A Profile of the

Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate

Achievement

Program: 1999-2000

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

2002

A Profile of the

Ronald E. McNair

Postbaccalaureate

Achievement

Program: 1999-2000

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Justin Humphrey

Nancy Carey

Wendy Mansfield

2002 
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

Sally L. Stroup

Assistant Secretary

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

Larry Oxendine

Acting Director

September 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: 1999-2000,

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: 

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

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

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

2. Distribution of grantees and participants by institutional

characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

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

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

2. Unclear and missing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

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

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

II. STUDENT PARTICIPANTS IN THE McNAIR PROGRAM: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . 11

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

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

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

3. Race and ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4. Enrollment status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5. Degree status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
III. McNAIR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

IV. FUTURE PLANS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

APPENDICES

A. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving

Institutions with McNair Projects: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

B. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES

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

2. TRIO funding levels in constant 2000 dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Percentage and number of grantees reporting participant-level 

performance information, by institutional characteristics: 1999-2000 . . . 6

4. Number and percentage of participant records with missing or blank

responses: 1999-2000, 1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. McNair participant characteristics by participant status: 1999-2000 . . . . 12

6. Estimated percentage of graduating seniors in 1998-99 reported 

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

in 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

7. End-of-year enrollment status, by race and ethnicity: 1999-2000 . . . . . . 25

8. End-of-year enrollment status, by gender and eligibility: 1999-2000 . . . . 25

9. Distribution of degrees by race and ethnicity: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

10. End-of-year enrollment status in 1998-99, by end-of-year 

enrollment status in 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

11. Comparison of McNair participant data and the Survey of 

Earned Doctorates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

12. Activities reported by McNair projects: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

13. Comparison of activities reported by newly funded and 

previously funded McNair projects: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

14. “Other” scholarly activities reported by McNair projects: 1999-2000 . . . 31

APPENDIX B TABLES

1a. Participant status: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

1b. Participant status: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

1c. Participant status: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1d. Participant status: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2a. Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . 39

2b. Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . 39

2c. Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . 40

2d. Eligibility status, by race and gender of participants: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . 40

3a. Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3b. Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

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

3d. Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4a. Age: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

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

4c. Age: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

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

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

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

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

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5c. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 

1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5d. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 

1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6a. Grade level of participants: 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6b. Grade level of participants: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6c. Grade level of participants: 1997-98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6d. Grade level of participants: 1996-97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

7a. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1999-2000 . . . 50

7b. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1998-99 . . . . . 52

7c. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1997-98 . . . . . 52

7d. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1996-97 . . . . . 54

8a. End-of-year enrollment status: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

8b. End-of-year enrollment status: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

8c. End-of-year enrollment status: 1997-98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

8d. End-of-year enrollment status: 1996-97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

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

and participant characteristics: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

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

and participant characteristics: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

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

and participant characteristics: 1997-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

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

and participant characteristics: 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

FIGURES

1. Percentage of McNair projects submitting participant data, by region: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Percentage of McNair projects submitting aggregate performance 

data, by region: 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Participant status, by year: 1999-2000, 1998-99, 1997-98, 

and 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. Eligibility status: 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5. Distribution of McNair participants by race and ethnicity: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6a. Underrepresented participants, by race and ethnicity: 1999-2000 . . . . . . 14

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

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7. Participant gender: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

8. Participant race and ethnicity, by gender: 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

9. Participant age distribution: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

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

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

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

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

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

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

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

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

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

13. Grade level of participants, by participant status: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . 22

14. Participant degree status: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
viii

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: 1999-

2000. 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 second 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 continue 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.

Larry Oxendine

Acting Director

Office of Federal TRIO Programs
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 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. Mary Fran Miklitsch deserves special mention for designing and preparing the report for publication.

ix

xi

HIGHLIGHTS

This report summarizes the statistical performance report data submitted by McNair

projects for program year 1999-2000. Ninety-nine percent of projects (154 of 

156 projects) submitted aggregate-level data, and 95 percent of projects (148 of 

156 projects) submitted participant-level data for the 1999-2000 program year. The

148 projects provided data on 10,934 participants.

The highlights below include information on McNair grantees and participants and

the services provided to project participants.

Grantees

• More than three-quarters of McNair grantees (79 percent) were public institutions, and more than four-fifths (84 percent) were institutions that had 5,000

or more full-time enrollment (FTE) students. According to Carnegie classifications, master’s level institutions comprised 37 percent of host organizations;

research institutions, 35 percent; doctoral institutions, 21 percent; baccalaureate institutions, 6 percent; and specialized institutions, 1 percent.

• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) made up 8 percent of

grantees, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) accounted for another 10

percent.

Participants

• More than four-fifths of McNair participants (82 percent) attended public

institutions, and an even higher proportion (88 percent) attended institutions

with 5,000 or more FTE students.

• Almost 40 percent of the participants included in the 1999-2000 performance

files were current participants (those receiving McNair services in the 1999-

2000 academic year), with 24 percent classified as new participants (those

receiving services for the first time) and 15 percent classified as continuing participants (those who received services in a prior academic year). Sixty-one percent were prior-year participants (those who received McNair services in a previous academic year and were not currently receiving services).

• Almost three-quarters of participants (72 percent) were classified as lowincome and first-generation students, and more than one-quarter of participants (28 percent) were classified as members of underrepresented racial and

ethnic groups.
xii

• Black or African American students accounted for the largest percentage of

McNair participants (44 percent). Hispanic or Latino and white participants

together accounted for another 44 percent of participants (23 percent and 21

percent, respectively).

• Women accounted for 66 percent of McNair participants.

• Students ages 17 to 24 made up 41 percent of participants, and students ages 

25 to 34 were 46 percent of participants.

Program Services

• All projects reported offering academic counseling in 1999-2000, and nearly all

projects provided seminars (99 percent), internships (98 percent), admission

assistance (95 percent), and financial aid assistance (91 percent). Eighty-six 

percent of projects offered tutorial assistance, and 76 percent provided research

activities (other than internships).

• The services participants most frequently made use of were academic counseling (87 percent), seminars (82 percent), financial aid assistance (72 percent),

admission assistance (67 percent), and internships (54 percent).

Outcomes

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

1998-99, an estimated 25 percent to 41 percent were reported as attending a

graduate program in 1999-2000.

• Among those participants included in both the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 participant files, 91 percent of participants reported as graduate students during the

1998-99 program year were still enrolled in graduate school or had graduated

from graduate school in 1999-2000 (75 percent and 16 percent, respectively).
I. INTRODUCTION

This report is the second 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 analyzes data from the 1999-2000 program year. The previous report

contained three years of data, with a focus on data from 1998-99.

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

Services). The TRIO Programs expanded in the early 1970s with the development of

1

1 Grimmett, 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.
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.

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, authorizes 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, for

five years of funding in all.

2 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000
The McNair Program, which began with 14 projects, grew to 156 funded institutions

as of 2001-2002 (FY 2001; Table 1). Once projects received their original 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 grants

awarded in the latest competition, for four- and five-year project periods beginning

with 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 $35,785,817 in fiscal year 2001 (Table 1).

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

shows TRIO funding in constant 2000 dollars. This table shows each program’s

growth since their inception. 

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

I. Introduction 3

Table 1. Description of annual awards

Number of Average Number of Average cost

Fiscal year Appropriation awards award participants per participant 

2001 $35,785,817 156 $229,396 3,774 $9,482 

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 

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, 2000.
shown: control (public or private); Carnegie classification2 (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 for current participants served in the 1999-2000 academic year (new and

continuing students). The data reported herein do not necessarily reflect all McNair

participants, but only those participants reported by the programs.

4 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 2. TRIO funding levels in constant 2000 dollars (in millions)

Student Upward

Talent Upward Support Bound Math 

Year Search Bound Services EOC McNair Science

2000 $100.5 $241.9 $183.3 $30.5 $34.9 $30.1

1995 $84.1 $204.3 $153.9 $26.4 $20.5 $20.4

1990 $34.5 $121.2 $114.1 $15.4 $2.0 $2.5

1985 $28.5 $113.4 $107.2 $13.0 — —

1980 $32.0 $127.6 $115.1 $13.2 — —

1975 $18.4 $117.5 $70.6 $9.2 — —

1970 $16.7 $124.2 $41.7 — — —

1967 $9.5 $123.2 — — — —

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

Abstract, Table 752.

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

Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 Edition, (Princeton, NJ).
C. Response rates and characteristics of host institutions

1. Response rates

Performance reporting response rates have increased almost every year since the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new McNair performance

report form calling for participant records. In program year 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, 97 percent of all grantees (96 of 99) submitted participant records

on 9,090 students. For the 1999-2000 program year, 95 percent of projects (148 of

156) submitted participant-level data on 10,934 participants; 99 percent of grantees

(154 of 156) submitted aggregate performance data.

Table 3 gives the percentage of grantees reporting 1999-2000 participant-level information by institutional characteristics. There were few differences in response rates

by institutional characteristics.

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

performance information by region. The percentage of grantees reporting these data

ranged from 75 percent in Region I to 100 percent for Regions V, VII, VIII, IX, and

X. Because there are a low number of McNair projects in each region, one or two

projects that do not report lower the percentage substantially.

Figure 2 shows the response rates for the aggregate reports by region. The percentage of grantees reporting aggregate data ranged from 95 percent in Region II and

Region IX to 100 percent for the remaining regions. 

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.

Seventy-nine percent of McNair grantee institutions were public, and 21 percent were

private or nonprofit. This distribution is almost the reverse of that for all degreegranting 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 (35 percent), and a slightly

larger proportion (37 percent) were at master’s institutions. Twenty-one percent were

at doctoral institutions. Only 6 percent of projects were at baccalaureate institutions,

and 1 percent (2 programs) were at specialized institutions.

HBCUs made up 8 percent and HSIs 10 percent of the grantees. (The HBCUs and

the HSIs that received McNair grants are listed in Appendix A.) The most host instiI. Introduction 5
6 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 3. Percentage and number of grantees reporting participant-level performance

information, by institutional characteristics: 1999-2000

Percentage

of institutions Number

serving of

under- grantees Participant- Number Percentage

graduates, reporting level of of

Institutional as reported Percentage Total participant- report participant participant

characteristics in IPEDS of grantees grantees level data response records records

All 100%1 100% 1542 1462 94%2 10,9192 100% 

Control 

Public 22% 79% 121 115 95% 9,001 82%

Private 78% 21% 33 31 94% 1,918 18%

Carnegie classification 

Research I and II 6% 35% 54 53 98% 4,504 41%

Doctoral I and II 5% 21% 32 31 97% 2,358 22%

Master’s I and II 25% 37% 53 49 92% 3,531 32%

Baccalaureate I and II 30% 6% 13 11 85% 346 3%

Specialized3 34% 1% 2 2 100% 180 2%

Size 

Fewer than 1,500 60% 2% 3 3 100% 199 2%

1,500 to 4,999 22% 14% 22 18 82% 1,040 10%

5,000 or more 18% 84% 129 125 97% 9,680 88%

Region 

Region I (Boston) 8% 3% 4 3 75% 251 2%

Region II (New York) 12% 13% 21 18 86% 1,018 9%

Region III (Philadelphia) 12% 9% 14 13 93% 946 9%

Region IV (Atlanta) 16% 13% 20 18 90% 1,365 12%

Region V (Chicago) 17% 19% 29 29 100% 1,885 17%

Region VI (Dallas) 8% 16% 25 24 96% 1,559 14%

Region VII (Kansas City) 6% 6% 10 10 100% 1,137 10%

Region VIII (Denver) 4% 5% 8 8 100% 679 6%

Region IX (San Francisco) 14% 12% 19 19 100% 1,818 17%

Region X (Seattle) 3% 4% 6 6 100% 284 3%

Minority institutions 

Historically Black Colleges

and Universities 3% 8% 13 10 77% 915 8%

Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions —4 10% 15 14 93% 911 8%

1This number includes 2,880 institutions in three sectors from the 1997-98 IPEDS: public, four-year; private, nonprofit, four-year; and private, for-profit, four-year.

2Two McNair host institutions did not have corresponding data in IPEDS. Control, Carnegie classification,

size, and minority status are not included in the table for these institutions.

3The “specialized” category includes specialized institutions and 88 of the approximately 1,200 Associate of

Arts colleges.

4Data were not available in IPEDs on the percentage of Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

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, 1999-2000.
I. Introduction 7

Figure 1. Percentage of McNair projects submitting participant data, by

region: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Region X - 100% Region VIII - 100%

Region VII - 100%

Region V - 100%

Region IX - 100%

Region VI - 96%

Region IV - 90%

Region II - 86%

Region III - 93%

Region I - 75%

Figure 2. Percentage of McNair projects submitting aggregate performance

data, by region: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Region X - 100% Region VIII - 100%

Region VII - 100%

Region V - 100%

Region IX - 95%

Region VI - 100%

Region IV - 100%

Region II - 95%

Region III - 100%

Region I - 100%
tutions (19 percent) were located in Region V, followed by Region IV (13 percent)

and Region IX (12 percent).

Corresponding to the distribution by Carnegie classification, most McNair host institutions had enrollments over 1,500 students (Table 3). Eighty-four percent were institutions that had FTEs of 5,000 or more, and 14 percent had from 1,500 to 4,999

FTEs. Only two percent of McNair institutions had FTEs fewer than 1,500. This is

quite different from all degree-granting institutions in the IPEDS database, where 60

percent of institutions have enrollments of less than 1,500 students.

The distribution of participants was similar to that of the grantees. The largest percentage of participants (82 percent) attended public institutions, and the remaining

participants (18 percent) matriculated at private or nonprofit institutions (Table 3).

Research institutions had the largest proportion of participants (41 percent), followed

by master’s institutions (32 percent) and doctoral institutions (22 percent).

Eighty-eight percent of participants attended institutions with FTEs of 5,000 or

more. Colleges or universities with 1,500 to 4,999 FTEs hosted 10 percent of students (Table 3). The federal regions with the highest percentage of McNair participants were Region V and Region IX. Each of these hosted 17 percent of participants.

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 general increase in the response rate from year to year, there was an

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

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

1999-2000, there were 10,934 (Table 4). Also expected, the percentage of prior-year

participants increased. (Each year, students completing their undergraduate degree

move from continuing to prior-year participants.) In 1996-97, prior-year participants

were 44 percent of the total reported, and in 1998-99 they were 60 percent of the

reported participants (Figure 3). The percentage of prior-year participants increased

slightly to 61 percent in 1999-2000. Because of the addition of newly-funded projects

in 1999-2000, however, the percentage of new participants reversed a three-year

decline and increased from 19 percent in 1998-99 to 24 percent in 1999-2000.

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

participants in their databases until these students earned their doctoral degrees, but

8 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000
I. Introduction 9

Figure 3. Participant status, by year: 1999-2000, 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, 1999-2000.

70% 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1999-2000 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97

New Continuing Prior

Participant status

24%

19%

30%

34%

61%

15%

21%

60%

25%

45%

22%

44%

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

1999-2000, 1998-99, 1997-98, and 1996-97

1999-2000 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97

Participant item N % N % N % N %

Gender 134 1.3 7 < 0.1 2 <0.1 0 0.0

Ethnicity 25 0.2 12 0.1 2 <0.1 5 0.1

Date of birth* 9 <0.1 219 2.4 109 2.6 17 0.5

First school enrollment date* 7 <0.1 174 1.9 115 2.8 7 0.2

Project entry date* 20 0.2 149 1.6 125 3.0 1 <0.1

Eligibility status 13 0.1 53 0.6 10 0.2 19 0.5

Participant status 90 0.8 237 2.6 4 0.1 4 0.1

College grade level – 

at entry into project 44 0.4 139 1.5 9 0.2 29 0.8

College grade level – 

current 1,444 13.2 2,655 29.2 1,093 26.4 846 23.4

Enrollment status – 

end of year 590 5.4 679 7.5 309 7.5 369 10.2

Degree status 742 6.8 2,676 29.4 1,698 41.0 1,444 39.9

Total number of 

participants 10,934 100.0 9,090 100.0 4,140 100.0 3,618 100.0

*Percentages include some outliers that are outside the expected range of values: 5 percent of participants

had birth dates after 1986, 4 percent of participants had enrollment dates after 1999, 2 percent of participants had project entry dates prior to 1990, and 4 percent of participants had project entry dates after 2000.

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
not all projects have done so. Over 600 individuals on the 1998-99 participant-level

file were not on the 1999-2000 participant-level file.3

2. Unclear and missing data

Most participant records had few missing data items. Items with the highest nonresponse rates include current grade level (13 percent) and degree status (7 percent)

(Table 4).

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 Information on Project Participants,” of the

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

grantees and is based on Section III, “Provision of Services,” of the program performance reports. The tables and figures in the report focus primarily on the most

recent data—that of 1999-2000—though some statistics from 1998-99 are presented

for comparison.

10 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

3 This includes only participants (1) who project staff did not report as receiving

a doctoral degree in 1998-99, and (2) at projects that reported participant-level data

in both 1998-99 and 1999-2000.
11

II. STUDENT PARTICIPANTS

IN THE MCNAIR PROGRAM:

1999-2000

A. Participants

There were 10,934 participants included in the performance files submitted for the

McNair Program during the 1999-2000 program year, an increase of 1,844 participants

from 1998-99 (Table 5). About 10 percent of participants were at projects funded for

the first time during the 1999-2000 funding cycle.

1. Participant status

In the 1999-2000 academic year, 61 percent of those included in the performance files

were prior-year participants, 15 percent were continuing participants, and 24 percent

were new participants (Table 5).

2. Eligibility status

For each project, at least two-thirds of the participants must be low-income and firstgeneration college students. The rest may be members of groups that are underrepresented in graduate education. Underrepresented groups consist of the following ethnic and racial categories: black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and

American Indian or Alaska Native.4

In the 1999-2000 program year, 72 percent of participants were classified as lowincome, first-generation college students, surpassing the project requirement of two4 In their applications for the 1995 grant competition, a number of projects

defined women, Asian or 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 or African American, Hispanic or Latino, 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.
12 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

thirds representation (Figure 4). Twenty-eight percent were students from underrepresented groups who were not included in the low-income, first-generation group.

The proportion of 1999-2000 McNair students from both underrepresented and lowincome, first-generation groups remained constant from the 1998-99 academic year.

Table 5. McNair participant characteristics by participant status: 1999-2000

Participant status 

Total New Continuing Prior year 

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N % 

Total 10,844 100.0 2,628 24.2 1,645 15.2 6,571 60.6 

Eligibility

Low-income and 

first-generation 7,774 71.8 1,849 70.4 1,228 74.7 4,697 71.6

Underrepresented 3,060 28.2 776 29.6 416 25.3 1,868 28.5

Race/ethnicity 

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 417 3.9 93 3.6 77 4.7 247 3.8

Asian 626 5.8 130 5.0 86 5.2 410 6.2

Black or 

African American 4,765 44.1 1,230 47.2 649 39.5 2,886 44.0

Hispanic or Latino 2,502 23.1 612 23.5 463 28.2 1,427 21.7

White 2,297 21.2 483 18.5 327 19.9 1,487 22.6

Native Hawaiian 124 1.2 15 0.6 21 1.3 88 1.3

Multiracial 85 0.8 45 1.7 18 1.1 22 0.3

Gender 

Women 7,072 66.0 1,755 67.5 1,100 67.2 4,217 65.2

Men 3,640 34.0 847 32.6 538 32.8 2,255 34.8

Funding status 

Newly funded in 

1999-2000 1,058 9.8 1,011 38.5 47 2.9 0 0.0

Previously funded 9,786 90.2 1,617 61.5 1,598 97.1 6,571 100.0

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, 1999-2000.
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 13

3. Race and ethnicity

Black or African American students accounted for the largest proportion of McNair

current and prior-year participants in 1999-2000—44 percent (Figure 5). This 

proportion was even higher among grantees newly funded in 1999-2000; among

Figure 4. Eligibility status: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Underrepresented 

28%

Low income and 

first generation

72%

Figure 5. Distribution of McNair participants by race and ethnicity: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Black or

African American

44%

Asian 

6%

American 

 Indian or

Alaska

Native

4%

Other 

2%

White

21%

Hispanic

or Latino 

23%
14 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

these institutions, 50 percent of participants were black or African American (not

shown in tables).

Hispanics or Latinos were the second largest group of participants, comprising 

23 percent of the total participants. This group was followed by whites at 21 percent,

Asians at 6 percent, and American Indians or Alaska Natives at 4 percent (Figure 5).

Compared to 1998-99 data, the percentage of black or African American participants

rose slightly from 40 to 44 percent, while the percentage of Hispanic or Latino participants dropped from 26 to 23 percent and of whites from 23 to 21 percent.

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 or

African American; Hispanic or Latino; and American Indian or Alaska Native) constituted a larger proportion of underrepresented participants than of low-income and

first-generation participants.

Black or African American students accounted for 58 percent of participants in the

underrepresented group, but 39 percent of the low-income and first-generation

group (Figures 6a and 6b). Hispanic or Latino students were the second-largest racial

and ethnic category of both underrepresented participants (25 percent) and 

low-income and first-generation participants (22 percent). American Indians or

Alaska Natives were 6 percent of the underrepresented participants and 3 percent of

the low-income and first-generation participants. Whites showed the largest difference, constituting 7 percent of underrepresented participants but 27 percent of 

low-income and first-generation participants.

Figure 6a. Underrepresented participants, by race and ethnicity: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Black or 

African American

58%

Asian 

2%

American 

Indian or

Alaska 

Native 

6%

Other 

2% White 

7%

Hispanic 

or Latino 

25%
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 15

4. Gender

Women constituted two-thirds of the 1999-2000 participants (66 percent, Figure 7).

Among grantees newly funded in 1999-2000, this proportion climbs to 69 percent

(not shown in tables). The percentage of women was similar across participant status

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

ethnicity: 1999- 2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Black or 

African American

39%

Asian 

7%

American

Indian or 

Alaska

Native

3%

Other 

2%

White 

27%

Hispanic or 

Latino

22%

Figure 7. Participant gender: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Men 

34%

Women 

66%
16 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

categories: Sixty-five percent of prior-year, 67 percent of continuing, and 68 percent

of new participants (Table 5). Women also represented 66 percent of low-income and

first-generation participants and 67 percent of underrepresented participants

(Appendix Table 2a).

Race and ethnicity by gender. Whereas all women constituted 66 percent of 1999-

2000 participants, 69 percent of black or African American participants were women,

62 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native participants were women, and 

60 percent of Hispanic or Latino participants were women (Figure 8).

5. Age

Forty-one percent of all participants (current and prior-year) were between ages 17

and 24 in the 1999-2000 academic year (Figure 9 and Appendix Table 4a). Nearly half

(46 percent) ranged from age 25 to 34, and 13 percent were age 35 or older. The proportion of participants ages 17 to 24 dropped 11 percentage points and the proportion of participants ages 25 to 35 rose 10 percentage points from 1998-99. This is

explained by the large number of participants who turned 25 years of age and moved

into the older category between 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

Figure 8. Participant race and ethnicity, by gender: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

American Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Indian or African or 

or Alaska American Latino 

Native

100%

80

60

40

20

0

38% 

62%

36% 

64%

31% 

69% 40% 

60%

34% 

66%

32% 

68%

Men

Women
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 17

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 and American Indian or Alaska Native participants.

The proportion of Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and black or African American participants decreased as participant age increased.

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 1999-2000 academic year, about one-fifth of participants (19 percent) entered the

program in their sophomore year, almost half (49 percent) entered in their junior year, and

just over one-fourth (27 percent) entered in their senior year (Figure 10). One 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.

Figure 9. Participant age distribution: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

35 or 

older

13%

17-24

years old 

25-34 41%

years old

46%
18 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

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

Program in their junior year (not shown in tables). The percentage for each group entering in their junior year is as follows: Asian (51 percent), American Indian or Alaska Native

(47 percent), Hispanic or Latino (49 percent), black or African American (49 percent),

white (47 percent), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (48 percent).

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

participants were similar to the distribution for all 1999-2000 participants (Appendix

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

their junior year (49 percent for both genders, not shown in table). The percentage

of low-income and first-generation participants varied little by year of entry and

ranged from 70 percent to 77 percent (Figure 11).

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

1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

3rd year,

junior

49%

1st year, 

attended before 

1%

1st year,

never 

attended 

5th year, other 1%

undergraduate 

3%

4th year, 

senior 

27%

2nd year, 

sophomore 

19%
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 19

2. Current grade level

In 1999-2000, a majority of all those on the participant record files (new, continuing, and prior-year participants) were undergraduate students (40 percent), while 34

percent were graduate or professional students and 28 percent were not enrolled in

an educational institution (Figure 12a). Of those enrolled, the largest proportion

consisted of fourth-year undergraduates. This finding was even more pronounced

for grantees newly funded in 1999-2000, where 51 percent of participants were

fourth-year undergraduates (not shown in tables).

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

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

1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

5th year, other

undergraduate

4th year, senior

3rd year, junior

2nd year, sophomore

1st year,

attended before

1st year,

never attended

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%

77%

72%

72%

71%

70%

73%
20 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

When examining just those who were current (new and continuing) participants in

1999-2000 and enrolled in a post-secondary institution, the largest group is still

fourth-year undergraduates (42 percent, Figure 12b).

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

1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

2nd year, 

sophomore 

2%

1st year, 

freshman 

<0.5%

3rd year, 

junior 

10%

4th year,

senior

20%

1st year 

graduate

11%

Beyond 1st year 

graduate 

22%

Not enrolled

28%

5th year, other 

undergraduate 

7%
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 21

Figure 13 presents the participant status distribution by current grade level classifications of graduate or undergraduate. Sixty-two percent of undergraduate students

were new participants and 24 percent were continuing students. Eighty-three percent

of graduate students were classified as prior-year participants, compared with 13 percent of undergraduates.

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

1999-20005

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

2nd year,

sophomore

4%

1st year, 

freshman 

1%

3rd year, 

junior

21%

4th year,

senior 

42%

5th year, other 

undergraduate 

11%

1st year 

graduate

9%

Not 

enrolled 

9%

Beyond 

1st year 

graduate 

3%

5 McNair Program staff reported that 9 percent of new and continuing participants (362 participants) were 1st year graduate students. Of these 362 participants,

120 were also reported as having graduated from an undergraduate degree program

(and in some cases enrolled in a graduate degree program) at the end of the

spring/summer term. We expect that these 120 participants were “rising” graduate

students and were undergraduate students when they were receiving McNair services. It is likely that the other 242 1st year graduate students, as well as those students

beyond the 1st year of graduate school, were graduate students when they received

McNair services.
22 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

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 6 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 high percentage of participants included in the file one year were not listed the next year; and 2) students who

were fourth- or fifth-year undergraduates at the end of one academic year but were

still being reported as undergraduates (and not as “fifth-year or other undergraduate”)

in the next academic year. Table 6 lists the numbers in these various categories.

6 As discussed in the previous footnote, in some cases projects provided McNair

services to current (new and continuing) participants. In other cases, projects provided services to “rising” graduate students when they were still undergraduates.

Figure 13. Grade level of participants, by participant status: 1999-20006

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, 1999-2000.Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

New Continuing Prior

Participant status

Undergraduate

Graduate

0 20 40 60 80 100%

62% 24% 13%

5% 13% 83%
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 23

Interpreting this 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 41 percent; using a second method, we computed a statistic of 25 percent; using a third, we

computed a statistic of 34 percent. The methods are explained below.

For all three methods, we included in the numerator only those participants who were

currently enrolled in a graduate program (387 participants). For method 1 (Table 6),

we included in the denominator those participants currently enrolled in a graduate

degree program (387 participants) and those no longer enrolled in any degree program or who had completed a terminal degree (561 participants). Using method 1, an

estimated 41 percent of eligible students enrolled in graduate school.

Method 2 began with the same denominator as in method 1 but also included those

participants included in the 1998-99 file but not the 1999-2000 file (585 participants).

Using this method, the percentage of eligible students who went to graduate school

was 25 percent.

Method 3 began with the same denominator as in method 1, but added those students

with a blank response for current enrollment status in 1999-2000 (185). Using

method 3, 34 percent of those eligible students enrolled in graduate school.

Table 6. Estimated percentage of graduating seniors in 1998-99 reported as having a

current grade status of “enrolled” in graduate school in 1999-2000

Participants 

Numerator for methods 1-3 

Participants with current grade reported as graduate year 1 to 3 or beyond in 1999-2000 387

Denominator for method 1 948

Participants currently enrolled in a graduate degree program 387

Participants no longer enrolled in any degree program (or had completed a terminal degree) 561

Estimated percentage going on to graduate school one year later using method 1 41%

Denominator for method 2 1,533

Participants currently enrolled in a graduate degree program 387

Participants no longer enrolled in any degree program (or had completed a terminal degree) 561

Participants included in the 1998-99 file but not the 1999-2000 file. 585

Estimated percentage going on to graduate school one year later using method 2 25%

Denominator for method 3 1,133

Participants currently enrolled in a graduate degree program 387

Participants no longer enrolled in any degree program (or had completed a terminal degree) 561

Participants with a blank response for current enrollment status in 1999-2000 185

Estimated percentage going on to graduate school one year later using method 3 34%

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
24 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Because projects staff were not given the option of reporting participants as “not currently enrolled” until the 1999-2000 annual performance report, comparisons with

previous years are difficult. We estimated that 25 percent to 41 percent of McNair

students who graduated from an undergraduate program in 1998-99 attended a graduate program in 1999-2000. For perspective, we noted that national data showed that

the average percentage of graduating seniors who entered graduate school the next

year was 25 percent.7 In addition, a national survey of 1992-93 bachelor’s degree

recipients showed that 30 percent of these students enrolled in an advanced degree

program within four years (by 1997).8

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 in one of seven groups according to their progress toward this end:

• Enrolled in an undergraduate degree program

• Dismissed or withdrew from an undergraduate degree program

• Graduated from an undergraduate degree program

• Graduated from an undergraduate degree program/accepted to a graduate 

degree program

• Enrolled in a graduate degree program

• Dismissed or withdrew from a graduate degree program

• Graduated from a graduate degree program

At the end of 1999-2000, more than half of all participants (52 percent) were reported as enrolled in a degree program, with 31 percent in undergraduate programs and

21 percent in graduate programs (derived from Table 7 and Appendix Table 8a).

Thirty-four percent had graduated from an undergraduate program; 9 percent had

graduated from a graduate program. A small proportion of students (5 percent) withdrew or were dismissed from a program.

Graduation rates from graduate school ranged from 6 percent of multiracial participants to 14 percent of Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander participants (Table 7). 

The withdraw or dismissal rates for undergraduate programs were low for nearly all

groups of students, ranging from 1 percent to 5 percent for the different racial and

ethnic groups.

7 Money 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. NJ: Princeton, p. IV-28.

8 Life 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.
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 25

In 1999-2000, 22 percent of women and 21 percent of men had enrolled in a graduate degree program. Three percent had been dismissed or had withdrawn from a

graduate degree program (Table 8 and Appendix Table 8a). Enrollment, graduation,

and withdrawal or dismissal rates were similar between low-income and first-generation participants and underrepresented participants.

Table 7. End-of-year enrollment status, by race and ethnicity: 1999-2000

Graduated

from an

Dismissed/ undergrad. Dismissed/

Enrolled withdrew Graduated program/ Enrolled withdrew Graduated

in an from an from and accepted in a from a from a

undergrad. undergrad. undergrad. to a grad. grad. grad. grad.

Race program program program program program program program

All participants 31% 2% 26% 8% 21% 3% 9% 

Multiracial 57% 1% 20% 7% 9% 0% 6% 

Native Haw./

Pac. Islander 28% 2% 20% 9% 24% 3% 14% 

White 27% 3% 24% 7% 24% 3% 11%

Hispanic or Latino 30% 2% 27% 8% 21% 3% 8% 

Black or Af. American 33% 2% 27% 7% 20% 4% 8% 

Asian 27% 1% 28% 10% 22% 2% 10% 

Am. Indian/

Alaska Nat. 29% 5% 26% 7% 24% 1% 7% 

Totals do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Table 8. End-of-year enrollment status, by gender and eligibility: 1999-2000

Graduated

from an

Dismissed/ undergrad. Dismissed/

Enrolled withdrew Graduated program/ Enrolled withdrew Graduated

in an from an from an accepted in a from a from a

Participant undergrad. undergrad. undergrad. to a grad. grad. grad. grad.

characteristic program program program program program program program

Underrep. 32% 1% 26% 7% 21% 3% 9%

Low income/ first gen. 31% 3% 26% 8% 21% 3% 9%

Women 32% 2% 26% 7% 22% 3% 9%

Men 30% 3% 26% 8% 21% 3% 9%

Totals do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
26 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

5. Degree status

About 7 of every 10 participants included in the file for 1999-2000 (73 percent) were

reported as having completed a degree by the end of the academic year (Figure 14 and

Appendix Table 9a). Of those participants who completed a degree, more than threequarters (78 percent) earned a bachelor’s degree, 18 percent earned a master’s degree,

and another 2 percent each received a doctoral degree or some other terminal degree.

Examining all McNair participants included in the file, 57 percent had a bachelor’s

degree as the highest degree earned, 13 percent had a master’s degree, 1 percent had

a doctoral degree, and 2 percent some other terminal degree (not shown in table).

Table 9 shows the proportion of degrees awarded in each racial or ethnic group.

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

overall (Figure 5, page 13). For example, 44 percent of McNair’s current and prioryear participants were black or African American, and 43 percent of the bachelor’s and

master’s degrees and 46 percent of the doctoral degrees granted to McNair participants were awarded to blacks or African Americans.

Figure 14. Participant degree status: 1999-2000

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

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Without 

degree 

27%

With degree 

73%

Master's 

degree

18%

Doctoral 

degree

2%

Bachelor's 

degree 

78%

Other 

terminal 

degree

2%
II. Student Participants in the McNair Program: 1999-2000 27

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

but it does give us 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

1998-99 and 1999-2000.

As can be seen in Table 10, the status of most participants remained the same; however, 16 percent of those identified as graduated from an undergraduate degree program

in 1998-99 were reported to be enrolled in a graduate program in 1999-2000.

Twenty-six percent of those reported as enrolled in undergraduate school in 1998-99

were reported as graduated from an undergraduate program and 25 percent were

enrolled in graduate school in 1999-2000.

For participants included in both the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 participant files, 

91 percent of participants reported as graduate students in 1998-99 had either graduated from graduate school or were still enrolled in graduate school in 1999-2000 

Table 9. Distribution of degrees by race and ethnicity: 1999-2000

Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Other terminal 

Race and ethnicity degree degree degree degree 

American Indian or Native American 4% 3% 3% 2%

Black or African American 43% 43% 46% 45%

White 21% 25% 27% 27%

Asian 6% 7% 6% 7%

Hispanic or Latino 24% 20% 16% 19%

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1% 2% 2% 0%

Multiracial 1% 1% 0% 1%

Totals do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Table 10. End-of-year enrollment status in 1999-99, by end-of-year enrollment status 

in 1999-2000

Enrollment status, end of 1999-2000

Enrollment status, Enrolled in Dismissed/ Graduated from Enrolled in Graduated from

end of 1998-99 undergrad withdrew undergrad grad school graduate school 

Enrolled in undergrad 45% 3% 26% 25% 0%

Dismissed/withdrew 10% 68% 11% 4% 6%

Graduated from undergrad 1% 4% 63% 16% 16%

Enrolled in graduate school 0% 5% 3% 75% 16%

Totals do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
28 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

(16 percent and 75 percent, respectively). Only 5 percent were reported as having

been dismissed or withdrawn.

In order to better understand the McNair participants who have received doctoral

degrees, we merged participant data from the 1997-2000 program years with data

from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED). The SED, sponsored by the National

Science Foundation and ED, includes information on about 90 percent of Ph.D.

recipients in the U.S. from 1920 through 2000.

Seventy-five McNair participants were on the SED file. Of these 75, projects reported that 60 of these participants had received a doctoral degree. This represents 

19 percent of the 310 McNair participants who were reported as having completed a

doctoral degree at any point between 1997 and 2000 (Table 11) and 30 percent of the

203 McNair participants who were reported as having received a doctoral degree in

their most recent program year.9

Of the 15 McNair participants included in the SED file but not reported on the

McNair participant file as doctoral degree recipients, eight were reported as having

received their bachelor’s degrees, five as having received their master’s degrees, one as

not having yet received his bachelor’s degree, and one whose status was unknown.

9 In some cases, participants were reported as having earned a doctoral degree

during one program year and in the following year they were reported as having

earned a lesser degree. One explanation for this may be that respondents were given

additional response items on the 1999-2000 performance report that were not available in previous years. For example, many respondents who had been reported as

receiving doctoral degrees in 1996-1999 were reported as receiving “another terminal degree” in 1999-2000, an option not available in 1996-1999.

Table 11. Comparison of McNair participant data and the Survey of Earned Doctorates

Doctoral degree recipient

in McNair file

during any year,

Doctoral degree recipient except those with Doctoral degree recipient

in McNair file other terminal degree in McNair file

during any year in 1999-2000 in final year

Number of McNair 

doctoral recipients 310 261 203

Total number of 

recipients on SED 60 60 60

Percentage of recipients

on SED 19% 23% 30%

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000 and National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of

Education, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 1999-2000.
29

III. MCNAIR PROGRAM

ACTIVITIES: 1999-2000

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 (154 grantees, or 99 percent) supplied information

on these activities; 148 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 engaged in specific project

activities (Table 12). All projects reported that they offered academic counseling, and

nearly all stated that they provided seminars (99 percent), internships (98 percent),

admission assistance (95 percent), and financial aid assistance (91 percent). Eighty-six

percent of projects provided tutorial assistance and 76 percent supported research

activities (other than internships). The percentage of projects offering these opportunities varied little from the 1998-99 program year.

There was a pronounced variation in the popularity of program activities. More than

eight of ten current participants participated in academic counseling (87 percent) and

seminars (82 percent) while fewer took advantage of tutorial assistance (37 percent)

or research opportunities (25 percent).

Table 12. Activities reported by McNair projects: 1999-2000

Number of Number of 

institutions participants

reporting reported

Type of activity activity Percentage per activity Percentage

Academic counseling 154 100% 3,710 87%

Seminars 153 99% 3,478 82%

Internships 151 98% 2,304 54%

Admission assistance 146 95% 2,834 67%

Financial aid assistance 140 91% 3,062 72%

Tutorial assistance 132 86% 1,561 37%

Research (other than research

internships) 117 76% 1,073 25%

The number and percentage of institutions reporting each activity is based on 154 institutions. The number and percentage of participants reported is based on the number of new and continuing participants at the 148 institutions that

reported activities and submitted participant records: 4,247.

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
30 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

McNair grantees funded prior to the 1999-2000 grant cycle were more likely to offer

each of the seven scholarly activities to their participants than were grantees funded

in the most recent cycle (Table 13). For example, 100 percent of previously-funded

institutions provided seminars and admission assistance to their participants, compared with 98 percent and 87 percent, respectively, of newly-funded institutions. The

previously-funded grantees were also more likely to provide financial aid assistance

(96 percent compared to 83 percent), tutorial assistance (89 percent compared to 80

percent), and research opportunities (81 percent compared to 72 percent).

Conversely, newly-funded grantees provided these services to a larger percentage of

their participants for five of the seven activities. For example, 77 percent of participants at newly funded institutions were given internship opportunities, compared to

47 percent of participants at previously-funded projects.

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 conferences and research presentations (32 percent) and skills

workshops, which included writing, researching, and learning how to use the Internet

Table 13. Comparison of activities reported by newly funded and previously funded

McNair projects: 1999-2000

Percentage of institutions Percentage of participants

reporting activity reported per activity

Previously- PreviouslyNewly-funded funded Newly-funded funded

Type of activity institutions institutions institutions institutions

Academic counseling 100% 100% 102%* 83%

Internships 98% 98% 77% 47%

Seminars 98% 100% 96% 77%

Admission assistance 87% 100% 74% 64%

Financial aid assistance 83% 96% 77% 70%

Tutorial assistance 80% 89% 50% 33%

Research 

(other than research internships) 72% 81% 33% 23%

* In some cases, projects may have duplicated the participant total by counting individuals who attended

more than one academic counseling session as multiple participants.

The percentages reporting the activity were based on a total of 60 newly-funded institutions and 94 previously-funded

institutions. Percentages for participants reported are based on the number of new and continuing participants at the

60 newly-funded institutions (1,032 participants) and at the 88 previously-funded institutions (3,215 participants)

that reported activities and submitted participant records.

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

Achievement Program Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
III. McNair Program Activities: 1999-2000 31

(20 percent, Table 14). Overall, a total of over 620 other scholarly activities were provided to 9,949 individuals.10

10 Because participants could engage in multiple “other” scholarly activities, this

total does not include distinct participants.

Table 14. “Other” scholarly activities reported by McNair projects: 1999-2000

Average

Number Percentage Total number number

of activities of activities of participants of participants

Activity reported reported per activity per activity

Conferences and research presentations 200 32% 2,845 14.2

Skills workshops 121 20% 2,047 16.9

Test preparation 72 12% 1,315 18.3

Graduate school visits 74 12% 1,148 15.5

General graduate school preparation 38 6% 686 18.1

Mentoring 32 5% 702 21.9

Graduate school fairs, colloquia,

presenters 25 4% 421 16.8

Publishing 19 3% 229 12.1

Cultural events 20 3% 239 12.0

Internships 7 1% 56 8.0

General administrative assistance 4 <1% 88 22.0

Improving McNair staff 

opportunities/ resources 4 <1% 79 19.8

Other activities 4 <1% 94 23.5

Total 620 100% 9,949 16.1

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, 1999-2000.

33

IV. FUTURE PLANS

As this report demonstrates, the number of McNair projects that have submitted performance data for participant records has increased greatly. In the four 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 (99 percent in 1999-2000). 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. 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 second 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

plan to continue to use the Survey of Earned Doctorates to further track participants.

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.

35

APPENDIX A: HISTORICALLY

BLACK COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES AND

HISPANIC-SERVING

INSTITUTIONS WITH

MCNAIR PROJECTS: 1999-2000

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

Louisiana

Xavier University of Louisiana

Maryland

Bowie State University

Coppin State College

Mississippi

Jackson State University

North Carolina

Elizabeth City State University

North Carolina A&T State University

Texas

Texas Southern University

Virginia

Hampton University

HISPANIC-SERVING

INSTITUTIONS

California

California State University/Fresno

California State University/Los Angeles

California State University/

San Bernardino

New Mexico

New Mexico State University/

Las Cruces

University of New Mexico

New York

CUNY/John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice

CUNY/Lehman College

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 the Incarnate Word

University of Texas/El Paso

37

APPENDIX B : TABLES

Table 1a. Participant status: 1999-2000. This table is Table 5 on page 12.

Unlike in 1998-99, graduate students who project staff reported as new or continuing participants in 1999-2000 were not reclassified as prior-year participants.

Table 1b. Participant status: 1998-99

Total Participant status

New Continuing Prior year

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N % 

Total 8,947 100.0 1,527 17.1 1,395 15.6 6,025 67.3

Eligibility

Low-income, 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/ethnicity 

Amer. Ind./N.A. 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

Graduate students who project staff reported as new or continuing participants were 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.
38 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 1d. Participant status: 1996-97

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 3,614 100.0 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

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 1c. Participant status: 1997-98

Participant status

New Continuing Prior year

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 4,136 100.0 1,246 30.1 1,040 25.1 1,850 44.7

Eligibility

Low-income, first-generation 2,980 72.2 890 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

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.
Appendix B 39

Table 2b. 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 72.1 2,519 27.9

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 2,299 1,628 25.0 671 26.7

White non-Hispanic 2,049 1,824 28.0 225 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

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: 1999-2000

Eligibility status

Low-income,

first-generation Underrepresented

Participant characteristics N N % N %

Total 10,897 7,828 71.8 3,069 28.2

Race/ethnicity 

Amer. Ind./N.A. 419 389 3.1 175 5.7

Asian 632 561 7.2 71 2.3

Black or African American 4,790 3,007 38.4 1,783 58.1

Hispanic or Latino 2,523 1,745 22.3 778 25.4

White 2,318 2,104 26.9 214 7.0

Hawaiian or Pac. Islander 124 105 1.3 19 0.6

More than one race 90 61 0.8 29 0.9

Gender 

Women 7,127 5,093 65.7 2,034 67.0

Men 3,665 2,665 34.4 1,000 33.0

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: 1999-2000

Table 2c. 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

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates

for individual items.

Table 2d. 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

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 3b. 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

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates

for individual items.

Table 3a. Race and ethnicity, by gender of participants: 1999-2000

Gender

Women Men

Race N N % N %

Total 10,782 7,120 66.0 3,662 34.0

Amer. Ind./N.A. 418 258 3.6 160 4.4

Asian 631 405 5.7 226 6.2

Black or African American 4,732 3,280 46.1 1,452 39.6

Hispanic or Latino 2,473 1,490 20.9 983 26.8

White 2,316 1,539 21.6 777 21.2

Hawaiian or Pac. Islander 122 42 1.1 80 1.1

More than one race 90 23 0.6 67 0.9 

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: 1999-2000

Table 3d. 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

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: 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

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 4b. 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

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates

for individual items.

Table 4a. Age: 1999-2000

Age

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

Participant characteristics N % N % N % N %

Total 10,415 100.0 4,271 41.0 4,747 45.6 1,397 13.4 

Eligibility 

Low-income, first-generation 7,490 72.0 2,878 67.5 3,451 72.7 1,161 83.3

Underrepresented 2,915 28.0 1,389 32.6 1,293 27.3 233 16.7

Race/ethnicity 

Amer. Ind./N.A. 405 3.9 119 2.8 181 3.8 105 7.5

Asian 587 5.6 227 5.3 330 7.0 30 2.2

Black or African American 4,554 43.8 2,122 49.9 1,992 42.0 440 31.6

Hispanic or Latino 2,398 23.1 1,066 25.1 1,111 23.4 221 15.9

White 2,245 21.6 628 14.8 1,042 21.0 575 41.3

Hawaiian or Pac. Islander 116 12.1 43 1.0 59 1.2 14 1.0

More than one race 85 10.6 47 1.1 29 0.6 9 0.7 

Gender 

Women 6,802 66.1 2,933 69.9 2,929 62.3 940 67.6

Men 3,485 33.9 1,261 30.1 1,774 43.1 450 32.4

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: 1999-2000

Table 4d. 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

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response.

Table 4c. 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

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 45

Table 5b. 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 

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 5a. College year in which participants entered the McNair Program: 1999-2000

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 10,801 100.0 2,488 23.0 1,287 11.9 7,026 65.1

1st year, total 211 1.9 61 2.5 38 2.3 105 1.8

1st year, never attended 132 1.2 36 1.5 20 1.2 76 1.2

1st year, attended before 79 0.7 25 1.0 18 1.1 36 0.6

2nd year/sophomore 2,028 18.8 484 18.5 445 27.3 1,099 16.8

3rd year/junior 5,266 48.8 1,283 49.0 800 49.1 3,183 48.7

4th year/senior 2,935 27.2 722 27.6 311 19.1 1,902 29.1

5th year/other undergraduate 347 3.2 67 2.6 35 2.2 245 3.8

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: 1999-2000

Table 5d. 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

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: 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

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 6a. Grade level of participants: 1999-2000

Participant status

Total New Continuing Prior year

College year N % N % N % N %

Total 9,426 100.0 2,551 27.1 1,556 16.5 5,319 56.4 

Total undergraduate 3,709 31.7 2,318 91.9 892 57.3 499 9.4 

1st year, total 36 0.4 30 1.1 1 0.1 5 0.1

1st year, never attended 7 0.1 6 0.2 1 0.1 0 0.0

1st year, attended before 29 0.3 24 0.9 0 0.0 5 0.1

2nd year/sophomore 190 2.0 170 6.7 14 0.9 6 0.1

3rd year/junior 909 2.0 730 28.6 141 9.1 38 0.7

4th year/senior 1,916 20.3 1,191 46.7 481 30.9 244 4.6

5th year/other undergraduate 658 7.0 197 7.7 255 16.4 206 3.9

Total graduate/professional 2,757 29.2 136 5.3 355 22.8 2,266 42.6

1st year graduate professional 1,008 10.7 120 4.7 242 15.6 646 12.2

2nd year graduate/professional 839 8.9 12 0.5 63 4.1 764 14.4

3rd year graduate/professional 454 4.8 3 0.1 28 1.8 423 8.0

Beyond 3rd year graduate/prof. 456 4.8 1 <0.1 22 1.4 433 8.1

Completed doctoral degree 88 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.1 87 1.6

Completed terminal degree 225 2.4 1 <0.1 26 1.7 198 3.7

Not enrolled 2,647 28.0 96 3.8 282 18.1 2,269 42.7

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: 1999-2000

Table 6c. 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

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: 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

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 49

Table 6d. 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

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates

for individual items.
50 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 7a. Grade level of participants, by participant characteristics: 1999-2000

1st year

All under- Never Attended 2nd 3rd 4th

Participant Total graduates attended before year year year

characteristics N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Total 9,488 100 3,740 39.4 7 0.1 30 0.3 190 2.0 918 9.7 1,937 20.4

Eligibility 

Low-inc.,

first gen. 6,822 72.0 2,663 71.3 4 57.1 21 70.0 139 73.2 651 70.9 1,339 69.2

Underrepresented 2,656 28.0 1,073 28.7 3 42.9 9 30.0 51 29.1 267 29.1 595 30.8

Race/ethnicity 

Amer. Ind./N.A. 374 4.0 141 3.8 2 28.6 1 3.3 10 5.3 28 3.4 66 3.4

Asian 549 5.8 178 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 4.2 38 4.8 92 4.8

Black or Af. Am. 4,038 42.7 1,767 47.5 4 57.1 15 50.0 113 59.5 476 48.2 927 48.2

His. or Lat. 2,207 23.3 848 22.8 0 0.0 3 10.0 25 13.2 191 22.4 431 22.4

White 2,113 22.3 692 18.6 0 0.0 9 30.0 31 16.3 163 18.7 360 18.7

Haw. or Pac. Isl. 94 1.0 36 1.0 1 14.3 1 3.3 0 0.0 6 1.0 18 0.9

More than 

one race 88 0.9 58 1.6 0 0.0 1 3.3 3 1.6 13 1.6 31 1.6

Gender

Women 6,255 66.5 2,503 67.4 4 57.1 22 73.3 134 70.5 642 70.0 1,262 65.9

Men 3,152 33.5 1,209 32.6 3 42.9 8 26.7 56 29.5 275 30.0 654 34.1
Appendix B 51

Completed Completed

5th All 1st 2nd 3rd Beyond doc. term. Not

year graduates year year year 3rd year degree degree enrolled

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

658 6.9 5,748 60.6 1,017 10.7 842 8.9 455 4.8 457 4.8 88 0.9 225 2.4 2,664 28.1

509 77.5 2,048 69.3 727 71.5 604 71.7 333 73.4 335 73.3 49 55.7 156 69.3 1,955 73.5

148 22.5 892 30.3 290 28.5 238 28.3 121 26.7 122 26.7 39 44.3 69 30.7 704 26.5

34 5.2 120 4.2 50 4.9 31 3.7 20 4.4 18 4.0 1 1.1 7 3.1 106 4.0

40 6.1 182 6.4 61 6.0 42 5.0 39 8.6 35 7.7 5 5.7 22 9.8 167 6.3

232 35.5 1,166 40.8 410 40.4 363 43.1 182 40.0 183 40.1 28 31.8 76 33.8 1,029 38.7

198 30.3 676 23.7 259 25.5 200 23.8 104 22.9 93 20.4 30 22.7 58 25.8 625 23.5

129 19.8 665 23.3 218 21.5 194 23.0 101 22.2 120 26.3 32 36.4 57 25.3 699 26.3

10 1.5 37 1.3 11 1.1 8 1.0 9 2.0 7 1.5 2 2.3 3 1.3 18 0.7

10 1.5 11 0.4 7 0.7 4 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.9 17 0.6

439 67.3 1,884 66.7 686 68.1 561 68.3 288 63.9 295 68.3 54 61.4 141 63.2 1,727 65.2

213 32.7 939 33.3 321 31.9 261 31.8 163 36.1 160 31.8 34 38.6 82 36.8 922 34.8
52 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 7c. 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

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: 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

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

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

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
54 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 7d. 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

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 55

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
56 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 8b. 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

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 8a. End-of-year enrollment status: 1999-2000

Enrolled in degree program Dismissed/

Participant Undergraduate Graduate Graduated withdrew

characteristics N N % N % N % N %

Total 10,338 3,209 31.0 2,203 21.3 4,354 42.1 572 5.5 

Eligibility 

Low-inc., first gen. 7,419 2,282 30.8 1,579 21.3 3,114 42.0 444 6.0

Underrepresented 2,909 924 28.8 623 28.4 1,236 28.4 126 22.1

Race/ethnicity 

Amer. Ind./N.A. 397 116 3.6 97 4.4 159 3.7 25 4.4

Asian 609 165 5.2 133 6.0 291 6.7 20 3.5

Black or African Am. 4,483 1,485 46.5 894 40.6 1,858 42.7 246 43.2

Hispanic or Latino 2,450 742 23.3 526 23.9 1,043 24.0 139 24.4

White 2,175 602 18.9 517 23.5 922 21.2 134 23.5

Hawaiian or Pac. Isl. 109 31 1.0 26 1.2 47 1.1 5 0.9

More than one race 89 51 1.6 8 0.4 29 0.7 1 0.2

Gender 

Women 6,754 2,148 67.5 1,438 66.2 2,824 65.9 344 60.6

Men 3,457 1,035 32.5 734 33.8 1,464 34.1 224 39.4

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 57

Table 8c. 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

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 8d. 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

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates

for individual item.
58 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

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

participant characteristics: 1999-2000

Those with a degree — Degree type

Participants Other

Participant with a degree Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral terminal

characteristics N N % N % N % N % N %

Total 10,191 7,456 73.2 5,806 77.9 1,362 18.3 122 1.6 166 2.2

Eligibility 

Low-inc.,

first gen. 7,304 5,352 73.3 4,169 77.9 1,008 18.8 71 1.3 104 1.9

Underrepresented 2,877 2,098 72.9 1,633 77.4 352 16.8 51 2.4 62 3.0

Race/ethnicity 

Amer. Ind./N.A. 395 270 68.4 225 3.9 38 2.8 4 3.3 3 1.8

Asian 585 470 80.3 354 6.1 98 7.2 7 5.7 11 6.6

Black or 

Af. American 4,459 3,231 72.5 2,518 43.4 583 42.8 56 45.9 74 44.6

Hispanic or 

Latino 2,323 1,721 74.1 1,395 24.1 276 20.3 20 16.4 31 18.7

White 2,202 1,622 73.7 1,203 20.7 340 25.0 33 27.1 46 27.7

Hawaiian 

or Pac. Isl. 114 92 80.7 69 1.2 21 1.5 2 1.6 0 0.0

More than 

one race 87 41 47.1 35 0.6 5 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.6

Gender 

Women 6,648 4,863 73.1 3,781 66.2 910 67.4 80 66.1 92 55.8

Men 3,412 2,263 66.3 1,935 33.9 441 32.6 41 33.9 73 44.2

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 59

Table 9c. 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

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 9b. 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

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates

for individual item.
60 A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program: 1999-2000

Table 9d. 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

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Details may not sum to totals because of differences in response rates

for individual item.
61

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.