). Eliminating these cases—where an

appropriate response option was not provided (for current undergraduates)—would

drop the proportion of missing responses from 29 percent to 6 percent.

The issue of missing data may also reflect problems in tracking students, as undergraduate institutions may not have access to matriculation information for former

students attending graduate schools elsewhere.

I. Introduction 9

Figure 3. Participant status, by year: 1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0%

1998-99 1997-98 1996-97

19% 21%

60%

30%

25%

45%

34%

22%

44%

New Continuing Prior

Participant status
3. Miscoded data

There were a few instances of miscoded values and internal inconsistencies between

years of reporting. For example, some participants were shown to skip or drop grade

levels between academic years. The miscoded data may have resulted from confusion

about the specific reporting period. Institutions were asked to report in September

for the previous academic year; project administrators at some institutions may have

provided information on participants’ status as of that September, rather than for the

prior academic year.

E. Structure of the remainder of the report

This introductory chapter described the McNair Program, the projects reporting

performance results, and the issues with the data reported. Chapter II describes the

student participants and their progress toward completing a doctoral program. That

chapter is based on Section I, “Project Identification, Certification, and Warning,”

and Section II, “Record Structure for List Participant,” in the program performance

reports. Chapter III offers an overview of the scholarly activities provided by McNair

grantees and is based on Section III, “Provision of Services,” in the program performance reports. Chapter IV briefly discusses project goals and outcomes, as taken

from Section IV, “Narrative,” in the reports.

The tables and figures in the report focus primarily on the most recent data—that of

1998-99—though some statistics from 1997-98 and 1996-97 are presented. The

appendix includes details for all years since 1996-97.

10 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 4. Number and percentage of participants with missing or blank responses: 

1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97

1998-99 1997-98 1996-97

Participant item N % N % N %

Gender 7 <0.1 2 <0.1 0 0.0

Ethnicity 12 0.1 2 <0.1 5 0.1

Date of birth 219 2.4 109 2.6 17 0.5

First school enrollment date 174 1.9 115 2.8 7 0.2

Project entry date 149 1.6 125 3.0 1 <0.1

Eligibility status 53 0.6 10 0.2 19 0.5

Participant status 237 2.6 4 0.1 4 0.1

College grade level—at entry into project 139 1.5 9 0.2 29 0.8

College grade level—current 2,655 29.2 1,093 26.4 846 23.4

Enrollment status—end of year 679 7.5 309 7.5 369 10.2

Degree status 2,676 29.4 1,698 41.0 1,444 39.9

Total number 9,090 100.0 4,140 100.0 3,618 100.0

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.
II. STUDENT PARTICIPANTS

IN THE MCNAIR

PROGRAM: 1998-99, 

WITH SELECTED DATA

FROM 1997-98 AND 1996-97

A. Participants

There were 9,090 new, continuing, and prior-year participants on the performance

files submitted for the McNair Program in the 1998-99 academic year (Table 5). For

1997-98, the number was 4,140, and for 1996-97, it was 3,618 (Appendix Tables 1a

and 1b). The increase in numbers in the combined files reflects both an increase in

the response rate for the reports (from 78 percent in 1997 to 97 percent in 1998-99)

and an increase in the number of participants (particularly prior-year participants)

included on the files.

On average, individual project files for 1998-99 contain about 95 new, continuing,

and prior-year participants. There was a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 

320 records per project in 1998-99.

1. Participant status

In the 1998-99 academic year, 67 percent of those on the performance files were

prior-year participants, 16 percent were continuing participants, and 17 percent were

new participants (Table 5). Current participants (new and continuing participants

combined) made up 33 percent of the total. For Table 5, graduate students who projects reported as new or continuing participants were reclassified as prior-year participants. McNair projects offer services to students during their undergraduate years;

once students are enrolled in graduate school, they are considered prior-year participants who no longer receive services. Throughout the remainder of the report, however, data presented on new, continuing, and prior-year participants are based on

information submitted by grantees (without reclassification).

2. Eligibility status

For each project, at least two-thirds of the participants must be low-income and

first-generation college students. The rest may be members of groups that are

underrepresented in graduate education. Underrepresented groups consist of the fol11
lowing ethnic and racial categories: black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and American

Indian/Alaskan Native.4

In the 1998-99 academic year, more than seven of every 10 participants (72 percent)

were classified as low-income, first-generation college students, surpassing the project requirement of two-thirds representation. Just under three of every 10 partici12 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 5. McNair participant characteristics by participant status: 1998-99

Participant status Total

New Continuing Prior year

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 9,090 100.0 1,527 17.1 1,395 15.6 6,025 67.3

Eligibility

Low-income and

first-generation 6,517 72.1 1,090 72.3 1,020 73.2 4,284 71.5

Underrepresented 2,520 27.9 418 27.7 374 26.8 1,708 28.5

Race and ethnicity

American Indian 347 3.8 64 4.2 66 4.7 210 3.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 548 6.0 81 5.3 79 5.7 373 6.2

Black non-Hispanic 3,653 40.2 670 44.0 563 40.4 2,392 39.7

Hispanic 2,317 25.5 412 27.1 405 29.1 1,437 23.9

White non-Hispanic 2,057 22.7 279 18.3 256 18.4 1,498 24.9

Other 156 1.7 16 1.1 24 1.7 110 1.8

Gender

Women 5,924 65.2 1,022 67.0 921 66.0 3,876 64.4

Men 3,159 34.8 503 33.0 474 34.0 2,144 35.6

Note: Graduate students who projects reported as new or continuing participants were reclassified as prioryear participants. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of

differences in response rates for individual items.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

4In their applications for the 1995 grant competition, a number of projects defined

women, Asian/Pacific Islander students, and other groups as underrepresented in certain graduate disciplines. Prior to 1995, there were no program regulations; from 

1995-96, the program office policy on underrepresented groups was not as clear as it is

today. Current regulations both define three specific underrepresented groups (black

non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native) and allow for a grant

applicant to define and make a case for serving a group underrepresented in certain disciplines. Applicants must document their case with standard statistical references, and

their case must be accepted by the Secretary of Education. Certain currently funded

projects had to stop serving groups they had served before 1996: the policy in 1996 limited the types of groups eligible for service to the three mentioned above.
pants (28 percent) were students from underrepresented groups (Figure 4) who were

not included in the low-income, first-generation group.

The proportion of 1998-99 McNair students from underrepresented groups

remained constant across participant groups. Underrepresented students accounted

for 27 percent of new participants, 28 percent of continuing participants, and 29 percent of prior-year participants.

II. Student Participants in the McNair Program 13

Figure 4. Eligibility status: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Underrepresented 

28%

Low-income/ 

1st-generation

72%

Figure 5. Distribution of McNair participants by race and ethnicity: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Black (n-H) 

40%

Asian 

6%

American

Indian 

4%

Other 

2%

White (n-H) 

23%

Hispanic 

26%
3. Race and ethnicity

Black non-Hispanic students accounted for the largest proportion of McNair current

and prior-year participants in 1998-99. Overall, about four out of 10 of the participants (40 percent) were black non-Hispanic (Figure 5). The second largest group of

participants was Hispanic, with 26 percent of the total participants. This group was

followed by white non-Hispanics at 23 percent, Asians at 6 percent, and American

Indians at 4 percent (Figure 5).

Race and ethnicity, by eligibility status. The distribution of current and prior-year

participants by racial and ethnic categories varied by eligibility status. As might be

expected, each of the racial and ethnic groups classified as underrepresented 

(black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and American Indian) constituted a larger proportion

of underrepresented participants than of low-income and first-generation participants.

Black non-Hispanic students accounted for over half the participants in the underrepresented group (55 percent), but just over one-third of the participants in the lowincome and first-generation group (35 percent) (Figures 6a and 6b). Hispanic students were the second-largest racial and ethnic category of both underrepresented

participants (27 percent) and low-income and first-generation participants (25 percent). American Indians were 6 percent of the underrepresented participants and 

3 percent of the low-income and first-generation participants. White non-Hispanics

showed the largest difference: Nine percent of underrepresented participants vs. 

20 percent of low-income and first-generation participants.

14 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 6a. Underrepresented participants, by race and ethnicity: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Black (n-H) 

55%

Asian 

3%

American 

Indian 

6%

Other 

1% White (n-H) 

9%

Hispanic 

27%
4. Gender

Women constituted nearly two-thirds of the 1998-99 participants (65 percent, 

Figure 7). The proportion of women was similar across participant status categories:

Sixty-five percent of prior-year and continuing participants and 67 percent of new participants (Appendix Table 1a). Women also represented 65 percent of low-income and

first-generation participants and 67 percent of underrepresented participants (Table 5).

II. Student Participants in the McNair Program 15

Figure 6b. Low-income and first-generation participants, by race and

ethnicity: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Black (n-H) 

35%

Asian 

8%

American

Indian

3%

Other 

2%

White (n-H) 

20%

Hispanic 

25%

Figure 7. Participant gender: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Men 

35%

Women 

65%
Gender and race, and ethnicity. Whereas all women constituted 65 percent of

1998-99 participants, black non-Hispanic women made up 69 percent of the participants in that racial and ethnic group; American Indian women, 59 percent in their

group; and Hispanic women, 59 percent in their group (Figure 8).

5. Age

Considering the new, continuing, and prior-year participants together, more than half

of the total participants on the performance files for 1998-99 (52 percent) were

between ages 17 and 24 in the 1998-99 academic year (Figure 9 and Appendix 

Table 4a). Over one-third (36 percent) ranged from ages 25 to 34, and nearly oneeighth (12 percent) were age 35 or older.

As the age range of participants increased, the proportion of low-income and firstgeneration students increased (Appendix Table 4a). Also, as the age range increased,

so did the proportion of white non-Hispanic and American Indian participants. The

proportion of Asian, Hispanic, and black non-Hispanic participants decreased as the

ages of participants increased.

16 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 8. Participant race and ethnicity, by gender: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

 American Asian Black Hispanic White Other

 Indian non-Hispanic non-Hispanic American

Women

Men

59% 

41% 64%

36% 69% 

31%

59% 

41% 67% 

33%

57%

43%
B. Program entry and academic progress

Students are eligible to receive services during any year of their baccalaureate program at an institution that has a McNair grant. Performance report instructions ask

project staff to track current (new and continuing) and prior-year participants until

they earn their doctoral degree. Because of this interest in tracking, several indicators

capture participants’ progress in college.

1. Entry year

In the 1998-99 academic year, about one-fifth of participants (21 percent) entered the

program in their sophomore year, almost half (48 percent) entered in their junior

year, and just over one-fourth (26 percent) entered in their senior year (Figure 10 and

Appendix Table 5a). Three percent of participants entered the McNair Program during their freshman year (including students who had attended college before), and 

3 percent entered as fifth-year undergraduates.

Among each of the ethnic groups, students were most likely to enter the McNair

Program in their junior year. The percentage for each group is as follows: Asian 

(51 percent), American Indian (50 percent), Hispanic (49 percent), black nonHispanic (47 percent), and white non-Hispanic (46 percent).

The distributions of students by their entry year for new, continuing, and prior-year

participants were similar to the distribution for all 1998-99 participants (Appendix

Table 5a). Men and women were equally as likely to enter the McNair Program in

their junior year (48 percent and 47 percent, respectively). Of those who entered the

program in their freshman year, the low-income and first-generation participants

slightly outnumbered all other participants (Figure 11).

II. Student Participants in the McNair Program 17

Figure 9. Age distribution of new, continuing, and prior-year participants on

the performance report files: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

35 or 

older

12%

17-24

years old 

25-34 52%

years old

36%
18 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 10. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program:

1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

3rd year/ 

junior

48%

1st year, 

attended before 

1%

1st year,

never 

attended 

5th year/ 2%

undergraduate 

3%

4th year/ 

senior 

26%

2nd year/ 

sophomore 

21%

Figure 11. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program, by

percentage of low-income and first-generation participants: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

5th yr. or other

undergraduate

4th yr. undergraduate

3rd yr. undergraduate

2nd yr. undergraduate

1st yr. undergraduate

attended before

1st yr. undergraduate

never attended

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

78%

72%

72%

72%

63%

63%
2. Current grade level

In 1998-99, a majority of all those on the participant record files (new, continuing,

and prior-year participants) were undergraduate students (55 percent), while 45 percent were graduate or professional students (Appendix Table 6a). The largest proportion (27 percent) consisted of fourth-year undergraduates (Figure 12a).

When examining just current participants (new and continuing) in 1998-99, the

largest group was still fourth-year undergraduates (44 percent, Figure 12b). Of that

group, 20 percent were graduate students.5

II. Student Participants in the McNair Program 19

Figure 12a. Grade level of new, continuing, and prior-year McNair

participants: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

2nd yr. 

undergrad.

3%

1st yr. 

undergrad., 

attend. before

1%

1st yr. 

undergrad.,

never attend. 

1%

3rd yr. 

undergrad.

12%

4th yr. 

undergrad.

27%

5th yr./other 

undergrad.

12%

1st yr. grad.

17%

Beyond 3rd 

yr. grad. 

7%

3rd. yr. grad. 

8%

2nd yr. grad. 

13%

5Although McNair services are intended for undergraduate students (who may

be new, continuing, or prior-year participants), some institutions have provided such

services to graduate students (who generally should be prior-year participants). Most

likely, those students attended the same institution for both undergraduate and graduate programs.
Figure 13 presents the participant status distribution by current grade level classifications of graduate or undergraduate. As might be expected, 76 percent of graduate students were classified as prior participants, compared with 27 percent of undergraduates.

20 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 12b. Grade level of current (new and continuing) McNair participants:

1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

2nd yr. 

undergrad.

3%

1st yr. 

undergrad., 

attend. before

0%

1st yr. 

undergrad.,

never attend. 

1%

3rd yr. 

undergrad.

20%

4th yr. 

undergrad.

44%

5th yr./other 

undergrad.

12%

1st yr. grad.

13%

Beyond 3rd 

yr. grad. 

2%

3rd. yr. 

grad. 

2%

2nd yr. 

grad. 

3%

Figure 13. Grade level of participants, by participant status: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Graduate

Undergraduate

6% 17% 76%

41% 32% 27%

Current grade level

New Continuing Prior

Participant status
3. Comparing grade level across years to determine graduate 

school progression

Project staff track student participants from their enrollment in the McNair Program

through their completion of a doctoral degree or withdrawal from an undergraduate

or graduate program. Depending on the undergraduate year in which a student enters

the McNair Program, the student may take from six to 10 years (or perhaps longer)

to complete his or her doctorate. Therefore, it is useful to look at more intermediate

outcomes to assess the success of the McNair Program. One such measure is the percentage of students who graduate from an undergraduate program in one year and

enroll in graduate school the next year.

In one sense, that percentage is a simple statistic to calculate. The calculation is complicated, however, by the following data quality issues: 1) a large percentage of participants on the file one year were not listed the next year, and 2) a lack of a response

category “not enrolled,” and correspondingly, a large percentage with blank responses to the “current grade level” item.

Interpreting these data requires certain assumptions to be made. Depending on

these assumptions, we arrive at different estimates of the percentage of graduating

seniors continuing to graduate school. Using one method, we computed a statistic of

31 percent; using a second method, we computed a statistic of 47 percent. For both

methods, we included in the numerator only those participants who had been

enrolled in an undergraduate program in 1997-98 and were enrolled in a graduate

program in 1998-99 (230 participants). Those students were also part of the denominator in both methods.

The denominator for method 1 (Table 6) also included those participants who were

on the 1997-98 file but not the 1998-99 file (509 participants). Using this method, 

31 percent of eligible students enrolled in graduate school in 1998-99.

II. Student Participants in the McNair Program 21

Table 6. Estimated percentage of graduating seniors in 1997-98 reported as having a

current grade status of “enrolled” in graduate school: 1998-99

Participants

Numerator for both methods 230

Participants with current grade reported as graduate year 1 to 3 or beyond in 1998-99 230

Denominator for method 1 739

Participants currently enrolled in a graduate degree program 230

Participants not on the file 1998-99 (missing records) 509

Estimated percentage enrolling in graduate school one year later using method 1 31%

Denominator for method 2 491

Participants currently enrolled in a graduate degree program 230

Participants with a blank response for current grade level in 1998-99 261

Estimated percentage enrolling in graduate school one year later using method 2 47%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.
The denominator for method 2 excluded the students missing from the 1998-99 file

but included those participants whose current enrollment status was blank in 1998-99

(261). Using method 2, 47 percent of eligible students enrolled in graduate school.

Accordingly, we estimated that from 31 percent to 47 percent of McNair students

who graduated from an undergraduate program in 1997-98 attended a graduate program in 1998-99. For perspective, we noted that the average percentage of graduating seniors who entered graduate school the next year was 25 percent.6 In addition, a

national survey of 1992-93 bachelor’s degree recipients showed that 30 percent of

them enrolled in an advanced degree program within four years (by 1997).7

4. Enrollment status

The goal of the McNair Program is for participants to enter and complete a doctoral degree program. At the end of each academic year, institutions classify all participants (new, continuing, and prior-year) according to their progress toward this end.

Participants are put in one of these four groups:

• Enrolled in an undergraduate degree program

• Enrolled in a graduate degree program

• Graduated from either a graduate or undergraduate degree program

• Dismissed or withdrawn from either a graduate or undergraduate degree program

At the end of 1998-99, almost two-thirds of participants (62 percent) were reported

as enrolled in a degree program, with almost equal proportions in undergraduate programs (32 percent) and graduate programs (30 percent) (Figure 14 and Appendix

Table 8a). Over one-third of the participants had graduated from a graduate or undergraduate degree program (35 percent). A small proportion of students (4 percent)

withdrew or were dismissed from their program of the study.

Interpreting these data is somewhat difficult since those reported as graduated

include those individuals who graduated from either an undergraduate or graduate

degree program and who were not, at the time the data were reported, enrolled in a

graduate degree program. The percentage of McNair participants reported in this

section as graduated is not the same or comparable to the percentages of participants

who completed a degree as reported in the following section (degree status).

Graduation rates ranged from more than one-fourth of American Indian participants

(29 percent) to more than one-third of Hispanics and Asians (37 percent) (Figure 14).

22 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

6Money Online: College Search www.pathfinder.com/money/colletes98, as cited in Issues

on the Use of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and Other

National Postsecondary Databases as Performance Indicators: A Synthesis Report. (August

14, 2000). Mathematica Policy Research Inc. Princeton, NJ: p. IV-28.

7Life After College: A Descriptive Summary of 1992-93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in

1997. (July 1999). National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 1999-155, p.v.
Program withdrawal/dismissal rates were low for nearly all groups of students, ranging from 2 percent of Asians to 7 percent of American Indians.

In 1998-99, 35 percent of men and 34 percent of women had graduated. Five percent

of men and 3 percent of women had been dismissed or had withdrawn from a degree

program (Figure 15 and Appendix Table 8a). Enrollment, graduation, and withdrawal/

dismissal rates were similar between low-income and first-generation participants and

underrepresented participants.

5. Degree status

About seven of every 10 of the new, continuing, and prior-year participants on the file

for 1998-99 (71 percent) were reported as having completed a degree by the end of

the 1998-99 academic year (Figure 16 and Appendix Table 9a). Of those participants

who completed a degree, nearly four-fifths (79 percent) earned a bachelor’s degree, an

additional one-sixth (17 percent) earned a master’s degree, and another 4 percent

received a doctoral degree. Examining all McNair participants on the file, 56 percent

had a bachelor’s degree as the highest degree earned, 12 percent had a master’s

degree, and 3 percent had a doctoral degree. The proportion of participants in each

racial and ethnic group that had earned degrees ranged from 74 percent of white nonHispanics to 61 percent of American Indians (Appendix Table 9a).

II. Student Participants in the McNair Program 23

Figure 14. End-of-year enrollment status, by race and ethnicity: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Other

White (n-H)

Hispanic

Black (n-H)

Asian/Pac.

American Indian

Race/Ethnicity

32% 30% 35% 4%

32% 37% 27% 4%

25% 36% 34% 5%

36% 24% 37% 3%

33% 29% 34% 3%

30% 31% 37% 2%

36% 28% 29% 7%

Enrolled in undergraduate program Enrolled in graduate program

Graduated Dismissed/withdrew

End-of-year enrollment status
24 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 15. End-of-year enrollment status, by gender and eligibility: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Underrepresented

Low-inc./First gen.

Men

Women

Gender and Eligibility Status

31% 30% 36% 3%

32% 30% 34% 4%

31% 30% 35% 5%

33% 30% 34% 3%

Enrolled in undergraduate program Enrolled in graduate program

Graduated Dismissed/withdrew

End-of-year enrollment status

Figure 16. Participant degree status: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Without a degree 

29%

With a degree 

71%

Master's

17%

Doctoral

4%

Bachelor's

79%
Figure 17 shows the proportion of degrees awarded to each racial and ethnic group.

Generally, the distribution mirrors the racial and ethnic distribution of participants

overall (Figure 5). For example, about 40 percent of McNair’s current and prior-year

participants were black non-Hispanic, and about 42 percent of the doctoral degrees

granted to McNair participants were awarded to blacks. American Indians, however,

made up about 4 percent of McNair participants, but received only about 2 percent

of the doctoral awards going to McNair participants.

Looking at the status of the participants on file from year to year is complex, but it

does give some indication of the progression of participants toward their degrees.

These comparisons will be more meaningful as the coverage of the performance

reports continues to improve and as more years of data are obtained. We analyzed the

end-of-year enrollment status for those reporting this item in both 1997-98 and

1998-99. As can be seen in Figure 18, the status of most participants remained the

same; however, about 14 percent of those identified as enrolled in graduate school in

1997-98 were reported to have graduated in 1998-99. About 20 percent of those

reported as enrolled in undergraduate school in 1997-98 were reported as enrolled in

graduate school in 1998-99. About 5 percent of those reported as withdrawn from

school in 1997-98 were in graduate school in 1998-99, and another 13 percent were

reported to have graduated. In addition, 15 percent of those reported as graduated

from undergraduate school but not enrolled in graduate school in 1997-98 had

moved to graduate school status in 1998-99.

II. Student Participants in the McNair Program 25

Figure 17. Distribution of degrees by race and ethnicity: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Doctoral

Master's

Bachelor's

Degree Type

8% 42% 18% 28% 1%

2%

2%

4%

7% 38% 20% 31% 1%

6% 41% 26% 22% 2%

American Indian Asian/Pac. Black (n-H)

Hispanic White (n-H) Other

Race and ethnicity
26 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 18. End-of-year enrollment status in 1997-98, by end-of-year enrollment

status in 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Enroll undergrad Dismiss/withdrew

Graduated Enroll graduate

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Enroll undergrad Dismiss/withdrew Graduated Enroll graduate

Enrollment Status at End of 1997-98

50%

3%

27%

20%

5%

77%

13%

5% 2% 1% 1% 1%

82%

15% 14%

84%

Enrollment status at end of 1998-99
III.MCNAIR PROGRAM

ACTIVITIES: 1998-99

McNair institutions were asked to specify which of seven scholarly activities they offered

to their participants and the number of participants who engaged in each activity. Nearly

every institution (97 grantees, or 98 percent) supplied information on these activities; 

95 of those grantees also submitted participant records and are included below in the

reports of the number and percentage of students participating in McNair activities.

There was little variation in the percentage of projects that engaged in specific activities (Table 7). Almost all projects offered internships (99 percent), academic counseling (98 percent), seminars (98 percent), financial aid assistance (96 percent), and

admission assistance (95 percent). Tutorial assistance was reported by 85 percent,

and research activities (other than internships) were reported by 78 percent of

McNair projects.

There was a more pronounced variation, however, in the popularity of program activities. Attendance ranged from slightly more than one of every four participants to

nearly nine of every 10 participants. As shown in Table 7, the activities that participants engaged in most frequently were academic counseling (89 percent), seminars

(78 percent), financial aid assistance (68 percent), admission assistance (61 percent),

and summer internships (51 percent). Less than half of the new and continuing participants for 1998-99 received tutorial assistance (33 percent) or engaged in research

activities other than internships (27 percent).

27

Table 7. Activities reported by McNair projects: 1998-99

Number of Number of

institutions participants

reporting reported

Type of activity activity Percentage per activity Percentage

Internships 96 99% 1,817 51%

Academic counseling 95 98% 3,170 89%

Seminars 95 98% 2,787 78%

Financial aid assistance 93 96% 2,421 68%

Admission assistance 92 95% 2,187 61%

Tutorial assistance 82 85% 1,175 33%

Research (other than research internships) 76 78% 948 27%

Note: The percentages reporting the activity was based on a total of 97 institutions. Percentages for participants reported are based on the number of new and continuing participants at the 95 institutions that

reported activities and submitted participant records: 3,560.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.
McNair projects were also asked to specify “other scholarly activities” that did not

readily fit into one of the categories mentioned. The two most commonly reported

“other” activities were, first, conferences and research presentations (30 percent,

Table 8), and second, skills workshops, which included writing, researching, and

learning the Internet (19 percent).

28 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 8. “Other” scholarly activities reported by McNair projects: 1998-99

Activity Number reported Percentage

Conferences and research presentations 163 30%

Skills workshops 104 19%

Graduate school visits 61 11%

Test preparation 57 10%

General graduate school preparation 54 10%

Graduate school fairs, colloquia, presenters 40 7%

Mentoring 21 4%

Publishing 14 3%

General administrative assistance 11 2%

Cultural events 10 2%

Improving McNair staff opportunities/ resources 4 1%

Testing participants 3 1%

Internships 4 1%

Field trips 2 <1%

Study abroad programs 1 <1%

Total 549 100%

Note: McNair projects may be counted more than once within an activity category. For example, if project

staff stated that they attended the McNair conference as well as two other unique conferences, then that

project contributed three “conference and research presentations” to the total number reported. These

numbers are based on the 95 institutions that provided activity information and submitted participant

records. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.
IV. MCNAIR PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVES: 1998-99

To look more closely at the McNair objectives reported in narrative form, we selected

a random sample of about one-third (33) of the projects. We then coded the objectives

according to content. The number of objectives reported by institutions ranged from

six to 23, with an average of 12. Public institutions reported an average of 12.4 objectives, and private institutions reported an average of 10.8 objectives (Table 9).

A. Classification scheme used in coding

It is common to classify performance objectives into process and outcome objectives

and intermediate and long-term outcomes (Hatry 1998). We also classified the objectives by the group they applied to—the projects or institutions themselves or the student participants. The former were all process objectives; the latter were either process

or outcome objectives. We therefore coded the objectives into one of five categories:

• Institutional administrative activities, such as recruiting faculty and participants

• Institutional program activities, such as conducting financial needs analyses and

providing supporting services and research opportunities

• Student-related processes, such as having students complete financial aid applications

• Student intermediate outcomes, such as having students obtain a certain GRE score

• Student long-term outcomes, such as having students receive a graduate diploma

A total of 391 objectives were coded among the 33 programs, and their objectives

were classified into the above categories.

29

Table 9. Average number of program objectives reported, by institutional characteristics:

1998-99

Number of Average number of

Institutional characteristics institutions in sample objectives reported

Total 33 11.9

Control

Public 23 12.4

Private 10 10.8

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.
Overall, about six of every 10 program objectives (61 percent) were institutionrelated. About one-third of the program objectives were institutional program activities (33 percent) or institutional administrative activities (28 percent) (Figure 19).

Student intermediate outcomes (18 percent) and student long-term outcomes 

(15 percent) were the next most frequently reported objectives. The least frequently

reported type of objective was student process objectives, with 6 percent.

B. Institutional administrative objectives

Overall, 28 percent of program objectives related to institutional administrative activities. Within this category, the most frequently reported objectives were selecting

candidates by a certain date (25 percent, Figure 20), identifying and recruiting potential candidates, and identifying and recruiting faculty (24 percent each). The next

most common objectives concerned developing a tracking database (10 percent),

assessing the program (8 percent), handling general administrative issues (7 percent),

and networking with other programs (2 percent).

C. Institutional program objectives

Overall, 33 percent of program objectives concerned institutional program activities.

Almost half of the sampled institutions (48 percent) reported objectives that related

to providing research opportunities and support services. These objectives were the

most frequently reported of the 124 objectives in this category (27 percent research,

21 percent support service, Figure 21). These were followed by objectives involving

academic activities (19 percent), diagnostic/assessment battery and academic needs

analyses (15 percent), and networking opportunities (14 percent). The least frequently reported objective was to conduct financial needs analyses (4 percent).

30 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 19. Classification of McNair Program objectives: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Institutional 

administrative 

activities 

28%

Institutional 

program 

activities 

33%

Student-related

process objectives

6%

Student 

long-term

outcomes

15%

Student 

intermediate

outcomes

18%
IV. McNair Program Performance Objectives 31

Figure 20. McNair Program objectives, institutional administrative objectives:

1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Network with

other programs 

2%

Identify and 

recruit candidates 

24%

Select 

candidates 

25%

Identify and 

recruit faculty

24%

Assessment

of program 

8%

General 

administrative issues 

7%

Develop 

tracking database 

10%

Figure 21. McNair Program objectives, institutional program objectives:

1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Provide 

networking 

opportunities 

14%

Provide academic 

activities 

19%

Provide support 

services 

21%

Conduct a financial 

needs analysis 

4%

Provide research 

opportunities 

27%

Conduct diagnostic/ 

assessment battery, 

academic needs analysis

15%
D. Student-related process objectives

The percentage of program objectives that related to student-related processes was relatively small—only 6 percent. Over half of the objectives for this category (54 percent)

addressed having students complete graduate school or financial aid applications 

(Figure 22). One-fourth of the objectives (25 percent) concerned taking GREs and other

tests. Additional objectives involved having students deciding areas of study, learning

more about graduate schools (13 percent), and reaching educational goals (8 percent).

E. Student intermediate outcome objectives

Eighteen percent of programs reported objectives related to student intermediate

outcomes. Of these objectives, 70 percent addressed students’ achievement of a certain overall GPA (Figure 23). The next most frequently reported objective concerned

students’ obtaining a certain GRE score (14 percent). These were followed by objectives that addressed students’ achieving technical skill competency, such as mastering

a computer or writing (11 percent), obtaining a certain major GPA (3 percent), taking course prerequisites, and performing research (1 percent each).8

32 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 22. McNair Program objectives, student-related process objectives:

1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Complete 

educational 

goals 

8%

Decide area of study/

know more about 

graduate school 

13%

Complete graduate 

school/financial aid 

application 

54%

Take GREs and 

other tests 

25%

8Twenty-seven percent of all objectives categorized as concerned with institutional program activities addressed providing research opportunities. This percentage

was larger than the percentage for students performing research projects under student intermediate outcomes; however, the former focuses on the institution providing

opportunities, while the latter on the student utilizing the opportunities.
F. Student long-term outcome objectives

Fifteen percent of the McNair Program objectives related to student long-term 

outcomes. Of these outcomes, over half concerned either students’ entrance to graduate school (32 percent, Figure 24) or completion of graduate school (21 percent).

These were followed by goals for students to be accepted to graduate school (18 percent) and receive graduate school funding (16 percent). Nine percent of objectives

related to students making progress toward graduate degrees, having no loan burden, or gaining recognition for academic achievement (each accounted for 2 percent

of objectives).

G. Objectives met

We asked institutions to report their progress toward meeting their objectives. We

then named these descriptions as having “exceeded, “met,” or “partially met” the

objectives. Overall, objectives were categorized most often as having been exceeded

(88 percent) rather than met (10 percent) or partially met (1 percent).9

As shown in Table 10, almost all objectives concerning institutional administrative activities were categorized as having been exceeded (97 percent). Of the objectives related to

IV. McNair Program Performance Objectives 33

Figure 23. McNair Program objectives, student intermediate outcome

objectives: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Take prerequisites 

1%

GRE score

14%

Technical 

competency 

11%

GPA, overall 

70%

GPA, major 

3%

Perform 

research project 

1%

9Seventy-two objectives were missing information related to progress.
institutional program activities, 92 percent had been exceeded. A slightly lower percentage of objectives relating to student intermediate outcomes (82 percent) and studentrelated processes (81 percent) had been exceeded. Seventy-one percent of objectives concerning student long-term outcomes were categorized as exceeded, while 24 percent

were categorized as met, and 5 percent as only partially met. This may have been due to

the length of time the McNair Programs have been active: Enough program years may

not have passed to allow tracking of students to graduate school completion.

34 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Figure 24. McNair Program objectives, student long-term outcome

objectives: 1998-99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Gain 

recognition

for academic 

achievement 

2%

No loan

burden 

when 

graduate 

2%

Acceptance to 

graduate school 

18%

Entrance into 

graduate school 

32%

Progress toward 

graduate school degree

9% 

Graduate from 

graduate school 

21%

Receive 

graduate school

financial aid 

16%

Table 10. Percentage of objectives met for each type of McNair Program objective: 1998-99

Percentage in Percentage in Percentage in

category that category that category that

Type of objective exceeded objective met objective partially met objective

Total 88 10 1

Institutional administrative objectives 97 3 0

Institutional program objectives 92 8 0

Student-related process objectives 81 19 0

Student intermediate outcome objectives 82 14 4

Student long-term outcome objectives 71 24 5

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1998-99.
35

V. FUTURE PLANS

As this report demonstrates, the number of McNair projects that have submitted performance data and participant records has increased greatly. In the three years since

projects began reporting such data, the proportion of institutions that responded has

increased from just under two-thirds to nearly every McNair project. The response

rate for the performance reports with aggregate program data has also increased to

include nearly every McNair project (98 percent in 1998-99). The McNair projects

are to be commended for their high-quality reports and ambitious objectives.

Some data quality issues remain to be addressed. ED has modified the McNair performance report form to eliminate the ambiguities that contributed to high nonresponse rates for a few items. The results of these changes should be immediately

apparent in the 1999-2000 performance data. ED will continue to clarify the directions for completing the reports and to make revisions based on feedback from project staff concerning the report forms and procedures. The increasing number of participants for whom projects are providing performance data—though partly accounted for by the growing number of new, continuing, and prior-year participants—also

suggests that institutions have improved their ability to track participants.

This first report presented limited information on student outcomes. Using information from multiple years, future reports will present information on tracking students’

progress from their senior year in undergraduate programs to their years in graduate

programs, and through the completion of their doctoral degrees.

We also anticipate tracking participants through use of the Survey of Earned

Doctorates. This study, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and ED, collects information from all PhD recipients in the United States.

We hope that these efforts will give project staff increased access to information that

will help them continue to improve project services. We also hope that these services

will enhance the success and opportunities for college students from low-income and

first-generation backgrounds and for underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities.

Appendix A 37

APPENDIX A: HISTORICALLY

BLACK COLLEGES 

AND UNIVERSITIES 

AND HISPANIC-SERVING

INSTITUTIONS WITH

MCNAIR PROJECTS: 1998–99

Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities

Alabama

Talladega College

Arkansas

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

District of Columbia

Howard University

Florida

Florida A&M University

Georgia

Morehouse College

Maryland

Bowie State University

Coppin State College

North Carolina

Elizabeth City State University

North Carolina A&T State University

Virginia

Hampton University

Hispanic-Serving Institutions

California

California State University/Fresno

California State University/San

Bernardino

New Mexico

New Mexico State University/Las

Cruces

New York

CUNY/John Jay College of Criminal

Justice

Mercy College

Puerto Rico

Inter American University of Puerto

Rico/San German

Pontifical Catholic University/Ponce

University of Puerto Rico/Rio Piedras

Texas

Our Lady of the Lake University

Texas A&M University/Kingsville

University of Texas/San Antonio

39

APPENDIX B: TABLES

Table 1a. Participant status: 1998-99. This table is Table 5 on page 12. In that table,

graduate students who project staff reported as new or continuing participants were

reclassified as prior-year participants.

Table 1b. Participant status: 1997-98

Participant status

New Continuing Prior year

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 4,140 100.0 1,246 30.1 1,040 25.1 1,850 44.7

Eligibility

Low-income, first-generation 2,980 72.0 890 71.6 761 73.5 1,325 71.7

Underrepresented 1,150 27.8 353 28.4 275 26.5 522 28.3

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 170 4.1 66 5.3 33 3.2 70 3.8

Asian/Pacific Islander 174 4.2 74 5.9 42 4.0 58 3.1

Black non-Hispanic 1,976 47.8 533 42.8 497 47.8 945 51.1

Hispanic 816 19.7 325 26.1 265 25.5 226 12.2

White non-Hispanic 953 23.0 226 18.1 188 18.1 537 29.1

Other 49 1.2 22 1.8 15 1.4 12 0.7

Gender

Women 2,668 64.5 823 66.1 670 64.4 1,172 63.4

Men 1,470 35.5 423 34.0 370 35.6 676 36.6

Note: Graduate students who project staff reported as new or continuing participants were not reclassified

as prior-year participants. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals

because of differences in response rates for individual items.
40 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 1c. Participant status: 1996-97

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 3,618 100.0 1,224 33.9 804 22.2 1,586 43.9

Eligibility

Low-income, first-generation 2,553 70.9 837 68.8 604 75.1 1,109 70.5

Underrepresented 1,046 29.1 380 31.2 200 24.9 465 29.5

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 119 3.3 46 3.8 32 4.0 41 2.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 186 5.1 68 5.6 28 3.5 90 5.7

Black non-Hispanic 1,658 45.9 549 44.9 376 46.8 732 46.2

Hispanic 674 18.7 288 23.6 183 22.8 200 12.6

White non-Hispanic 934 25.9 250 20.5 178 22.1 506 32.0

Other 42 1.2 21 1.7 7 0.9 14 0.9

Gender

Women 2,361 65.3 791 64.6 552 68.7 1,015 64.0

Men 1,257 34.7 433 35.4 252 31.3 571 36.0

Note: Graduate students who project staff reported as new or continuing participants were not reclassified

as prior-year participants. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals

because of differences in response rates for individual items.

Table 2a. Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1998-99

Eligibility status

Low-income,

first-generation Underrepresented

Participant characteristics N N % N %

Total 9,031 6,512 71.9 2,519 27.8

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 346 199 3.1 147 5.8

Asian/Pacific Islander 546 464 7.1 82 3.3

Black non-Hispanic 3,631 2,255 34.6 1,376 54.7

Hispanic 2,999 1,628 25.0 671 26.7

White non-Hispanic 2,049 1,824 20.0 225 8.9

Other 156 141 2.2 15 0.6

Gender

Women 5,894 4,215 64.7 1,679 66.7

Men 3,137 2,297 35.3 840 33.4

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.
Appendix B 41

Table 2b. Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1997-98

Eligibility status

Low-income,

first-generation Underrepresented

Participant characteristics N N % N %

Total 4,140 2,980 72.2 1,150 27.8

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 170 87 2.9 83 7.2

Asian/Pacific Islander 174 143 4.8 30 2.6

Black non-Hispanic 1,976 1,280 43.0 688 59.8

Hispanic 816 564 18.9 252 21.9

White non-Hispanic 953 861 28.9 91 7.9

Other 49 43 1.4 6 0.5

Gender

Women 2,668 1,898 63.7 765 66.5

Men 1,470 1,080 36.3 385 33.5

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.

Table 2c. Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1996-97

Eligibility status

Low-income,

first-generation Underrepresented

Participant characteristics N N % N %

Total 3,618 2,553 70.9 1,046 29.1

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 119 57 2.2 62 5.9

Asian/Pacific Islander 186 141 5.5 43 4.1

Black non-Hispanic 1,658 1,065 41.8 580 55.5

Hispanic 674 465 18.2 209 20.0

White non-Hispanic 934 787 30.9 143 13.7

Other 42 34 1.3 8 0.8

Gender

Women 2,361 1,645 64.4 703 67.2

Men 1,257 908 35.6 343 32.8

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.
42 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 3a. Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1998-99

Gender

Women Men

Race N N % N %

Total 9,072 5,913 65.2 3,159 34.8

American Indian 347 203 3.4 144 4.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 548 353 6.0 195 6.2

Black non-Hispanic 3,682 2,518 42.6 1,134 35.9

Hispanic 2,313 1,373 23.2 940 29.8

White non-Hispanic 2,056 1,377 23.3 679 21.5

Other 156 89 1.5 67 2.1

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.

Table 3b. Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1997-98

Gender

Women Men

Race N N % N %

Total 4,140 2,668 64.5 1,470 35.5

American Indian 170 92 3.5 78 5.3

Asian/Pacific Islander 174 107 4.0 66 4.5

Black non-Hispanic 1,976 1,338 50.2 638 43.4

Hispanic 816 477 17.9 339 23.1

White non-Hispanic 953 621 23.3 331 22.5

Other 49 31 1.2 18 1.2

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.

Table 3c. Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1996-97

Gender

Women Men

Race N N % N %

Total 3,618 2,361 65.3 1,257 34.7

American Indian 119 59 2.5 60 4.8

Asian/Pacific Islander 186 121 5.1 65 5.2

Black non-Hispanic 1,658 1,122 47.6 536 42.6

Hispanic 674 396 16.8 278 22.1

White non-Hispanic 934 630 26.7 304 24.2

Other 42 28 1.2 14 1.1

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.
Appendix B 43

Table 4a. Age: 1998-99

Age

Total 17-24 years 25-34 years 35 or older

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 9,090 100.0 4,556 51.7 3,172 36.0 1,086 12.3

Eligibility

Low-income, first-generation 6,343 72.3 3,100 68.1 2,364 75.4 879 81.7

Underrepresented 2,431 27.7 1,452 31.9 782 24.9 197 18.3

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 339 3.9 140 3.1 125 3.9 74 6.8

Asian/Pacific Islander 513 5.8 297 6.5 194 6.1 22 2.0

Black non-Hispanic 3,591 40.7 2,091 45.9 1,188 37.5 312 28.7

Hispanic 2,264 25.7 1,272 56.2 814 25.7 178 16.4

White non-Hispanic 1,983 22.5 695 15.3 810 25.5 478 44.0

Other 124 1.4 61 1.3 41 1.3 22 2.0

Gender

Women 5,746 65.2 3,118 68.4 1,878 59.1 750 68.9

Men 3,073 34.9 1,439 31.6 1,295 40.8 339 31.1

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.

Table 4b. Age: 1997-98

Age

Total 17-24 years 25-34 years 35 or older

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 4,140 100.0 2,008 48.7 1,495 36.2 622 15.1

Eligibility

Low-income, first-generation 2,970 72.1 1,373 68.7 1,095 73.2 502 80.7

Underrepresented 1,147 27.9 627 31.4 400 26.8 120 19.3

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 170 4.1 71 2.8 68 3.1 31 5.0

Asian/Pacific Islander 174 4.2 119 6.2 41 3.1 14 2.4

Black non-Hispanic 1,969 47.7 992 50.9 734 45.1 243 37.6

Hispanic 812 19.7 490 23.2 242 17.5 80 12.7

White non-Hispanic 951 23.1 314 15.4 387 28.0 250 41.2

Other 49 1.2 22 1.5 24 1.0 3 1.2

Gender

Women 2,661 64.5 1,350 67.2 869 58.1 442 28.9

Men 1,464 35.5 648 32.7 626 41.9 180 71.1

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response rates for individual items.
44 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 4c. Age: 1996-97

Age

Total 17-24 years 25-34 years 35 or older

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 3,618 100.0 1,909 53.2 1,206 33.6 473 13.2

Eligibility

Low-income, first-generation 2,553 70.9 1,261 66.5 894 74.1 381 80.7

Underrepresented 1,046 29.1 634 33.5 313 25.9 91 19.3

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 119 3.3 76 3.5 56 3.8 22 4.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 186 5.1 115 5.3 30 4.6 7 1.5

Black non-Hispanic 1,658 45.9 1,066 49.4 580 42.2 182 38.5

Hispanic 674 18.7 522 24.2 197 16.0 54 11.4

White non-Hispanic 934 25.9 351 16.3 330 32.4 203 42.9

Other 42 1.2 27 1.3 20 1.0 5 1.1

Gender

Women 2,361 65.3 1,317 68.9 688 56.9 340 71.9

Men 1,257 34.7 594 31.1 521 43.1 133 28.1

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences

in response.

Table 5a. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 1998-99

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 8,951 100.0 1,706 19.3 1,879 21.2 5,268 59.5

1st year, total 265 3.0 59 3.5 84 5.1 112 2.2

1st year, never attended 195 2.2 46 2.7 76 4.1 73 1.4

1st year, attended before 70 0.8 13 0.8 18 1.0 39 .8

2nd year/sophomore 1,860 20.8 334 19.6 541 28.9 976 18.8

3rd year/junior 4,251 47.5 821 48.2 900 48.1 2463 47.6

4th year/senior 2,296 25.7 453 26.6 305 16.3 1443 27.9

5th year/other undergraduate 279 3.1 36 2.1 31 1.7 186 3.6 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual items.
Appendix B 45

Table 5b. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 1997-98

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 4,140 100.0 1,246 30.1 1,040 25.1 1,850 44.7

1st year, total 88 2.2 31 2.5 11 1.1 46 2.5

1st year, never attended 52 1.3 13 1.0 1 0.1 38 21

1st year, attended before 36 0.9 18 1.5 10 1.0 8 04

2nd year/sophomore 852 20.6 218 17.5 310 29.9 324 17.8

3rd year/junior 2,024 49.0 642 51.6 527 50.9 852 46.2

4th year/senior 1,057 25.5 333 26.8 163 15.7 560 30.3

5th year/other undergraduate 110 2.7 21 19.1 25 22.7 64 58.2

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual items.

Table 5c. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 1996-97

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 3,618 100.0 1,224 33.9 804 22.2 1,586 43.9

1st year, total 166 4.6 66 5.5 51 6.3 49 3.1

1st year, never attended 125 3.5 46 3.8 38 4.7 41 2.6

1st year, attended before 41 1.1 20 1.7 13 1.6 8 0.5

2nd year/sophomore 741 20.6 193 16.1 230 28.6 316 20.0

3rd year/junior 1,543 43.0 584 48.7 344 42.8 6.3 38.8

4th year/senior 968 27.0 314 26.2 161 20.1 493 31.2

5th year/other undergraduate 171 4.8 43 1.2 17 0.5 111 3.1

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual items.
46 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 6a. Grade level of participants: 1998-99

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 6,345 100.0 1,619 25.7 1,611 25.5 3,082 48.8

Total undergraduate 3,550 55.2 1,440 88.9 1,127 70.0 954 31.0

1st year, total 87 1.4 29 1.8 3 0.2 55 1.8

1st year, never attended 42 0.7 24 1.5 2 0.1 16 0.5

1st year, attended before 45 0.7 5 0.3 1 0.1 39 1.3

2nd year/sophomore 171 2.7 73 4.5 32 2.0 66 2.1

3rd year/junior 758 11.8 480 29.6 164 10.2 113 3.7

4th year/senior 1,737 27.0 745 46.0 637 39.5 349 11.3

5th year/other undergraduate 797 12.4 113 7.0 291 18.1 371 12.0

Total graduate/professional 2,885 44.8 179 11.1 484 30.0 2,128 69.1

1st year graduate professional 1,091 17.0 126 7.8 303 18.8 629 20.4

2nd year graduate/ professional 861 13.4 33 2.0 70 4.4 725 23.5

3rd year graduate/professional 480 7.5 10 0.6 44 2.7 409 13.3

Beyond 3rd year graduate/

professional 453 7.0 10 0.6 67 4.2 365 11.8

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual items.

Table 6b. Grade level of participants: 1997-98

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 3,047 100.0 1,202 39.4 908 29.8 937 30.8

Total undergraduate 2,044 67.1 1,130 94.0 654 72.0 260 27.7

1st year, total 7 0.2 1 0.1 5 0.6 1 0.1

1st year, never attended 7 0.2 1 0.1 5 0.6 1 0.1

1st year, attended before 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

2nd year/sophomore 81 2.7 71 5.9 3 0.3 7 0.7

3rd year/junior 526 17.3 419 34.9 83 9.1 24 2.6

4th year/senior 1,074 35.2 548 45.6 412 45.4 114 12.2

5th year/other undergraduate 356 11.7 91 7.6 151 42.4 114 12.2

Total graduate/professional 1,003 32.9 72 6.0 254 28.0 677 72.3

1st year graduate professional 520 17.1 67 5.6 218 24.0 235 25.1

2nd year graduate/ professional 294 9.6 5 0.4 30 3.3 259 27.6

3rd year graduate/professional 133 4.4 0 0.0 5 0.6 128 13.7

Beyond 3rd year graduate/

professional 56 1.8 0 0.0 1 0.1 55 5.9

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual items.
Appendix B 47

Table 6c. Grade level of participants: 1996-97

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 2,772 100.0 1,152 41.6 761 27.5 855 30.9

Total undergraduate 1,975 71.2 1,066 92.5 637 83.7 269 31.5

1st year, total 74 2.7 54 4.7 19 2.5 1 0.1

1st year, never attended 47 1.7 47 4.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

1st year, attended before 27 1.0 7 0.6 19 2.5 1 0.1

2nd year/sophomore 89 3.2 56 4.9 22 2.9 11 1.3

3rd year/junior 437 15.8 297 25.8 114 15.0 25 2.9

4th year/senior 1,046 37.7 555 48.2 330 43.4 159 18.6

5th year/other undergraduate 329 11.9 104 9.0 152 20.0 73 8.5

Total graduate/professional 797 28.8 86 7.5 124 16.3 586 68.5

1st year graduate professional 384 13.9 76 6.6 94 12.4 213 24.9

2nd year graduate/ professional 237 8.5 8 0.7 21 2.8 208 24.3

3rd year graduate/professional 105 3.8 1 0.1 6 0.8 98 11.5

Beyond 3rd year graduate/

professional 71 2.6 1 0.1 3 0.4 67 7.8

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual items.
48 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 7a. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1998-99

1st year

All under- Never Attended

Participant Total graduates attended before 2nd year

characteristics N % N % N % N % N %

Total 6,435 100 3,550 55.2 42 0.7 45 0.7 171 2.7

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 4,677 72.8 2,591 73.4 17 40.5 29 64.4 121 70.8

Underrepresented 1,717 27.2 937 26.6 25 59.5 16 35.6 50 29.2

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 239 3.7 148 4.2 1 2.1 2 4.4 8 4.7

Asian/Pac. Islndr. 374 5.8 202 5.7 2 4.8 0 0.0 67 3.5

Black non-Hisp. 2,570 40.0 1,447 40.8 21 50.0 32 71.0 92 53.8

Hispanic 1,700 26.5 1,035 29.2 13 31.0 8 17.8 52 30.4

White non-Hisp. 1,420 22.1 661 18.7 4 9.5 2 4.4 13 7.6

Other 125 1.9 50 1.4 1 2.4 1 2.2 0 0.0

Gender

Women 4,204 65.4 2,319 65.4 26 63.4 35 77.8 119 69.6

Men 2,225 34.6 1,228 34.6 15 36.6 10 22.2 52 30.4

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences 

in response rates for individual item.

Table 7b. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1997-98

1st year

All under- Never Attended

Participant Total graduates attended before 2nd year

characteristics N % N % N % N % N %

Total 4,140 100.0 2,044 67.1 7 0.2 0 0.0 81 2.7

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 2,980 72.0 1,479 72.6 7 100.0 0 0.0 19 76.5

Underrepresented 1,150 27.8 558 27.4 0 100.0 0 0.0 62 23.5

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 170 4.1 101 4.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 3.7

Asian/Pac. Islndr. 174 4.2 113 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.5

Black non-Hisp. 1,976 47.8 930 45.5 4 57.2 0 0.0 31 28.3

Hispanic 816 19.7 514 25.2 3 42.9 0 0.0 32 39.5

White non-Hisp. 953 23.0 351 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 16.1

Other 49 1.2 34 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Gender

Women 2,668 64.5 1,304 63.8 2 28.6 0 0.0 54 66.7

Men 1,470 35.5 740 36.2 5 71.4 0 0.0 27 33.3

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences 

in response rates for individual item.
Appendix B 49

Beyond

3rd year 4th year 5th year All graduates 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 3rd year

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

758 11.8 1,737 27.0 797 12.4 2,885 44.8 1,091 17.0 861 13.4 480 7.5 453 7.0

553 73.3 1,241 72.2 630 79.2 2,086 72.8 778 72.1 641 74.5 341 71.3 326 72.3

201 26.6 479 27.8 166 20.9 780 27.2 301 27.9 217 25.2 137 28.7 125 27.7

27 3.6 69 4.0 41 5.2 91 3.2 42 3.9 25 2.9 14 2.9 10 2.2

31 4.1 112 6.5 51 6.4 172 6.0 66 6.1 46 5.3 32 6.7 28 6.2

320 42.2 738 42.6 244 30.7 1,123 38.9 454 41.6 342 39.7 174 36.3 153 33.8

222 29.3 466 26.9 274 34.4 665 23.1 247 22.6 189 22.0 100 20.8 129 28.5

146 19.3 320 18.5 176 22.1 759 26.3 260 23.8 240 27.9 148 30.8 111 24.5

12 1.6 26 1.5 10 1.3 75 2.6 22 2.0 19 2.2 12 2.5 22 4.9

496 65.5 1,129 65.0 514 64.5 1,885 65.4 717 65.8 579 67.3 302 63.1 287 63.4

261 34.5 607 35.0 283 35.5 997 34.6 373 34.2 281 32.7 177 37.0 166 36.6

Beyond

3rd year 4th year 5th year All graduates 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 3rd year

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

526 17.3 1,074 35.2 356 11.7 1,003 32.99 520 17.1 294 9.6 133 4.4 56 1.8

377 71.8 769 71.9 264 74.4 731 73.0 383 73.8 216 73.5 95 72.0 37 66.1

148 28.2 300 28.1 91 25.6 270 27.0 136 26.2 78 26.5 37 28.0 19 33.4

25 4.8 47 4.4 26 7.3 34 3.4 14 2.7 11 3.7 8 6.0 1 1.8

29 5.5 65 6.1 17 4.8 33 3.3 18 3.5 12 4.1 2 1.5 1 1.8

253 48.1 500 46.6 142 40.0 418 41.7 232 44.7 110 37.4 55 41.4 21 37.5

125 23.8 257 23.9 97 27.3 174 17.4 105 20.2 52 17.7 14 10.5 3 5.4

90 17.1 181 16.9 67 18.9 333 33.2 141 27.2 109 37.1 53 39.9 30 53.6

4 0.8 24 2.2 6 1.7 10 9 1.7 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

332 63.1 692 64.4 224 62.9 660 65.8 352 67.7 188 64.0 91 68.4 29 51.8

194 36.9 382 35.6 132 37.1 343 34.2 168 32.3 106 36.1 42 31.6 27 48.2
50 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 7c. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1996-97

1st year

All under- Never Attended

Participant Total graduates attended before 2nd year

characteristics N % N % N % N % N %

Total 3,618 100.0 1,975 71.2 47 1.7 27 1.0 89 3.2

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 2,553 70.9 1,413 71.8 41 87.2 25 92.6 63 71.6

Underrepresented 1,046 29.1 556 28.2 6 12.8 2 7.4 25 28.4

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 119 3.3 87 4.4 1 2.1 1 3.7 5 5.6

Asian/Pac. Islndr. 186 5.1 90 4.5 1 2.1 1 3.7 5 5.6

Black non-Hisp. 1,658 45.9 866 43.9 20 42.6 17 63.0 42 47.2

Hispanic 674 18.7 437 22.2 18 38.3 4 14.8 24 27.0

White non-Hisp. 934 25.9 466 23.6 3 6.4 4 14.8 13 14.6

Other 42 1.2 26 1.3 4 8.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Gender

Women 2,361 65.3 1,273 64.5 26 55.3 20 74.1 57 64.0

Men 1,257 34.7 702 35.5 21 44.7 7 25.9 32 36.0

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences 

in response rates for individual item.
Appendix B 51

Beyond

3rd year 4th year 5th year All graduates 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 3rd year

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

437 15.8 1,046 37.7 329 11.9 797 28.8 384 13.9 237 8.5 105 3.8 71 2.6

317 72.9 741 71.1 226 103 528 67.0 259 67.6 162 68.6 66 66.0 41 59.4

118 27.1 302 29.0 1697 31.3 260 33.0 124 32.4 74 31.4 34 34.0 28 40.6

20 4.6 46 4.4 14 4.3 20 2.5 10 2.6 7 3.0 2 1.9 1 1.4

19 4.4 47 4.5 17 5.2 48 6.0 20 5.2 15 6.4 8 7.7 5 7.0

204 46.7 467 44.7 116 35.5 320 40.3 163 42.5 88 37.3 40 38.5 29 40.9

105 24.0 210 20.1 76 23.2 138 17.4 63 16.4 38 16.1 23 22.1 14 19.7

85 19.5 263 25.2 98 30.0 263 33.1 124 32.3 87 36.9 30 28.9 22 31.0

4 0.9 12 1.2 6 1.8 6 0.8 4 1.0 1 0.4 1 1.0 0 0.0

273 62.5 682 65.2 215 65.4 529 66.4 259 67.5 151 63.7 78 74.3 41 57.8

164 37.5 364 37.5 114 34.7 268 33.6 125 32.6 86 36.3 27 25.7 30 42.3
52 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 8a. End-of-year enrollment status: 1998-99

Enrolled in degree program Dismissed/

Participant Undergraduate Graduate Graduated withdrew

characteristics N N % N % N % N %

Total 9,090 2,697 32.0 2,493 29.6 2,914 34.6 307 3.6

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 6,517 1,967 32.4 1,784 29.4 2,066 34.1 246 4.11

Underrepresented 2,520 724 31.3 698 30.1 830 35.8 61 2.6

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 347 119 36.3 91 27.7 94 28.7 23 7.0

Asian/Pac. Island. 548 154 29.8 161 31.1 191 36.9 11 2.1

Black non-Hisp. 3,653 1,117 33.2 979 29.1 1,155 34.3 107 3.2

Hispanic 2,317 790 35.7 541 24.4 810 36.6 68 3.1

White non-Hisp. 2,057 467 25.2 672 36.2 624 33.6 92 5.0

Other 156 43 32.3 49 36.8 36 27.1 5 3.8

Gender

Women 5,924 1,797 32.7 1,628 29.6 1,892 34.4 170 3.1

Men 3,159 898 30.7 864 29.6 1,019 34.9 136 4.7

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual item.

Table 8b. End-of-year enrollment status: 1997-98

Enrolled in degree program Dismissed/

Participant Undergraduate Graduate Graduated withdrew

characteristics N N % N % N % N %

Total 4,140 1,694 44.2 847 22.1 1,184 30.9 106 2.8

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 2,980 1,225 44.4 615 22.3 841 30.5 79 2.9

Underrepresented 1,150 467 43.8 232 21.8 340 31.9 27 2.5

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 170 82 50.9 29 18.0 37 23.0 13 8.1

Asian/Pac. Island. 174 91 55.5 30 18.3 42 25.6 1 0.6

Black non-Hisp. 1,976 753 40.8 390 21.2 651 35.3 50 2.7

Hispanic 816 433 55.7 140 18.0 194 25.0 10 1.3

White non-Hisp. 953 304 36.5 247 29.6 252 30.2 31 3.7

Other 49 31 63.3 10 20.4 7 14.3 1 2.0

Gender

Women 2,668 1,099 44.3 563 22.7 766 30.9 54 2.2

Men 1,470 595 44.1 284 21.1 418 31.0 51 3.8

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual item.
Appendix B 53

Table 8c. End-of-year enrollment status: 1996-97

Enrolled in degree program Dismissed/

Participant Undergraduate Graduate Graduated withdrew

characteristics N N % N % N % N %

Total 3,618 1,392 42.8 733 22.6 1,012 31.1 112 3.4

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 2,553 976 42.9 513 22.6 693 30.5 91 4.0

Underrepresented 1,046 411 42.9 217 22.7 309 32.3 21 2.2

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 119 63 55.8 21 18.6 24 21.2 5 4.4

Asian/Pac. Island. 186 65 38.2 47 27.7 57 33.5 1 0.6

Black non-Hisp. 1,658 648 43.4 297 19.9 492 33.0 56 3.8

Hispanic 674 328 52.4 145 23.2 135 21.6 18 2.9

White non-Hisp. 934 271 33.5 212 26.2 294 36.4 31 3.8

Other 42 16 47.1 9 26.5 8 23.5 1 2.9

Gender

Women 2,361 897 42.5 487 23.1 667 31.6 58 2.8

Men 1,257 495 43.4 246 21.6 345 30.3 54 4.7

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual item.

Table 9a. Percentage of participants who had earned a degree, by degree type and

participant characteristics: 1998-99

Participants Those with a degree — Degree type

Participant with a degree Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral

characteristics N N % N % N % N %

Total 9,090 6,414 70.6 5,103 79.5 1,063 16.6 248 3.9

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 6,517 4,523 69.4 3,634 80.3 753 16.7 136 3.0

Underrepresented 2,520 1,847 73.3 1,443 78.1 303 16.4 101 5.5

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 347 211 60.8 182 86.3 23 10.9 6 2.8

Asian/Pac. Island. 548 398 72.6 300 75.4 77 19.4 21 5.3

Black non-Hisp. 3,653 2,607 71.4 2,096 80.4 407 15.6 104 4.0

Hispanic 2,317 1,562 67.4 1,303 83.4 214 13.7 45 2.9

White non-Hisp. 2,057 1,520 73.9 1,122 73.8 328 21.6 70 4.6

Other 156 112 71.8 96 85.7 14 12.5 2 1.8

Gender

Women 5,924 4,186 70.7 3,298 78.8 726 17.3 161 3.9

Men 3,159 2,225 70.4 1,802 81.0 336 15.1 87 3.9

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual item.
54 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1998-99

Table 9b. Percentage of participants who had earned a degree, by degree type and

participant characteristics: 1997-98

Participants Those with a degree — Degree type

Participant with a degree Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral

characteristics N N % N % N % N %

Total 4,140 2,442 59.0 2,097 85.9 290 11.9 55 2.3

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 2,980 1,751 58.8 1,509 86.2 205 11.7 37 2.1

Underrepresented 1,150 688 59.8 586 85.2 84 12.2 18 2.6

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 170 76 44.7 68 89.5 7 9.2 1 1.3

Asian/Pac. Island. 174 95 54.6 84 88.4 6 6.3 5 5.3

Black non-Hisp. 1,976 1,240 62.8 1,066 86.0 154 12.4 20 1.6

Hispanic 816 388 47.5 358 92.3 24 6.2 6 1.6

White non-Hisp. 953 617 64.7 499 80.9 96 15.6 22 3.6

Other 49 24 49.0 20 83.3 3 12.5 1 4.2

Gender

Women 2,668 1,593 59.7 1,364 85.6 194 12.2 35 2.2

Men 1,470 848 57.7 732 86.3 96 11.3 20 2.4

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual item.

Table 9c. Percentage of participants who had earned a degree, by degree type and

participant characteristics: 1996-97

Participants Those with a degree — Degree type

Participant with a degree Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral

characteristics N N % N % N % N %

Total 3,618 2,174 68.6 1,837 84.5 312 14.4 25 1.1

Eligibility

Low-inc., first gen. 2,553 1,483 58.1 1,263 85.2 206 13.9 14 0.9

Underrepresented 1,046 677 64.7 562 83.0 104 15.4 11 1.6

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 119 53 44.5 48 90.6 5 9.4 0 0.0

Asian/Pac. Island. 186 128 68.8 112 87.5 15 11.7 1 0.8

Black non-Hisp. 1,658 963 58.1 823 85.5 133 13.8 7 0.7

Hispanic 674 380 56.4 337 88.7 40 10.5 3 0.8

White non-Hisp. 934 623 66.7 495 79.5 114 18.3 14 2.3

Other 42 23 54.8 18 78.3 5 21.7 0 0.0

Gender

Women 2,361 1,453 61.5 1,226 84.4 211 14.4 16 1.1

Men 1,257 721 57.4 611 84.7 101 14.0 9 1.3

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates for individual item.
REFERENCES

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Higher Education Coordinating Council. 1995.

McNair Reserve Study Panel: Final Report. Unpublished paper.

Grimmett, Bliss, et al. 1999. “Assessing Federal TRIO McNair Program Participants’

Expectations and Satisfaction with Project Services: A Preliminary Study.” Journal

of Negro Education, 67 (4), 404-415.

Hatry, Harry P. and M. Kopczynski. 1997. “Guide to Program Outcome

Measurement for the U.S. Department of Education,” Working Document,

February 1997.

Program Monitoring and Information Technology Service. U.S. Department of

Education. 1999. Program Assessment: Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program. Unpublished paper.

Taylor, O. L. 1999. “The Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement

Program: A Vehicle for Achieving Diversity in Graduate Education.” The Council

Journal, 6-9.

55